Govt 'acted in good faith' over Ranson

[Holte End]

11 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

That may be your interpretation. Mine was that he identified areas where additional training would be of benefit.

See @Stu Peters you let yourself down, by adding the additional training, at no time does the Report say additional.  Also can you tell me what percentage is CO2 in the worlds atmosphere, Good one to get the sideshow freaks on climate change.

Edited February 4 by Holte End

[Non-Believer]

1 hour ago, WTF said:

there was no good faith in the government , they were as vindictive as they could be and got stung by their own arrogance.

With the taxpayers being subsequently stung as usual.

[The Voice of Reason]

2 hours ago, Holte End said:

See @Stu Peters you let yourself down, by adding the additional training, at no time does the Report say additional.  Also can you tell me what percentage is CO2 in the worlds atmosphere,

I can answer this on behalf of Stu, courtesy of Google

“The current global average concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere is 421 ppm as of May 2022 (0.04%)”

[Stu Peters]

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

I can answer this on behalf of Stu, courtesy of Google

“The current global average concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere is 421 ppm as of May 2022 (0.04%)”

…of which 3% is caused by humans!

[A fool and his money.....]

1 minute ago, Stu Peters said:

…of which 3% is caused by humans!

Does this mean that you don't believe that climate change is being caused by human activity?

[Stu Peters]

Yes, although I’m a consistent minority of 1 in Tynwald.

[A fool and his money.....]

4 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

Yes, although I’m a consistent minority of 1 in Tynwald.

Fair play to you for admitting it, it's not a popular view point, and not one I agree with either tbh.

Do you think the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary is just innocently wrong or is part of a conspiracy?

[Stu Peters]

4 hours ago, A fool and his money..... said:

Fair play to you for admitting it, it's not a popular view point, and not one I agree with either tbh.

Do you think the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary is just innocently wrong or is part of a conspiracy?

Without fashioning tinfoil headgear I think it's a mix of the two. I think it's political rather than scientific, I think scientists know which side is buttered. The 97% consensus was a fudge - it was a small sample and included mostly non-climate scientists (psychologists etc). I'm told that science is nothing to do with consensus and that science should never be considered 'settled'. I've also seen enough (I think) incontrovertible proof that the raw stats which form the basis of most doomsday hypotheses have been fudged (like historical temperature records that began with a box in a field are now in a box in a huge concrete carpark).

Why do I fel like this? It began with Al Gore, and it made my spidey senses tingle with discomfort, and that has never gone away.

So many people disagree with me that I try not to fall victim to confirmation bias, try to see the other side and am aware that I may be completely wrong. But I find the evidence against anthropomorphic climate change more compelling (as a lay person) than the evidence for it, and more importantly, the way any resistance is immediately discredited and closed down. Even if you're a Nobel prize winner.

Even my kids disagree with me, but like I've said about many of the 'modern' causes they espouse, it's them that will pay the price - I'll be long gone.

Edited February 4 by Stu Peters

[Max Power]

8 hours ago, Holte End said:

See @Stu Peters you let yourself down, by adding the additional training, at no time does the Report say additional.  Also can you tell me what percentage is CO2 in the worlds atmosphere, Good one to get the sideshow freaks on climate change.

0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere.

3% of that is created by human activity. 

[Non-Believer]

I think it unlikely that the amount of shite that the human race is pumping into the atmosphere isn't having some effect on it.

I don't think bankrupting the Isle of Man's population in the name of stopping the Island's miniscule contribution to it is the way forward either.

[A fool and his money.....]

30 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

Without fashioning tinfoil headgear I think it's a mix of the two. I think it's political rather than scientific, I think scientists know which side is buttered. The 97% consensus was a fudge - it was a small sample and included mostly non-climate scientists (psychologists etc). I'm told that science is nothing to do with consensus and that science should never be considered 'settled'. I've also seen enough (I think) incontrovertible proof that the raw stats which form the basis of most doomsday hypotheses have been fudged (like historical temperature records that began with a box in a field are now in a box in a huge concrete carpark).

Why do I fel like this? It began with Al Gore, and it made my spidey senses tingle with discomfort, and that has never gone away.

So many people disagree with me that I try not to fall victim to confirmation bias, try to see the other side and am aware that I may be completely wrong. But I find the evidence against anthropomorphic climate change more compelling (as a lay person) than the evidence for it, and more importantly, the way any resistance is immediately discredited and closed down. Even if you're a Nobel prize winner.

Even my kids disagree with me, but like I've said about many of the 'modern' causes they espouse, it's them that will pay the price - I'll be long gone.

Fair enough. I don't agree with you but can't argue with some of your points.

I think when you're a certain age as we are, you've witnessed a lot of crap in your life, a lot of doom mongering, it's easy to become a bit cynical.

For what it's worth I believe in man made climate change and think we are beginning to see the consequences - my cynicism is more about not having any faith in world leaders to do anything about it until it's too late.

 

[alpha-acid]

1 hour ago, Stu Peters said:

Without fashioning tinfoil headgear I think it's a mix of the two. I think it's political rather than scientific, I think scientists know which side is buttered. The 97% consensus was a fudge - it was a small sample and included mostly non-climate scientists (psychologists etc). I'm told that science is nothing to do with consensus and that science should never be considered 'settled'. I've also seen enough (I think) incontrovertible proof that the raw stats which form the basis of most doomsday hypotheses have been fudged (like historical temperature records that began with a box in a field are now in a box in a huge concrete carpark).

Why do I fel like this? It began with Al Gore, and it made my spidey senses tingle with discomfort, and that has never gone away.

So many people disagree with me that I try not to fall victim to confirmation bias, try to see the other side and am aware that I may be completely wrong. But I find the evidence against anthropomorphic climate change more compelling (as a lay person) than the evidence for it, and more importantly, the way any resistance is immediately discredited and closed down. Even if you're a Nobel prize winner.

Even my kids disagree with me, but like I've said about many of the 'modern' causes they espouse, it's them that will pay the price - I'll be long gone.

You blatantly know nothing about science after that rubbish, just do an Open University Degree in a Scientific subject and then it will actually show you how to use your brain to come to right conclusions from the facts put forward rather than using google and Wikipedia

[hampsterkahn]

It is an established tradition on MF, but we do seem to have deviated off-topic.

The  question originally presented, focussed on the expression ‘ In good faith’ , which is included in the summary  of  the Wright Report into the conduct of IOMG with regard to the handling of the ‘Dr Ranson’ matter.

What does it mean in this context? 
Is it simply ‘ Damning with faint praise’ ?

Is this  rather like a charitable examiner giving a mark or two  for ‘ effort’ and adding another couple for  attending and  succeeding in  putting their name on the exam paper?
Do we infer that although the destination of the IOMG action should have been obviously  calamitous, they  doggedly pursued it and  adhered to their path in the name of due process?

Having set forth, they stuck to the route.No matter the cost to the tax payer.

Their map-reading was faultless and their blinkered adherence to the path must not  be questioned.

 

[Stu Peters]

2 hours ago, alpha-acid said:

You blatantly know nothing about science after that rubbish, just do an Open University Degree in a Scientific subject and then it will actually show you how to use your brain to come to right conclusions from the facts put forward rather than using google and Wikipedia

You’re right to a point. I might equally suggest you’ve spent too much time over a mash tun and have lost the ability to be sceptical of science as it is now practiced.

[Dirty Buggane]

My my, Good swerve there Stu. Did they teach that in MHK classes, how to derail and redirect a discussion that seems to be getting the better of you.

I doff my cap to you.