Re: Sceptics have second thoughts
- From: amacmil304@xxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 23:43:18 +0100
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 21:51:04 +0100, Malcolm
In article <tm2mr6tb87qgn3udqgpurbraf0eijv7i0r@xxxxxxx>,
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 17:16:17 +0100, Malcolm
In article <cjmlr69jq3ml8lpg417bn5kjus3hqfkrt5@xxxxxxx>,
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:07:05 +0100, MalcolmA particularly pathetic, and failed, attempt at a put-down. Just get it
In article <1ojjr69r9176jqot45oesnuji5b0vurta2@xxxxxxx>,
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:29:30 +0100, MalcolmI know far more about statistics than you do, Angus, but then so does
In article <ok8ir6h1fe618ktt8mkcp0nmng9t249cko@xxxxxxx>,
A pathetic response from a statistical ignoramus.
You didn't even understand your original post:-))
So you're an expert in statistics now?
anyone else who has either studied the subject or who has the basic
intelligence to understand it.
That seems to count you out.
into your tiny head, and even smaller mind, that I know more than enough
about statistics to be able to understand them and to use them, as well
as being able to show you up as an ignoramus on the subject, though you
do that well enough yourself with your constant bleating of "GIGO" when
you've not made the slightest effort to comprehend what statistics you
are bleating about.
You know what they say about "a little knowledge", Malcolm.
A typical Macmillan irrelevancy, because I have more than "a little
knowledge" about statistics, whereas it is obvious that you have none.
Malcolm is obviously upset about being exposed as a liar when he said
"today's" 2009 population of Hen Harriers was "over 3000 birds" and
then had to admit that his information was five years old, and that
no-one knew today's population number. He was flushed out when I
asked if I could quote him!
Here is a summary of the post; the original is all on record:
Angus Macmillan: "And you don't have any up-to-date evidence of the
HH's population. Your evidence is 5 years old."
Dr Malcolm Ogilvie: "So what? J"
AM: "This says it all!"
MO: "Yes, it says that the HH population is not censused every year".
AM: "Not even every five years. So you have no idea what the
population is at present."
MO: "Completely wrong".
AM: "So what is the population today?"
MO: "Over 3000 birds."
AM: "So can I quote you that the population has risen far above
expectations and stands at 3000 and those who say there is a terminal
decline in the population are wrong?"
MO: "No, because my calculation is based on the 2004 census total of
806 pairs. I thought you could have worked that out for yourself.".
I don't know what he's trying to prove by endlessly contradicting
himself other than that he's a fool.
If he weren't a fool, he would just have admitted at the start that he
stupidly said "over 3000 birds" for "today's" population to make him
look knowledgeable but he hadn't the guts to say that and got caught
lying when I asked if I could quote him.
His most recent gaff is to say he thinks I'm "afraid of him"; if he
thinks that he's gone round the twist. When I ask him "why would I be
"afraid of you", he goes strangely silent, which is his norm when he's
asked awkward questions.
Among others, he still won't answer the following questions:
1. Is man part of nature or not?
2. Is it important that the gardeners' counts of birds is
accurate or not, for the British Trust for Ornothology's "Garden Bird
3. When did the archaeological find of a red squirrel fossil take
place in Madawg Rock Shelter and what DNA evidence exists to show that
it is the same species or sub species that exists in Britain today?
4. Why is it that you claim that a report, substantially
criticised by the Natural History Museum on a number of crucial
points, is accurate in dating and species recognition when it uses the
word "apparently" to describe this?
5. Where and when did you read this report? The book is currently
6. Why is it, as a scientist, you support the concept that
political boundaries determine where a species is regarded as
"native", rather than the natural range of that species?
7. Why did you lie about your knowledge of "today's" population
of hen harriers in 2009 when nobody else knew what it was? You were
easily flushed out when I asked if I could quote you.
8. Why did you lie when you said my "sole" qualification was an O
Grade Maths when you now admit you don't know what qualifications I
have - if any?
9. Why are you so coy in answering questions about your earlier
educational qualifications when you are conceited enough to post your
cv online at over seventy years of age? Are you looking for a job J).
10. Why do you claim the FAS study is evidence of AGW when the
IPCC's deputy head says, "Clearly sceptics will find some things to
make their case. It says that not all is clear about the sun's role.
The debate is never over," when he refers to France's Academy of
Science" report, and why did it need to be held partly behind closed
11. To whom are you referring when you say "superior people"?
So there's a start and perhaps to finish,
Who's the lady farmer on Islay you helped with her grants?
Did she pay you?
But strangely, when I ask him about his school and university
qualifications he is also reluctant to say what they are. I haven't
said, like others have, that his PhD is a fake from some sort of
"mill" - whatever that means - but I am intrigued about his earlier
qualifications. I believe it's possible to become a member of the
Society of Biology and Chartered Biologist through the "back door"
having worked as a non-graduate with a supposedly conservation
organisation. Malcolm worked for the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust
seemingly as a lowly "research officer" for 26 years with no apparent
advancement. - akin to a life sentence. So is that what he did and
hasn't told anyone? It seems he might be the one that's "afraid" of
people knowing that. And was he allowed to do his PhD on the strength
of that too? If so, why should he be ashamed of it? He's stuffed the
system; and should be proud of it. And some of the best tradesmen
have been apprentices.
The reason I have asked him about having a Higher or A Level Maths is
that without that he probably wouldn't have the mental agility to
understand even the most basic of statistics - which he pontificates
If he's conceited enough to put his personal details and interests
online, http://www.indaal.demon.co.uk/#A he leaves himself open to
questions about what he might have left out.
So is he a back door Society of Biology member and does he have a
Higher or A Level Maths? Why is he so afraid to answer these
I'm sure there are others on this ng that might like to know also and
rather than me being afraid of him, perhaps he's afraid of everyone.
It's not what's in his CV that matters; it's what he seems to have
And he can't bring himself to tell us what it is.
And why does a man of over 70 need a CV anyway, other than for conceit
or perhaps to counter a massive inferiority complex.
Could his arrogance and prejudice against school leavers with one O
Grade be a throwback from his past. Perhaps he was bullied at school
and thought to be a dullard and this is why he is such a self
righteous and pompous little man who seems to be going round the
Only someone with some form of personality disorder and deep prejudice
could write this nasty generic rant against school leavers.
Internet posting by Dr Malcolm A Ogilvie
to Malcolm Kane of Penrith
"Malcolm, it must be what a teacher feels like after trying to drum
something into the head of the dullard who is going to leave school
with a single 'O' grade. There's only so much that someone so
intellectually challenged can understand. The problem will come in
later life, when an inability to grasp concepts, not to mention be
able to understand the meanings of words, will seriously let them
down, to the point when, how ever often they are told something, they
merely repeat, as a rote, statements and claims which they think are
very telling but, in fact, were meaningless or just plain wrong the
first time, and continue to be so regardless of how many times they
are repeated. The situation will be even worse if, during their lives,
they have gained absolutely no personal knowledge of the subjects
about which they spout and thus are completely unable to comprehend
anyone who points out that their ignorance is letting them down."
Dr Malcolm A Ogilvie
Scientific Adviser to Scottish Natural Heritage
On Internet Newsgroup uk.environment.conservation
Date: Mon,18 Sept 2006 07:32;30 +0100
Is this rant a reflection of himself?
I gave you the most accurate hen harrier population available at that
Remember, you lied about the hen harrier population. Seems statistics
and damn lies are your forte.
time, indeed exactly the same figures as published by the newspaper
journalist. Was she also telling "damn lies", or is this something you
reserve for yourself? That and libels.
So which journalist said there were "over 3000" hen harriers in 2009?
None, Malcolm is the answer.
Your a liar and got caught out.
- Next by Date: Re: Sceptics have second thoughts
- Next by thread: Re: Sceptics have second thoughts