Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[durbster]

clyffepypard said:

What threads I choose to read and reply to is my business, but implying I have multiple accounts really is tin-foil hat territory. He remains a pathetic troll, and it looks like you've joined him too with your BS.

Please explain how asking for evidence to back up an assertion be considered trolling?

[DapperDanMan]

clyffepypard said:

DapperDanMan said:

clyffepypard said:

durbster said:

clyffepypard said:

Yet again Dumboster shows what an utterly pathetic troll he is.

For your information, here's the Pistonheads policy on duplicate accounts:

Pistonheads said:

19. Do not create multiple profiles

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/rules.asp

What the hell are you on about you pathetic troll.

Well your profile history does show a predilection for the climate change threads to the exclusion of almost all others.

What threads I choose to read and reply to is my business, but implying I have multiple accounts really is tin-foil hat territory. He remains a pathetic troll, and it looks like you've joined him too with your BS.

Well I did some research and based on those observations I postulated a theory . You call it BS can you prove it?

Maybe you could fall back on the "null hypothesis" as so many on here do always a convenient get out.

[DocJock]

robinessex said:

durbster said:

DocJock said:

I realise that Durbster is posting unpopular opinions on this thread, but there really is no excuse for the childish name-calling. Grow up.

To be fair, it's all they have left.

Who had been labelling open minded, thinking persons here and elsewhere as deniers? You lot started it.

"You lot"? I am most definitely not on Durbster's side of the argument thank you. I also gave up on the 'he started it' excuse when I was about 8 years old.

I thought 'denier' and 'true believer' were accepted catch-all terms used by both 'sides'. Certainly a lot different to personal insults.

[clyffepypard]

DapperDanMan said:

clyffepypard said:

DapperDanMan said:

clyffepypard said:

durbster said:

clyffepypard said:

Yet again Dumboster shows what an utterly pathetic troll he is.

For your information, here's the Pistonheads policy on duplicate accounts:

Pistonheads said:

19. Do not create multiple profiles

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/rules.asp

What the hell are you on about you pathetic troll.

Well your profile history does show a predilection for the climate change threads to the exclusion of almost all others.

What threads I choose to read and reply to is my business, but implying I have multiple accounts really is tin-foil hat territory. He remains a pathetic troll, and it looks like you've joined him too with your BS.

Well I did some research and based on those observations I postulated a theory . You call it BS can you prove it?

Maybe you could fall back on the "null hypothesis" as so many on here do always a convenient get out.

I called BS on your trying to support the troll with his utterly wrong accusation that I somehow have multiple accounts. You're just as pathetic as he is.

[durbster]

DocJock said:

I thought 'denier' and 'true believer' were accepted catch-all terms used by both 'sides'. Certainly a lot different to personal insults.

But the deniers are also "believers" too so that distinction doesn't make sense.

We're all "believers"; the question is about who we choose to believe.

Those who reject AGW believe what Breitbart, animated YouTube characters and people on car forums tell them, whereas those who accept AGW believe what scientists qualified in all the relevant fields tell them.

[dickymint]

durbster said:

But the deniers are also "believers" too so that distinction doesn't make sense.

We're all "believers"; the question is about who we choose to believe.

Those who reject AGW believe what Breitbart, animated YouTube characters and people on car forums tell them, whereas those who accept AGW believe what scientists qualified in all the relevant fields tell them.

Absolute dribble FFS

[wc98]

DocJock said:

"You lot"? I am most definitely not on Durbster's side of the argument thank you. I also gave up on the 'he started it' excuse when I was about 8 years old.

I thought 'denier' and 'true believer' were accepted catch-all terms used by both 'sides'. Certainly a lot different to personal insults.

denier of what though ? i don't know anyone that denies the climate is changing or that the world has warmed slightly since the little ice age,so it is an interesting term. never had it used in a face to face situation while discussing climate change/global warming funnily enough.

durbs is just a bit peeved at the moment as he posted some "evidence" recently that confirmed that so called global warming is really arctic warming mixed with some regional warming and cooling. i think he is maybe colour blind and didn't realise the image he posted didn't back up his position like he thought it did.

[wc98]

durbster said:

But the deniers are also "believers" too so that distinction doesn't make sense.

We're all "believers"; the question is about who we choose to believe.

Those who reject AGW believe what Breitbart, animated YouTube characters and people on car forums tell them, whereas those who accept AGW believe what scientists qualified in all the relevant fields tell them.

there is no "who" to believe ,there is only physical evidence of which there is scant amount to support the catastrophic global warming position.
i keep saying it, but the amo is on the slide to the cool phase and it is going to get very interesting for those pushing the warming meme over the next decade or so.

[durbster]

wc98 said:

durbs is just a bit peeved at the moment as he posted some "evidence" recently that confirmed that so called global warming is really arctic warming mixed with some regional warming and cooling. i think he is maybe colour blind and didn't realise the image he posted didn't back up his position like he thought it did.

Peeved?

Haha! I hadn't even realised the graphic was still disputed - it quite obviously shows warming across the globe. The utter lack of objectivity continues to surprise.

[budgie smuggler]

wc98 said:

durbs is just a bit peeved at the moment as he posted some "evidence" recently that confirmed that so called global warming is really arctic warming mixed with some regional warming and cooling. i think he is maybe colour blind and didn't realise the image he posted didn't back up his position like he thought it did.

Well it certainly didn't back up the impression you presented. From what you said I thought the map would look like a close up of a pointillism painting with a red block at the top, rather than 80%+ of it showing warming.

[DibblyDobbler]

For what it is worth I find the 'denier' term mildy offensive as to me it echoes holocaust deniers who are beneath contempt.

I read a quote in the Guardian the other day where it said something along the lines of the UDP being homophobes, bigots and climate change deniers - is that how a good honest skeptic is to be seen?!

Surely a bit of skepticism is a healthy thing?

At least we are all interested enough to be debating it I suppose which is surely a good thing ...

[durbster]

DibblyDobbler said:

For what it is worth I find the 'denier' term mildy offensive

I do agree with that and I usually avoid using the term. Only the intended offence is intended.

[dickymint]

DibblyDobbler said:

For what it is worth I find the 'denier' term mildy offensive as to me it echoes holocaust deniers who are beneath contempt.

I read a quote in the Guardian the other day where it said something along the lines of the UDP being homophobes, bigots and climate change deniers - is that how a good honest skeptic is to be seen?!

Surely a bit of skepticism is a healthy thing?

At least we are all interested enough to be debating it I suppose which is surely a good thing ...

Highly offensive in my book and in the usual context of "climate change denier" a total lie that is used to to belittle people in front of an audience...... especially behind a keyboard;)

[mybrainhurts]

dickymint said:

durbster said:

But the deniers are also "believers" too so that distinction doesn't make sense.

We're all "believers"; the question is about who we choose to believe.

Those who reject AGW believe what Breitbart, animated YouTube characters and people on car forums tell them, whereas those who accept AGW believe what scientists qualified in all the relevant fields tell them.

Absolute dribble FFS

Here's a Youtube animated character to get durby frothing at the mouth. Some predications from the past...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpxGPZDB2fA

[durbster]

mybrainhurts said:

Here's a Youtube animated character to get durby frothing at the mouth. Some predications from the past...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpxGPZDB2fA

It's the same one, genius.

[mybrainhurts]

durbster said:

mybrainhurts said:

Here's a Youtube animated character to get durby frothing at the mouth. Some predications from the past...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpxGPZDB2fA

It's the same one, genius.

Same as what? I've been lost on the moors for a while.

PS...it was bloody cold, you might have sent me some global warming, you thoughtless git.

[mko9]

DibblyDobbler said:

For what it is worth I find the 'denier' term mildy offensive as to me it echoes holocaust deniers who are beneath contempt.

This. Which exactly why the term is used.

[mx-6]

Just thought I'd stick my neck into the thread, I see that it's business as usual - anyone who supports the scientific mainstream consensus and is at odds with the PH ideological right wing echo chamber view is branded a troll.

Durbster, it's a great effort to keep going here mate, hats off to you...

[turbobloke]

mx-6 said:

the scientific mainstream consensus

There isn't a scientific mainstream consensus, and science doesn't work by consensus anyway,

If you've dipped in and out of the thread previously, it's curious that you failed to notice.

All that durbster needs to do in order to get approval beyond your valiant support is to post a link to credible global climate data with a visible causal human signal. He/she can't, you can't. It doesn't exist.

[wc98]

DibblyDobbler said:

For what it is worth I find the 'denier' term mildy offensive as to me it echoes holocaust deniers who are beneath contempt.

I read a quote in the Guardian the other day where it said something along the lines of the UDP being homophobes, bigots and climate change deniers - is that how a good honest skeptic is to be seen?!

Surely a bit of skepticism is a healthy thing?

At least we are all interested enough to be debating it I suppose which is surely a good thing ...

i agree, that is why i relish the day someone uses it in a face to face situation