And you are still following the wrong “luminaries”, they are funded or work for denier sources.
Regarding Dr. Nir Shaviv:
What’s not correct?
And we see again the strange twisted world of the climate screwballs, who actually use an app to spit out an answer for anything that might possibly challenge their pre-conceived view of reality. Seriously, he just types a name in, and if it’s on a list, there is a canned response he cuts and pastes, rather than contribute anything from his own mind, experience or even based on what he is responding to.
It’s this constant cut and paste, rather than discussion, that actually seems like spam, not a forum discussion at all. Because it’a actually not a discussion, it’s an app he copies from.
In this strange Universe of the climate kooks, (the nutjobs who actually created an app just for forum discussions),in that strange little world, an Award-winning Israeli Astrophysicist, who actually knows more than all of them together ever will, is to be ignored, slandered and instead of talking about anything, they spread fear, uncertainty and doubt, with out really any effort.
It’s like a bot is watching the topic, and instantly post huge copy and paste.
It’s why I use ideas and sources that don’t show up in the app. It really messes with the people who don’t actually know anything about the subject.
Earth looking satellites do not have some huge view like you are describing. Sideways or super wide angle looking cameras are very rare, and for a good reason.
Here’s the app
It’s why it seems like he isn’t having a conversation. Because he isn’t. And he doesn’t actually understand some of the links and data he constantly copies.
It gives an illusion that he knows a lot, when in fact he doesn’t even understand what he copies into the post box at times.
Like the slander he just did on an actual astrophysicist.
Nah, it is only your plain ignorance that is telling you that it is impossible for the people that look into pseudoscience to catalog and categorize what was encountered in the past, it is also a denial of history as well of the march of time and science. If you do not want to get burned by very bad pickings you need to be aware of the debunkings they already had.
What it is very clear is that you only show to others how incapable you are on identifying who is really doing the FUD.
As I pointed before, that astrophysicist is an skeptic, but he has been found to be wrong. That he is being promoted and invited to testify even after other researchers have pointed many times how he is wrong is only evidence of how inept the Republican party is nowadays.
This is friggin’ hilarious. And explains a lot. Like why so often his posts don’t seem to directly follow from the one he’s resounding to.
Does the app have an “All signs point to YES”? HA!
There isn’t a single “response” from the app that allows for any uncertainty, much less concedes a single point.
Ever.
It’s the ultimate troll app.
Of course, if you want to follow what FX is claiming (that it is impossible for people to catalog already debunked pap and to check the past history of dubious research) it is not me the one that is getting it wrong, as usual the effort here is to only kill the messenger, that app does link to the science, FX still can not accept that it is a resource that even conservative scientists have recommended.
Incidentally the failed accusation (insulting too BTW) that FX is making was not done here, the debunking of the astrophysicist came from RealClimate and Desmogblog, so hilarious really as in misguided and clueless accusation.
Whoa … is that even allowed here? The app I mean, not calling Astrophysicists a bunch of slanders, I’ve heard them called a lot worst (for good reason too).
What does that say about all the posters here who defend his knowledge-base [giggle]?
Hey … Gigo …
Methane doesn’t carry an asymmetric distribution of electric charge, it’s not a greenhouse gas.
Yes it is allowed, what I see here is just an attempt at killing the messenger. And no, the slander he gets is only for his research not being accepted by many others. And with very good reasons.
It says that I’m fine, as scientists like Barry Bickmore, Richard Alley, Kerry Emmanuel and other like even Scientific American recommend the use of Skeptical Science; that, once again, it was not used to debunk the astrophysicist, **you are once again just following the lead of people that are not paying attention.
**
I stand by my comment. I’m not even opining on the correctness—or not—of your position. I so often find reading your responses just plain annoying because they don’t seem to flow from the comment you’re responding to. Someone will make a comment and/or ask you a question and PRESTO—cites, cites and more cites! Oh Boy! That’s why I was very careful before when asking your position. And SO thankful when you actually answered my question directly. I think you, and everyone, would benefit from paying more attention to that. Because not doing so does make you appear more bot-like. A
I would say that you’ve become overly dependent on the tools you use. I get the sense that you respond to every dissenting comment with the attitude of, “Oh yeah, we’ll let me show you a mountain of information that will show you are wrong, you Idiot Denier, you!” Much better, for this reader anyway, would be responses that start more from an attitude of “I see what you’re getting at, but…” or “I’m not sure I understand you’re point, do you mean A… or B?”
Come to think of it, I don’t recall you ever asking someone for clarification in these discussions. I think it’s because you don’t really care what their position is, just that it differs from yours. And if it does, the poster is just a stupid, an evil denier, someone who can’t read for comprehension, someone who doesn’t know how to read cites, someone who just wants to kill the messenger, someone who is not paying attention, etc.
It’ is really annoying. So many times I think I’ll follow these discussions and then I’ll run into the sort of stuff I just mentioned and just roll my eyes.
Holy fuck!@$#@!
I’ve joked about that and it seemed like GIGO was a human version of that, but I had no idea it existed and he was actually using it (which he appears to have just admitted in a previous post).
That explains why he never seemed to understand anything.
Mods:
In my humble opinion, this is a serious detriment to an actual debate.
It should be grounds for, at minimum, allowing us to set aside 1 climate thread in GD that GIGO is not allowed to be part of so we can have a good discussion.
Just one more note here, besides not being right about the sources I used to show how wrong that scientist is, I have mentioned many times that I do not know everything and the ones accusing me of using a “troll tool” already know from way past encounters that I use recommended sources like Skeptical Science, their “surprise” here looks really just like gross forgetfulness, (another reason why one should rely on their say so’s)
The effort here is just another excuse to not deal with the research from the scientists that found flaws on what Nir Shaviv did. It is easier to just attack the poster.
I know.
Since I’ve been on the SDMB, this is the first topic I have ever been compelled to look for a different web site/forum due to GIGO’s behavior.
I want a real discussion, not to talk to an “Eliza” program.
Wrong also, more than once I have reported that I use that source and that no one can know everything, what I see here is just once an attempt at not looking at the science only because you think a poster is “funny” And if you want to tell others that you are proud of continue to ignore that Skeptical Science was not used in this case that FX choose to blew a top when he found the “quality” of his source, be my guest.
Report me if you want to, but since the facts are that I did not use Skeptical Science in this case you are not going to get what you want, you are once again being misled by people that are proud of not paying attention on what the target is supposed to be.
I really do think that the debunking was so devastating that in reality it is clear why the a poster like me is the issue for FX and you and not what the scientists reported about what Shaviv did.
Priceless.
I only take it that then the point stands, FX was wrong also in his accusation, I did not use Skeptical Science to debunk Shaviv (and even if that was the case it is really a silly accusation of using a troll tool) . And the team of researchers already demonstrated for a long time that Shaviv was wrong.