Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[robinessex]

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

I think the last few posts my Mr. G says it all really. I suppose I should get him dumped from here, but I'll let him carry own digging an even bigger hole for himself. Just don't get near him when he throws his toys out of his pram.

How are you going to get me dumped from here??? Delusions of granduer.

You post rubbish and you’ll get called out on it.

Already answered that question. Shows you don't read and understand postings here.

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

I think the last few posts my Mr. G says it all really. I suppose I should get him dumped from here, but I'll let him carry own digging an even bigger hole for himself. Just don't get near him when he throws his toys out of his pram.

How are you going to get me dumped from here??? Delusions of granduer.

You post rubbish and you’ll get called out on it.

Already answered that question. Shows you don't read and understand postings here.

Perhaps you should get your niece to teach you english.

[robinessex]

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

I think the last few posts my Mr. G says it all really. I suppose I should get him dumped from here, but I'll let him carry own digging an even bigger hole for himself. Just don't get near him when he throws his toys out of his pram.

How are you going to get me dumped from here??? Delusions of granduer.

You post rubbish and you’ll get called out on it.

Already answered that question. Shows you don't read and understand postings here.

Perhaps you should get your niece to teach you english.

Says even more

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

I think the last few posts my Mr. G says it all really. I suppose I should get him dumped from here, but I'll let him carry own digging an even bigger hole for himself. Just don't get near him when he throws his toys out of his pram.

How are you going to get me dumped from here??? Delusions of granduer.

You post rubbish and you’ll get called out on it.

Already answered that question. Shows you don't read and understand postings here.

Perhaps you should get your niece to teach you english.

Says even more

Probably

[The Don of Croy]

gadgetmac said:

And my auntie’s friends third cousin says your niece is full of st, and her dog agrees.

Is this a new low for discourse?

Shame, I used to enjoy this thread.

[robinessex]

The Don of Croy said:

gadgetmac said:

And my auntie’s friends third cousin says your niece is full of st, and her dog agrees.

Is this a new low for discourse?

Shame, I used to enjoy this thread.

Give a guy enough rope, etc., etc. That's what happens when you only have a belief to reply with I'm afraid

[gadgetmac]

The Don of Croy said:

gadgetmac said:

And my auntie’s friends third cousin says your niece is full of st, and her dog agrees.

Is this a new low for discourse?

Shame, I used to enjoy this thread.

Me too. But then I saw a post that said we have to take something as fact because their niece supposedly said so.

I just took that argument to its natural conclusion.

[robinessex]

gadgetmac said:

The Don of Croy said:

gadgetmac said:

And my auntie’s friends third cousin says your niece is full of st, and her dog agrees.

Is this a new low for discourse?

Shame, I used to enjoy this thread.

Me too. But then I saw a post that said we have to take something as fact because their niece supposedly said so.

I just took that argument to its natural conclusion.

Perfect example of your consistent deliberate misinterpreting of posts. I didn't say "my niece supposedly said so". I said my niece a QUALIFIED TEACHER, told me how the subject is delivered to pupils. FACT. Which I guess you don’t like to hear.

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

The Don of Croy said:

gadgetmac said:

And my auntie’s friends third cousin says your niece is full of st, and her dog agrees.

Is this a new low for discourse?

Shame, I used to enjoy this thread.

Me too. But then I saw a post that said we have to take something as fact because their niece supposedly said so.

I just took that argument to its natural conclusion.

Perfect example of your consistent deliberate misinterpreting of posts. I didn't say "my niece supposedly said so". I said my niece a QUALIFIED TEACHER, told me how the subject is delivered to pupils. FACT. Which I guess you don’t like to hear.

And we should believe you because.....?

[deeps]

The Don of Croy said:

gadgetmac said:

And my auntie’s friends third cousin says your niece is full of st, and her dog agrees.

Is this a new low for discourse?

Shame, I used to enjoy this thread.

The obvious intention is transparently obvious.

[deeps]

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

The Don of Croy said:

gadgetmac said:

And my auntie’s friends third cousin says your niece is full of st, and her dog agrees.

Is this a new low for discourse?

Shame, I used to enjoy this thread.

Me too. But then I saw a post that said we have to take something as fact because their niece supposedly said so.

I just took that argument to its natural conclusion.

Perfect example of your consistent deliberate misinterpreting of posts. I didn't say "my niece supposedly said so". I said my niece a QUALIFIED TEACHER, told me how the subject is delivered to pupils. FACT. Which I guess you don’t like to hear.

And we should believe you because.....?

...because that's what teachers are paid to do. Perhaps you think they are all scientists?

Rob, gadget's flippant replies are not worth replying to, they are designed to disrupt the thread.

[gadgetmac]

deeps said:

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

The Don of Croy said:

gadgetmac said:

And my auntie’s friends third cousin says your niece is full of st, and her dog agrees.

Is this a new low for discourse?

Shame, I used to enjoy this thread.

Me too. But then I saw a post that said we have to take something as fact because their niece supposedly said so.

I just took that argument to its natural conclusion.

Perfect example of your consistent deliberate misinterpreting of posts. I didn't say "my niece supposedly said so". I said my niece a QUALIFIED TEACHER, told me how the subject is delivered to pupils. FACT. Which I guess you don’t like to hear.

And we should believe you because.....?

...because that's what teachers are paid to do. Perhaps you think they are all scientists?

Rob, gadget's flippant replies are not worth replying to, they are designed to disrupt the thread.

No mate. My replies are designed to highlight the paucity of the argument. Just because somebody says something on the internet doesn’t make any of it true.

Of course I fully expect you deniers not to embrace the logic of that due to you showing no sign of doing it previously.

Especially you deeps who posts ‘comments’ from random people on denier blog sites as if what they say should be taken as the truth

As for disrupt this thread...you do know this thread isn’t merely for you lot to all make posts that you all agree with don’t you?

In my eyes some of YOU are the disruptors. Again, especially you deeps who appeared from nowhere recently.

[robinessex]

Mr G is the epitome of a politician. They NEVER answer the question you ask. They either rephrase it, or it’s completely ignored.

[gadgetmac]

Weirdly I’ll ask REAL scientists questions and post up their answers whilst you won’t because you “don’t have social media”.

Go figure.

[Diderot]

gadgetmac said:

Weirdly I’ll ask REAL scientists questions and post up their answers whilst you won’t because you “don’t have social media”.

Go figure.

And how do you know what some scientists write in x article in x journal is ‘true’?

[deeps]

gadgetmac said:

No mate. My replies are designed to highlight the paucity of the argument. Just because somebody says something on the internet doesn’t make any of it true.

The irony. Your blind belief in authority is the very enemy of truth.

gadgetmac said:

Of course I fully expect you deniers not to embrace the logic of that due to you showing no sign of doing it previously.

Especially you deeps who posts ‘comments’ from random people on denier blog sites as if what they say should be taken as the truth

As for disrupt this thread...you do know this thread isn’t merely for you lot to all make posts that you all agree with don’t you?

In my eyes some of YOU are the disruptors. Again, especially you deeps who appeared from nowhere recently.

I don't post anything to be "taken as the truth". I post relevant comments to the debate, you are entitled to take them any which way. Calling people “deniers” is one of the first responses of those promoting disruption over intelligent debate.

[durbster]

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

Weirdly I’ll ask REAL scientists questions and post up their answers whilst you won’t because you “don’t have social media”.

Go figure.

And how do you know what some scientists write in x article in x journal is ‘true’?

It would greatly increase your understanding of this topic if you looked up the following:

1. What a trend is.
2. The scientific method.

[Kawasicki]

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

Since the CAGW believers are actually convinced sceptics, they have obviously access to clear evidence of CAGW. Where is it?

Which bit of evidence do you believe is missing that might convince you that AGW is happening as predicted?

You have the well-established theory of the greenhouse effect.
You have a good understanding of the heat-trapping effects of the various elements of the atmosphere.
You have a good understanding of how long those elements remain in the atmosphere.
You have models projecting a warming trend going back half a century.
You have a consistent warming trend closely matching those projections.
You have historic temperature records backed up by numerous sources ice cores and bore holes.
You have modern temperature records from thermometer records to satellite measurements.
You have all the physical evidence of warming; glaciers, ice loss, permafrost melt etc.
You have animal migration patterns adapting to the warming.
You have accurate measurements of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
You have an indisputable record of the source of the additional CO2 due to its carbon signature.
You have regular, record-breaking extreme weather events across the world.
You have acceptance from all major scientific organisations around the world.
You have acceptance from the leading scientists from all related fields.
You have acceptance from every source of all related data.

What else can you possibly need?

You made a list. Well done. Most of the items on your list are questionable, are you sure you are a sceptic?

[durbster]

Kawasicki said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

Since the CAGW believers are actually convinced sceptics, they have obviously access to clear evidence of CAGW. Where is it?

Which bit of evidence do you believe is missing that might convince you that AGW is happening as predicted?

You have the well-established theory of the greenhouse effect.
You have a good understanding of the heat-trapping effects of the various elements of the atmosphere.
You have a good understanding of how long those elements remain in the atmosphere.
You have models projecting a warming trend going back half a century.
You have a consistent warming trend closely matching those projections.
You have historic temperature records backed up by numerous sources ice cores and bore holes.
You have modern temperature records from thermometer records to satellite measurements.
You have all the physical evidence of warming; glaciers, ice loss, permafrost melt etc.
You have animal migration patterns adapting to the warming.
You have accurate measurements of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
You have an indisputable record of the source of the additional CO2 due to its carbon signature.
You have regular, record-breaking extreme weather events across the world.
You have acceptance from all major scientific organisations around the world.
You have acceptance from the leading scientists from all related fields.
You have acceptance from every source of all related data.

What else can you possibly need?

You made a list. Well done. Most of the items on your list are questionable, are you sure you are a sceptic?

I've demonstrated scepticism consistently for years in these threads so you might as well reverse away from that dead end.

You didn't answer the question.

[Kawasicki]

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

Since the CAGW believers are actually convinced sceptics, they have obviously access to clear evidence of CAGW. Where is it?

Which bit of evidence do you believe is missing that might convince you that AGW is happening as predicted?

You have the well-established theory of the greenhouse effect.
You have a good understanding of the heat-trapping effects of the various elements of the atmosphere.
You have a good understanding of how long those elements remain in the atmosphere.
You have models projecting a warming trend going back half a century.
You have a consistent warming trend closely matching those projections.
You have historic temperature records backed up by numerous sources ice cores and bore holes.
You have modern temperature records from thermometer records to satellite measurements.
You have all the physical evidence of warming; glaciers, ice loss, permafrost melt etc.
You have animal migration patterns adapting to the warming.
You have accurate measurements of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
You have an indisputable record of the source of the additional CO2 due to its carbon signature.
You have regular, record-breaking extreme weather events across the world.
You have acceptance from all major scientific organisations around the world.
You have acceptance from the leading scientists from all related fields.
You have acceptance from every source of all related data.

What else can you possibly need?

You made a list. Well done. Most of the items on your list are questionable, are you sure you are a sceptic?

I've demonstrated scepticism consistently for years in these threads so you might as well reverse away from that dead end.

You didn't answer the question.

Sorry, missed them. I would need to see remarkable changes to our climate, the apocalyptic predictions need to materialise. So far not much has happened.