Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[kerplunk]

wc98 said:

kerplunk said:

gadgetmac said:

wc98

Presumably you just watched the 6pm National BBC News. There was an article on a major new study into why Insect numbers are in serious decline across the world now. They interviewed a Lab Scientist who explained about the factors involved in this decline and guess what? Yep, Dr Philip Donkersley from Lancaster University quoted Carbon as being a major issue and by extension Climate Change.

Is the Study “virtue signalling”?

Is the good Dr Donkersley “virtue signalling”?

Should the BBC not be reporting this?

The 10pm news tonight will rerun the item. In the words of the arch denier, Check it out.

oops looks like wc98 just made himself look stupid

carbon ? is someone throwing lumps of coal at spiders now ? dumb and dumber strike again and i am supposed to be making myself look stupid

The researchers found that declines in almost all regions may lead to the extinction of 40% of insects over the next few decades. One-third of insect species are classed as Endangered.

"The main factor is the loss of habitat, due to agricultural practices, urbanisation and deforestation," lead author Dr Francisco Sánchez-Bayo, from the University of Sydney, told BBC News.

"Second is the increasing use of fertilisers and pesticides in agriculture worldwide and contamination with chemical pollutants of all kinds. Thirdly, we have biological factors, such as invasive species and pathogens; and fourthly, we have climate change, particularly in tropical areas where it is known to have a big impact."

he did a good job squeezing the climate change phrase in, should be enough to keep him on the grant list. now before you start trying to wriggle out of your stupidity by claiming climate change has had a particularly large impact in the tropics i would suggest you do some reading to see if that notion can be supported. here is a starter for ten https://www.jcu.edu.au/state-of-the-tropics/public...

what about dr donkersley's comments today on the bbc ? well i haven't seen the program to see if gm has misrepresented what he said, but it is certainly at odds with what he has said previously.
"Dr Philip Donkersley, of Lancaster University and author of the study, said: "Given how great these resources are for pollinators, their loss could easily be a contributing factor to our current pollinator crisis across the world.

"By removing these key resources from the environment, and making insufficient efforts to replace them with wildflower strips, we are effectively starving our pollinators of food and places to nest."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/1811...

now you both look like clowns because you couldn't admit that in the report on monarch butterflies the reporter added in the climate change meme with no justification. expected by gm. he has done zero research on the subject, couldn't explain the greenhouse effect and just parrots the rantings of the alarmist element . expect better of kp though.

Edited by wc98 on Monday 11th February 20:36

Apologies - different insect stories confusion

[wc98]

gadgetmac said:

Shall I get you Dr Donkersley’s email address?

Perhaps you can ask him what its like having to lie on the main national BBC news in order to maintain his “grant income”

Income that you don’t even know that he’s getting.

The amount of contortion you have to go through in order to cover your basic lack of common sense is hilarious.

you must be on drugs if you think any aspect of this exchange comes out in your favour .utterly deluded and still avoiding multiple questions.

[gadgetmac]

I’m talking about the insect story on tonights bbc and channel 4 news which includes the global butterfly losses as explained by the entomology expert in the Channel 4 segment.

[wc98]

gadgetmac said:

Shall I get you Dr Donkersley’s email address?

Perhaps you can ask him what its like having to lie on the main national BBC news in order to maintain his “grant income”

Income that you don’t even know that he’s getting.

The amount of contortion you have to go through in order to cover your basic lack of common sense is hilarious.

show me the quote where i stated that re donkersley ? or are you making stuff up yet again and highlighting your lack of reading comprehension once again. you need to put the blue smarties down and go to bed, get a good nights rest and try and start tomorrow on a better footing.

[gadgetmac]

wc98 said:

gadgetmac said:

Shall I get you Dr Donkersley’s email address?

Perhaps you can ask him what its like having to lie on the main national BBC news in order to maintain his “grant income”

Income that you don’t even know that he’s getting.

The amount of contortion you have to go through in order to cover your basic lack of common sense is hilarious.

you must be on drugs if you think any aspect of this exchange comes out in your favour .utterly deluded and still avoiding multiple questions.

You need drugs if you think the news stories being reported don’t include references to Climate Change being part of the problem but instead are accusing the scientists involved in the study of being on the take.

As for multiple questions, why are you putting them to me? I wasn’t involved in the study and unlike you don’t claim to know more than those who did.

You’ve got to laugh. You think you know more than entomologists, climate change scientists, renewables experts...

[micky metro]

durbster said:

On the baseless myth often posted in these threads that there is actually huge disagreement among scientists about climate change, and the 97% in agreement is therefore incorrect, I saw this today.



https://twitter.com/BiologaSamantha/status/1094716...

Basically a scientist (non-climate) put an open poll to scientists on Twitter about acceptance of climate change. I just thought I'd share it because, amusingly, right now exactly 97% of respondents have currently voted in favour.

I've asked countless times on here for anything resembling evidence of this apparent enormous dissent among scientists but there just isn't any. Obviously a Twitter poll is hardly scientific but the ratio is clearly notable, and it's a reminder of which side of the argument is fringe.

But I'm sure this will be dismissed as being down to brainwashing or mysterious activists infiltrating Twitter or something equally daft.

The 97% in favour of climate change is no surprise to anyone, ask them what the causes are and how to deal with it, if it,s at all possible, and you might get an interesting result.
Science is not a democracy or an political agenda.

[wc98]

gadgetmac said:

You need drugs if you think the news stories being reported don’t include references to Climate Change being part of the problem but instead are accusing the scientists involved in the study of being on the take.

As for multiple questions, why are you putting them to me? I wasn’t involved in the study and unlike you don’t claim to know more than those who did.

You’ve got to laugh. You think you know more than entomologists, climate change scientists, renewables experts...

i can imagine you are laughing, manically , virtually all the time. yet another bait and switch with more fabricated claims and yet again can't answer a simple question.

[gadgetmac]

wc98 said:

show me the quote where i stated that re donkersley ? or are you making stuff up yet again and highlighting your lack of reading comprehension once again. you need to put the blue smarties down and go to bed, get a good nights rest and try and start tomorrow on a better footing.

No you said it about the lead author of the study Dr Francisco Sánchez-Bayo, from the University of Sydney.. But as Donkersley agrees with the study presumably the same applies to him.

I’ll answer my own question...well of course the same applies to him...and the rest of the scientific community...

Sorry I forgot.

Edited by gadgetmac on Monday 11th February 22:04

[gadgetmac]

The 10pm BBC News has run a cut down segment on it in order to fit in an extended bit about Brexit.

[wc98]

gadgetmac said:

Looks like you’ve got away with it as the 10pm BBC News has run a cut down segment on it in order to fit in an extended bit about Brexit.

not in scotland. i just watched it and can tell you word for word what he said. it makes you look even more of a plumb. he was talking about the role that insects like beetles have have in recycling carbon through soil

[deeps]

durbster said:

On the baseless myth often posted in these threads that there is actually huge disagreement among scientists about climate change, and the 97% in agreement is therefore incorrect, I saw this today.



https://twitter.com/BiologaSamantha/status/1094716...

Basically a scientist (non-climate) put an open poll to scientists on Twitter about acceptance of climate change. I just thought I'd share it because, amusingly, right now exactly 97% of respondents have currently voted in favour.

I've asked countless times on here for anything resembling evidence of this apparent enormous dissent among scientists but there just isn't any. Obviously a Twitter poll is hardly scientific but the ratio is clearly notable, and it's a reminder of which side of the argument is fringe.

But I'm sure this will be dismissed as being down to brainwashing or mysterious activists infiltrating Twitter or something equally daft.

I'm surprised she even got 3% to answer "it's a bunch of st".

How can climate change not be real?

[gadgetmac]

wc98 said:

gadgetmac said:

Looks like you’ve got away with it as the 10pm BBC News has run a cut down segment on it in order to fit in an extended bit about Brexit.

not in scotland. i just watched it and can tell you word for word what he said. it makes you look even more of a plumb. he was talking about the role that insects like beetles have have in recycling carbon through soil

We saw the same one in England. It was an abbreviated interview.

But you wouldn't know that because you didn't see the 6pm one.

[deeps]

gadgetmac said:

Both LittleBigPlanet and El stovey have covered all of the bases here.

Unfortunately I get drawn in to arguing with the deniers on here when I really shouldn't as life is too short. Thankfully they will change nothing because as the evidence grows the number of deniers shrinks.

What has it got to do with the number of sceptics? Whether they grow or shrink is irrelevant. You talk as if you believe that belief is enough to change something. Global temperature will do what it's going to do regardless of who or how many believe what.

[wc98]

gadgetmac said:

We saw the same one in England. It was an abbreviated interview.

But you wouldn't know that because you didn't see the 6pm one.

luckily for me i have sky so i can just download the 6pm news just away to watch it.

[gadgetmac]

wc98 said:

gadgetmac said:

We saw the same one in England. It was an abbreviated interview.

But you wouldn't know that because you didn't see the 6pm one.

luckily for me i have sky so i can just download the 6pm news just away to watch it.

I've just done the same and you are right I've got confused. However download the Channel 4 news and you'll see it mentioned by the professor.

[gadgetmac]

wc98 said:

gadgetmac said:

We saw the same one in England. It was an abbreviated interview.

But you wouldn't know that because you didn't see the 6pm one.

luckily for me i have sky so i can just download the 6pm news just away to watch it.

I've just done the same and you are right I've got confused. However download the Channel 4 news and you'll see it mentioned by the professor.

[wc98]

gadgetmac said:

We saw the same one in England. It was an abbreviated interview.

But you wouldn't know that because you didn't see the 6pm one.

i was correct. the segment with donkersley was the same length and stated exactly what i said . the rest of the piece was victoria gill over egging the climate change pudding yet again by mentioning it first in the list in an attempt to make it sound the major contributor. note they all say climate change as well, no mention of anthropogenic climate change.

today's 6pm bbc news will be available for download on sky until 5.30pm tomorrow,so anyone that wants to see who is bullstting here can easily check the above.gm doesn't seem to understand the mere mention of the word carbon is not always bad.

[wc98]

gadgetmac said:

I've just done the same and you are right I've got confused. However download the Channel 4 news and you'll see it mentioned by the professor.

ffs .it's bad enough listening to bbc alarmists never mind the channel 4 lot.
ps, channel 4 news from 7.00pm today isn't available to download ,only record future episodes.

Edited by wc98 on Monday 11th February 23:09

[gadgetmac]

wc98 said:

gadgetmac said:

I've just done the same and you are right I've got confused. However download the Channel 4 news and you'll see it mentioned by the professor.

ffs .it's bad enough listening to bbc alarmists never mind the channel 4 lot.

It's not the Channel 4 lot it's Professor Tom Oliver...

"What can we do to help reverse the decline?"

"We can ban the most dangerous insecticides and maintain the caps on CO2 emissions...."

My point is made, just with the wrong TV interview 45 minutes later.

[wc98]

gadgetmac said:

It's not the Channel 4 lot it's Professor Tom Oliver...

"What can we do to help reverse the decline?"

"We can ban the most dangerous insecticides and maintain the caps on CO2 emissions...."

My point is made, just with the wrong TV interview 45 minutes later.

so a different news program on a different channel and an interview with a different academic , but i'm the stupid one how about you say you were wrong when arguing about what donkersley said ? nah, i don't see that happening. i am surprised you admitted to even being confused.