Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming! Please help with a gift by clicking the button below.
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Archives
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
Well that will leave a mark!!!
Well done.
Haha. Excellent Tony. Isn’t it poetic?
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.
They can’t conceive of it — and deny it daily.
your opponent’s argument:
1) trust the experts
2) skeptics (you) think the system is corrupt
I do not recall Kutney using the word “skeptics”. I recall he went straight to the pejorative “deniers”. It did not even register with Kutney when Tony said that as a Jewish person, he found the word offensive.
+1
HA HA HA !
Will Gerald argue that consensus is not science ?
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.
How can we be die hard climateNazis when the Climate Jugend and the Green Shirts are on the other side ?
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.
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.
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?
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%
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.
Bingo.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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