Jump to content

RickBradford

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    3,588
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,020 Excellent

About RickBradford

  • Rank
    Platinum Member

Recent Profile Visitors

11,306 profile views
  1. That's not my view on climate change at all. You have no idea about my views on climate change. Furthermore, you're not interested in my views on climate change - it's far easier for you just to lob mindless stinkbombs around and pretend that you're contributing to a debate.
  2. What "view" are you referring to?
  3. ^^ I really don't know why you think I should be doing your research for you, unless you are used to having everything placed on a platter for you. Just so you don't leave empty-handed, here's one article regarding global cooling from 1968: The abstract ends : "Since 1940, the effect of the rapid rise of atmospheric turbidity appears to have exceeded the effect of rising carbon dioxide, resulting in a rapid downward trend of temperature. There is no indication that these trends will be reversed, and there is some reason to believe that man-made pollution will have an increased effect in the future." This was one of the premier issues discussed at the AAAS symposium on climate of the same year, and at the later Bonn conference. And so you don't have to overstrain yourself, here is a link to the entire paper. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-010-3290-2_14 No further correspondence on this subject will be entered into.
  4. Because I never said that, or anything even close. You're just making that up. I said I try not to rely on climate websites, but on published scientific research, which can also often be found online. I don't know if you're capable of understanding the distinction.
  5. You do. After all, it was you who posted the link that global cooling was just a "conjecture" in the 1970s. It wasn't -- it was taken seriously -- and you have been given multiple examples of that. I try not to rely on climate websites -- I've warned you before about how unreliable they can be -- so I try to read the original science whenever I can. It's called "research".
  6. Well, if you really believe that Connolley did not repeatedly act in bad faith at Wikipedia, then there's really no hope for a productive discussion. You'll have to go down that rabbit hole on your own. My points are simple, and not even controversial, I would think. 1) Global cooling was a lot more than a "conjecture" in the 1970s. There were plenty of respectable scientists working on the topic, and prepared to stand by predictions of global cooling, for all that they didn't have supercomputers. There was even a 1973 climate conference in Germany where the consensus was that atmospheric dust from human activities would cool the planet such that "the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failures within a decade." There was plenty of dissent, which was allowed back then, but the possibility of global cooling was taken seriously. 2) Wikipedia is not a reliable source; nor is SkS Kidz. Quoting them as sources doesn't strengthen an argument; often, it weakens it.
  7. How interesting that one of the authors of that paper is one William Connolley, a climate propagandist of such egregious bias and bad faith that he was actually banned from editing Wikipedia pages related to climate science. Your sources keep turning out to be charlatans and kooks, which is perhaps to be expected, but the fact remains that if the CIA was tasked with producing a report on global cooling, citing the best climatologists of the time, the subject was being treated as considerably more than a "conjecture". One further note: you complain about "anonymously authored papers"; intelligence agencies don't usually attach bylines to their work, as it rather defeats the purpose. The work of several scientists, is, however, quoted.
  8. That is misleading in the extreme, as you doubtless know . In 1974, the CIA issued a 36-page report on global cooling which began as follows: "The western world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change... . A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the earth's climate is returning to that of the neo-boreal era (1600-1850) [the Little Ice Age - Ed.] - an era of drought, famine and political unrest in the western world." It goes on to cite examples of the cooling, and its effects around the world, and concludes: "Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climatic change is taking place and that it has already caused major economic problems throughout the world. As it becomes more apparent to the nations around the world that the current trend is indeed a long-term reality, new alignments will be made among nations to insure [sic] a secure supply of food resources." Rather more than a "conjecture". The lesson to be learned is that, along with SkS Kidz, another source you shouldn't rely on for accuracy is Wikipedia, especially where contentious issues are concerned.
  9. RickBradford

    VAR catastrophe

    The ultimate decision still lies with the ref, certainly. Technically, though, the locus of responsibility has shifted to somewhere along the straight line joining the ref to the VAR studio. If the VAR dude hadn't intervened, France wouldn't have got a chance at a penalty. And I think almost everyone expected the ref to change his mind, even though it was a contentious call. I don't know whether there is a formal rule in place for the referee to make a decision - as I mentioned, some sports require a 'clear error' for an overrule.
  10. RickBradford

    VAR catastrophe

    In later years, it will be a quiz question: Q: "When was the first time at the World Cup when a referee made the right decision, was told to review it on VAR, and changed his call to the wrong decision." A: Andres Cunha, France v Australia 2018. Surely, as in other sports, there shouldn't be an over-rule unless a clear error is demonstrated, and this one looked decidedly unclear. There was a much clearer incident in Denmark v Peru, where a Danish defender took out one of the Peruvians from behind, which wasn't even reviewed. And why wasn't Samuel Umtiti booked for a deliberate handball? VAR doesn't remove bad decisions, it just changes the responsibility for where the decisions are made.
  11. Oh, the arrogance, the condescension, the unearned tone of moral superiority. No wonder the climate alarmist movement is dying an unlamented death.
  12. Not really. Certainly not enough to accuse all those people who disagree with me as having "profound ignorance" or "arrogance" or "total inability". You'll have to look closer to home for that.
  13. As the philosopher Bertrand Russell noted: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
  14. Who's Heller? As for the temperature adjustment scandal, you can find plenty of sites which believe it to be at the level of scientific fraud, and plenty of sites which think it is a storm in a teacup. I'm not doing that research for you. Just avoid quoting SkS Kidz if you want to be taken seriously.
  15. A pointless exercise. Because if a site contradicts what Zeke Hausfather wrote, you won't accept it as a "serious scientific site". It's a circular argument. You are prepared to uncritically believe what Zeke Hausfather wrote, even though it is published in one of the furthest from a "a serious scientific site" around, in my estimation. If you think you have credible evidence that the temperature adjustment scandal is without foundation, fine, but quoting SkS Kidz as the source for that belief merely invites the horse laugh.
×