Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[anonymous-user]

robinessex said:

El stovey said:

robinessex said:

El stovey said:

robinessex said:

Exposing the broadcasting bias of the BBC

https://biasedbbc.org/blog/2014/04/04/matt-mcgrath...

Rather than constantly quoting the BBC, your affliction has led you to finding and now quoting a website called biasedbbc.org

Seriously?

I only referenced them. (The BEEB deserve all the flack possible for it blatant CC bias.)
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’ve just linked to a site called biasedbbc.org

You’re not well.

I said you can't read. I SAID I LINKED TO THEM. But I've never quote from them. Having got that simple fact wrong, you AGW utterances are probably just a bad

WHY ARE YOU ON A SITE CALLED biasedbbc.org that’s not normal.

[kerplunk]

stew-STR160 said:

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.
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.

Why would I, they are not being held up as experts, there are tens of thousands of real climate scientists to choose from.

Unlike the denier side which has a very shallow pool of talent to draw from.

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?

Why have experts at all? We use them to guide policy decisions. But they're often wrong. So lets not even bother with experts and make policy on the opinions of ...well anyone really, just pick someone at random, maybe you? You've got just as much chance of being right as a group of experts - science doesn't work by consensus after all so your opinion is as valid as anyone elses. I'm convinced - I want YOU to be the government scientific advisor on environmental issues. No pressure, what could possibly go wrong - be brave!

[anonymous-user]

stew-STR160 said:

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.

So why hasn’t the consensus been overturned by a minority this time then?

How long did it take for religious persecution to stop? In some countries it's still rife.

AGW is a new religion.

So the reason the consensus on AGW hasn’t been overturned like all the other incorrect consensus of the past is that you think it’s a religion?

I’m afraid that’s nonsense. You can’t be comfortable writing such rubbish.

[robinessex]

El stovey said:

robinessex said:

El stovey said:

robinessex said:

El stovey said:

robinessex said:

Exposing the broadcasting bias of the BBC

https://biasedbbc.org/blog/2014/04/04/matt-mcgrath...

Rather than constantly quoting the BBC, your affliction has led you to finding and now quoting a website called biasedbbc.org

Seriously?

I only referenced them. (The BEEB deserve all the flack possible for it blatant CC bias.)
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’ve just linked to a site called biasedbbc.org

You’re not well.

I said you can't read. I SAID I LINKED TO THEM. But I've never quote from them. Having got that simple fact wrong, you AGW utterances are probably just a bad

WHY ARE YOU ON A SITE CALLED biasedbbc.org that’s not normal.

Just about the most stupid comment you've made. Please define normal ? For your edification, it does show up the Beeb as dysfunctional on CC topic, and a thoroughly corrupted and biased organisation.

[Dindoit]

stew-STR160 said:

AGW is a new religion.

Does that make your side a cult?


Damn autocorrect

[stew-STR160]

kerplunk said:

stew-STR160 said:

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.
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.

Why would I, they are not being held up as experts, there are tens of thousands of real climate scientists to choose from.

Unlike the denier side which has a very shallow pool of talent to draw from.

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?

Why have experts at all? We use them to guide policy decisions. But they're often wrong. So lets not even bother with experts and make policy on the opinions of ...well anyone really, just pick someone at random, maybe you? You've got just as much chance of being right as a group of experts - science doesn't work by consensus after all so your opinion is as valid as anyone elses. I'm convinced - I want YOU to be the government scientific advisor on environmental issues. No pressure, what could possibly go wrong - be brave!

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

For my first act as Supreme Leader, I will ensure a 3 day weekend is mandatory, apart from traffic wardens, who shall be shot into the sun.

[anonymous-user]

robinessex said:

Just about the most stupid comment you've made. Please define normal ? For your edification, it does show up the Beeb as dysfunctional on CC topic, and a thoroughly corrupted and biased organisation.

You’re constantly quoting the bbc which was odd enough, but now you’ve moved up to linking to a website called biassedbbc.org which is presumably all about highlighting bbc bias.

Don’t you think this is at least a bit irrational?

[robinessex]

El stovey said:

robinessex said:

Just about the most stupid comment you've made. Please define normal ? For your edification, it does show up the Beeb as dysfunctional on CC topic, and a thoroughly corrupted and biased organisation.

You’re constantly quoting the bbc which was odd enough, but now you’ve moved up to linking to a website called biassedbbc.org which is presumably all about highlighting bbc bias.

Don’t you think this is at least a bit irrational?

What's irrational about publicising our premier news organisation, which is a directly public funded organisation, as being blatantly biased, just issuing CC propaganda ?

[wc98]

robinessex said:

What's irrational about publicising our premier news organisation, which is a directly public funded organisation, as being blatantly biased, just issuing CC propaganda ?

ye, that's a crazy notion you have there, talking about the politics involved in climate change on a thread about climate politics

[anonymous-user]

robinessex said:

What's irrational about publicising our premier news organisation, which is a directly public funded organisation, as being blatantly biased, just issuing CC propaganda ?

Your behaviour is the very definition of irrational.

You don't listen to reason or logic, you are completely focused on exposing the BBC for being biased (in your mind). The trouble is you can’t fulfill this need because people won’t agree or can’t see this bias and corruption also.

So your irrational behaviour has got worse from just posting constantly about bbc bias to finding a site which exists just to show bias to others. So you’re stoking your own behaviour and now think you’re exposing the BBC for “being blatantly biased, just issuing CC propaganda”.

Where are you getting all this bbc bias from? Are you going on the bbc website (which you don’t like) every day and looking for examples of this bias to expose on here?

How on Earth did you find a site called biasedbbc.org? Are you actually googling “bbc bias”?

[Dindoit]

robinessex said:

What's irrational about publicising our premier news organisation, which is a directly public funded organisation, as being blatantly biased, just issuing CC propaganda ?

They don’t spend much time on creationism or 9/11 conspiracies either. Disgraceful bias.

I saw them interviewing Buzz Aldrin recently and not once did they offer an alternative view about the so-called “moon landings”.

[turbobloke]

CHINA AND INDIA LEAD THE WAY IN GLOBAL GREENING

The world is literally a greener place than it was twenty years ago, and data from NASA satellites has revealed a counterintuitive source for much of this new foliage.

“China and India account for one-third of the greening, but contain only 9 percent of the planet’s land area covered in vegetation,” said lead author Chi Chen of Boston University. “That is a surprising finding, considering the general notion of land degradation in populous countries from overexploitation.”

NASA Earth Observatory, 11 February 2019

[kerplunk]

stew-STR160 said:

kerplunk said:

stew-STR160 said:

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.
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.

Why would I, they are not being held up as experts, there are tens of thousands of real climate scientists to choose from.

Unlike the denier side which has a very shallow pool of talent to draw from.

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?

Why have experts at all? We use them to guide policy decisions. But they're often wrong. So lets not even bother with experts and make policy on the opinions of ...well anyone really, just pick someone at random, maybe you? You've got just as much chance of being right as a group of experts - science doesn't work by consensus after all so your opinion is as valid as anyone elses. I'm convinced - I want YOU to be the government scientific advisor on environmental issues. No pressure, what could possibly go wrong - be brave!

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

For my first act as Supreme Leader, I will ensure a 3 day weekend is mandatory, apart from traffic wardens, who shall be shot into the sun.

Supreme Leader - good idea! I hadn't thought it through to the logical conclusion - why even have advisors of any sort?

[Diderot]

El stovey said:

robinessex said:

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.

But you seemingly don't understand the status of the so-called knowledge gleaned from the excreta of GCMs.

[robinessex]

El stovey said:

robinessex said:

What's irrational about publicising our premier news organisation, which is a directly public funded organisation, as being blatantly biased, just issuing CC propaganda ?

Your behaviour is the very definition of irrational.

You don't listen to reason or logic, you are completely focused on exposing the BBC for being biased (in your mind). The trouble is you can’t fulfill this need because people won’t agree or can’t see this bias and corruption also.

So your irrational behaviour has got worse from just posting constantly about bbc bias to finding a site which exists just to show bias to others. So you’re stoking your own behaviour and now think you’re exposing the BBC for “being blatantly biased, just issuing CC propaganda”.

Where are you getting all this bbc bias from? Are you going on the bbc website (which you don’t like) every day and looking for examples of this bias to expose on here?

How on Earth did you find a site called biasedbbc.org? Are you actually googling “bbc bias”?

I'm really worried with a sense of logic like that, someone has assessed you a fit person to fly an airplane. Anyway, one again you’ve ignored the message. The Beeb is corrupt. A fact. The persons responsible should be instantly dismissed, and the Beeb returned to a neutral news posting organisation. Not with 2 pet dogs churning out CC bks.

[gadgetmac]

kerplunk said:

stew-STR160 said:

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.
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.

Why would I, they are not being held up as experts, there are tens of thousands of real climate scientists to choose from.

Unlike the denier side which has a very shallow pool of talent to draw from.

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?

Why have experts at all? We use them to guide policy decisions. But they're often wrong. So lets not even bother with experts and make policy on the opinions of ...well anyone really, just pick someone at random, maybe you? You've got just as much chance of being right as a group of experts - science doesn't work by consensus after all so your opinion is as valid as anyone elses. I'm convinced - I want YOU to be the government scientific advisor on environmental issues. No pressure, what could possibly go wrong - be brave!

[gadgetmac]

El stovey said:

robinessex said:

What's irrational about publicising our premier news organisation, which is a directly public funded organisation, as being blatantly biased, just issuing CC propaganda ?

Your behaviour is the very definition of irrational.

You don't listen to reason or logic, you are completely focused on exposing the BBC for being biased (in your mind). The trouble is you can’t fulfill this need because people won’t agree or can’t see this bias and corruption also.

So your irrational behaviour has got worse from just posting constantly about bbc bias to finding a site which exists just to show bias to others. So you’re stoking your own behaviour and now think you’re exposing the BBC for “being blatantly biased, just issuing CC propaganda”.

Where are you getting all this bbc bias from? Are you going on the bbc website (which you don’t like) every day and looking for examples of this bias to expose on here?

How on Earth did you find a site called biasedbbc.org? Are you actually googling “bbc bias”?

This x100

[gadgetmac]

Dindoit said:

robinessex said:

What's irrational about publicising our premier news organisation, which is a directly public funded organisation, as being blatantly biased, just issuing CC propaganda ?

They don’t spend much time on creationism or 9/11 conspiracies either. Disgraceful bias.

I saw them interviewing Buzz Aldrin recently and not once did they offer an alternative view about the so-called “moon landings”.

I don't know how they can't see the logic of this. But hey ho, it gives them something to rant about to their kin over Sunday lunch.

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

El stovey said:

robinessex said:

What's irrational about publicising our premier news organisation, which is a directly public funded organisation, as being blatantly biased, just issuing CC propaganda ?

Your behaviour is the very definition of irrational.

You don't listen to reason or logic, you are completely focused on exposing the BBC for being biased (in your mind). The trouble is you can’t fulfill this need because people won’t agree or can’t see this bias and corruption also.

So your irrational behaviour has got worse from just posting constantly about bbc bias to finding a site which exists just to show bias to others. So you’re stoking your own behaviour and now think you’re exposing the BBC for “being blatantly biased, just issuing CC propaganda”.

Where are you getting all this bbc bias from? Are you going on the bbc website (which you don’t like) every day and looking for examples of this bias to expose on here?

How on Earth did you find a site called biasedbbc.org? Are you actually googling “bbc bias”?

I'm really worried with a sense of logic like that, someone has assessed you a fit person to fly an airplane. Anyway, one again you’ve ignored the message. The Beeb is corrupt. A fact. The persons responsible should be instantly dismissed, and the Beeb returned to a neutral news posting organisation. Not with 2 pet dogs churning out CC bks.

I think I'd rather get on his plane than one flown by you Rob. We'd spend the first hour chasing Pegasus.

[anonymous-user]

robinessex said:

I'm really worried with a sense of logic like that, someone has assessed you a fit person to fly an airplane.

No need to worry, i’ve been psychologically assessed fit many, many times. When was your last evaluation?