Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
gadgetmac said:
stew-STR160 said:
gadgetmac said:
Nobody is claiming to be an expert I said "Fake Experts."
The Heartland Institute claim Benny Peiser is a Climate expert, he's not. He signs a letter and it's held up on here as if it has gravitas in the Climate debate.
So take it up with them.The Heartland Institute claim Benny Peiser is a Climate expert, he's not. He signs a letter and it's held up on here as if it has gravitas in the Climate debate.
While you're at it, please also approach all those organisations who support AGW, and ask them to strike off every name on their list of supporters who doesn't hold a relevant qualification.
Unlike the denier side which has a very shallow pool of talent to draw from.
Oh that's right, just those two examples were proven to be rubbish. I have more. Would you like to hear more of when consensus views were overturned by a minority?
wc98 said:
. at least you are smart enough not to make strong comments on climate related topics you know nothing about.
Unfortunately and transparently, you guys lack the same awareness. That’s the very basis of your cult. A collection of people who obviously haven’t got a clue, googling and imagining they are knowledgeable about “climate related topics” and anything else that happens to come up. Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 12th February 11:56
wc98 said:
gadgetmac said:
If I were you I would kick your cat out as he's clearly the smartest in your house. 
i could give you him on loan for a week if you would like to double your household iq 
El stovey said:
wc98 said:
. at least you are smart enough not to make strong comments on climate related topics you know nothing about.
Unfortunately and transparently, that’s the very basis of your cult. A collection of people who obviously haven’t got a clue, googling and imagining they are knowledgeable about “climate related topics” and anything else that happens to come up. robinessex said:
I have a confession. I contributed to planet Armageddon this morning. Went for a 10 mile bike ride, and exhumed an extra amount of CO2. I beg forgiveness. A quick calculation means I’ve increased the planets temperature by 0.00000000000000000000000123 Degrees
Repent sinner! And pay your monies to the almighty, Al Gore.robinessex said:
What Climate science knowledge do you have in your brain then, that you can reference on demand?
Like you very little. The difference is though that I’m not pretending I know more than the scientific community and I know the difference between google knowledge and actual knowledge.
And unlike you, I’d hopefully realise that if I was getting my facts from TB and wattsupwiththat and the GWPF and I thought NASA and every scientific institution on the planet are colluding in a scam then warning bells in my brain would alert me to the likelihood that I’m going wrong somewhere.
Time and time again on here and the other climate and energy threads, we see where you guys are blagging about stuff using google trying to argue with people that have a clue. It’s very obvious.
robinessex said:
Rather than constantly quoting the BBC, your affliction has led you to finding and now quoting a website called biasedbbc.org Seriously?
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
Rather than constantly quoting the BBC, your affliction has led you to finding and now quoting a website called biasedbbc.org Seriously?
I haven't ever quoted them. If you want to be taken seriously here, learn to read accurately, and don’t make things up. We do all know of course that the AGW exponents are 100% pure and honest.
stew-STR160 said:
durbster said:
stew-STR160 said:
That's the problem here. We don't deny climate change is real, only the very stupid out there do.
Even I, and I think most of the others on this thread would answer "yes, it's real".
So you agree that climate change is happening and we need to treat it as urgent? Even I, and I think most of the others on this thread would answer "yes, it's real".
Obviously climate change is shorthand for human-caused climate change. Everybody knows that and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
durbster said:
stew-STR160 said:
durbster said:
stew-STR160 said:
That's the problem here. We don't deny climate change is real, only the very stupid out there do.
Even I, and I think most of the others on this thread would answer "yes, it's real".
So you agree that climate change is happening and we need to treat it as urgent? Even I, and I think most of the others on this thread would answer "yes, it's real".
Obviously climate change is shorthand for human-caused climate change. Everybody knows that and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
No back tracking required.
stew-STR160 said:
So, the deeper the pool, the more accurate it is? Like, the vast pool that was involved with String Theory. Like NASA who said categorically that magnetic fields in the cosmos were irrelevant. etc etc
Oh that's right, just those two examples were proven to be rubbish. I have more. Would you like to hear more of when consensus views were overturned by a minority?
That’s great, exactly how science should work, science is alive an well, yay science.Oh that's right, just those two examples were proven to be rubbish. I have more. Would you like to hear more of when consensus views were overturned by a minority?
So why hasn’t the consensus been overturned by a minority this time then?
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
Rather than constantly quoting the BBC, your affliction has led you to finding and now quoting a website called biasedbbc.org Seriously?
I haven't ever quoted them. If you want to be taken seriously here, learn to read accurately, and don’t make things up. We do all know of course that the AGW exponents are 100% pure and honest.
You’re not well.
El stovey said:
stew-STR160 said:
So, the deeper the pool, the more accurate it is? Like, the vast pool that was involved with String Theory. Like NASA who said categorically that magnetic fields in the cosmos were irrelevant. etc etc
Oh that's right, just those two examples were proven to be rubbish. I have more. Would you like to hear more of when consensus views were overturned by a minority?
That’s great, exactly how science should work, science is alive an well, yay science.Oh that's right, just those two examples were proven to be rubbish. I have more. Would you like to hear more of when consensus views were overturned by a minority?
So why hasn’t the consensus been overturned by a minority this time then?
AGW is a new religion.
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
Rather than constantly quoting the BBC, your affliction has led you to finding and now quoting a website called biasedbbc.org Seriously?
I haven't ever quoted them. If you want to be taken seriously here, learn to read accurately, and don’t make things up. We do all know of course that the AGW exponents are 100% pure and honest.
You’re not well.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff