Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
LoonyTunes said:
This from someone who sides with those who claim to know better than scientists and the current scientific consensus. Who misrepresent what scientists and others say and are told so by more than one scientist. Who also claim to know more than people who actually make a living in the renewables field and pilots who land at Heathrow.
That's a BIG fail.
Added 'on topics'
Edited by With This Staff on Friday 31st August 19:55
With This Staff said:
LoonyTunes said:
This from someone who sides with those who claim to know better than scientists and the current scientific consensus. Who misrepresent what scientists and others say and are told so by more than one scientist. Who also claim to know more than people who actually make a living in the renewables field and pilots who land at Heathrow.
That's a BIG fail.
Which previously banned poster are you?gadgetmac said:
With This Staff said:
LoonyTunes said:
This from someone who sides with those who claim to know better than scientists and the current scientific consensus. Who misrepresent what scientists and others say and are told so by more than one scientist. Who also claim to know more than people who actually make a living in the renewables field and pilots who land at Heathrow.
That's a BIG fail.
Which previously banned poster are you?
LoonyTunes said:
Diderot said:
I find it alarming that anyone with a modicum of intellect wouldn’t take the opportunity to actually read, first hand, something they purport to believe in, at the very least to verify that it says what they have been told it says. It speaks volumes that you simply swallow this stuff uncritically and unquestioningly, and you chose instead to simply *believe*. The problem is that the actual data doesn’t demonstrate what you have been told it does and the entire premise of your blind faith has been constructed on the fantastical outputs of fundamentally flawed models. you sir are the denier: a denier of evidence, data and reality. A useful idiot indeed and your religion needs plenty of those.
This from someone who sides with those who claim to know better than scientists and the current scientific consensus. Who misrepresent what scientists and others say and are told so by more than one scientist. Who also claim to know more than people who actually make a living in the renewables field and pilots who land at Heathrow.
I don’t side with anyone on the basis of blind faith and ignorance. I have not been indoctrinated or inculcated; I simply try to examine all the evidence and make up my own mind. Do some research!
"It all started with a statement by the Chief Executive (CE) and two reports that made it clear that RSNZ supported the belief that man-made global warming was real and dangerous and urgent action was essential. The NZCSC asked RSNZ to provide convincing evidence based on observational data that supported this belief. The Royal Society were unable to do so and passed the query on to Prof James Renwick who has close links with the IPCC. He too was unable to provide the requested evidence. It seems that the evidence does not exist."
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2018/09/guest_post_brya...
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2018/09/guest_post_brya...
Diderot said:
I don’t side with anyone on the basis of blind faith and ignorance. I have not been indoctrinated or inculcated; I simply try to examine all the evidence and make up my own mind. Do some research!
That’s simply not true.You guys blindly follow turbobloke and refuse to accept that he posts blagging doctored data all the time.
Even when one of your team posts complete nonsense about the BBC or climate change being used for population controll you all keep quiet. You only ever respond if someone posts something against your ideologically influenced position.
If you were basing your views on facts, there’s no way you'd be adopting the stance you do.
LoonyTunes said:
gadgetmac said:
With This Staff said:
LoonyTunes said:
This from someone who sides with those who claim to know better than scientists and the current scientific consensus. Who misrepresent what scientists and others say and are told so by more than one scientist. Who also claim to know more than people who actually make a living in the renewables field and pilots who land at Heathrow.
That's a BIG fail.
Which previously banned poster are you?Been here since PetrolTed was in charge and this was a TVR site.
With This Staff said:
Ali G! I thought you’d flounced off?
Big Green 2 Big Oil 1
That’s the latest score in tens of $millions (rounded down) in current election cycle USA spending.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/31/big-green-envir...
That’s the latest score in tens of $millions (rounded down) in current election cycle USA spending.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/31/big-green-envir...
El stovey said:
With This Staff said:
Ali G! I thought you’d flounced off?
Like my pofile?
With This Staff said:
From the taxpayers alliance circa 2007.
https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/the_case_against...
I had always assumed the taxes had little to do with the social cost and much more to do with changing behaviours, a bit like tobacco and alcohol taxes.https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/the_case_against...
Extract from conclusion said:
Overall, comparing an average of official and academic estimates of the social costs of the UK’s entire output of CO2 emissions with the revenue raised from green taxes and charges (excluding Air Passenger Duty and net of road spending), environmental levies are already £10.2 billion in excess of the level they need to be to cover these social costs. This excess is equivalent to over £400 for each household in Britain. Green taxes are therefore already too high unless they are seen simply as revenue-raising measures.
Countdown said:
With This Staff said:
From the taxpayers alliance circa 2007.
https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/the_case_against...
I had always assumed the taxes had little to do with the social cost and much more to do with changing behaviours, a bit like tobacco and alcohol taxes.https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/the_case_against...
Extract from conclusion said:
Overall, comparing an average of official and academic estimates of the social costs of the UK’s entire output of CO2 emissions with the revenue raised from green taxes and charges (excluding Air Passenger Duty and net of road spending), environmental levies are already £10.2 billion in excess of the level they need to be to cover these social costs. This excess is equivalent to over £400 for each household in Britain. Green taxes are therefore already too high unless they are seen simply as revenue-raising measures.
If there's no social benefit and the tax 'cost' far exceeds the relevant environmental price as above, what purpose as opposed to zero beneit is there to controlling behaviour in this way? Are you referring to the European Commission DG XI Directorate statement "all decision makers at the local, regional, national and European levels are urged to play their part in changing our culture of mobility" ?
With This Staff said:
El stovey said:
With This Staff said:
Ali G! I thought you’d flounced off?
Like my pofile?
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
I don’t side with anyone on the basis of blind faith and ignorance. I have not been indoctrinated or inculcated; I simply try to examine all the evidence and make up my own mind. Do some research!
That’s simply not true.You guys blindly follow turbobloke and refuse to accept that he posts blagging doctored data all the time.
Even when one of your team posts complete nonsense about the BBC or climate change being used for population controll you all keep quiet. You only ever respond if someone posts something against your ideologically influenced position.
If you were basing your views on facts, there’s no way you'd be adopting the stance you do.
The BBC are supporters of MMCC, and push it at ever opportunity,even if what they say is incorrect, global warming leads to more storms, the data said no,
Have a read of who attended a meeting to decide on future climate change policy at the BBC, the BBC stated before that they meeting was attended by leading scientists.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537886/BB...
The BBC spent a awful lot of money to keep the attendees secret, why do you think that was?
PRTVR said:
It is true, you just choose not to believe it, over many years I have read many papers to do climate change, I can find nothing to support the hypothesis, I have found things that should not be happening in an branch of science (starting with climategate)
The BBC are supporters of MMCC, and push it at ever opportunity,even if what they say is incorrect, global warming leads to more storms, the data said no,
Have a read of who attended a meeting to decide on future climate change policy at the BBC, the BBC stated before that they meeting was attended by leading scientists.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537886/BB...
The BBC spent a awful lot of money to keep the attendees secret, why do you think that was?
wasting your time. there is a perfect example in the last few pages that is directly opposite to what he claims re "blindly following tb". i personally think the majority of the "data" used is not fit for purpose. this is either due to data sets not being compiled consistently with the same methods or the short length of the data sets along with the fact that excessive and varying "mathturbation" that includes a large amount of subjectivity is used. this includes the satellite data ,both sets,rss and uah. The BBC are supporters of MMCC, and push it at ever opportunity,even if what they say is incorrect, global warming leads to more storms, the data said no,
Have a read of who attended a meeting to decide on future climate change policy at the BBC, the BBC stated before that they meeting was attended by leading scientists.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537886/BB...
The BBC spent a awful lot of money to keep the attendees secret, why do you think that was?
i believe tb is quite happy to use satellite data to support his position. i don't have a problem with that, certainly won't be calling him a denier etc any time soon ,but disagree on it's veracity.
i doubt in reality that es holds a strong position either way on mmgw, i suspect that in the past tb posted something or replied to a post of his that was taken as a slight and now takes every opportunity to have a go at tb. it certainly looks like that to me. of course i may be wrong and it may just be his pilot training that prevents holding an opinion that deviates from that of experts. understandable as that would be dangerous when flying aircraft,right up to the point computer says no,pilot has to think,then flys aircraft into the atlantic when the only problem was a frozen pitot head ala air france 447.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff