Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[gadgetmac]

El stovey said:

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?

Rob, a few hours ago...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk...

[robinessex]

gadgetmac said:

El stovey said:

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?

Rob, a few hours ago...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk...

Er, where's the CC politics in that then ? Must have missed it.

[robinessex]

El stovey said:

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?

Bet you never showed you participation here.

[Diderot]

El stovey said:

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?

They didn't test you for being a hypocrite then?

[robinessex]

Diderot said:

El stovey said:

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?

They didn't test you for being a hypocrite then?

No, actually I was suffering from hallucinations. I kept telling them I could see minute evidence of man-made global warming, and the planet was heading for Armageddon. Told me to join the Beeb where I would find like-minded others.

[anonymous-user]

Diderot said:

They didn't test you for being a hypocrite then?

No but they did check my qualifications.

They don’t like people over egging their qualifications and lying about their job.

You’d be knackered?

[wc98]

El stovey said:

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 El stovey on Tuesday 12th February 11:56

do you actually believe some of the crap you post yourself ? i strongly suspect not ,you just enjoy the trolling. lots of people have lots of knowledge on a myriad of subjects they have no formal qualifications in. at best you are confusing a difference of opinion on the overall effect of an increase in the anthropogenic atmospheric co2 with a lack of knowledge of any of the subject matter. thing is, on this thread it appears the lack of basic subject matter knowledge is on the warmist side.

weather phenomena ,ocean cycles and climate all have significant importance for the activity i spend the majority of my time participating in these days. i had an interest in learning about these and many areas of marine biology well before i started posting in this forum. some of that learning was done using the internet but i would bet i would more than hold my own on the topic in a room with no internet access with any of the warmists on this thread.

[wc98]

gadgetmac said:

Rob, a few hours ago...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk...

given your mental "episode" yesterday evening when telling me how stupid i was when you couldn't even remember which news program,which tv channel or which academic while assuring everyone you were correct, i find that ironic in the extreme.

[gadgetmac]

El stovey said:

Diderot said:

They didn't test you for being a hypocrite then?

No but they did check my qualifications.

They don’t like people over egging their qualifications and lying about their job.

You’d be knackered?

Please, treat the Professor with the respect due. Oh, sorry, you are...

[deeps]

durbster said:

deeps said:

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

How can climate change not be real?

The poll explains what the poll options mean.

If that's the best response you can come up with, it seems the point has been made.

Yes it may well seem that way to you. To me, it seems the poll is some sort of joke, especially the way the question is termed. As if the actual results of a genuine poll would be 97/3. One would have to be very naive to believe it's not rigged. Very naive.

[gadgetmac]

wc98 said:

El stovey said:

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 El stovey on Tuesday 12th February 11:56

do you actually believe some of the crap you post yourself ? i strongly suspect not ,you just enjoy the trolling. lots of people have lots of knowledge on a myriad of subjects they have no formal qualifications in. at best you are confusing a difference of opinion on the overall effect of an increase in the anthropogenic atmospheric co2 with a lack of knowledge of any of the subject matter. thing is, on this thread it appears the lack of basic subject matter knowledge is on the warmist side.

weather phenomena ,ocean cycles and climate all have significant importance for the activity i spend the majority of my time participating in these days. i had an interest in learning about these and many areas of marine biology well before i started posting in this forum. some of that learning was done using the internet but i would bet i would more than hold my own on the topic in a room with no internet access with any of the warmists on this thread.

It's one thing "holding your own" with us but it's entirely different planet trying to do it with REAL Scientists who know what they're talking about. Your Google-Fu won't cut it I'm afraid and when offered the opportunity to put your criticisms to a said professional you'll do Rob and waffle your way out of it.

It's the way of the denier. All rants in a forum but zero bravery to actually take it to where it matters, the scientists themselves.

[durbster]

deeps said:

Yes it may well seem that way to you. To me, it seems the poll is some sort of joke, especially the way the question is termed. As if the actual results of a genuine poll would be 97/3. One would have to be very naive to believe it's not rigged. Very naive.

durbster said:

Remember folks, if it makes uncomfortable reading you can save yourself from the inconvenience of reality by just blaming it on the conspiracy.

[The Don of Croy]

gadgetmac said:

So the tens of thousands of studies in the field and papers published by scientists and scientific organisations all over the globe all rely on models?

Even if they did, why is it that the vast majority (97% LOL) of scientists have faith in them?

Edited by gadgetmac on Tuesday 12th February 10:03

Or, maybe this viewpoint has merit -

[Diderot]

El stovey said:

Diderot said:

They didn't test you for being a hypocrite then?

No but they did check my qualifications.

They don’t like people over egging their qualifications and lying about their job.

You’d be knackered?

Prof I am, obvs with a PhD and a Masters. Sorry to disappoint you Mr aerial bus driver and resident climate criminal hypocrite, and indeed Gadgetmac the resident dingleberry/village idiot whatever it is you don’t do for any kind of living. Stovey either you believe in your own religion or you don’t. And if you do, then how could you, in all conscience, wreak so much havoc on the climate by flying around in your infernal contraption and threaten the existence of the polar bears? Give up your job and save the planet. Simples. 97% percent of all scientists say that jet engines are not good for rare species of critically endangered water snails and innocent icebergs.

[kerplunk]

The Don of Croy said:

gadgetmac said:

So the tens of thousands of studies in the field and papers published by scientists and scientific organisations all over the globe all rely on models?

Even if they did, why is it that the vast majority (97% LOL) of scientists have faith in them?

Edited by gadgetmac on Tuesday 12th February 10:03

Or, maybe this viewpoint has merit -

Refute - prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.


Get crackin' then

[deeps]

If it's consensus it isn't science. If it's science it isn't consensus.

[deeps]

durbster said:

deeps said:

Yes it may well seem that way to you. To me, it seems the poll is some sort of joke, especially the way the question is termed. As if the actual results of a genuine poll would be 97/3. One would have to be very naive to believe it's not rigged. Very naive.

durbster said:

Remember folks, if it makes uncomfortable reading you can save yourself from the inconvenience of reality by just blaming it on the conspiracy.

I really don't get it. I see you try to be clever, but that was not uncomfortable reading in any way to me. I just see it as a poor joke within a poor attempt to make a point.

What conspiracy have I blamed anything on?

I don't get these replies that are appearing all the time in this thread. I'm not a conspiracy theorist in any way, I don't have the time for bullst.

I'm simply a genuine and honest sceptic of AGW theory. If or when proof of the theory arrives I would of course accept it. But I will never accept a theory that I don't agree with simply because others do, and I don't care how many others there are or are not.

If you can prove that the twitter poll was genuine and that responses from scientists were genuine, and that the result was actually 97/3, I will donate £1000 to a charity of your choice.

Edited by deeps on Wednesday 13th February 03:07

[deeps]

Thinking about it, could we perhaps set up a poll to ask people here on PH, maybe in the gassing station... "Do you believe climate changes naturally?"

Or can someone set it up on twitter?

Or can we have suggestions for terming the question? Perhaps "Do you believe a colder climate would be more beneficial to life than a warmer climate?"

[turbobloke]

deeps said:

Thinking about it, could we perhaps set up a poll to ask people here on PH, maybe in the gassing station... "Do you believe climate changes naturally?"

A poll was carried out previously.

PH Thread Poll: Do Humans Contribute To Climate Change Substantially?

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

75% No
25% Yes

599 votes

[stew-STR160]

durbster said:

deeps said:

Yes it may well seem that way to you. To me, it seems the poll is some sort of joke, especially the way the question is termed. As if the actual results of a genuine poll would be 97/3. One would have to be very naive to believe it's not rigged. Very naive.

durbster said:

Remember folks, if it makes uncomfortable reading you can save yourself from the inconvenience of reality by just blaming it on the conspiracy.

You are really ok with saying that a random open poll on twitter would just so happen to result in 97/3? And then throwing out the conspiracy BS when someone says it looks fishy...

I actually thought better of you.