Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
durbster said:
I've shown you before that the statements issued by these organisations do not represent the views of their members - it even leads to members resigning in disgust.You clearly have a short memory.
The tactic of getting people to sign a letter and send it to someone important was dumb to start with, it's old hat now - in case you hadn't noticed it often leads to the organizers having their reputations trashed and their corruption/stupidity aired in public.
Cabal signed letters - they worked so well for the EU Remain campaign didn't they!
mybrainhurts said:
It's July.
I stopped on the moors earlier to take a picture.
My nuts froze off.
Can I sue Al bloody Gore for not delivering the promised global warming?
I've got some Nut Glue if you need it 'urtsI stopped on the moors earlier to take a picture.
My nuts froze off.
Can I sue Al bloody Gore for not delivering the promised global warming?
But you will need to stand in front of a roasty hot fire warming the tin for five minutes
...
Might be nice
Nice to see D'rbs hasn't been sacked by 'whoever', we need continuity in these dire days
(they say)
do we get to see the picture?
perdu said:
mybrainhurts said:
It's July.
I stopped on the moors earlier to take a picture.
My nuts froze off.
Can I sue Al bloody Gore for not delivering the promised global warming?
I've got some Nut Glue if you need it 'urtsI stopped on the moors earlier to take a picture.
My nuts froze off.
Can I sue Al bloody Gore for not delivering the promised global warming?
But you will need to stand in front of a roasty hot fire warming the tin for five minutes
...
Might be nice
Nice to see D'rbs hasn't been sacked by 'whoever', we need continuity in these dire days
(they say)
do we get to see the picture?
There you go, Billy...
mybrainhurts said:
perdu said:
mybrainhurts said:
It's July.
I stopped on the moors earlier to take a picture.
My nuts froze off.
Can I sue Al bloody Gore for not delivering the promised global warming?
I've got some Nut Glue if you need it 'urtsI stopped on the moors earlier to take a picture.
My nuts froze off.
Can I sue Al bloody Gore for not delivering the promised global warming?
But you will need to stand in front of a roasty hot fire warming the tin for five minutes
...
Might be nice
Nice to see D'rbs hasn't been sacked by 'whoever', we need continuity in these dire days
(they say)
do we get to see the picture?
There you go, Billy...
(For anyone old enough to remember...)
chris watton said:
Stay on the path, and keep off the moors!
(For anyone old enough to remember...)
Oddly I found meself on the road where the shepherd drops them off not long ago, along with some other PH types (it's Hay Bluff btw);(For anyone old enough to remember...)
As for June above average temps - not during the day it wasn't. Flaming June? - refund please.
To burn one windmill may be regarded as a misfortune; to burn two, looks like carelessness.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q5COAi6KM8o
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q5COAi6KM8o
An Oxford University researcher has been looking into the internet's most popular conspiracy theories, and has worked out a formula to estimate how long it would take for them to have been sprung, if they were true.
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-01-26-too-many-minio...
According to his formula, fake moon landings would have been exposed in less than four years.
And inventing climate change would have been exposed after 27 years if it had been retained exclusively among scientists, but under four years if you included scientific bodies, and even less time if you include public bodies (which obviously climate change does).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/...
I'm sure this is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but does make a valid point about the distrust of institutions and how powerful cognitive bias is compared to strong evidence and likelihood.
It's somewhat ironic that the understanding widespread the public's rejection of science is becoming a science in itself.
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-01-26-too-many-minio...
According to his formula, fake moon landings would have been exposed in less than four years.
And inventing climate change would have been exposed after 27 years if it had been retained exclusively among scientists, but under four years if you included scientific bodies, and even less time if you include public bodies (which obviously climate change does).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/...
I'm sure this is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but does make a valid point about the distrust of institutions and how powerful cognitive bias is compared to strong evidence and likelihood.
It's somewhat ironic that the understanding widespread the public's rejection of science is becoming a science in itself.
durbster said:
An Oxford University researcher has been looking into the internet's most popular conspiracy theories, and has worked out a formula to estimate how long it would take for them to have been sprung, if they were true.
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-01-26-too-many-minio...
According to his formula, fake moon landings would have been exposed in less than four years.
And inventing climate change would have been exposed after 27 years if it had been retained exclusively among scientists, but under four years if you included scientific bodies, and even less time if you include public bodies (which obviously climate change does).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/...
I'm sure this is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but does make a valid point about the distrust of institutions and how powerful cognitive bias is compared to strong evidence and likelihood.
It's somewhat ironic that the understanding widespread the public's rejection of science is becoming a science in itself.
It's just a shame there's no real evidence of mankind's involvement in natural climate forcings. The theory of AGW is still a theory, and so it's a bit of a jump to start accusing folk of conspiracy theories to disprove that which hasn't yet been proved. http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-01-26-too-many-minio...
According to his formula, fake moon landings would have been exposed in less than four years.
And inventing climate change would have been exposed after 27 years if it had been retained exclusively among scientists, but under four years if you included scientific bodies, and even less time if you include public bodies (which obviously climate change does).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/...
I'm sure this is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but does make a valid point about the distrust of institutions and how powerful cognitive bias is compared to strong evidence and likelihood.
It's somewhat ironic that the understanding widespread the public's rejection of science is becoming a science in itself.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff