Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
Kawasicki said:
El stovey said:
Well I had a look at it and saw that
On side A) We have NASA and every other scientific institution of any note and the overwhelming majority of scientists.
On side B) We have robinessex with no relevant qualifications and his politically driven obsession with the BBC and global climate change conspiracy.
Obviously it’s up to you but it doesn’t look likely he’s right to me,
You can add to side B the fact that the climate hasn’t changed beyond normal natural variation. So all the scientific organisations and all the scientists who predicted catastrophic climate change over the past 30+ years were wrong.On side A) We have NASA and every other scientific institution of any note and the overwhelming majority of scientists.
On side B) We have robinessex with no relevant qualifications and his politically driven obsession with the BBC and global climate change conspiracy.
Obviously it’s up to you but it doesn’t look likely he’s right to me,
El stovey said:
Do you deniers ever wonder why all the experts and scientific institutions are on the other side? and are wrong or lying?
You can’t really rationalise it with these stories of infiltrated institutions and scientists on the take?
Why isn’t this truth getting out? Is it that all these people are keeping it going for funding and wealth redistribution and control? Or is it actually far more likely that you’re actually wrong?
Over to you El Stovey. We await you revealing the truth to us all !!You can’t really rationalise it with these stories of infiltrated institutions and scientists on the take?
Why isn’t this truth getting out? Is it that all these people are keeping it going for funding and wealth redistribution and control? Or is it actually far more likely that you’re actually wrong?
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
Do you deniers ever wonder why all the experts and scientific institutions are on the other side? and are wrong or lying?
You can’t really rationalise it with these stories of infiltrated institutions and scientists on the take?
Why isn’t this truth getting out? Is it that all these people are keeping it going for funding and wealth redistribution and control? Or is it actually far more likely that you’re actually wrong?
Over to you El Stovey. We await you revealing the truth to us all !!You can’t really rationalise it with these stories of infiltrated institutions and scientists on the take?
Why isn’t this truth getting out? Is it that all these people are keeping it going for funding and wealth redistribution and control? Or is it actually far more likely that you’re actually wrong?
You’re the one disputing it. Imagining you’ve uncovered this conspiracy. I’m wondering why you think nobody in a position of influence actually believes you?
To be a PH climate change denier you've got to dispute any consensus, but in the same breath put the scientific community view down to a mass conspiracy to maintain or increase funding.
PH climate deniers are fortunately a very rare breed of moron.
It is interesting to revisit the thread after a couple of days of them being left to run the asylum.
Bit of an unhealthy obsession with the BBC going on.
PH climate deniers are fortunately a very rare breed of moron.
It is interesting to revisit the thread after a couple of days of them being left to run the asylum.
Bit of an unhealthy obsession with the BBC going on.
zygalski said:
To be a PH climate change denier you've got to dispute any consensus, but in the same breath put the scientific community view down to a mass conspiracy to maintain or increase funding.
PH climate deniers are fortunately a very rare breed of moron.
It is interesting to revisit the thread after a couple of days of them being left to run the asylum.
Bit of an unhealthy obsession with the BBC going on.
The Beeb. The bastion of honestly and truth eh"!PH climate deniers are fortunately a very rare breed of moron.
It is interesting to revisit the thread after a couple of days of them being left to run the asylum.
Bit of an unhealthy obsession with the BBC going on.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc...
Row over BBC climate change conference 'cover up'
The BBC is dragged into a row over its coverage of climate change after spending thousands of pounds trying to keep details of an "eco conference" attended by top executives secret
The BBC spent thousands of pounds over six years attempting to “cover up” a climate change seminar credited with shaping its coverage of the environment, it emerged today.
At least £20,000 was paid out by the corporation battling a Freedom of Information request about the conference that featured lectures by green activists and scientists, it was revealed.
Almost 30 of the BBC’s most senior executives – including the head of TV news and future director-general – attended the event in 2006 which was funded with a grant from the former Labour government.
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
Do you deniers ever wonder why all the experts and scientific institutions are on the other side? and are wrong or lying?
You can’t really rationalise it with these stories of infiltrated institutions and scientists on the take?
Why isn’t this truth getting out? Is it that all these people are keeping it going for funding and wealth redistribution and control? Or is it actually far more likely that you’re actually wrong?
Over to you El Stovey. We await you revealing the truth to us all !!You can’t really rationalise it with these stories of infiltrated institutions and scientists on the take?
Why isn’t this truth getting out? Is it that all these people are keeping it going for funding and wealth redistribution and control? Or is it actually far more likely that you’re actually wrong?
You’re the one disputing it. Imagining you’ve uncovered this conspiracy. I’m wondering why you think nobody in a position of influence actually believes you?
The Beeb. No conspiracy here. Unless your blind and deaf !!
https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-issues-i...
https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-issues-i...
robinessex said:
Another swerve. Par for the course
You - the consensus on global warming is wrong and I know the truth. Me - That’s most unlikely
You - what’s the truth then!
Me - The overwhelming consensus on global warming is more likely to be the truth.
You - another swerve!
I’m not really sure how to proceed with this kind of logic tbh.
Diderot said:
Stovey
If you really do believe global warming is caused by human emissions of CO2, then you are part of the problem being an airline pilot. Do the decent thing, resign and help save the planet from climategeddon.
Why should I resign? People will still want to fly to places. If I resign someone else will just take my place. They might be a less efficient pilot than me. If you really do believe global warming is caused by human emissions of CO2, then you are part of the problem being an airline pilot. Do the decent thing, resign and help save the planet from climategeddon.
Like most professional pilots, I’m safely flying as efficiently as possible, getting direct routings, finding the best winds and levels, not carrying loads of extra fuel, reducing taxi time and APU burn, flying efficient approaches and departures and as a workforce we’re helping to introduce and develop loads of other fuel saving measures.
Fuel is the major cost for an airline. Pretty much everything we do is about saving fuel.
I’m not sure why you’re making judgments about me or my job though, I’ve made no comments about how you or anybody else should live.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 10th November 11:48
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
Another swerve. Par for the course
You - the consensus on global warming is wrong and I know the truth. Me - That’s most unlikely
You - what’s the truth then!
Me - The overwhelming consensus on global warming is more likely to be the truth.
You - another swerve!
I’m not really sure how to proceed with this kind of logic tbh.
ks, political bullst, but you never find these acceptable. You just have an “all hail the mighty scientist, I believe you” mentality. Afraid there now answer to this, you get put in the hopeless cause box. You’ll probably find a few flat earthers in there with you.El stovey said:
Diderot said:
Stovey
If you really do believe global warming is caused by human emissions of CO2, then you are part of the problem being an airline pilot. Do the decent thing, resign and help save the planet from climategeddon.
I’m not sure why you’re making judgments about me or my job though, I’ve made no comments about how you or anybody else should live. If you really do believe global warming is caused by human emissions of CO2, then you are part of the problem being an airline pilot. Do the decent thing, resign and help save the planet from climategeddon.
Edited by El stovey on Saturday 10th November 11:48
dickymint said:
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
Stovey
If you really do believe global warming is caused by human emissions of CO2, then you are part of the problem being an airline pilot. Do the decent thing, resign and help save the planet from climategeddon.
I’m not sure why you’re making judgments about me or my job though, I’ve made no comments about how you or anybody else should live. If you really do believe global warming is caused by human emissions of CO2, then you are part of the problem being an airline pilot. Do the decent thing, resign and help save the planet from climategeddon.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 10th November 11:48
All I’ve pointed out is that you’ve frequently been, at best elusive about your occupation as you know it makes it look unlikely you’re right and NASA are wrong and makes it less likely people will take your findings seriously.
Posters in your group have frequently overstated their qualifications and relevant expertise and also been elusive for the same reasons as you.
It’s easy to spout out that the scientific community are wrong about climate change but it doesn’t sound so likely when you’ve got no relevant qualifications or expertise in that area.
That’s before anyone looks at the clearly politically motivated sources of the information you all post as evidence.
robinessex said:
Your only offering is “I believe”. I've pointed, and so have many others, in the past to AGW & CC bks, political bullst, but you never find these acceptable. You just have an “all hail the mighty scientist, I believe you” mentality. Afraid there now answer to this, you get put in the hopeless cause box. You’ll probably find a few flat earthers in there with you.
I’m afraid your post, as usual, makes little sense. Have you been drinking?ks, political bullst, but you never find these acceptable. You just have an “all hail the mighty scientist, I believe you” mentality. Afraid there now answer to this, you get put in the hopeless cause box. You’ll probably find a few flat earthers in there with you.Can you give me a summary of the points you’re making?
You seem to be suggesting you’ve disproven the scientific consensus already? Or are you saying anyone who agrees with the scientific consensus is a “hopeless cause”
I don’t find your evidence acceptable because it’s never actually evidence. You need to look at the sources of the information more tbh.
If you’re going to disprove the scientific consensus and prove, as you suggest, that there’s a global conspiracy involving governments and the media and scientific institutions, you really need to try an alternative technique or get therapy because ranting incoherently about the BBC isn’t helping your mental well being or your argument really.
robinessex said:
According to AGW scientists, many cataclysmic events were predicated to happen in the last 30yrs. None did. I rest my case!!
There it is. slam dunk. You’ve basically just uncovered the biggest fraud in the history of human civilisation. Here on PistonHeads.Scientific consensus disproved. It’s better than myth busters.
Have you been contacted about your Nobel prize yet?
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
According to AGW scientists, many cataclysmic events were predicated to happen in the last 30yrs. None did. I rest my case!!
There it is. slam dunk. You’ve basically just uncovered the biggest fraud in the history of human civilisation. Here on PistonHeads.Scientific consensus disproved. It’s better than myth busters.
Have you been contacted about your Nobel prize yet?
Edited by robinessex on Saturday 10th November 13:54
Lecture Coverage said:
Lindzen, who for 30 years was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is probably the scientist most loathed and feared by the climate alarmist establishment. That’s because he knows the subject rather better than they do and has never been bested in argument.
He is withering in his contempt for man-made global warming theory, as he demonstrated in some scientific detail at the annual lecture of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London, hosted by its president (Margaret Thatcher’s Chancellor of the Exchequer) Lord Lawson.
The global warming scare has little to do with science, Lindzen began by noting, but is rather the product of ignorance of science. Hence his lecture title: Global Warming for the Two Cultures.
. . .
So there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization.
He is withering in his contempt for man-made global warming theory, as he demonstrated in some scientific detail at the annual lecture of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London, hosted by its president (Margaret Thatcher’s Chancellor of the Exchequer) Lord Lawson.
The global warming scare has little to do with science, Lindzen began by noting, but is rather the product of ignorance of science. Hence his lecture title: Global Warming for the Two Cultures.
. . .
So there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization.
AGW junkscience a product of ignorance of science - perfect.
Don't take Lindzen's word for it, check out the evidence for the Evidence section on p14/20 (may be identified as p8 in Adobe) and "get to the heart" of agw nonsense.
AGW supporters certainly know about incessantly repeating implausible conjecture backed by false evidence; main diet.
robinessex said:
Carry on. You're hammering nails in your own coffin!! Anthing postive to say to reiforec AGW ?
Although you’re one of my favourite PH scientific thinkers, when you get your Nobel Prize, you might want to use a speech writer? I expect NASA will soon start tweeting about your scientific discovery.
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
Carry on. You're hammering nails in your own coffin!! Anthing postive to say to reiforec AGW ?
Although you’re one of my favourite PH scientific thinkers, when you get your Nobel Prize, you might want to use a speech writer? I expect NASA will soon start tweeting about your scientific discovery.
TB recently posted this:-
For its recent 1.5°C report the IPCC has changed the definition of climate to what has been loosely called “the climate we are in.” It still uses 30 years for its estimate of global warming and hence climate – but now it is the 30 years centred on the present.
Would you care to comment on this moving of the gaol posts by one of the organisations you hold in such high esteem and believe in? Just one example of why I think AGW is bks. Lying, deceiving organisation(s).
For its recent 1.5°C report the IPCC has changed the definition of climate to what has been loosely called “the climate we are in.” It still uses 30 years for its estimate of global warming and hence climate – but now it is the 30 years centred on the present.
Would you care to comment on this moving of the gaol posts by one of the organisations you hold in such high esteem and believe in? Just one example of why I think AGW is b
ks. Lying, deceiving organisation(s).Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff