Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
wc98 said:
El stovey said:
You’ve been shown to be misrepresenting scientists by the scientists themselves.
Hiding links to advocacy blogs and then only the other day altering these articles in blogs to make it look like you’ve written them.
Posting links to papers that when checked actually don’t support your argument.
Posting links to scientific organisations that when checked don’t support your argument.
Are any of those statements untrue?
yet you are happy to give a free pass to the bbc for broadcasting fake news as evidenced above , etc etc etcHiding links to advocacy blogs and then only the other day altering these articles in blogs to make it look like you’ve written them.
Posting links to papers that when checked actually don’t support your argument.
Posting links to scientific organisations that when checked don’t support your argument.
Are any of those statements untrue?
What have the BBC got to do with anything? I know Robinessex posts about them all the time but they’re not actually posting on here.
El stovey said:
wc98 said:
El stovey said:
You’ve been shown to be misrepresenting scientists by the scientists themselves.
Hiding links to advocacy blogs and then only the other day altering these articles in blogs to make it look like you’ve written them.
Posting links to papers that when checked actually don’t support your argument.
Posting links to scientific organisations that when checked don’t support your argument.
Are any of those statements untrue?
yet you are happy to give a free pass to the bbc for broadcasting fake news as evidenced above , etc etc etcHiding links to advocacy blogs and then only the other day altering these articles in blogs to make it look like you’ve written them.
Posting links to papers that when checked actually don’t support your argument.
Posting links to scientific organisations that when checked don’t support your argument.
Are any of those statements untrue?
What have the BBC got to do with anything? I know Robinessex posts about them all the time but they’re not actually posting on here.
tting up the thread. 
turbobloke said:
Estimates in Wei et al of ocean global mean surface show it may have declined (i.e. become less alkaline) by 0.07 pH points in the last ~200 years, from 8.12 in the pre-industrial era to 8.05 today.
This of itself would in any event be incorrect as PH is not stable - it varies usually from about 7.3 to about 8.6 depending on light and temp....... Oh that variation is daily too......gadgetmac said:
wc98 said:
gadgetmac said:
mko9 said:
Also, feel free to stop using the products of fossil fuels, like the computer you are using for post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post stting up this thread.
“stting up this thread.tting up” 
The level of discourse from some deniers never fails to disappoint.
It’s called ‘Behind the Curve’. Watch it, it’s fascinating and will be like a mirror for you to look in.
They even accuse NASA of lying and being involved in the conspiracy together with every government on the planet and all of the Scientific Institutions and the vast majority of scientists - but not their own very tiny band of Scientists of course.
One of the many issues you conspiracy theorists have is called the Dunning-Kruger effect, seriously, it’s you guys in a nutshell.
El stovey said:
wc98 said:
El stovey said:
You’ve been shown to be misrepresenting scientists by the scientists themselves.
Hiding links to advocacy blogs and then only the other day altering these articles in blogs to make it look like you’ve written them.
Posting links to papers that when checked actually don’t support your argument.
Posting links to scientific organisations that when checked don’t support your argument.
Are any of those statements untrue?
yet you are happy to give a free pass to the bbc for broadcasting fake news as evidenced above , etc etc etcHiding links to advocacy blogs and then only the other day altering these articles in blogs to make it look like you’ve written them.
Posting links to papers that when checked actually don’t support your argument.
Posting links to scientific organisations that when checked don’t support your argument.
Are any of those statements untrue?
What have the BBC got to do with anything? I know Robinessex posts about them all the time but they’re not actually posting on here.
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
wc98 said:
gadgetmac said:
mko9 said:
Also, feel free to stop using the products of fossil fuels, like the computer you are using for post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post stting up this thread.
“stting up this thread.tting up” The level of discourse from some deniers never fails to disappoint.
It’s called ‘Behind the Curve’. Watch it, it’s fascinating and will be like a mirror for you to look in.
They even accuse NASA of lying and being involved in the conspiracy together with every government on the planet and all of the Scientific Institutions and the vast majority of scientists - but not their own very tiny band of Scientists of course.
One of the many issues you conspiracy theorists have is called the Dunning-Kruger effect, seriously, it’s you guys in a nutshell.
How does it feel to be lumped in with those cults?
Check it out.
gadgetmac said:
... endlessly on a back-water internet thread.
As, by far and away, the most prolific poster of 'endless' tripe, day in, day out, on this 'back-water' internet thread, the question is why would you bother to waste so much of your time? Unless you are paid to post here?
Edited by Bacardi on Saturday 23 February 23:53
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/...
Trump's UN nominee Kelly Craft says she believes ‘both sides’ of climate change science
Trump's UN nominee Kelly Craft says she believes ‘both sides’ of climate change science
article said:
Wife of a billionaire coal magnate ignores consensus among scientists to suggest those who deny man-made global warming have equal credibility
Bacardi said:
gadgetmac said:
... endlessly on a back-water internet thread.
As, by far and away, the most prolific poster of 'endless' tripe, day in, day out, on this 'back-water' internet thread, the question is why would you bother to waste so much of your time? Unless you are you are paid to post here?
1. The above post
2. This post to El Stovey
Bacardi said:
It makes you wonder why someone with such a vast sanctimonious intellect would spend so much time posting to a small cult of nutters in some backwater of a car forum… you would have to be certifiable. What’s your excuse?
So I think the more pertinent question is are YOU paid to post on here as its the only thread you seem post in on the whole of PH and its effectively the same message each time.. 
Wow, I’m mean wow! You actually made a note of something I posted weeks ago… you saved it up? That’s creepy…
I’ve been on PH for 214 months and you 46, but you know my posting history?
And you think I might be paid to post 3 times in 7 months… as opposed to your 13 posts yesterday?
The question stands, are you paid to post here? Yes or no?
I’ve been on PH for 214 months and you 46, but you know my posting history?
And you think I might be paid to post 3 times in 7 months… as opposed to your 13 posts yesterday?
The question stands, are you paid to post here? Yes or no?
Bacardi said:
Wow, I’m mean wow! You actually made a note of something I posted weeks ago… you saved it up? That’s creepy…
I’ve been on PH for 214 months and you 46, but you know my posting history?
And you think I might be paid to post 3 times in 7 months… as opposed to your 13 posts yesterday?
The question stands, are you paid to post here? Yes or no?
You do realise if you click on your forum name it shows your posting history? You don’t have to make notes.I’ve been on PH for 214 months and you 46, but you know my posting history?
And you think I might be paid to post 3 times in 7 months… as opposed to your 13 posts yesterday?
The question stands, are you paid to post here? Yes or no?
Rather than quoting Stovey, Durbs and Gadget's replies to me, I'll just say how very predictable
I do find it a shame that debate here has been reduced to constant daily appeals to authority and/or attempts at ridiculing everything and anything that isn't within your perceived authority group. I don't know when this started because I was away for a couple of years, but we used to have decent debate on here, hence why i referred to it as a good source of information and debate. obviously anyone joining now will only see the daily constant appeals to authority.
I'm actually intrigued by all of your perceived levels of belief in authority. It's fascinating because I think most likely you are not all actually gullible, but that it's enough for you that if someone in authority states something, then it must be true. I assume you don't all believe the various climate lies that are told by the BBC, that none of you respond to when posted?
So could I ask the same question out of curiosity, to you three (blimey, an old nursery rhyme just sprang into my head as i typed "you three", no joke, subconscious is a funny old thing) as I asked Kerplunk and Hairy yesterday please.
I do find it a shame that debate here has been reduced to constant daily appeals to authority and/or attempts at ridiculing everything and anything that isn't within your perceived authority group. I don't know when this started because I was away for a couple of years, but we used to have decent debate on here, hence why i referred to it as a good source of information and debate. obviously anyone joining now will only see the daily constant appeals to authority.
I'm actually intrigued by all of your perceived levels of belief in authority. It's fascinating because I think most likely you are not all actually gullible, but that it's enough for you that if someone in authority states something, then it must be true. I assume you don't all believe the various climate lies that are told by the BBC, that none of you respond to when posted?
So could I ask the same question out of curiosity, to you three (blimey, an old nursery rhyme just sprang into my head as i typed "you three", no joke, subconscious is a funny old thing) as I asked Kerplunk and Hairy yesterday please.
You all answered my first two sentences from yesterday but here's the last three from the same post that didn't get response...
I also very strongly believe that any warming if it occurs would be hugely beneficial to all aspects of life, in comparison to any cooling should it occur which would result in the simple basics like housing, food production, energy production being devastated. Give me warming all day long.
I believe the majority of people that currently 'believe' would probably become sceptics too if the issue was actually allowed to be debated properly, fairly and honestly on MSM such as the BBC. But of course that is not allowed. To me that speaks volumes in itself.
Can I flip the question and ask you, Kerplunk and Hairykrishna, what it would take to convince you that perhaps anthropogenic CO2 induced global warming may not be real? Do you need to see temperature going up to believe? What if global temperature remains static for the next decade? Or 2 or 3 decades? Would you still believe?
I also very strongly believe that any warming if it occurs would be hugely beneficial to all aspects of life, in comparison to any cooling should it occur which would result in the simple basics like housing, food production, energy production being devastated. Give me warming all day long.
I believe the majority of people that currently 'believe' would probably become sceptics too if the issue was actually allowed to be debated properly, fairly and honestly on MSM such as the BBC. But of course that is not allowed. To me that speaks volumes in itself.
Can I flip the question and ask you, Kerplunk and Hairykrishna, what it would take to convince you that perhaps anthropogenic CO2 induced global warming may not be real? Do you need to see temperature going up to believe? What if global temperature remains static for the next decade? Or 2 or 3 decades? Would you still believe?
Bacardi said:
Wow, I’m mean wow! You actually made a note of something I posted weeks ago… you saved it up? That’s creepy…
I’ve been on PH for 214 months and you 46, but you know my posting history?
And you think I might be paid to post 3 times in 7 months… as opposed to your 13 posts yesterday?
The question stands, are you paid to post here? Yes or no?
Your posting history is 6 clicks of the mouse away...5 of which you don't have to actually move the mouse for you just keep clicking.I’ve been on PH for 214 months and you 46, but you know my posting history?
And you think I might be paid to post 3 times in 7 months… as opposed to your 13 posts yesterday?
The question stands, are you paid to post here? Yes or no?
Your grasp of PH software is equal to your grasp of GW. Poor.
Scott Adams on the conflict between believers and sceptics...I thought it was funny anyway.
https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1gqGvnVYBYBGB?t...
https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1gqGvnVYBYBGB?t...
'The Five Top Arguments Against Climate Alarmism'...
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/02/the-five-to...
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/02/the-five-to...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff