97% Consensus

7:40 PM · Nov 29, 2022

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to 97% Consensus

  1. Lance Appleby says:

    Well that will leave a mark!!!
    Well done.

  2. Trevor says:

    Haha. Excellent Tony. Isn’t it poetic?

  3. Chaeremon says:

    Gerald is refusing to apply empiricism to the simulant sermons in his echo chamber of We Academicizing Experts. This is typical of teacher-imitators who refuse to present their own measurements: they can’t, so they invent a confirming superstition e.g. “heat death by CO2 emissions of plant eaters” as a substitute for their non-existent empiricism.

  4. bru92 says:

    your opponent’s argument:
    1) trust the experts
    2) skeptics (you) think the system is corrupt

  5. Petit_Barde says:

    HA HA HA !

    Will Gerald argue that consensus is not science ?

    • arn says:

      He will argue that 100% of the voters were die hard climateNazis
      and that he was able to convert 15 of them within just 90 minutes
      as result of his brilliant scientific performance.

      • Robertvd says:

        How can we be die hard climateNazis when the Climate Jugend and the Green Shirts are on the other side ?

        • arn says:

          Everyone who is not part of the climate jugend and the green red brownshirts is a Nazi.
          Just like everyone’s Nazi who does not go along with open borders and vaccination.

          You are either with us or you are against us.

  6. arn says:

    I’m pretty sure Gerald would have won the vote with at least 50.1% if dominion machines and climate models would have been used to determine the results.

    • GWS says:

      Indeed. It appears he was caught-up in his own arrogance — Who would have thought such a highly credentialed academic could be topped by a mere YouTube denier?

  7. Allan Shelton says:

    Tony presented historical factual information, while Gerald presented nothing that would counter Tony’s information.
    Gerald just kept parroting all the Alarmist claims and offered nothing of value.
    It appeared to me that he did not listen to Tony.
    Gerald only talked propaganda; Peer review this peer review that; deniers are very few in number; skeptics are all conspirators; ad nauseum………..
    Gerald did not debate anything. He just continued his rant. IMO.
    Tony 100% Gerald 0%

    • aussie says:

      Allan
      Gerald just resorted to ad hominems, labelling and fallacious arguments.

      This is standard fare from the Leftists that infest the alarmist movement. Facts and data are rarely referenced, preference given to character assassination, deplatforming and fraudulent models.

      By contrast Tony was measured and actually gave science.

      And by the way, peer review is not to be trusted. Gerald never mentions the “replication crisis” gripping science at present. Around 2/3 of peer reviewed papers cannot have their results replicated so having a peer reviewed paper is of little value.

      I would add that here in Australia there is NO STANDARD for peer review, no formal requirements, no confirmation of the experience of those reviewing in the area being reviewed etc. This is a recipe for disaster as peer review has become a rubber stamp from ideologically aligned friends – and unsurprisingly most results are garbage.

  8. Tom Landry says:

    I thought Greg was more on the attack with his constant ‘conspiracy theory’ comments. Tony was and has been more informative answering questions about how data is manipulated.

    • Greg in NZ says:

      Hey hey Tom, it wasn’t me, I didn’t do it, I wasn’t even there 😃

      97% consensus eh… oh the irony. Good on ya Tony.

  9. Burk Gossom says:

    Disappointed in both. Gerald just referred to the experts with little to support his position. Tony did not use the data he uses so effectively on his website well. An example is the greening of the earth. Clearly crop production is multi-factorial but the greening of the entire globe is a global phenomena that has to be explained and if not CO2 then what?

    • Robert Austin says:

      Burk,
      Your expectations of Tony are unrealistic. Tony did use all the data he could squeeze into a short interval. Had the “debate” been a 24 hour marathon, Tony’s vast experience with the data would mean he could produce data hour after hour where Kutney would be like “peer review”, “denier” and appeal to authority for hour after hour.

  10. Peteo says:

    Gerald provided a few very powerful insights to the climate debate:
    1) We’re right, you’re wrong. No need to ‘debate’ at all. Mind closed.
    2) Don’t think for yourself, just follow the self-anointed ‘experts’, of course ignoring the multitude of monetary / academic conflicts of interest. They, and They alone, are Science.
    3) If anyone comes up with an idea outside of the ‘approved’ consensus envelope, the only path to vet this idea is through the compromised / corrupted consensus experts. No science can exist outside of these ‘experts’.
    4) Any data that refutes the ‘consensus’ view is either irrelevant or can be twisted to actually support the consensus.

    I’m sure there’re more, but this was my take-away. You did a splendid job Tony and kept your cool throughout. Well done.

  11. Gerald Kutney – unwittingly or deliberately – resorted to Appeal to Consensus and Appeal to Authority in the opening stages of his debate with Tony and displayed some nerve scolding Tony about the merits of scientific integrity and moan about the label climate alarmist as he casually used the slur climate denialist The hypocrite lost the debate within the first 15 minutes Tony was the gentleman as he often is and I dare say let Gerald off rather lightly

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *