Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not!
Discussion
CamMoreRon said:
sidicks said:
You have repeatedly been directed to the CC / MWGW threads, where there is plenty of information available to explain why your position simply doesn't stack up, yet you are conspicuous by your absence!
Unfortunately it appears that, as with most subjects you post on, you have minimal technical understanding and you simply choose to believe the headlines you read in the paper (providing that they tie up with your political prejudices), and are unwilling to actually bother to educate yourself on these topics.
Yep, and I don't want to contribute to either of them because it's full of utter drivel, and anyone with even a hint of scientific background to defend against the attacks of non-science denialist bulls**t was banned long ago. A one-sided debate moderated by people with an agenda is not one I want to contribute to.Unfortunately it appears that, as with most subjects you post on, you have minimal technical understanding and you simply choose to believe the headlines you read in the paper (providing that they tie up with your political prejudices), and are unwilling to actually bother to educate yourself on these topics.
Not that I even want to discuss it here, mind. I only am because people have engaged me directly.
Sidney, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about WRT AGW, so I think you're in no position to tell me I have no understanding. At least my background is actually in science, rather than a banker w**ker..
Something realistic other than utter drivel of go renewable energies... Why not work out a new way to create cement? That alone is a huge carbon producer.
CamMoreRon said:
It's moderately amusing how posters are willing to divert a topic to wherever they please when the diversion suits their agenda, and very quick to complain when it doesn't. 
Agreed, so why don't you answer my question about China & India, or do you not understand what I mean, I can try and explain in a different way if it helps?CamMoreRon said:
Yep, and I don't want to contribute to either of them because it's full of utter drivel, and anyone with even a hint of scientific background to defend against the attacks of non-science denialist bulls**t was banned long ago. A one-sided debate moderated by people with an agenda is not one I want to contribute to.
And so the fiasco that is CamMoreRon continues!CamMoreRon said:
Sidney, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about WRT AGW, so I think you're in no position to tell me I have no understanding. At least my background is actually in science, rather than a banker w**ker..
My guessing is that I have a better scientific background than you - what are your qualifications? I thought you did an engineering degree?And still you resort to offensive insults and name calling. How childish. But it confirms most people's opinion of you - a typical immature individual, plenty of opinions but nothing to back them up.
Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 17th December 16:56
CamMoreRon said:
I don't want to contribute to either of them because it's full of utter drivel, and anyone with even a hint of scientific background to defend against the attacks of non-science denialist bulls**t was banned long ago. A one-sided debate moderated by people with an agenda is not one I want to contribute to.
WTF are you wibbling about, there's an active Climate Politics thread in NP&E which receives informed contributions from all perspectives so ought to be ideal for those like you who have no clue on the science or engineering aspects of climate matters and still believe in various myths. It's hardly a crime.Those of us who are scientists or engineers or mathematicians/statisticians and informed arts folk too aim to stick to politics as far as possible, though there has to be a mention of science from time to time when politicians get it so wrong by listening to uninformed zealots and parroting complete nonscience.
Unlike the narrow licence of CIF and similar where non-believer posts are deleted and contributors banned for mere heresy against doctrine, moderation isn't about viewpoint as you wrongly allege, just stick to the rules of posting and all will be well. Head on over and post up any of your preferred Green Party myths that haven't already been completely dismantled in this thread.
CamMoreRon said:
BGARK said:
Agreed, so why don't you answer my question about China & India, or do you not understand what I mean, I can try and explain in a different way if it helps?
Pretty sure I already gave you an answer, actually..If you really cared about the planet (I do) you would be obsessing over this far more than what is happening on our little island.
Scuffers said:
Whilst we are asking for answers, can I have one to how we generate 55Gw of electricity and replace 850Twh of gas PA please?
I too would like an answer to that from our green friend, a very simple yet vital question.Also is this thing correct: http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
sidicks said:
I'm very keen to learn his scientific credentials...!
I believe that he/she/it is just another in a long line of Walter Mitty type's that clog up the arteries of many decent threads with their own overblown self-importance. I don't believe a single word they type, so usually take no notice of the hackneyed crud they write.As has been mentioned before, cretins like that are screaming out for an 'Ignore' function on here.
chris watton said:
I believe that he/she/it is just another in a long line of Walter Mitty type's that clog up the arteries of many decent threads with their own overblown self-importance. I don't believe a single word they type, so usually take no notice of the hackneyed crud they write.
As has been mentioned before, cretins like that are screaming out for an 'Ignore' function on here.
He's certainly gone quiet for now, but to be fair he could just be busy tonight - let's see tomorrow if he posts up his impressive 'scientific credentials' or whether he ignores this thread and posts elsewhere...As has been mentioned before, cretins like that are screaming out for an 'Ignore' function on here.
NicD said:
NoNeed said:
I have not had an answer on why you want to subsidise the rich.
That seems a rather poor consequence of being 'right on', but perhaps not unintended.It appear that after a few days of trying I will not get an answer from him.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff