Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
This one is peachy assuming peaches survive non-existent permanent dangerous manmadeup warming.
Apple sees a likelihood of greater demand for iPhones as a result of global warming according to a report assessing the impact of climate change on its business.
“Mobile devices can serve as the backbone communication network in emergency and quasi-emergency situations”
^ as Apple allegedly wrote in its report, released on Tuesday.
https://www.businessinsider.in/more-climate-change...
Apple sees a likelihood of greater demand for iPhones as a result of global warming according to a report assessing the impact of climate change on its business.
“Mobile devices can serve as the backbone communication network in emergency and quasi-emergency situations”
^ as Apple allegedly wrote in its report, released on Tuesday.
https://www.businessinsider.in/more-climate-change...
gadgetmac said:
I've just looked back and seen that durbster tore this list to shreds once before. It was then reposted in August and the same thing happened again. He's now reposted it for a 4th time I believe.
The International Arctic Research Centre is an out-and-out LIE as was discovered last August.
My questions about that particular entry on the 12th August were never answered despite being asked at least 4 times.
It’s like he’s the Donald Trump of denial.
You sound more like a sad man trawling back into the PH archives - get a life man or at least a job!The International Arctic Research Centre is an out-and-out LIE as was discovered last August.
My questions about that particular entry on the 12th August were never answered despite being asked at least 4 times.
It’s like he’s the Donald Trump of denial.
Edited by gadgetmac on Wednesday 23 January 19:04
dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
I've just looked back and seen that durbster tore this list to shreds once before. It was then reposted in August and the same thing happened again. He's now reposted it for a 4th time I believe.
The International Arctic Research Centre is an out-and-out LIE as was discovered last August.
My questions about that particular entry on the 12th August were never answered despite being asked at least 4 times.
It’s like he’s the Donald Trump of denial.
You sound more like a sad man trawling back into the PH archives - get a life man or at least a job!The International Arctic Research Centre is an out-and-out LIE as was discovered last August.
My questions about that particular entry on the 12th August were never answered despite being asked at least 4 times.
It’s like he’s the Donald Trump of denial.
Edited by gadgetmac on Wednesday 23 January 19:04
Either way, the faith are in full force with their usual nonsense. No actual science provided to prove their case, just models and sucking up to NASA.
dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
I've just looked back and seen that durbster tore this list to shreds once before. It was then reposted in August and the same thing happened again. He's now reposted it for a 4th time I believe.
The International Arctic Research Centre is an out-and-out LIE as was discovered last August.
My questions about that particular entry on the 12th August were never answered despite being asked at least 4 times.
It’s like he’s the Donald Trump of denial.
You sound more like a sad man trawling back into the PH archives - get a life man or at least a job!The International Arctic Research Centre is an out-and-out LIE as was discovered last August.
My questions about that particular entry on the 12th August were never answered despite being asked at least 4 times.
It’s like he’s the Donald Trump of denial.
Rather aptly when this all came up in August you were accused of always quickly jumping in to defend TB.
And here you are again.
You can smell the embarrassment and shovelling of posts into this thread to desperately start a new line of debate and move away from ‘the list’ can’t you...?
I believe the term ‘lickspittle’ was used in August.
stew-STR160 said:
I thought it was us non faith members who were all unemployed?
Either way, the faith are in full force with their usual nonsense. No actual science provided to prove their case, just models and sucking up to NASA.
It’s the Politics thread, if you want Science there’s a thread for that. Either way, the faith are in full force with their usual nonsense. No actual science provided to prove their case, just models and sucking up to NASA.
gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
I've just looked back and seen that durbster tore this list to shreds once before. It was then reposted in August and the same thing happened again. He's now reposted it for a 4th time I believe.
The International Arctic Research Centre is an out-and-out LIE as was discovered last August.
My questions about that particular entry on the 12th August were never answered despite being asked at least 4 times.
It’s like he’s the Donald Trump of denial.
You sound more like a sad man trawling back into the PH archives - get a life man or at least a job!The International Arctic Research Centre is an out-and-out LIE as was discovered last August.
My questions about that particular entry on the 12th August were never answered despite being asked at least 4 times.
It’s like he’s the Donald Trump of denial.
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
I've just looked back and seen that durbster tore this list to shreds once before. It was then reposted in August and the same thing happened again. He's now reposted it for a 4th time I believe.
The International Arctic Research Centre is an out-and-out LIE as was discovered last August.
My questions about that particular entry on the 12th August were never answered despite being asked at least 4 times.
It’s like he’s the Donald Trump of denial.
You sound more like a sad man trawling back into the PH archives - get a life man or at least a job!The International Arctic Research Centre is an out-and-out LIE as was discovered last August.
My questions about that particular entry on the 12th August were never answered despite being asked at least 4 times.
It’s like he’s the Donald Trump of denial.
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
I've just looked back and seen that durbster tore this list to shreds once before. It was then reposted in August and the same thing happened again. He's now reposted it for a 4th time I believe.
The International Arctic Research Centre is an out-and-out LIE as was discovered last August.
My questions about that particular entry on the 12th August were never answered despite being asked at least 4 times.
It’s like he’s the Donald Trump of denial.
You sound more like a sad man trawling back into the PH archives - get a life man or at least a job!The International Arctic Research Centre is an out-and-out LIE as was discovered last August.
My questions about that particular entry on the 12th August were never answered despite being asked at least 4 times.
It’s like he’s the Donald Trump of denial.
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
I've just looked back and seen that durbster tore this list to shreds once before. It was then reposted in August and the same thing happened again. He's now reposted it for a 4th time I believe.
The International Arctic Research Centre is an out-and-out LIE as was discovered last August.
My questions about that particular entry on the 12th August were never answered despite being asked at least 4 times.
It’s like he’s the Donald Trump of denial.
You sound more like a sad man trawling back into the PH archives - get a life man or at least a job!The International Arctic Research Centre is an out-and-out LIE as was discovered last August.
My questions about that particular entry on the 12th August were never answered despite being asked at least 4 times.
It’s like he’s the Donald Trump of denial.
Anyway, the distraction won’t work, what’s your thoughts on the list that acts like a comet - returning at regular intervals?
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
Why so cagey?
Says the guy who constantly bangs on about being a professor but won’t say of what. 
Not sure why you always rush to Gadgetmac’s defence about his putative ‘employment’ but we should at least have some clue about what he supposedly does for a living when he’s not on PH proselytising about the merits of climate moddeling.
gadgetmac said:
durbster said:
hairykrishna said:
zygalski said:
Wow!
You've initiated full spam mode.
He always does this when on the ropes. Usually every third page or so.
It's TB's version of the Gish gallop.You've initiated full spam mode.
He always does this when on the ropes. Usually every third page or so.
The constant need for pack mentality personal attacks is tiresome and boring.
gadgetmac said:
stew-STR160 said:
I thought it was us non faith members who were all unemployed?
Either way, the faith are in full force with their usual nonsense. No actual science provided to prove their case, just models and sucking up to NASA.
It’s the Politics thread, if you want Science there’s a thread for that. Either way, the faith are in full force with their usual nonsense. No actual science provided to prove their case, just models and sucking up to NASA.
Diderot said:
Says the highly qualified aerial coach driver. I’m assuming you wear a short-sleeved white shirt of highly inferior quality.
Not sure why you always rush to Gadgetmac’s defence about his putative ‘employment’ but we should at least have some clue about what he supposedly does for a living when he’s not on PH proselytising about the merits of climate moddeling.
Who's proselytizing about the merits of climate modelling?Not sure why you always rush to Gadgetmac’s defence about his putative ‘employment’ but we should at least have some clue about what he supposedly does for a living when he’s not on PH proselytising about the merits of climate moddeling.
And why does that lead to you deserving to know about my employment status?
You're a bit odd.
You're the one question the scientists and all of the scientific institutions on the planet, if anything your status is of far more relevance on this thread.
deeps said:
In keeping with the context of replies... your collective debating skills are so very impressive. They suggest your collective IQ maybe similarly so.
Ah Deeps, did you get that argument from the WUWT handbook?It's very encouraging that 3 of the pack have been so humbled by the dissection of the list of anti AGW scientific institutions that instead of trying to back it up they thought they'd best pile on and try to help save face.
I'm sure we all feel suitably honoured.
turbobloke said:
A particularly diligent 
pro-agw enquirer had little to say about several scientific institutions in the above list in Loop 2, but responded at one point to one of the listed organisations "No idea, losing interest"; due diligence never looked so good. What would be useful from agw supporters is a link to a statement from any of the above which explicitly supports dangerous permanent global warming.
2 deceits in that. pro-agw enquirer had little to say about several scientific institutions in the above list in Loop 2, but responded at one point to one of the listed organisations "No idea, losing interest"; due diligence never looked so good. What would be useful from agw supporters is a link to a statement from any of the above which explicitly supports dangerous permanent global warming.1. Durbster trashed your list before, why no mention of that? I believe Looney also dismantled a list of yours but again no mention of it.
2. Are you seriously asking us to provide proof that any of your Big Oil funded organisations believe in AGW?
indeed.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff