Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
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.
That's projection^10.
It is not realists who are still selling the snake oil of a modest increase in a trace gas (from levels so low that plant life is threatened to levels seen before which are beneficial to plants) leading to runaway temperature rise (at present at rates and to levels which have happened before) with all sorts of biblical associations - extreme weather, accelerating sea level rise, polar bear extinction, Brexit & plagues of boils (I may have made some of those up) none of which has happened.
Not one or even a bit of one but none, zero, nowt.
Yet alarmists still cling to their belief system despite all this contradictory evidence.
And they expect people alive today to spend excessive amounts on so-called clean energy. The poorest are the ones who suffer.
Warmer is better, more CO2 is better, cheap energy is better, what's not to like?
Drive a V8 - feed a tree.
jet_noise said:
Climate loons?
That's projection^10.
It is not realists who are still selling the snake oil of a modest increase in a trace gas (from levels so low that plant life is threatened to levels seen before which are beneficial to plants) leading to runaway temperature rise (at present at rates and to levels which have happened before) with all sorts of biblical associations - extreme weather, accelerating sea level rise, polar bear extinction, Brexit & plagues of boils (I may have made some of those up) none of which has happened.
Not one or even a bit of one but none, zero, nowt.
Yet alarmists still cling to their belief system despite all this contradictory evidence.
And they expect people alive today to spend excessive amounts on so-called clean energy. The poorest are the ones who suffer.
Warmer is better, more CO2 is better, cheap energy is better, what's not to like?
Drive a V8 - feed a tree.
That's projection^10.
It is not realists who are still selling the snake oil of a modest increase in a trace gas (from levels so low that plant life is threatened to levels seen before which are beneficial to plants) leading to runaway temperature rise (at present at rates and to levels which have happened before) with all sorts of biblical associations - extreme weather, accelerating sea level rise, polar bear extinction, Brexit & plagues of boils (I may have made some of those up) none of which has happened.
Not one or even a bit of one but none, zero, nowt.
Yet alarmists still cling to their belief system despite all this contradictory evidence.
And they expect people alive today to spend excessive amounts on so-called clean energy. The poorest are the ones who suffer.
Warmer is better, more CO2 is better, cheap energy is better, what's not to like?
Drive a V8 - feed a tree.
Drive more and feed quite a few trees
Plus ca change. Having just looked back at an open survey in a 2009 climate thread where anyone could sign up as a non-believer, there were 60 PHers placing their names on the list by the time I stopped looking and took a screenshot. Back then there were around half a dozen believers posting the same sarc/ad hom/trolling drivel that we get from about the same number today.
In a formal PH poll posted by Halb, 23% were believers and 77% non-believers out of 550 respondents when asked if humans contribute substantially to climate change.
Not that any form of consensus or non-consensus has any relevance, but it's good to see believers plying that bankrupt trade hoisted by their own petard.
A common issue back then - as now - was that believers seemed very peeved that communication on PH couldn't be controlled as happened/happens in other media where non-believer posts are deleted and agw heretics get banned from posting (usually very quickly). Realclimate advertised in Climategate emails that the role of their site mods was to delay or remove posts contrary to agw faith, while certain rags were/are their usual joke selves on matters such as this.
The BBC's climate hacks have had a very cosy relationship with The Team such that Team members got uppity if anything remotely off-message appeared on the BBC website, at which point the author would be contacted for an explanation.
PH climate threads have consistently had a handful of trolls to amuse others, their presence is a good thing as it demonstrates through endless attrition loops with faithful posts of a vacuous nature that they have nothing substantive to offer. Open communication within posting rules is a real positive for PH.
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.
now you are telling lies and talking sThe 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.
t. you invent bullst because every time someone posts actual science on the topic you have no answer. like the other wee yaps that appear from time to time with nothing but insults and made up statements with no intention of debating the topic.every single thing i have ever posted on this forum i would be willing to state in person to someones face in debate. something i doubt you or ziggy can say.
when it comes to sky fairies i have no time for any of them and i do believe it casts doubt on peoples judgement. however science is about physical discovery,with physical evidence being the result. there should be no room to mix belief in a sky fairy with knowledge of a physical fact. the same way a belief in cagw is religion and the lack of physical evidence fails the science test.
you may or may not have heard the phrase ,trust yet verify. remember the consensus on the cause of stomach ulcers ? maybe not, you usually disappear for a while or avoid talking about that.
wc98 said:
every single thing i have ever posted on this forum i would be willing to state in person to someones face in debate. something i doubt you or ziggy can say.
WTF? Are you actually saying “you wouldn’t say that they my face” Like some sort of thicko threat.
You’re the fool that said environmentalists probably started the Manchester hill fires.
No wonder you worship turbobloke. You need to have a break from the forum. You’re showing classic cult behaviour. Have you ever been indoctrinated into a group before?
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 10th July 16:22
LoonyTunes said:
wc98 said:
when it comes to sky fairies i have no time for any of them and i do believe it casts doubt on peoples judgement.
May I introduce Ali GAli G said:
Reliance on a 'god' is a poor explanation.
But should not be ruled out entirely.
But should not be ruled out entirely.
El stovey said:
LoonyTunes said:
wc98 said:
when it comes to sky fairies i have no time for any of them and i do believe it casts doubt on peoples judgement.
May I introduce Ali GAli G said:
Reliance on a 'god' is a poor explanation.
But should not be ruled out entirely.
But should not be ruled out entirely.
El stovey said:
LoonyTunes said:
wc98 said:
when it comes to sky fairies i have no time for any of them and i do believe it casts doubt on peoples judgement.
May I introduce Ali GAli G said:
Reliance on a 'god' is a poor explanation.
But should not be ruled out entirely.
But should not be ruled out entirely.
LoonyTunes said:
Ali G said:
El stovey said:
Would you say that to his face!
Sorry guv - we ain't got a clueIt's warming
Its a thermoge....
It's God...
where woz I?
Here is a link
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Houghton
A true believer.
wc98 said:
El stovey said:
Would you say that to his face!
stomach ulcers Scientific consensus was that stress caused stomach ulcers.
Someone proves them wrong and that stomach ulcers are actually caused by bacteria.
Scientific consensus is now that bacteria causes stomach ulcers.
So you’re saying, in between silly threats and comments about environmentalists causing fires in Manchester and fawning after turbobloke, that this is like the consensus over climate change?
Scientific consensus is that humans are causing climate change.
Some people think that’s wrong and think that other causes are responsible or that there isn’t any climate change.
Scientific consensus is still that humans are causing climate change.
The important bit in your endless banging on about stomach ulcers is that the scientific consensus was changed when Barry Marshall presented facts that proved it wrong.
This is the difference. The scientific consensus will change when it gets proven wrong, which hasn’t happened.
Your story about stomach ulcers is actually showing how consensus science works. We have a theory and when it gets proved wrong there is a new theory.
If someone comes along and proves the earth is flat that will be the new consensus. If someone comes along and proves god created the universe, that will be the new consensus.
Your story about ulcers is good evidence as to why there is still a consensus on climate change. Nobody has proved it wrong and changed the consensus like Barry Marshall did over ulcers.
El stovey said:
This is the difference. The scientific consensus will change when it gets proven wrong, which hasn’t happened.
It took deliberate infection and cure to convince the consensus that it was wrong - so I guess it will take a fking ice age for CAGW...... Consensus is the bane of scientific endeavor....
Jinx said:
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
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff