CO2 will decimate humankind, a clever bloke says so!

[odyssey2200]

The only this that will Decimate human kind is the damage to our lives, economy and country caused by politicians utter obsession with " The Cause"

It has nothing to do with the weather of the volume of plant food.

[Otispunkmeyer]

Lol these climate threads are great

We just get turbobloke and kerplunk going round and round the roundabout. Tb asking pertinent questions and kp spinning like a top and punting his questions into the rough with his Teflon shields.

[turbobloke]

There's lots of carbon in teflon and it's manufactured using, you know, energy...surely only a recycled yoghurt shield with lentil inserts would do?

[Oakey]

can you two not just hire a boxing ring and settle things there? It'd be a lot more entertaining

[turbobloke]

Oakey said:

can you two not just hire a boxing ring and settle things there? It'd be a lot more entertaining

Data allied to sound science speaks for itself and punches above the weight of any propagandist spin.

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

I would widen the scope of your reading if I were you.

While remembering that IPCC reports are selective summaries not review type literature, with significant exclusions, numerous errors such as watervapourgate, tourismgate, glaciergate, amazongate, disastergate, also pachaurigate etc and grey lit if it suits? And that the peer review process involved in generating it is not the process that non believer scientists would recognise too easily? While recognising that there is no consensus but suppressed disagreement throughout? Not to mention the weird fact that the SPM, written by wonks as well as wan...'scientists' is taken as sacrosanct so that the scientific bits are edited if necessary to fall in line with the SPM not vice versa? Also that the IPCC's own expert reviewers savage the contents and are ignored? Good advice. PH posts, including from me, have lots of peer reviewed science in them, those papers woild be an excellent place to start, though whereas with your good self I would consider it valuable but possibly beyond the relevant ken, I won't assume that freecar (the PHer to whom your remark was addressed) hasn't been there already.

[odyssey2200]

http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2011-11-28/

[supersingle]

Am I the only one who finds the gushing tones and gormless expression of Brian Cox to be highly irritating? Very distracting of what might be some interesting science programs.

He's just another lightweight, do-gooder, attention seeking luvie. Ignore him and watch Carl Sagan instead.

[PRTVR]

kerplunk said:

Think of it like a car being hit up the arse by a bus. The size of the kick is well understood but the distance the car travels depends on the slope of the road, friction in the wheels, was the car stationry or already rolling forwards/backwards due to another forcing etc.

Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 29th November 15:06

I prefer to think of it like this,
in a room sat on a table is a lit candle,and after a while the heating comes on and it starts to warm up the room, now some of the people in the room blame the heating on the candle and decide that candles cause runaway heating and we are all going to die and want candles banned, but after a while the heating goes off and thing start to cool down, now the same people who talked about runaway warming start taking about the candle also causing the cooling as well as the heating and still want them banned.

KP why do you keep coming back here ? to this little car forum, do you feel like a missionary worried about all us non believers

[freecar]

kerplunk said:

freecar said:

KP read my post again and stop asking pointless questions.

Especially the bold.

Anyone who can read will see it clearly states that I was unable to refute TB's claims, which means that I have undertaken additional research.

Now are you going to quote me again and ask questions that are already fking answered in the very post you're quoting?

Please read more carefully and stop asking silly questions.

Fair enough I did talk past you a bit in the last post. If you can't find refutations apart from 'climate change sources' perhaps try looking for noteworthy supporters. That's what I did.

Thanks KP, the problem is with the word "noteworthy" as I said before it could be Tinky Winky bringing us these revelations, the only thing that is important is the science, doesn't matter who presents it.

[Diderot]

supersingle said:

Am I the only one who finds the gushing tones and gormless expression of Brian Cox to be highly irritating? Very distracting of what might be some interesting science programs.

He's just another lightweight, do-gooder, attention seeking luvie. Ignore him and watch Carl Sagan instead.

[Lost_BMW]

Hugo a Gogo said:

to be fair, he does only say 'there's a possibility'

Stop being fair! The BBC we don't want balance...

[Lost_BMW]

Mr Gear said:

Lost BMW has chosen to highlight the word "decimate", but the real word of importance is "possibility". There is a possibility that it will decimate civilisation.

Absolute bullst. Wondered when we'd see you back out of the woodwork to peddle your doom mongering.

Decimate? What a crock. I suppose there is the possibility you don't actually believe this rubbish, in the interest of balance, but then that might signal wilful scare mongering.

[Lost_BMW]

Mr Gear said:

Lost BMW has chosen his words carefully to create the usual hysteria on this topic. It's a sure fire hit, like sticking a picture of princess Diana on the front of the Daily Express, you always get the desired reaction from the audience.

The usual crowds at PHs smugly chortling "look at these fools now!" when actually the joke is on them for being hooked by the same old bait once again.

Oh, I'd check the programme if I were you - do you deny he said this?

I didn't need to select carefully, he did. He deliberately used that phrase/term in a short snippet on climate change, deliberately chosen and added in, as one aspect of the theme, and has form for taking every opportunity to bang on about and promote the 'consensus' and to belittle sceptics.

Edited by Lost_BMW on Tuesday 29th November 23:40

[Lost_BMW]

kerplunk said:

Yes that does rather make the 'science is settled, it's a fact!' rant that Lost_BMW followed it with look off beam. Uncertainty should be acknowledged and be part of the debate but the response of too many so called sceptics is 'no proof = no problem' (cos that's how science works innit!) which is more akin to denialism.

Please quote the evidence of 'rant' (check a dictionary definition if you aren't entirely happy with using the English language precisely) or withdraw that remark.

[Lost_BMW]

Prof Prolapse said:

For those that understand, the evidence is very compelling. Those who don't are either incapable of understanding, ignorant (which can be forgiven if they make efforts to learn) or arrogant. As per the first poster on this thread.

Fortunately, being ignorant, arrogant and/or a bit daft in the head no one really cares what they think anyway. How's that for a quote?

Report made.

[The Excession]

Lost_BMW said:

Prof Prolapse said:

For those that understand, the evidence is very compelling. Those who don't are either incapable of understanding, ignorant (which can be forgiven if they make efforts to learn) or arrogant. As per the first poster on this thread.

Fortunately, being ignorant, arrogant and/or a bit daft in the head no one really cares what they think anyway. How's that for a quote?

Report made.

Thread ban for the Prof again.... :

Imposed simply because we've had to do it so many times before and still, nothing seems to have changed.

I personally find the statement made by our Prof above contributes little and (perhaps) is simply made to provoke trolling, which is not the way things are done on these threads any more.

Any complaints about this decision can go here




Lost_BMW - YHM.

[kerplunk]

Lost_BMW said:

Please quote the evidence of 'rant' (check a dictionary definition if you aren't entirely happy with using the English language precisely) or withdraw that remark.

ok I withdraw my apalling use of the word 'rant' - don't want to upset a denier

[Lost_BMW]

The Excession said:

Lost_BMW said:

Prof Prolapse said:

For those that understand, the evidence is very compelling. Those who don't are either incapable of understanding, ignorant (which can be forgiven if they make efforts to learn) or arrogant. As per the first poster on this thread.

Fortunately, being ignorant, arrogant and/or a bit daft in the head no one really cares what they think anyway. How's that for a quote?

Report made.

Thread ban for the Prof again.... :

Imposed simply because we've had to do it so many times before and still, nothing seems to have changed.

I personally find the statement made by our Prof above contributes little and (perhaps) is simply made to provoke trolling, which is not the way things are done on these threads any more.

Any complaints about this decision can go here




Lost_BMW - YHM.

Thank you sir! Less bothered about any attempt to create offence, more the attempt to side track and derail - the typical ad hom/straw man blah, blah stratagems from a 'usual suspect'.

[thinfourth2]

I wander if any of the usual mud slingers have actually listened to the program in the OP before screaming "WE MUST KILL EVERYONE IN THE BBC"

I doudt it


I am currently listening to it and it seems

1 Quite funny
2 Pretty balanced
3 I disagree with very little of what is said especially about the media and science
4 The OP and everyone elses is outraged 1 comment in a 30 minute program about balance in science which i find slightly ironic