Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
durbster said:
It's more useful to look up the people running those organisations and see where their interests lie or where their funding comes from. Most of them are the same people, or lead back to the same people.
Then you would agree that any organisation funded by the state is immediately without credit, as the state gains from the tax revenue.And what difference does it matter who is running them? They are either correct or they are not, the evidence is either accurate or it is not.
Jasandjules said:
And what difference does it matter who is running them?
Is that a serious question?Jasandjules said:
They are either correct or they are not, the evidence is either accurate or it is not.
Not necessarily. It depends how the evidence is collected, whether the source is credible, qualified and accountable, and whether the context is clear.The obvious examples are the countless times certain segments of temperature data has been cherry-picked out and presented as evidence there has actually been no warming. You can't say it's inaccurate but it is extremely misleading, and therefore evidence of nothing more than a bias in whoever produced it.
If Durbster was a sceptic he might instead have written this:
durbster said:
<snip>
The obvious examples are the countless times certain segments of temperature data haves been cherry-picked out and presented as evidence there has actually been no warming. You can't say it's inaccurate butand it is extremely misleading, and therefore evidence of nothing more than a bias in whoever produced it.
The obvious examples are the countless times certain segments of temperature data have
jet_noise said:
If Durbster was a sceptic he might instead have written this:
Well no, because all the data sources show warming.durbster said:
<snip>
The obvious examples are the countless times certain segments of temperature data haves been cherry-picked out and presented as evidence there has actually been no warming. You can't say it's inaccurate butand it is extremely misleading, and therefore evidence of nothing more than a bias in whoever produced it.
The obvious examples are the countless times certain segments of temperature data have
durbster said:
jet_noise said:
If Durbster was a sceptic he might instead have written this:
Well no, because all the data sources show warming.durbster said:
<snip>
The obvious examples are the countless times certain segments of temperature data haves been cherry-picked out and presented as evidence there has actually been no warming. You can't say it's inaccurate butand it is extremely misleading, and therefore evidence of nothing more than a bias in whoever produced it.
The obvious examples are the countless times certain segments of temperature data have
jet_noise said:
durbster said:
Well no, because all the data sources show warming.
That's quite a depth of knowledge you're demonstrating there or a remarkable see-no-evil, some might say religious, closed-mindedness!
You don't need to take my word for it, you can go and look at the temperature data for yourself. There are multiple sources and it's all in the public domain and available online to view.
durbster said:
jet_noise said:
durbster said:
Well no, because all the data sources show warming.
That's quite a depth of knowledge you're demonstrating there or a remarkable see-no-evil, some might say religious, closed-mindedness!You don't need to take my word for it, you can go and look at the temperature data for yourself. There are multiple sources and it's all in the public domain and available online to view.
durbster said:
You don't need to take my word for it, you can go and look at the temperature data for yourself. There are multiple sources and it's all in the public domain and available online to view.
Otispunkmeyer said:
Has anyone watched DiCaprio's puff piece?
Does it show him on private yachts burning lots of fuel, then flying around the world on private jets burning lots of fuel, then attending large lavish luvvie fests with lots of people travelling to them using lots of fuel, then all the fuel used to light and heat the events? Or his large mansions which use lots of fuel. Basically, all the stuff that show he's just a hypocritical tw*t?!>Jasandjules said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
Has anyone watched DiCaprio's puff piece?
Does it show him on private yachts burning lots of fuel, then flying around the world on private jets burning lots of fuel, then attending large lavish luvvie fests with lots of people travelling to them using lots of fuel, then all the fuel used to light and heat the events? Or his large mansions which use lots of fuel. Basically, all the stuff that show he's just a hypocritical tw*t?!>Jazzy Jag said:
Jasandjules said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
Has anyone watched DiCaprio's puff piece?
Does it show him on private yachts burning lots of fuel, then flying around the world on private jets burning lots of fuel, then attending large lavish luvvie fests with lots of people travelling to them using lots of fuel, then all the fuel used to light and heat the events? Or his large mansions which use lots of fuel. Basically, all the stuff that show he's just a hypocritical tw*t?!>
I'm lovin' it.
Got it in one. Seen it posted on Facebook this morning. Gladly, many have seen right through it. It's not actually even showing anything new, just the same old guff about scientist this and scientists that. And DiCaprio standing in a puddle in the Arctic...like puddles shouldn't exist or something.
Dismal ratings for DiCaprio’s Global Warming Epic ‘Before the Flood’ – beaten by ‘Bubble Guppies’
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/01/dismal-rati...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/01/dismal-rati...
The Harrabin got a good run on BBC News yesterday - able to put out his message of CO2 = climate change at each mention of 'Client Earth's court victory over the Gov't regarding NO emissions.
Some good debates were had with the AA chappy and Client Earth's rep banging on about diesel cars. The AA bod kept repeating his facts (50% of all NO and NO2 due to lorries/buses/vans which are only 20% of all vehicles) but our ideologue was brazen in his wish to remove cars. Remove them. Now.
Anyone have a readout of the last seven days windmill electricity contribution?
Some good debates were had with the AA chappy and Client Earth's rep banging on about diesel cars. The AA bod kept repeating his facts (50% of all NO and NO2 due to lorries/buses/vans which are only 20% of all vehicles) but our ideologue was brazen in his wish to remove cars. Remove them. Now.
Anyone have a readout of the last seven days windmill electricity contribution?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff