Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
1 2 ... 210 211
213 214 ... 501 502
TOPIC CLOSED
Author Discussion

rovermorris999

2,778 posts

77 months

[news] 
Friday 2nd March 2012 quote quote all
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

12,226 posts

146 months

[news] 
Friday 2nd March 2012 quote quote all
^^^ 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

63,245 posts

148 months

[news] 
Friday 2nd March 2012 quote quote all
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

779 posts

68 months

[news] 
Friday 2nd March 2012 quote quote all
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? whistle

perdu

4,034 posts

87 months

[news] 
Friday 2nd March 2012 quote quote all
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

78,680 posts

143 months

[news] 
Friday 2nd March 2012 quote quote all
bigdog3 said:
I'm not a warmist just a climate scientific skeptic - is that acceptable here? whistle
Only if you spell it correctly...

bigdog3

779 posts

68 months

[news] 
Friday 2nd March 2012 quote quote all
mybrainhurts said:
Only if you spell it correctly...
biglaugh

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

147 months

[news] 
Saturday 3rd March 2012 quote quote all
bigdog3 said:
biglaugh

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

63,245 posts

148 months

[news] 
Saturday 3rd March 2012 quote quote all
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

147 months

[news] 
Saturday 3rd March 2012 quote quote all
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

13,131 posts

119 months

[news] 
Saturday 3rd March 2012 quote quote all
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

63,245 posts

148 months

[news] 
Saturday 3rd March 2012 quote quote all
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

5,246 posts

119 months

[news] 
Saturday 3rd March 2012 quote quote all
DieselGriff said:
Look at Black's latest report on the Schmallenberg virus...
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 rolleyes

Gene Vincent

4,002 posts

46 months

[news] 
Saturday 3rd March 2012 quote quote all
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

779 posts

68 months

[news] 
Saturday 3rd March 2012 quote quote all
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 bh - 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"silly

Globs

13,131 posts

119 months

[news] 
Saturday 3rd March 2012 quote quote all
bigdog3 said:
I've even been accused of making a "Dramatic statement!" in a sentence which contained the words "...likely to promote"silly
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

147 months

[news] 
Saturday 3rd March 2012 quote quote all
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 bh - 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"silly
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

38,975 posts

172 months

[news] 
Saturday 3rd March 2012 quote quote all
wow, hostile crowd today or what

Guam

22,460 posts

156 months

[news] 
Saturday 3rd March 2012 quote quote all
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 smile

chris watton

16,224 posts

148 months

[news] 
Saturday 3rd March 2012 quote quote all
Yet another great read from Pointman's blog:

http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/the-cl...

"The Climate Wars."
1 2 ... 210 211
213 214 ... 501 502
TOPIC CLOSED