|
rovermorris999
1,811 posts
58 months
|
Let's hope we don't go over all the same old ground again. It gets rather wearing although I suppose that's the plan.
|
|
|
dickymint
11,406 posts
127 months
|
^^^ A tad unfair really. He's been posting on PH for about 3 years. I wouldn't expect anybody new to these threads to read them all prior to posting - that in itself would take weeks. Let's just see what happens.
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,494 posts
129 months
|
dickymint said: ^^^ A tad unfair really. He's been posting on PH for about 3 years. I wouldn't expect anybody new to these threads to read them all prior to posting - that in itself would take weeks. Let's just see what happens. You're right, but it's unfair all round when content repeated n times previously is repeated n+1 but the previous responses are ignored.
|
|
|
bigdog3
757 posts
49 months
|
Feel like an intruder who's dared to enter hallowed ground and spoken out of turn. Hope this closed shop doesn't demand closed minds. I'm not a warmist just a climate scientific skeptic - is that acceptable here? 
|
|
|
perdu
3,255 posts
68 months
|
Closed minds are decidedly unwelcome, open minds not.
Consider reading the other iterations of these Climate threads in here soon.
Too often we see new postings replicate others and invite unwelcome attrition loops.
Otherwise enjoy. Its my favourite place lately...
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
mybrainhurts
71,631 posts
124 months
|
bigdog3 said: I'm not a warmist just a climate scientific skeptic - is that acceptable here? Only if you spell it correctly...
|
|
|
bigdog3
757 posts
49 months
|
mybrainhurts said: Only if you spell it correctly...  skeptic (or sceptic) n. 1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions. 2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
|
|
|
DieselGriff
5,160 posts
128 months
|
bigdog3 said: skeptic (or sceptic) n. 1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions. 2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters. That it precisely what this thread is about (although on political issues surrounding CC, the scientific debate is in the Science! forum). However I have to say that for a sceptic you appear to be quite happy to repeat the Government sponsored dogma without question, have you researched the subject at all (other than reading the Guardian)?
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,494 posts
129 months
|
Climate realist. More apt and no spelling dilemma.
Leave the skeptic or sceptic and denier labels for those who deny data and doubt sound science. This always was one of the more obvious ironies in the mostly political and quasi-religious aspects of manmadeup warming.
|
|
|
DieselGriff
5,160 posts
128 months
|
I'm quite happy with the sceptic label TBH, whilst it is given with connotations of being sceptical of CC is general it tends to be given to those who are sceptical of the notion of AGW. Anyway although I don't (and can't) consider my self a scientist I strongly believe that a good scientist is always sceptical, especially of their own work, something sadly lacking in the alarmist arena. It's also saddening that potentially good science is being distorted by the AGW dogma, it seems the Richard Blacks of the world jump on any paper that mentions AGW even where that reference may just be included to justify their research to their paymasters. Look at Black's latest report on the Schmallenberg virus, it appears that the virus was only identified a few months ago but already there is a link to AGW, the suggestion being that midges will be numerous in a warmer world (despite the very similar malaria risk being debunked, the fact it's not really getting warmer and even if it was there is still no link to human co2 emissions). The "link" has again been made using computer models which have always been inadequate at best and downright dangerous at worst and the chances of these sheep and cattle existing in a world where we can't produce affordable energy is slim anyway making the whole article moot IMO.
|
|
|
Globs
11,749 posts
100 months
|
DieselGriff said: The "link" has again been made using computer models which have always been inadequate at best and downright dangerous at worst Computer models are the favourite for giving the political answer that the programmers want. Not a single one of the models balance even slightly, the energy in and energy out budget is so out of kilter that you can get the model to give you ever decreasing or ever increasing temperatures at the simple flick of a 'Fudge Factor Constant'. Believerville is in survival mode now so they will lie, invent and lobby for their religion until the death. Their main fear is of no one believing their pathetic lies any more, a situation I'm happy to say is fast approaching. Politically it's also useful to have two balls in play at once, distract some of the activist population with the AGW crap takes their energies off the current take-over of europe by the EU/ECB/ESM.
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,494 posts
129 months
|
DieselGriff said: ...I strongly believe that a good scientist is always sceptical, especially of their own work, something sadly lacking in the alarmist arena... Quite right on all points.
|
|
|
nelly1
4,922 posts
100 months
|
DieselGriff said: OK then... Article said: Climate change IS raising the risk of diseases such as Schmallenberg in the UK and northern Europe, say scientists.
Schmallenberg virus affects sheep and cattle, and is probably carried by midges. It was identified in Germany last year, and in the UK in January.
Experts say the path of Schmallenberg is currently impossible to predict.
But the path is very hard to predict as so little is known about a virus that was only identified a few months ago.
"We don't know." So that's nice and clear-cut then 
|
|
|
Gene Vincent
4,002 posts
27 months
|
This 'Black' chap starts from a dodgy premise and then compounds the idea. bad journalism.
As the midges move from the poorer areas of Europe and most importantly the population remains the same it means that areas that are poor suffer the consequences less, so there is a net real benefit, the disease enters a wealthy area and is thus more likely to be wiped out and the poorer parts of the planet are left alone, we then virtually wipe it and we all benefit, a positive for 'climate change', it's not a negative... unless you dress it up as such.
|
|
|
bigdog3
757 posts
49 months
|
DieselGriff said: However I have to say that for a sceptic you appear to be quite happy to repeat the Government sponsored dogma without question, have you researched the subject at all (other than reading the Guardian)? Oh b  h - no wrong again, I don't read or value the Guardian, nor am I a rabid greenie or even a socialist. This thread is remarkable - I've even been accused of making a "Dramatic statement!" in a sentence which contained the words "...likely to promote"
|
|
|
Globs
11,749 posts
100 months
|
bigdog3 said: I've even been accused of making a "Dramatic statement!" in a sentence which contained the words "...likely to promote"Likely is a loaded word that has statistical significance, that's why you were called on that. It's likely that you'll no understand why the word 'likely' has a certain meaning so look it up in a dictionary.
|
|
|
DieselGriff
5,160 posts
128 months
|
bigdog3 said: DieselGriff said: However I have to say that for a sceptic you appear to be quite happy to repeat the Government sponsored dogma without question, have you researched the subject at all (other than reading the Guardian)? Oh b h - no wrong again, I don't read or value the Guardian, nor am I a rabid greenie or even a socialist. This thread is remarkable - I've even been accused of making a "Dramatic statement!" in a sentence which contained the words "...likely to promote" I simply asked if you had researched (ie looked into the subject at a greater depth than the MSM feeds) the subject. No where have I suggested you were rabid in any sense of the word just noted (politely I thought) that your views as posted here were typical of those postulated by our left wing MSM and as such was going to suggest some other places you could use to broaden your outlook on the subject. In no way was this meant to be antagonistic but you seem very quick to defend your POV despite the fact it was never under attack (at least from me).
|
|
|
Apache
38,248 posts
153 months
|
wow, hostile crowd today or what
|
|
|
Guam
15,437 posts
137 months
|
Apache said: wow, hostile crowd today or what Quite, dial it back a bit guys or the Mod stamping boots will have to come out lol Calm Down Dears its only a Myth 
|
|
|
chris watton
12,375 posts
129 months
|
|
