ChatterBank0 min ago
Will We Listen To 11,000 Random Internet Users?
Anyone who read or responded to spath's thread https:/
will know what this is about.
There were no 11,000 scientists, there was no scientific report, there is no Alliance of World Scientists or whatever the author claimed to represent.
will know what this is about.
There were no 11,000 scientists, there was no scientific report, there is no Alliance of World Scientists or whatever the author claimed to represent.
Answers
We were duped. I didn’t read any of the articles, but I saw the headlines and believed it to be an authentic study. It wasn’t. It is only 4 pages long (1 of those is just charts). It was easy to debunk this story, and the fact that its central claim was wrong. Each media outlet that lazily used this material should print a update, and clarify that it was 11,000...
13:18 Sun 10th Nov 2019
for people like me who don't like video https:/
I don't think Jim believes in it for a moment. He does, however, believe in a One World Government.
The whole thread was a metaphor for the global warming scam.
Gullible people who believe anything.
A thankfully growing number who think for themselves and see through it.
And some rather unpleasant people who use it for their own ends.
The whole thread was a metaphor for the global warming scam.
Gullible people who believe anything.
A thankfully growing number who think for themselves and see through it.
And some rather unpleasant people who use it for their own ends.
Good grief. 3½ minutes of his mocking & insults was as much as I was prepared to take. So what if it's not a new study, it's highlighting the conclusions drawn from what we already have in case some are still in denial. So what if it's written to be readable by the individual on the street and not full of scientific jargon. For conclusions that's a good thing isn't it ? 11,000 signatures, from folk knowledgeable enough to know, seems worth taking seriously enough to debate properly, at least.
What saddens me more is that some people seem to consider journalism the equivalent of, if not superior to, scientific research.
Somebody better tell spicerack that five minutes of one rando searching on YouTube means nothing compared to decades of thousands of scientists striving to understand the world around us. It's a nonsense, it really is, that there is any comparison. And it's a shame that some fall for that gubbins.
Somebody better tell spicerack that five minutes of one rando searching on YouTube means nothing compared to decades of thousands of scientists striving to understand the world around us. It's a nonsense, it really is, that there is any comparison. And it's a shame that some fall for that gubbins.
11,000 "scientists" including Micky Mouse(haha) is not enough. Dangerous nonsense spouted by a mentally disturbed child and believed by the under employed gullible the World over. Ice age is coming.
Will 31,000 real scientists be enough to counter this virtue signallers con?
https:/
Will 31,000 real scientists be enough to counter this virtue signallers con?
https:/
//some people seem to consider journalism the equivalent of, if not superior to, scientific research. //
it's not new though, is it?
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge". Isaac Asimov, 1980.
it's not new though, is it?
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge". Isaac Asimov, 1980.
Mozz71
//Well, Wolfgang's link details one fake name out of the 11,000, so that clearly means the other 10,999 must be fake too.
*sighs*//
sigh ,if you had bothered to watch the video, you would know that the authors of wolfgang's link are so biased that they starred in it. Read the letters under wolfgang's link.
//Well, Wolfgang's link details one fake name out of the 11,000, so that clearly means the other 10,999 must be fake too.
*sighs*//
sigh ,if you had bothered to watch the video, you would know that the authors of wolfgang's link are so biased that they starred in it. Read the letters under wolfgang's link.
It's not unknown for scientific studies to have typos and minor errors of one sort or another. It's a huge leap to then claim that a few such typos destroy the entire premise of the field.
Climate Science is now well over a century old, and many tens of thousands of scientists from across the world and across the generations have studied and gradually improved the field. There is nothing in this video to undermine that. If the study were proved to be a complete fraud from top to bottom it wouldn't undermine that either. I'd simply turn to any of the other hundreds and thousands of equivalent papers and studies from the last 50 years or so.
Climate Science is now well over a century old, and many tens of thousands of scientists from across the world and across the generations have studied and gradually improved the field. There is nothing in this video to undermine that. If the study were proved to be a complete fraud from top to bottom it wouldn't undermine that either. I'd simply turn to any of the other hundreds and thousands of equivalent papers and studies from the last 50 years or so.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.