Writer claims Trump raped her

[Subduction Zone]

Do you not think it is possibly time to agree to disagree, I am happy for you to disagree with me, lots do.

You can disagree all you want, but to deny that you have been shown to be wrong time after time would be a lie. Running away when someone offers an explanation is a tacit admission that one is wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Human Civilization Will Crumble by 2050 If We Don't Stop Climate Change Now, New Paper Claims

Did you not read my post? I specifically asked for climate scientists. Neither of the authors are even scientists. Epic fail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mark my words...you will remember this convo when the results come out, top people in the FBI, DOF, CIA, and DNI tried to damage the POTUS.

Please, you won't even admit when you are shown to be wrong. Try to support your claims properly if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There was no gap of hiatus. Climate change takes place over years and there was no reprieve. You made the disproven claim, you really should admit your error.

As I said earlier, it depends on the data and the start and end times selected, those who say there is a hiatus choose the data that indicate a pause or at least a slowing of warming. For example if we choose the UAH data, and look at the temperature from 1998 to now we get this...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Did you not read my post? I specifically asked for climate scientists. Neither of the authors are even scientists. Epic fail.

He is referred to as a climate researcher and heads the National Centre for Climate Restoration, but I can't see any science credentials. One wonders why the msm gave this paper such broad coverage, including New Scientist, and why climate scientists, apart from the skeptics, have not come out to rubbish it for its nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I said earlier, it depends on the data and the start and end times selected, those who say there is a hiatus choose the data that indicate a pause or at least a slowing of warming. For example if we choose the UAH data, and look at the temperature from 1998 to now we get this...

That is no way to look at climate. That chart has the problem of using improperly cherry picked data to start with. You keep displaying a complete ignorance of the scientific method. Climate is long term. It is extremely improper to cherry pick years with extremes in them . An inability to approach topics properly is why you repeatedly shoot yourself in the foot. You are making the error of assuming an answer and then trying to force the data to fit it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He is referred to as a climate researcher and heads the National Centre for Climate Restoration, but I can't see any science credentials. One wonders why the msm gave this paper such broad coverage, including New Scientist, and why climate scientists, apart from the skeptics, have not come out to rubbish it for its nonsense.

Where? He is not a climate researcher. If you checked out his qualifications you would have known that. If you searched for peer reviewed papers by him you would not have found any. What makes you think that he was given "broad coverage" by the mainstream media? When you do not even try refuting you is no problem at all. And you do not know the job of climate scientists. It is not to attack either those who get it wrong, such as most of the people that you like, or the people that get it wrong the other way around. Yes, quite often the media gets science wrong. Which is why you always go to the source whenever possible. In this case you really screwed the pooch again. Pratt is an accountant. The other is an ex-coal executive. Not scientists.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That is no way to look at climate. That chart has the problem of using improperly cherry picked data to start with. You keep displaying a complete ignorance of the scientific method. Climate is long term. It is extremely improper to cherry pick years with extremes in them . An inability to approach topics properly is why you repeatedly shoot yourself in the foot. You are making the error of assuming an answer and then trying to force the data to fit it.

I explained how the start stop points and data source can produce an apparent hiatus, that is all, conversely one can easily chose points and data that indicate a sharp slope, yes it is cherry picking and both sides of the debate do it. However the tool itself is very good to see how it works, here is a link, try it out when you have time, data sources are all IPCC approved. Instructions on the help page..Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

 

[Subduction Zone]

I explained how the start stop points and data source can produce an apparent hiatus, that is all, conversely one can easily chose points and data that indicate a sharp slope, yes it is cherry picking and both sides of the debate do it. However the tool itself is very good to see how it works, here is a link, try it out when you have time, data sources are all IPCC approved. Instructions on the help page..Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Correct, the people that said there was a hiatus were very dishonest. There is a correct way to choose starting and end points in a chart that varies a bit over the years. Why even refer to such a graph if you are trying to make a point? Unless your point was that deniers are dishonest.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Where? He is not a climate researcher. If you checked out his qualifications you would have known that. If you searched for peer reviewed papers by him you would not have found any. What makes you think that he was given "broad coverage" by the mainstream media? When you do not even try refuting you is no problem at all. And you do not know the job of climate scientists. It is not to attack either those who get it wrong, such as most of the people that you like, or the people that get it wrong the other way around. Yes, quite often the media gets science wrong. Which is why you always go to the source whenever possible. In this case you really screwed the pooch again. Pratt is an accountant. The other is an ex-coal executive. Not scientists.

Maybe he is only an accountant, but he is referred to here as Authors David Spratt, a researcher into climate change, Climate change report predicts fall of humanity

On msm coverage..

https://www.google.com/search?clien....0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j33i10.SsiYLMf2NMM

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Correct, the people that said there was a hiatus were very dishonest. There is a correct way to choose starting and end points in a chart that varies a bit over the years. Why even refer to such a graph if you are trying to make a point? Unless your point was that deniers are dishonest.

I did the graph myself to show you what I meant, many researchers use the Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs resource, have you not come across it before.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Please, you won't even admit when you are shown to be wrong. Try to support your claims properly if you want to be taken seriously.

If you were not aware that there were two serious investigations going on into possible spying on the Trump campaign before and after the election, then you live a sheltered life. The word is it is going to be devastating, go watch Fox sometimes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe he is only an accountant, but he is referred to here as Authors David Spratt, a researcher into climate change, Climate change report predicts fall of humanity

On msm coverage..

https://www.google.com/search?clien....0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j33i10.SsiYLMf2NMM

`Okay, you got one thing right. There was some news coverage of his claims. That still does not help you because the media getting science wrong is old news.

Let me give you a clue, it does not matter what a non-scientific source claims. You should have done your homework. He is not a researcher.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you were not aware that there were two serious investigations going on into possible spying on the Trump campaign before and after the election, then you live a sheltered life. The word is it is going to be devastating, go watch Fox sometimes.

And yet you have not mentioned any of them. Why am I not surprised.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You can disagree all you want, but to deny that you have been shown to be wrong time after time would be a lie. Running away when someone offers an explanation is a tacit admission that one is wrong.

It is not running away to see that our respective positions are not going o change in the short term by any amount of further exchange. So here it is, I accept that you believe what I do not believe, and that is just fine with me. I have no interest in trying to convert you, and with respect, it is becoming boring.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not running away to see that our respective positions are not going o change in the short term by any amount of further exchange. So here it is, I accept that you believe what I do not believe, and that is just fine with me. I have no interest in trying to convert you, and with respect, it is becoming boring.

Of course it is. Claiming that you refuse to learn is not a valid excuse. Again, stay away from handguns. Your own sources refute your claims far too often.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So now you are saying that you were dishonest. Oh my. Stay away from handguns if you value your toes.

That is not dishonest at all, what is dishonest is saying that posting a valid and accurate graph based on valid IPCC approved data is dishonest. You really are a case...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Of course it is. Claiming that you refuse to learn is not a valid excuse. Again, stay away from handguns. Your own sources refute your claims far too often.

My, you really are triggered, I hope there is a safe space nearby.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My, you really are triggered, I hope there is a safe space nearby.

Nope, just trying to help you understand your errors.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And yet you have not mentioned any of them. Why am I not surprised.

Now you have forgotten, I have mentioned them before, DOJ IG, and AG.