Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[RJG46]

If we start getting forest fires in Alaska rather than California then I'd say that was climate change. Still waiting.

[robinessex]

RJG46 said:

If we start getting forest fires in Alaska rather than California then I'd say that was climate change. Still waiting.

Er, doubt it. CC can't cause fires. The latest have had the blame put on USA utility companies

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/16/ca...

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

Gandahar said:

robinessex said:

Failing your 11plus, and thus being pig ignorant about any aspects of AGW & CC allows you to address the audience via a loudspeaker.

Example of pig ignorant

I assume you passed your 11 plus and so have a more valid opinion on climate change?

Merely mentioning 11 plus tells me more about you than them and their lack of scientific knowledge....

So you got your 11+ and then what to make you a climate expert? Ph.d?

Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 18th November 02:35

Degree in mechanical engineering did me fine thanks. At least it infused me with a good degree of common sense, scepticism and logic. PS. And bullst spotting

Edited by robinessex on Sunday 18th November 10:21

But zilch by way of climate qualifications.

[robinessex]

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gandahar said:

robinessex said:

Failing your 11plus, and thus being pig ignorant about any aspects of AGW & CC allows you to address the audience via a loudspeaker.

Example of pig ignorant

I assume you passed your 11 plus and so have a more valid opinion on climate change?

Merely mentioning 11 plus tells me more about you than them and their lack of scientific knowledge....

So you got your 11+ and then what to make you a climate expert? Ph.d?

Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 18th November 02:35

Degree in mechanical engineering did me fine thanks. At least it infused me with a good degree of common sense, scepticism and logic. PS. And bullst spotting

Edited by robinessex on Sunday 18th November 10:21

But zilch by way of climate qualifications.

Why do you need them to make basic observations that CC is bks ?

[Vizsla]

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gandahar said:

robinessex said:

Failing your 11plus, and thus being pig ignorant about any aspects of AGW & CC allows you to address the audience via a loudspeaker.

Example of pig ignorant

I assume you passed your 11 plus and so have a more valid opinion on climate change?

Merely mentioning 11 plus tells me more about you than them and their lack of scientific knowledge....

So you got your 11+ and then what to make you a climate expert? Ph.d?

Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 18th November 02:35

Degree in mechanical engineering did me fine thanks. At least it infused me with a good degree of common sense, scepticism and logic. PS. And bullst spotting

Edited by robinessex on Sunday 18th November 10:21

But zilch by way of climate qualifications.

Headshot. If only he'd got a 2:2 in Geography from the University of East Grinstead

[gadgetmac]

Vizsla said:

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gandahar said:

robinessex said:

Failing your 11plus, and thus being pig ignorant about any aspects of AGW & CC allows you to address the audience via a loudspeaker.

Example of pig ignorant

I assume you passed your 11 plus and so have a more valid opinion on climate change?

Merely mentioning 11 plus tells me more about you than them and their lack of scientific knowledge....

So you got your 11+ and then what to make you a climate expert? Ph.d?

Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 18th November 02:35

Degree in mechanical engineering did me fine thanks. At least it infused me with a good degree of common sense, scepticism and logic. PS. And bullst spotting

Edited by robinessex on Sunday 18th November 10:21

But zilch by way of climate qualifications.

Headshot. If only he'd got a 2:2 in Geography from the University of East Grinstead

I know, now he’s asking why you need qualifications to know that nearly all of the Climate Change experts with qualifications and experience in the field are talking bks.

Lets seek out the carpenter, surgeon and footballer for our CC knowledge instead.

This cult is feckin hilarious

[Diderot]

El stovey said:

https://news.sky.com/story/rebellion-day-activists...

Some Global warming protests today in London.

Any of you cult members going down to read BBC and GPWF articles to them?

Should be easy as you’re all aparently retired and unemployed. Might be nice for some of you to have a day out and get some fresh air?

I wouldn't be too smug if I were you Stovey as they'll be after you and your infernal flying machines next. Remember that mob Plane Stupid?

Mind you, if they do, I may manage a wry smile.

[robinessex]

gadgetmac said:

Vizsla said:

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gandahar said:

robinessex said:

Failing your 11plus, and thus being pig ignorant about any aspects of AGW & CC allows you to address the audience via a loudspeaker.

Example of pig ignorant

I assume you passed your 11 plus and so have a more valid opinion on climate change?

Merely mentioning 11 plus tells me more about you than them and their lack of scientific knowledge....

So you got your 11+ and then what to make you a climate expert? Ph.d?

Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 18th November 02:35

Degree in mechanical engineering did me fine thanks. At least it infused me with a good degree of common sense, scepticism and logic. PS. And bullst spotting

Edited by robinessex on Sunday 18th November 10:21

But zilch by way of climate qualifications.

Headshot. If only he'd got a 2:2 in Geography from the University of East Grinstead

I know, now he’s asking why you need qualifications to know that nearly all of the Climate Change experts with qualifications and experience in the field are talking bks.

Lets seek out the carpenter, surgeon and footballer for our CC knowledge instead.

This cult is feckin hilarious

This is a simple question for you then. What actually is the temperature of the planet?

[anonymous-user]

Diderot said:

I wouldn't be too smug if I were you Stovey as they'll be after you and your infernal flying machines next. Remember that mob Plane Stupid?

Mind you, if they do, I may manage a wry smile.

I don’t care about the ‘plane stupid’ idiots.

They came to my house a while ago and asked for me to join them in protesting the new runway at Gatwick.

I told them I was fully in support of the new runway and how the economic future of the area depends on it plus why it’s needed for reducing pollution by reducing congestion and holding and go arounds and why their arguments were wrong.

Their arguments weren’t based on scientific evidence and were politically motivated.

Much like your lot really.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 18th November 17:47

[Vizsla]

gadgetmac said:

Vizsla said:

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gandahar said:

robinessex said:

Failing your 11plus, and thus being pig ignorant about any aspects of AGW & CC allows you to address the audience via a loudspeaker.

Example of pig ignorant

I assume you passed your 11 plus and so have a more valid opinion on climate change?

Merely mentioning 11 plus tells me more about you than them and their lack of scientific knowledge....

So you got your 11+ and then what to make you a climate expert? Ph.d?

Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 18th November 02:35

Degree in mechanical engineering did me fine thanks. At least it infused me with a good degree of common sense, scepticism and logic. PS. And bullst spotting

Edited by robinessex on Sunday 18th November 10:21

But zilch by way of climate qualifications.

Headshot. If only he'd got a 2:2 in Geography from the University of East Grinstead

I know, now he’s asking why you need qualifications to know that nearly all of the Climate Change experts with qualifications and experience in the field are talking bks.

Lets seek out the carpenter, surgeon and footballer for our CC knowledge instead.

This cult is feckin hilarious

Oh lordy, dontcha just hate it when a (failed) attempt at sarcasm falls on teflon-coated concrete.

[dickymint]

Vizsla said:

gadgetmac said:

Vizsla said:

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gandahar said:

robinessex said:

Failing your 11plus, and thus being pig ignorant about any aspects of AGW & CC allows you to address the audience via a loudspeaker.

Example of pig ignorant

I assume you passed your 11 plus and so have a more valid opinion on climate change?

Merely mentioning 11 plus tells me more about you than them and their lack of scientific knowledge....

So you got your 11+ and then what to make you a climate expert? Ph.d?

Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 18th November 02:35

Degree in mechanical engineering did me fine thanks. At least it infused me with a good degree of common sense, scepticism and logic. PS. And bullst spotting

Edited by robinessex on Sunday 18th November 10:21

But zilch by way of climate qualifications.

Headshot. If only he'd got a 2:2 in Geography from the University of East Grinstead

I know, now he’s asking why you need qualifications to know that nearly all of the Climate Change experts with qualifications and experience in the field are talking bks.

Lets seek out the carpenter, surgeon and footballer for our CC knowledge instead.

This cult is feckin hilarious

Oh lordy, dontcha just hate it when a (failed) attempt at sarcasm falls on teflon-coated concrete.

and have another Love it

[anonymous-user]

It’s hard to tell anymore.

The cult don’t trust experts, then over egg their own expertise, to give themselves credit.

That’s the problem when you’re a load of non experts saying all the actual experts and scientific community are wrong.

They’ve got to say THOSE experts are all wrong but we know what we’re talking about and are kind of experts anyway.

[wc98]

El stovey said:

Their arguments weren’t based on scientific evidence and were politically motivated.

Much like your lot really.

Edited by El stovey on Sunday 18th November 17:47

bloody hell, that fits the description of a certain nasa department to a tee

"The co-author of the article was his boss at NASA Langley Research Center (Martin Mlynczak). Mlynczak put his name to the paper but did no work on it. He thought that it was an important paper, but only in a technical way.

When Miskolczi later informed the group at NASA there that he had more important results, they finally understood the whole story, and tried to withhold Miskolczi’s further material from publication. His boss for example, sat at Ferenc’s computer, logged in with Ferenc`s password, and canceled a recently submitted paper from a high-reputation journal as if Ferenc had withdrawn it himself. That was the reason that Ferenc finally resigned from his ($US 90,000 /year) job."

[wc98]

gadgetmac said:

I couldn’t care less about some obscure post from a denier. The more important text is in the letter to the president from real climate scientists.

you would do yourself a favour by just not replying to my posts. i am far from the brightest on this forum but my knowledge of this subject is so far over your head you would need a a lift from el stovey to be able to come up with a meaningful reply. "because appeal to authority" doesn't really cut it ,at all.

[PRTVR]

El stovey said:

I don’t care about the ‘plane stupid’ idiots.

They came to my house a while ago and asked for me to join them in protesting the new runway at Gatwick.

I told them I was fully in support of the new runway and how the economic future of the area depends on it plus why it’s needed for reducing pollution by reducing congestion and holding and go arounds and why their arguments were wrong.

Their arguments weren’t based on scientific evidence and were politically motivated.

Much like your lot really.

Edited by El stovey on Sunday 18th November 17:47

But surely their arguments were based on facts ? If you have another runway you will have more aircraft, if you have more aircraft you will produce more CO2, as you agree with all the millions of scientists that CO2 is is a major problem, I do not understand your logic.

[wc98]

PRTVR said:

But surely their arguments were based on facts ? If you have another runway you will have more aircraft, if you have more aircraft you will produce more CO2, as you agree with all the millions of scientists that CO2 is is a major problem, I do not understand your logic.

to be fair to el stovey i believe he isn't here to argue about climate change and its causes,i don't think he cares either way. just to state that people that don't agree with the opinion of climate scientists are all stupid tin foil hat wearing morons, or something like that

[gadgetmac]

wc98 said:

gadgetmac said:

I couldn’t care less about some obscure post from a denier. The more important text is in the letter to the president from real climate scientists.

you would do yourself a favour by just not replying to my posts. i am far from the brightest on this forum but my knowledge of this subject is so far over your head you would need a a lift from el stovey to be able to come up with a meaningful reply. "because appeal to authority" doesn't really cut it ,at all.

Yes, you demonstrate your ‘knowledge” with every passing post

It’s also so far over the head of Climate Scientists

[Diderot]

PRTVR said:

El stovey said:

I don’t care about the ‘plane stupid’ idiots.

They came to my house a while ago and asked for me to join them in protesting the new runway at Gatwick.

I told them I was fully in support of the new runway and how the economic future of the area depends on it plus why it’s needed for reducing pollution by reducing congestion and holding and go arounds and why their arguments were wrong.

Their arguments weren’t based on scientific evidence and were politically motivated.

Much like your lot really.

Edited by El stovey on Sunday 18th November 17:47

But surely their arguments were based on facts ? If you have another runway you will have more aircraft, if you have more aircraft you will produce more CO2, as you agree with all the millions of scientists that CO2 is is a major problem, I do not understand your logic.

That's a hypocritic oaf for you PRTVR.

And I can only imagine Stovey, only imagining trying to reason with those activists who see him as the devil incarnate; he'd be saying 'please spare me comrades as I am a true believer too'. Maybe Stovey might manage to convince them that he has an electric plane fuelled by Mr Fusion, and that it only emits fairy farts as it 'pollutes' the planet.

Like I said before, if you had any integrity Stovey, you'd resign. Your pointles gesture will help save the planet from certain something or other. Think of the great great grand children and the surfeit of polar bears and insert cataclysmic or (should that be catacismic]) events.

[Atomic12C]

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

But zilch by way of climate qualifications.

Why do you need them to make basic observations that CC is bks ?

Yes, quite. Any science based degree level qualification should install the mindset of using scientific principals and rational logic when scrutinising claims.
The political claims of MMGW are very easily debunked as they simply do not follow the science.

Edited by Atomic12C on Monday 19th November 12:38

[anonymous-user]

Diderot said:

That's a hypocritic oaf for you PRTVR.

And I can only imagine Stovey, only imagining trying to reason with those activists who see him as the devil incarnate; he'd be saying 'please spare me comrades as I am a true believer too'. Maybe Stovey might manage to convince them that he has an electric plane fuelled by Mr Fusion, and that it only emits fairy farts as it 'pollutes' the planet.

Like I said before, if you had any integrity Stovey, you'd resign. Your pointles gesture will help save the planet from certain something or other. Think of the great great grand children and the surfeit of polar bears and insert cataclysmic or (should that be catacismic]) events.

Imagine away, I’ve got no interest in reasoning with activists. You can’t reason with you lot as your position is based on dogma not science.

Why should I resign, I know being employed goes against the cult but I quite like having a job. I’ve got no time for zealots following dogma and ignoring science. These political activists and your cult are similar just on different sides.

The big difference is that their side does have the scientific community agreeing with them though, so they’re at least zealots likely to be right.

You lot are just zealots that are also going against science. It doesn’t look good for you good really, when you think about it. Why haven’t you changed the scientific consensus yet?