Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[Ali G]

jjlynn27 said:

Ali G said:

jjlynn27 said:

Ali G said:

jjlynn27 said:

I read this thread from time to time, and it's always the same, durbster and PN destroying conspiracy nutjobs.

Have to say, after reading this, gonna check the share price for Priory group, they are bound to go up.

PPE or highers in Beckham studies?

Orders of magnitude better educated than you. Which, given, is pretty much anyone. Am I right, or am I right?

Keep digging - you're heading the right way to Oz!

No digging, laughing and pointing. At least, you should understand the difference.


Now, tell me about your last homoeopathy session. Or chemtrails. Or any other conspiracy (I'm not really that picky, I enjoy them all equally).

Once heard about this chap called jjlynn27 with an obsessive tendency towards all matters concerning conspiracy theories but with so little grasp of reality that all that he could do was to point, gurgle and dribble.

[turbobloke]

It's getting hot in here, must be global warming.

[jjlynn27]

Ali G said:

Once heard about this chap called jjlynn27 with an obsessive tendency towards all matters concerning conspiracy theories but with so little grasp of reality that all that he could do was to point, gurgle and dribble.

Do you expect any other reaction to any of your posts?

[Ali G]

jjlynn27 said:

Ali G said:

Once heard about this chap called jjlynn27 with an obsessive tendency towards all matters concerning conspiracy theories but with so little grasp of reality that all that he could do was to point, gurgle and dribble.

Do you expect any other reaction to any of your posts?

Do you have a grasp of reality?

Apparently not as per your contributions which amount to little more than spamming!

It was a quite spectacular contribution combining both sly dig at intellectual ability and tin-foil hattered nutiness - so well done on that front!



Hey, ho carry on - lets not pollute the thread any further - and that means you.

[gadgetmac]

turbobloke said:

It's getting hot in here, must be global warming.

Honest question: if pressed to answer is it GW you don't believe or is it MMGW or is it both?

Thanks.

[Ali G]

The 'C' in the CAGW is nonesense - there may be some 'A' but there will always be GW (and GC), Greenpeas, charlatans, the gullible and money to be scammed.

[gadgetmac]

By CAGW I assume you mean Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming?

So you think there may be some AGW but not Catastrophic AGW?

What does turbobloke think?

[Ali G]

There may be some 'A' in the AGW - which may be too small to measure.

The science, however, has been settled by politicians.

Which is of concern!

[turbobloke]

There's no permanent dangerous W and no measurable A element; sound science offers only an I and T D in C, but politics gives us T A and X.

[Ali G]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

1/10

Doesn’t even rhyme ffs

Rapping, not rhyming.

Get with the beat!

[mybrainhurts]

cookie118 said:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/zahrahirji/how-climate-my...

Interesting...

"These are the kind of non-stories that get picked on by the organized denialists and twisted beyond recognition.”

The irony is strong in this load of hypocrisy.

[durbster]

Jinx said:

durbster said:

That's the best you have?

(hint: that's not science)

QED

Okey dokey. I think we can assume this means you have nothing.

Oh well, at least you avoided the strategy of others, that is: writing some "sciencey" blurb while citing papers that make you seem authoritative - but don't actually support your position - and hoping nobody will bother to check.

[Ali G]

durbster said:

Okey dokey. I think we can assume this means you have nothing.

Oh well, at least you avoided the strategy of others, that is: writing some "sciencey" blurb while citing papers that make you seem authoritative - but don't actually support your position - and hoping nobody will bother to check.

Do you blag professionally, or is it a hobby?

[Jinx]

durbster said:

Okey dokey. I think we can assume this means you have nothing.

Oh well, at least you avoided the strategy of others, that is: writing some "sciencey" blurb while citing papers that make you seem authoritative - but don't actually support your position - and hoping nobody will bother to check.

Durbs I really struggle to spell things out to you as with just a little less hubris you may not be a totally lost cause. Your comment was "that is not science" at my many examples of actual spurious correlations (they are all real) . The inference being that the trivial CO2 to global average temperate correlation (which has a worse correlation factor than the many examples) is not science. Hence the QED. We call this a witty rejoinder.
I do not require "sciencey blurb" to see the flaws in the current understanding of CAGW - the big hole in the understanding is in a glass on my desk - it is the governor, the reason life exists on this planet and the reason there is no run away warming.

[turbobloke]

Not only is the correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperature weak, the correlation with solar eruptivity and temperature is very strong, and more importantly causality is not violated as it is with carbon dioxide where the temperature changes occur first (so carbon dioxide cannot be the cause, events happen the wrong way round). Are we really still looping this attrition loop courtesy of true belief?!

[mybrainhurts]

Ali G said:

durbster said:

Okey dokey. I think we can assume this means you have nothing.

Oh well, at least you avoided the strategy of others, that is: writing some "sciencey" blurb while citing papers that make you seem authoritative - but don't actually support your position - and hoping nobody will bother to check.

Do you blag professionally, or is it a hobby?

He puts an enormous amount of time and energy into his zealotry. Somebody must be funding him. Unless he's permanently on the bog.

[durbster]

Jinx said:

Durbs I really struggle to spell things out to you as with just a little less hubris you may not be a totally lost cause. Your comment was "that is not science" at my many examples of actual spurious correlations (they are all real) . The inference being that the trivial CO2 to global average temperate correlation (which has a worse correlation factor than the many examples) is not science. Hence the QED. We call this a witty rejoinder.
I do not require "sciencey blurb" to see the flaws in the current understanding of CAGW - the big hole in the understanding is in a glass on my desk - it is the governor, the reason life exists on this planet and the reason there is no run away warming.

But you're still avoiding the request. I showed you the science that supports my position, now I'm asking you for some science to support yours.

There's plenty of science that shows why an increase in CO2 will cause global warming. I'm asking you to show the research that shows why an increase in CO2 would not cause global warming.

You don't disprove a scientific theory by complaining about it on the internet. You disprove it with better science.

Edited by durbster on Friday 6th October 13:14

[XM5ER]

durbster said:

But you're still avoiding the request. I showed you the science that supports my position, now I'm asking you for some science to support yours.

There's plenty of science that shows why an increase in CO2 will cause global warming. I'm asking you to show the research that shows why an increase in CO2 would not cause global warming.

You don't disprove a scientific theory by complaining about it on the internet. You disprove it with better science.

Edited by durbster on Friday 6th October 13:14

You really don't "get" how science works do you Durbs.

[durbster]

XM5ER said:

You really don't "get" how science works do you Durbs.

"You really don't "get" how science works do you NASA."

[Jinx]

durbster said:

But you're still avoiding the request. I showed you the science that supports my position, now I'm asking you for some science to support yours.

There's plenty of science that shows why an increase in CO2 will cause global warming. I'm asking you to show the research that shows why an increase in CO2 would not cause global warming.

You don't disprove a scientific theory by complaining about it on the internet. You disprove it with better science.

Edited by durbster on Friday 6th October 13:14

No you showed assertion and summaries that supported the position - that you can't see that because it was hosted on a "science" website is an indication of your own prowess at critical thinking. Read the Royal Society's link again this time look for science and not assertion based on "we know" - science starts with "it has been shown" e.g. it has been shown that the climate models have little skill or it has been shown that by increasing temperatures the oceans release CO2.
It has been shown that our current understanding of the Earth's atmospheric processes does not support the CAGW meme (IPCC AR5 - the science bit not the wildly inaccurate "summary for policy makers" ). It has also been shown that AGW can not be linked to extreme weather events (IPCC AR5 again). It has also been shown that the proposals in the Paris accords will do nothing to reduce CO2 and do nothing to reduce AGW (Prof Richard Tol).
So can you point out the experiments that show within an atmosphere including H2O at triple point adding additional CO2 (above local levels) in ppm levels will increase the temperature - all other things being equal?