Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[LoonyTunes]

Jinx said:

LoonyTunes said:

Please share, I need a giggle




Jinx: You clearly have a comprehension problem..

"governments should demonstrate leadership by recognising the risks climate change poses"

If risk isn't a 'problem' we live in different universes.

But that's a generic "climate change" - we know those happen and are going to happen anyway. What risks are specific to man made climate change?

Time for you to answer my question, enough deflection

[turbobloke]

LoonyTunes said:

jjlynn27 said:

This thread just keeps giving. It turns out that one of the vocal cultists is also anti-vaxxer. Imagine my surprise.

Please share, I need a giggle

Fantastic irony from people who believe in (can see?) invisible things that ought to be visible and take people's word for it that this is OK really. A position shared by the Flat Earth Society, which must matter to those who think organisations matter.

Straight faces well kept!

Meanwhile, fewer alarmist vessels ought to be popping (not much chance though) as a runaway warming effect won’t kick in until global average temperatures reach 67 deg C. Global warming alone is insufficient to cause such a tipping point. Rejoice!

The study, published in a peer reviewed paper in PNAS, has co-authors Koll (postdoc) and Cronin (Assistant Professor) both MIT.

This goes some way to explaining how climate luminaries such as Prince Charles, Gordon Brown and Albert Gore have been going so badly wrong over the years.

We've reached peak tipping point! As above not much chance though,

Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 26th September 13:34

[jjlynn27]

LoonyTunes said:

jjlynn27 said:

This thread just keeps giving. It turns out that one of the vocal cultists is also anti-vaxxer. Imagine my surprise.

Please share, I need a giggle

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Entertaining and terrifying in equal measure, no?

I mentioned before that particular type of cultist that frequents this thread reminds me of anti-vaxers from a few years ago. The same mo, as eloquently described by Dessler.

How bad is it when actual scientists, that you chose to quote to give rantings air of respectability, tell you that you are basically full of st and that you are "totally misrepresenting" them?

[Diderot]

LoonyTunes said:

El stovey said:

Now you’re asking if those asking for your evidence have found it for you yet?

It is rum

It simply highlights 1. how intellectually lazy you are, 2. how naive and gullible you are. and 3. how little you know about this area from both a geo-political and scientific standpoint.

You were the one who claimed that TATA was a donor without any vested interest. This is utter nonsense. If you are unsure why it is nonsense, do some research. And in general, do some due diligence before you make unsubstantiated and breathtakingly naive claims.

[LoonyTunes]

Diderot said:

LoonyTunes said:

El stovey said:

Now you’re asking if those asking for your evidence have found it for you yet?

It is rum

It simply highlights 1. how intellectually lazy you are, 2. how naive and gullible you are. and 3. how little you know about this area from both a geo-political and scientific standpoint.

You were the one who claimed that TATA was a donor without any vested interest. This is utter nonsense. If you are unsure why it is nonsense, do some research. And in general, do some due diligence before you make unsubstantiated and breathtakingly naive claims.

Prove it. I'll wait. But I've likely less than 30 years left so be smart.

[TTwiggy]

Diderot said:

You were the one who claimed that TATA was a donor without any vested interest. This is utter nonsense. If you are unsure why it is nonsense, do some research. And in general, do some due diligence before you make unsubstantiated and breathtakingly naive claims.

Would it not save a fktard of time/page count if you just told him? You could just say 'TATA have a vested interest because xyx'. Just an observation.

[anonymous-user]

TTwiggy said:

Diderot said:

You were the one who claimed that TATA was a donor without any vested interest. This is utter nonsense. If you are unsure why it is nonsense, do some research. And in general, do some due diligence before you make unsubstantiated and breathtakingly naive claims.

Would it not save a fktard of time/page count if you just told him? You could just say 'TATA have a vested interest because xyx'. Just an observation.

Yes do this Diderot. Or are you waiting for dickymint to complete his financial investigation?

This thread is hilarious. Anti vaccination cult members too!

Are there any other conspiracies you guys are into or scientific consensus you don’t agree with?

[Diderot]

TTwiggy said:

Diderot said:

You were the one who claimed that TATA was a donor without any vested interest. This is utter nonsense. If you are unsure why it is nonsense, do some research. And in general, do some due diligence before you make unsubstantiated and breathtakingly naive claims.

Would it not save a fktard of time/page count if you just told him? You could just say 'TATA have a vested interest because xyx'. Just an observation.

He should just do some googling if he can actually read. He is simply a troll, so not playing dice and spoon feeding him.

[TTwiggy]

Diderot said:

TTwiggy said:

Diderot said:

You were the one who claimed that TATA was a donor without any vested interest. This is utter nonsense. If you are unsure why it is nonsense, do some research. And in general, do some due diligence before you make unsubstantiated and breathtakingly naive claims.

Would it not save a fktard of time/page count if you just told him? You could just say 'TATA have a vested interest because xyx'. Just an observation.

He should just do some googling if he can actually read. He is simply a troll, so not playing dice and spoon feeding him.

But that's simply ridiculous. As a casual observer of this thread, what I keep seeing is posters from 'your' side saying 'no, you're wrong'. But when challenged to explain why, all you seem to offer is 'google it yourself!'. Why can't you just state your case in simple terms? You just look like you've got nothing and are playing for time until the discussion moves on.

[LoonyTunes]

jjlynn27 said:

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Entertaining and terrifying in equal measure, no?

I mentioned before that particular type of cultist that frequents this thread reminds me of anti-vaxers from a few years ago. The same mo, as eloquently described by Dessler.

How bad is it when actual scientists, that you chose to quote to give rantings air of respectability, tell you that you are basically full of st and that you are "totally misrepresenting" them?

Jesus, and I entertained Jasandjules posts on this thread too

Can we just take a quick straw pole amongst the deniers to ascertain who else is an anti-vaxer, flat earther, homeopathy promoter...we already know they are conspiracy theorists

[anonymous-user]

What’s even more funny is that they jump all over us for “believing” scientists and NASA but when one of their own talks actual nonsense they all go quiet.

You think at least TB would have a word with the anti vaccinations brother and put him on BBC watch duties instead of robinessex.

I suppose there’s so few people willing to believe this stuff that they have to stick together.

[gadgetmac]

Diderot said:

He should just do some googling if he can actually read. He is simply a troll, so not playing dice and spoon feeding him.

I'm afraid you're coming across as an intellectual midget. No offence.

[turbobloke]

Topic for discussion between the messenger being shot and another organisation committeee going on the pointless list.

[dickymint]

gadgetmac said:

I'm afraid you're coming across as an intellectual midget. No offence.

“No offence” to to midgets or Diderot? :confused”

[turbobloke]

dickymint said:

gadgetmac said:

I'm afraid you're coming across as an intellectual midget. No offence.

“No offence” to to midgets or Diderot? :confused”

Irony from agw supporters is usually off the scale and that offering didn't disappoint.

[Randy Winkman]

turbobloke said:

Fantastic irony from people who believe in (can see?) invisible things that ought to be visible and take people's word for it that this is OK really. A position shared by the Flat Earth Society, which must matter to those who think organisations matter.

Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 26th September 13:34

For me that makes more sense than believing something to the contrary because of a few things I saw on the internet.

[zygalski]

LoonyTunes said:

...Now, no more questions will be answered until YOU answer the following:

Do you have a few serious scientific institutes that disagrees with this position? One even?

A simple Yes or No will suffice.

It's an easy enough question but one which it appears remains unanswered ever since I started the list.

ETA: You realise that's just one statement signed by 23 Societies/Institutes and ones based in the UK only? There are many more statements signed by many more such bodies around the globe

Edited by LoonyTunes on Wednesday 26th September 12:45

Oh do pay attention!
Our resident experts have explained this many, many times.

1. There is no consensus within the scientific community & seats of learning that AGW poses a threat. Any consensus is a myth.
2. The only reason all these organisations agree that AGW is a real threat is that they are on the gravy train for more funding.

See - easy.
There's absolutely no agreement, but these same organisations that disagree with the official stance from the IPCC on climate change are all in it for AGW funding, and that's why they are all in agreement.

I've learned a lot from the likes of Turbospam. His logic is beyond reproach.

[Diderot]

LoonyTunes said:

jjlynn27 said:

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Entertaining and terrifying in equal measure, no?

I mentioned before that particular type of cultist that frequents this thread reminds me of anti-vaxers from a few years ago. The same mo, as eloquently described by Dessler.

How bad is it when actual scientists, that you chose to quote to give rantings air of respectability, tell you that you are basically full of st and that you are "totally misrepresenting" them?

Jesus, and I entertained Jasandjules posts on this thread too

Can we just take a quick straw pole amongst the deniers to ascertain who else is an anti-vaxer, flat earther, homeopathy promoter...we already know they are conspiracy theorists

Er. Prince Charles is a fervent gloopal wombling alarmist, egged on by his mate Jonathan Porritt, and dumbo believes that homeopathy is legitimate. He also talks to plants. Not sure what your point ever is, but here as always it doesn't stack up because you fail to do any reading or thinking.

[Diderot]

TTwiggy said:

Diderot said:

TTwiggy said:

Diderot said:

You were the one who claimed that TATA was a donor without any vested interest. This is utter nonsense. If you are unsure why it is nonsense, do some research. And in general, do some due diligence before you make unsubstantiated and breathtakingly naive claims.

Would it not save a fktard of time/page count if you just told him? You could just say 'TATA have a vested interest because xyx'. Just an observation.

He should just do some googling if he can actually read. He is simply a troll, so not playing dice and spoon feeding him.

But that's simply ridiculous. As a casual observer of this thread, what I keep seeing is posters from 'your' side saying 'no, you're wrong'. But when challenged to explain why, all you seem to offer is 'google it yourself!'. Why can't you just state your case in simple terms? You just look like you've got nothing and are playing for time until the discussion moves on.

I gave the troll all the clues, as did Dicky (TERI, Railway Engineer, Carbon offsets). If he had 2 brain cells to rub together - he doesn't since one of them is controlling his sphincter so it is constantly occupied - he could have quickly found out his error. But as a troll, it's not part of his game plan to actually do any research, just to disrupt. If he is not a troll, which is hard to believe, then one would assume that as in any other walk of life, you would undertake due diligence. If you don't then you are easy prey, a sheep.

[gadgetmac]

Diderot said:

Not sure what your point ever is, but here as always it doesn't stack up because you fail to do any reading or thinking.

But he still manages to both comprehend whats being said and answer questions.

Two things you lack entirely.