Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
Jinx said:
LoonyTunes said:
That's yet more deflection - his point was that Dr T Ball is fatally flawed below the waterline. And Ball's thinking that evolution should be given only the same amount of weight as creationism makes that true.
What's your opinion of Dr T Ball and creationism? And please don't swing it back to Weaver.
How do you feel about Isaac Newton's? Does his belief in God as a masterful creator make him "flawed below the waterline"?What's your opinion of Dr T Ball and creationism? And please don't swing it back to Weaver.
I wouldn't want him teaching any of the sciences to my children when he thinks religious knowledge is every bit as valid as science.
Why does it not surprise me that on here that's a valid view ?PRTVR said:
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
Jinx said:
LoonyTunes said:
That's yet more deflection - his point was that Dr T Ball is fatally flawed below the waterline. And Ball's thinking that evolution should be given only the same amount of weight as creationism makes that true.
What's your opinion of Dr T Ball and creationism? And please don't swing it back to Weaver.
How do you feel about Isaac Newton's? Does his belief in God as a masterful creator make him "flawed below the waterline"?What's your opinion of Dr T Ball and creationism? And please don't swing it back to Weaver.
I wouldn't want him teaching any of the sciences to my children when he thinks religious knowledge is every bit as valid as science.
Why does it not surprise me that on here that's a valid view ?
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
Jinx said:
LoonyTunes said:
That's yet more deflection - his point was that Dr T Ball is fatally flawed below the waterline. And Ball's thinking that evolution should be given only the same amount of weight as creationism makes that true.
What's your opinion of Dr T Ball and creationism? And please don't swing it back to Weaver.
How do you feel about Isaac Newton's? Does his belief in God as a masterful creator make him "flawed below the waterline"?What's your opinion of Dr T Ball and creationism? And please don't swing it back to Weaver.
I wouldn't want him teaching any of the sciences to my children when he thinks religious knowledge is every bit as valid as science.
Why does it not surprise me that on here that's a valid view ?For many years Faith schools, of whichever religion, have been considered to be amongst the best schools for academic results.
Why should that be?
Who knows but it may be that they are just normal and the non-faith schools are simply happy to take on a less focused staff based on looser criteria.
The way many schools seem to be heading at the moment you might, for the sake of your children, consider teaching them at home. That way you can be sure that they will only learn what you want them to learn. That might be a bit narrow for a decent education though. In general people seem to want the education system to be broad in order to help discover a child's talents.
However a narrow message would fit in with a politically controlled approach though with little understanding of the rest of the world and its cultures. But then, what does that matter?
kerplunk said:
lol - what a hoot (and the lack of self-awareness quite astonishing). That could be easily disproven by simply posting a link to a Real Climate article or citing a popular AGW hate figure.
Go on then - show where I have dismissed an argument, based on the religious views or other irrelevant belief to the topic in hand, of a contributor? Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 10th July 10:47
PRTVR said:
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
Jinx said:
LoonyTunes said:
That's yet more deflection - his point was that Dr T Ball is fatally flawed below the waterline. And Ball's thinking that evolution should be given only the same amount of weight as creationism makes that true.
What's your opinion of Dr T Ball and creationism? And please don't swing it back to Weaver.
How do you feel about Isaac Newton's? Does his belief in God as a masterful creator make him "flawed below the waterline"?What's your opinion of Dr T Ball and creationism? And please don't swing it back to Weaver.
I wouldn't want him teaching any of the sciences to my children when he thinks religious knowledge is every bit as valid as science.
Why does it not surprise me that on here that's a valid view ?
El stovey said:
Classic turbobloke. Appeals to his own authority, misrepresentation of data, cherrypick some graphs, spam the thread with unreliable information, create propaganda for his 4 followers to latch on to.
Then they wonder how the scientific community “are getting away with it”
It’s all a sinister project to control the population.
Step out of the cult, you’re being brainwashed.
tell you what. ask someone impartial to have a read of the thread and pass opinion on the comments posted. maybe even have a look back yourself and see who posts irrelevant bullsThen they wonder how the scientific community “are getting away with it”
It’s all a sinister project to control the population.
Step out of the cult, you’re being brainwashed.
t,asks opinion on peoples religion and other unrelated to the topic posts,also who disappears when questions relating to the science are posted in response.there is spam on the thread,it isn't coming from where you claim though.LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
Jinx said:
LoonyTunes said:
That's yet more deflection - his point was that Dr T Ball is fatally flawed below the waterline. And Ball's thinking that evolution should be given only the same amount of weight as creationism makes that true.
What's your opinion of Dr T Ball and creationism? And please don't swing it back to Weaver.
How do you feel about Isaac Newton's? Does his belief in God as a masterful creator make him "flawed below the waterline"?What's your opinion of Dr T Ball and creationism? And please don't swing it back to Weaver.
I wouldn't want him teaching any of the sciences to my children when he thinks religious knowledge is every bit as valid as science.
Why does it not surprise me that on here that's a valid view ?wc98 said:
El stovey said:
Classic turbobloke. Appeals to his own authority, misrepresentation of data, cherrypick some graphs, spam the thread with unreliable information, create propaganda for his 4 followers to latch on to.
Then they wonder how the scientific community “are getting away with it”
It’s all a sinister project to control the population.
Step out of the cult, you’re being brainwashed.
tell you what. ask someone impartial to have a read of the thread and pass opinion on the comments posted. maybe even have a look back yourself and see who posts irrelevant bullsThen they wonder how the scientific community “are getting away with it”
It’s all a sinister project to control the population.
Step out of the cult, you’re being brainwashed.
t,asks opinion on peoples religion and other unrelated to the topic posts,also who disappears when questions relating to the science are posted in response.there is spam on the thread,it isn't coming from where you claim though.
Desperate stuff as expected from El s.
El stovey's nonsense claims / posts in this thread add an element of comedy value but nothing else.
More climate politics: Pruitt has gone but he was still right to dismantle Obama's silly climate antics as far as possible. As a political animal he has had his EPA day but other political animals have evidence (not just opinion) in support of his stance.
http://www.wnd.com/2018/06/scott-pruitt-heres-evid...
Kawasicki said:
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
Jinx said:
LoonyTunes said:
That's yet more deflection - his point was that Dr T Ball is fatally flawed below the waterline. And Ball's thinking that evolution should be given only the same amount of weight as creationism makes that true.
What's your opinion of Dr T Ball and creationism? And please don't swing it back to Weaver.
How do you feel about Isaac Newton's? Does his belief in God as a masterful creator make him "flawed below the waterline"?What's your opinion of Dr T Ball and creationism? And please don't swing it back to Weaver.
I wouldn't want him teaching any of the sciences to my children when he thinks religious knowledge is every bit as valid as science.
Why does it not surprise me that on here that's a valid view ?No - it has not.
Reliance on a 'god' is a poor explanation.
But should not be ruled out entirely.
zygalski said:
Blimey! Not only does this thread contain all the resident PH N,P&E climate loons, but it also now appears to be just about the only place on PH forums where sky fairy beliefs are glossed-over, so long as you're also a believer in a global AGW conspiracy theory.
Yup - it's gone fully philosophical!Hang on..
zygalski said:
Blimey! Not only does this thread contain all the resident PH N,P&E climate loons, but it also now appears to be just about the only place on PH forums where sky fairy beliefs are glossed-over, so long as you're also a believer in a global AGW conspiracy theory.
But but ..... but there’s only five - recently reduced to four so I’m guessing Tim the dog doesn’t count anymore zygalski said:
Blimey! Not only does this thread contain all the resident PH N,P&E climate loons, but it also now appears to be just about the only place on PH forums where sky fairy beliefs are glossed-over, so long as you're also a believer in a global AGW conspiracy theory.
It’s always been like this.The five of them all believe different stuff but are bonded by being in a cult and not trusting science and experts and anything that looks lefty.
They compare anyone who trusts experts with believers and scoff but when one of their own indicates the possibility of a god existing they all go silent.
On the last few pages they’ve all posted nonsense about environmentalists starting the Manchester fires and man made climate change being natural as man is natural and nonsense about climate change being used to control the masses. Now there’s even stuff about god existing.
Dare to post anything against their cult though and they’re all getting their knickers in a twist about faith and not being scientific.
El stovey said:
It’s always been like this.
The five of them all believe different stuff but are bonded by being in a cult and not trusting science and experts and anything that looks lefty.
They compare anyone who trusts experts with believers and scoff but when one of their own indicates the possibility of a god existing they all go silent.
On the last few pages they’ve all posted nonsense about environmentalists starting the Manchester fires and man made climate change being natural as man is natural and nonsense about climate change being used to control the masses. Now there’s even stuff about god existing.
Dare to post anything against their cult though and they’re all getting their knickers in a twist about faith and not being scientific.
Ooo la la this is a spicy mashed tatties and cabbage!The five of them all believe different stuff but are bonded by being in a cult and not trusting science and experts and anything that looks lefty.
They compare anyone who trusts experts with believers and scoff but when one of their own indicates the possibility of a god existing they all go silent.
On the last few pages they’ve all posted nonsense about environmentalists starting the Manchester fires and man made climate change being natural as man is natural and nonsense about climate change being used to control the masses. Now there’s even stuff about god existing.
Dare to post anything against their cult though and they’re all getting their knickers in a twist about faith and not being scientific.
Are we going with the scientific method or 'El Stovey's' version events since the Reformation?
El stovey said:
zygalski said:
Blimey! Not only does this thread contain all the resident PH N,P&E climate loons, but it also now appears to be just about the only place on PH forums where sky fairy beliefs are glossed-over, so long as you're also a believer in a global AGW conspiracy theory.
It’s always been like this.The five of them all believe different stuff but are bonded by being in a cult and not trusting science and experts and anything that looks lefty.
They compare anyone who trusts experts with believers and scoff but when one of their own indicates the possibility of a god existing they all go silent.
On the last few pages they’ve all posted nonsense about environmentalists starting the Manchester fires and man made climate change being natural as man is natural and nonsense about climate change being used to control the masses. Now there’s even stuff about god existing.
Dare to post anything against their cult though and they’re all getting their knickers in a twist about faith and not being scientific.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff