Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
LongQ said:
For balance, here's more on Weaver, the scientist turned politician.
Just an opinion piece of course.
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/with-his-antics-th...
Perhaps Weaver's suit against Ball was at no cost to Weaver who, surely, as a younger Professor, should have been able to recognise that the court would spot that Ball's apparent attack would not be considered libellous. Does he not have that competence of judgement? Or was it worth it for raising his local profile in BC as he moved towards a more political approach to making his mark - one that perhaps, as with politics in general, relies less on competence and more on political wrangling and a survival at any cost instinct.
As the leader of the Green Party locally one might wonder about his ability to stay scientifically objective. Presumably he can feel comfortable enough of his ability to persuade people that he is.
That’s not really damning of Weaver though is it. He merely wasted his efforts with the lawsuit when it was clear he was dealing with a fool. So it brings no balance to the credibility weighting when measured against both an “idiot and a creationist” - and the latter implies the former anyway.Just an opinion piece of course.
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/with-his-antics-th...
Perhaps Weaver's suit against Ball was at no cost to Weaver who, surely, as a younger Professor, should have been able to recognise that the court would spot that Ball's apparent attack would not be considered libellous. Does he not have that competence of judgement? Or was it worth it for raising his local profile in BC as he moved towards a more political approach to making his mark - one that perhaps, as with politics in general, relies less on competence and more on political wrangling and a survival at any cost instinct.
As the leader of the Green Party locally one might wonder about his ability to stay scientifically objective. Presumably he can feel comfortable enough of his ability to persuade people that he is.
Even so, I’d certainly read the same slant on Agenda 21 from somebody less tainted.
The floor is open.
gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
I can’t be arsed to quote some of the above responses to Agenda 21 
And yet you’ll freely quote the blog of a creationist as evidence of an active worldwide conspiracy. A person who even the courts have decided is effectively an idiot.Have you got the same take on this but from somebody with a more credible status.
I’m not even saying he’s wrong more that he’s whats deemed an unreliable witness.
Like a book, I always look to see who’s written it before I buy it. I have no David Icke books in my library
Do you or do you not not deny the existence of Agenda 21 and the fact that it affects our daily lives at a local level? YES or NO?
References to David Icke or anybody else that I have NOT mentioned are totally irrelevant... YES or NO?
Have you even bothered to check your local council?
dickymint said:
Do you or do you not not deny the existence of Agenda 21 and the fact that it affects our daily lives at a local level? YES or NO?
References to David Icke or anybody else that I have NOT mentioned are totally irrelevant... YES or NO?
Have you even bothered to check your local council?
1. Agenda 21 exists, its not exactly hidden.
It’s the conspiritorial interpretation that “The entire policy of using anthropogenic global warming as a false front to implement global governance” that’s, er, hard to swallow.
2. “Have you even bothered to check your local council?”
No, it’s barely 4 hours since you posted that on a Sunday on the hottest day of the year and working for living I only get a day a week off to relax and you’re screaming “having you even bothered to check your local council?”Get a grip.
Here's a quick Google of my County Council and Agenda 21...................
http://www.monmouthshire.gov.uk/app/uploads/2013/0...
Do a control F of Agenda 21
Now try your own Council
PS. what the f
k has David Icke got to do with my posts?
http://www.monmouthshire.gov.uk/app/uploads/2013/0...
Do a control F of Agenda 21
Now try your own Council
PS. what the f
k has David Icke got to do with my posts?dickymint said:
Here's a quick Google of my County Council and Agenda 21...................
http://www.monmouthshire.gov.uk/app/uploads/2013/0...
Do a control F of Agenda 21
Now try your own Council
PS. what the fk has David Icke got to do with my posts?
They’re both fruit loops on some issues.http://www.monmouthshire.gov.uk/app/uploads/2013/0...
Do a control F of Agenda 21
Now try your own Council
PS. what the f
k has David Icke got to do with my posts?gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
Do you or do you not not deny the existence of Agenda 21 and the fact that it affects our daily lives at a local level? YES or NO?
References to David Icke or anybody else that I have NOT mentioned are totally irrelevant... YES or NO?
Have you even bothered to check your local council?
1. Agenda 21 exists, its not exactly hidden.
It’s the conspiritorial interpretation that “The entire policy of using anthropogenic global warming as a false front to implement global governance” that’s, er, hard to swallow.
2. “Have you even bothered to check your local council?”
No, it’s barely 4 hours since you posted that on a Sunday on the hottest day of the year and working for living I only get a day a week off to relax and you’re screaming “having you even bothered to check your local council?”Get a grip.
So yeh even in this heat i have a grip ...... chill out
Edited by dickymint on Sunday 8th July 18:21
dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
Do you or do you not not deny the existence of Agenda 21 and the fact that it affects our daily lives at a local level? YES or NO?
References to David Icke or anybody else that I have NOT mentioned are totally irrelevant... YES or NO?
Have you even bothered to check your local council?
1. Agenda 21 exists, its not exactly hidden.
It’s the conspiritorial interpretation that “The entire policy of using anthropogenic global warming as a false front to implement global governance” that’s, er, hard to swallow.
2. “Have you even bothered to check your local council?”
No, it’s barely 4 hours since you posted that on a Sunday on the hottest day of the year and working for living I only get a day a week off to relax and you’re screaming “having you even bothered to check your local council?”Get a grip.
Will searching my local councils website for 30 minutes supply unequivocal proof that they’re out to get me...or at the very least control me and the rest of the world?
I fecking doubt it.
gadgetmac said:
LongQ said:
For balance, here's more on Weaver, the scientist turned politician.
Just an opinion piece of course.
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/with-his-antics-th...
Perhaps Weaver's suit against Ball was at no cost to Weaver who, surely, as a younger Professor, should have been able to recognise that the court would spot that Ball's apparent attack would not be considered libellous. Does he not have that competence of judgement? Or was it worth it for raising his local profile in BC as he moved towards a more political approach to making his mark - one that perhaps, as with politics in general, relies less on competence and more on political wrangling and a survival at any cost instinct.
As the leader of the Green Party locally one might wonder about his ability to stay scientifically objective. Presumably he can feel comfortable enough of his ability to persuade people that he is.
That’s not really damning of Weaver though is it. He merely wasted his efforts with the lawsuit when it was clear he was dealing with a fool. So it brings no balance to the credibility weighting when measured against both an “idiot and a creationist” - and the latter implies the former anyway.Just an opinion piece of course.
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/with-his-antics-th...
Perhaps Weaver's suit against Ball was at no cost to Weaver who, surely, as a younger Professor, should have been able to recognise that the court would spot that Ball's apparent attack would not be considered libellous. Does he not have that competence of judgement? Or was it worth it for raising his local profile in BC as he moved towards a more political approach to making his mark - one that perhaps, as with politics in general, relies less on competence and more on political wrangling and a survival at any cost instinct.
As the leader of the Green Party locally one might wonder about his ability to stay scientifically objective. Presumably he can feel comfortable enough of his ability to persuade people that he is.
Even so, I’d certainly read the same slant on Agenda 21 from somebody less tainted.
The floor is open.
Your preferential bias precedes you. Not worth the effort to attempt any nitty gritty discussions about.
I'm pretty sure the Weaver stuff was discussed over on the Science thread when he was a scientist. No point in covering it again here, though now he is a politician it may be worth keeping an eye on his political development.
gadgetmac said:
What concerns me is that of all of the thousands of denier scientsts there appaently are the ones that are quoted appear to be at least half-loon with their other beliefs.
They should stick to quoting the ones whom a simple google search can’t throw up anything at all ‘quacky’ about.
Simple scientists with no beef or agenda or financial misgivings in the background will be fine.
And the posters that quote them all appear nut jobs too. They should stick to quoting the ones whom a simple google search can’t throw up anything at all ‘quacky’ about.
Simple scientists with no beef or agenda or financial misgivings in the background will be fine.
PHs is full of scientists and people with a scientific background but oddly none of them are here exposing the biggest fraud in the history of science.
LongQ said:
No point in leaving the floor open - or is that a trap door?
Your preferential bias precedes you.
So does yours - who's on here doesn't?Your preferential bias precedes you.
LongQ said:
I'm pretty sure the Weaver stuff was discussed over on the Science thread when he was a scientist. No point in covering it again here, though now he is a politician it may be worth keeping an eye on his political development.
I don't think he was talking about Weaver, he was questioning Ball's credibility. Weaver was simply the the man on the other side of the fence in that instance. To deflect to Weaver would sound a strawman alert.El stovey said:
gadgetmac said:
What concerns me is that of all of the thousands of denier scientsts there appaently are the ones that are quoted appear to be at least half-loon with their other beliefs.
They should stick to quoting the ones whom a simple google search can’t throw up anything at all ‘quacky’ about.
Simple scientists with no beef or agenda or financial misgivings in the background will be fine.
And the posters that quote them all appear nut jobs too. They should stick to quoting the ones whom a simple google search can’t throw up anything at all ‘quacky’ about.
Simple scientists with no beef or agenda or financial misgivings in the background will be fine.
PHs is full of scientists and people with a scientific background but oddly none of them are here exposing the biggest fraud in the history of science.
https://judithcurry.com/
A fully fledged denier as labeled by CAGW nutjobs.
Ali G said:
You found one!Fantastic.
Here's a list of accredited scientists who believe in the sky fairy & the Creation myth:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lists_of_creationist...
El stovey said:
And the posters that quote them all appear nut jobs too.
PHs is full of scientists and people with a scientific background but oddly none of them are here exposing the biggest fraud in the history of science.
Damn my science and maths qualifications - unless I work as a Climate Scientist (tm) then I can't know anything about the absorption spectrum of CO2 via dipole moment changes (which only effects molecular vibrational energy and not kinetic (aka temperature of gases) energy) ......PHs is full of scientists and people with a scientific background but oddly none of them are here exposing the biggest fraud in the history of science.
zygalski said:
Ali G said:
You found one!Fantastic.
Here's a list of accredited scientists who believe in the sky fairy & the Creation myth:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lists_of_creationist...
Have a read of Curry's 'blog' - if there is anything you can't understand (which will be most of it) there are more than a few here who would be willing to help you.
El stovey said:
PHs is full of scientists and people with a scientific background but oddly none of them are here exposing the biggest fraud in the history of science.
Full of scientists? There are some for sure.The point of being here on a motoring forum isn't to do what you suggest, so your point is lost, not that it was a serious point being one of many pointless posts that fail to smear other PHers.
Meanwhile some climate content for any politicians in the thread.
2m surface temperatures have reached there lowest levels so far this year.
Source: Karsten Haustein, NCEO GFS.
Arctic summer sea ice area remains within the normal range at the start of July 2018.
Source: Alfred Wegener Institute
Arctic sea volume (black curve) is at the highest level in 5 years.
Source: Danish Meteorological Institute
The majority of Antarctica is experiencing extreme cold (as it would in winter, but this is relative to expectation) which is forecast to continue.
Source: NCEP GFS
A new study from NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally confirms that Antarctic ice mass is increasing. NASA?
Something odd there. First Stephens shows there's no anthropogenic forcing signal visible in TOA radiative imbalance data (agw? what agw?) now Zwally breaks the ice myth (again) in the footsteps of Joughin & Tulaczyk, Wingham et al.Mid troposphere (400 hPa level, about about 7,500m) shows a very cool temperature level compared to all other years since 2002.
Source: NASA AMSUTEMPS
Hang on, NASA again? Narrative problems ahead for true believers.
Meanwhile...carbon dioxide levels exceeded an average of 410 ppmv across an entire month for the first time in ca. 800,000 years a couple of months ago...solar eruptivity continues to decrease more quickly than expected since April...solar activity was very low levels through most of the current reporting period 02-08 July 2018 (source: NOAA).
NASA and NOAA spreading the word by exposing data
Ali G said:
And why would I have any interest in creationists/flatearthers/CAGW nutjobs?
Have a read of Curry's 'blog' - if there is anything you can't understand (which will be most of it) there are more than a few here who would be willing to help you.
What if they believe in the sky fairy and also believe in man made global warming, does that invalidate the theory too?Have a read of Curry's 'blog' - if there is anything you can't understand (which will be most of it) there are more than a few here who would be willing to help you.
mko9 said:
Ali G said:
And why would I have any interest in creationists/flatearthers/CAGW nutjobs?
Have a read of Curry's 'blog' - if there is anything you can't understand (which will be most of it) there are more than a few here who would be willing to help you.
What if they believe in the sky fairy and also believe in man made global warming, does that invalidate the theory too?Have a read of Curry's 'blog' - if there is anything you can't understand (which will be most of it) there are more than a few here who would be willing to help you.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff