Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Author
Discussion

gadgetmac

5,065 posts

47 months

Friday 15th March
quotequote all
Hey Mr 1%!

I’ve just discovered where you get your penchant for quoting from the comments section of the GWPF or WUWT...I should have guessed...it’s TB, your mentor.

He does exactly that on the Renewables thread

Condi said:
turbobloke said:
Condi said:
So who's comment was it? And what are his credentials about power networks, and what paper has he published?
Somebody who left a comment on a blog, their identity is irrelevant as it's the content of the comment that matters.
How can you have any confidence or trust in the comment if you dont have any idea about the author? You have no idea if that was a monkey on a typrewriter or the worlds leading expert on HV electrical systems, and yet simply because of the words they have written (about which you have no idea if they are correct or not), you attribute some form of confidence in them?

Sorry, that doesnt make any sense to me, I like to have some trust in the source of my knowledge and simply repeating what is written on the internet is not a good way to learn anything. Anyone can comment, even a monkey on a typewriter will eventually produce works of Shakespeare.
Good to see you’re mimicking almost every aspect of his posting style, you make a fine apprentice.

turbobloke

84,351 posts

199 months

Friday 15th March
quotequote all
  • the centre-right European People's Party (EPP) has dismissed a call for more ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets
  • these would be "unrealistic" and part of a left-wing "propaganda" effort
  • the position of the [EPP] group was against the 55 percent for 2030 because it is unrealistic
  • it has been "introduced by Greens and socialists to make propaganda," an EPP spokesman said
  • "The majority of the group decided that we should not play the unrealistic game of the left-wing groups"
EU Observer, 14 March 2019

turbobloke

84,351 posts

199 months

Friday 15th March
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
Hey Mr 1%!

I’ve just discovered where you get your penchant for quoting from the comments section of the GWPF or WUWT...I should have guessed...it’s TB, your mentor.

He does exactly that on the Renewables thread

Condi said:
turbobloke said:
Condi said:
So who's comment was it? And what are his credentials about power networks, and what paper has he published?
Somebody who left a comment on a blog, their identity is irrelevant as it's the content of the comment that matters.
How can you have any confidence or trust in the comment if you dont have any idea about the author? You have no idea if that was a monkey on a typrewriter or the worlds leading expert on HV electrical systems, and yet simply because of the words they have written (about which you have no idea if they are correct or not), you attribute some form of confidence in them?

Sorry, that doesnt make any sense to me, I like to have some trust in the source of my knowledge and simply repeating what is written on the internet is not a good way to learn anything. Anyone can comment, even a monkey on a typewriter will eventually produce works of Shakespeare.
Good to see you’re mimicking almost every aspect of his posting style, you make a fine apprentice.
There' so much on-topic content there with so little vacuous personal angle dreck. Impressive as always.

laugh

The point about posting a comment was to discuss it, as the content matters but the source doesn't, On that point it looks as though you and Condi are not only flummoxed by primary and seconary sources but can't spot the difference between monkey gibber and science/tech. At least one reply was on-topic over there so you're not needed anyway.


turbobloke

84,351 posts

199 months

Friday 15th March
quotequote all
Looking forward to agw supporters locating the peer-reviewed papers I cited recently (e.g. climate models wrong on drought/floods over 50 years etc) on GWPF et al.

Locating them from relevant posts giving author(s) etc details will be easy however as pro-agw people on PH have access to the scientific litlerature and study it assiduously while forming their independently framed opinion on agw based on valid interpretations of unmolested empirical data

Porcine aviation never looked so good. Meanwhile...climate politics from the political blog Climate Depot.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/03/14/massively-...




El stovey

25,164 posts

202 months

Friday 15th March
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
There' so much on-topic content there with so little vacuous personal angle dreck. Impressive as always.

laugh

The point about posting a comment was to discuss it, as the content matters but the source doesn't, On that point it looks as though you and Condi are not only flummoxed by primary and seconary sources but can't spot the difference between monkey gibber and science/tech. At least one reply was on-topic over there so you're not needed anyway.
The source of the comments definitely matter. Thats why you hide the source of some of your click and pastes and even try to change the wording slightly so people can’t google it to check.

If say wc98 or Robinessex or Diderot post something I might not agree with it but, I assume they’re telling the truth.

If you post something, I don’t believe it because you’re often misrepresenting things and plagiarising and simply making stuff up.





Edited by El stovey on Friday 15th March 18:48

Advertisement

gadgetmac

5,065 posts

47 months

Friday 15th March
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Looking forward to agw supporters locating the peer-reviewed papers I cited recently (e.g. climate models wrong on drought/floods over 50 years etc) on GWPF et al.

Locating them from relevant posts giving author(s) etc details will be easy however as pro-agw people on PH have access to the scientific litlerature and study it assiduously while forming their independently framed opinion on agw based on valid interpretations of unmolested empirical data
So, posting peer reviewed SCIENCE papers for us to review on the POLITICS thread.

I don’t know how you continue to get away with it. You must have compromising pictures of the Mods or something. laugh


Edited by gadgetmac on Friday 15th March 19:32

gadgetmac

5,065 posts

47 months

Friday 15th March
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Meanwhile...climate politics from the political blog Climate Depot.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/03/14/massively-...
Ah, Marc Morano again, thats at least 50 times that you’ve quoted the no-climate-science-qualifications mouthpiece for the Heartland Institute.

And this time he’s blogging about the fraud who’d like everyone to think he co-founded Greenpeace....and who also isn’t a Climate Scientist.

What a great double act they make.

Randy Winkman

6,179 posts

128 months

Friday 15th March
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
*the centre-right European People's Party (EPP) has dismissed a call for more ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets
  • these would be "unrealistic" and part of a left-wing "propaganda" effort
  • the position of the [EPP] group was against the 55 percent for 2030 because it is unrealistic
  • it has been "introduced by Greens and socialists to make propaganda," an EPP spokesman said
  • "The majority of the group decided that we should not play the unrealistic game of the left-wing groups"
EU Observer, 14 March 2019
Thanks. I just went on Wiki to see who the EPP are:

"The European People's Party (EPP) is a conservative and Christian democratic European political party. Founded by primarily Christian democratic parties in 1976, it has since broadened its membership to include liberal-conservative parties and parties with other centre-right political perspectives."

I certainly don't care what they think.

deeps

4,717 posts

180 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
Randy Winkman said:
Thanks. I just went on Wiki to see who the EPP are:

"The European People's Party (EPP) is a conservative and Christian democratic European political party. Founded by primarily Christian democratic parties in 1976, it has since broadened its membership to include liberal-conservative parties and parties with other centre-right political perspectives."

I certainly don't care what they think.
I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

deeps

4,717 posts

180 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
El stovey said:
The source of the comments definitely matter. Thats why you hide the source of some of your click and pastes and even try to change the wording slightly so people can’t google it to check.

If say wc98 or Robinessex or Diderot post something I might not agree with it but, I assume they’re telling the truth.

If you post something, I don’t believe it because you’re often misrepresenting things and plagiarising and simply making stuff up.





Edited by El stovey on Friday 15th March 18:48
Never assume, you should have learnt at least that by now.

deeps

4,717 posts

180 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
turbobloke said:
Meanwhile...climate politics from the political blog Climate Depot.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/03/14/massively-...
Ah, Marc Morano again, thats at least 50 times that you’ve quoted the no-climate-science-qualifications mouthpiece for the Heartland Institute.

And this time he’s blogging about the fraud who’d like everyone to think he co-founded Greenpeace....and who also isn’t a Climate Scientist.
It's always fun when the alarmists fall so easily into requoting the realists... I may not have read it if it wasn't for gadget, which would have been a shame because it's actually a lengthy but worth while article...


Article said:
Michael Mann, a professor at Penn State University, has done a smear piece on President Donald Trump, Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore and Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer in Newsweek. Mann and other climate activists are working overtime trying to suppress scientific debate and stop the proposed Presidential Climate Commission. snip

Mann, known for his exploits in the Climategate scandal and his discredited Hockey Stick temperature graph, took to Newsweek to try to quash the upcoming threat of a Presidential commission on climate which would challenge his “consensus” catastrophic man-made climate change views.
gadget said:
What a great double act they make.
They don't hold a carbon neutral candle to gadget and stovey hehe

zygalski

5,527 posts

84 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
Morano sounds like a bigoted serial peddler of utter bullst.
A pathological liar, if you will.

Who you gonna believe - him or NASA?

https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4267300&...

'He once was chastised by former Wisconsin Republican Rep. Steve Gunderson for a column he wrote about a fundraiser for AIDS victims in which he insisted there were illegal drugs and illegal sexual activity, but no such evidence ever emerged. Morano had attended that event on behalf of the Family Research Council, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has called a hate group for its attacks on the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

Morano worked for Rush Limbaugh in the 1990s, then Cybercast News Service, where he published the since-debunked Swift Boat Veterans' attacks on 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's record in Vietnam.

He served as director of communications for Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, one of the Senate's most ardent climate-change deniers.

Morano, who has no formal education in climate science, also founded and became executive editor of Climate Depot, a website devoted to countering climate scientists' warnings about global warming. In 2012, Media Matters dubbed him "Climate-Change Misinformer of the Year."

Morano recently produced the documentary "Climate Hustle," which is a stinging rebuke of climate-change forecasters. Critics have panned the film as a mere promotion for those whose interests are advanced by the denial of climate change.'

gadgetmac

5,065 posts

47 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
Yep, he's a thoroughly discredited, vile and hateful individual with only his own welfare at heart.

Makes a great spokesman for those of a similar self-interest only persuasion though.

He's TB's go-to guy for a lot of stuff.


gadgetmac

5,065 posts

47 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
deeps said:
El stovey said:
The source of the comments definitely matter. Thats why you hide the source of some of your click and pastes and even try to change the wording slightly so people can’t google it to check.

If say wc98 or Robinessex or Diderot post something I might not agree with it but, I assume they’re telling the truth.

If you post something, I don’t believe it because you’re often misrepresenting things and plagiarising and simply making stuff up.
Never assume, you should have learnt at least that by now.
So we shouldn't 'assume' that wc98, Robinessex and diderot are telling the truth? Well the truth as they see it at least?

OK.

I'd get some sleep now deeps hehe

Well after you've dashed across to the science thread to defend your mentor who must be sitting back with a wry smile as he watches you run around on his behalf trying to counter all of things the nasty people on NP & E are saying about him.

Edited by gadgetmac on Saturday 16th March 08:59

Randy Winkman

6,179 posts

128 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
turbobloke said:
Meanwhile...climate politics from the political blog Climate Depot.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/03/14/massively-...
Ah, Marc Morano again, thats at least 50 times that you’ve quoted the no-climate-science-qualifications mouthpiece for the Heartland Institute.

And this time he’s blogging about the fraud who’d like everyone to think he co-founded Greenpeace....and who also isn’t a Climate Scientist.

What a great double act they make.
Does everyone see the 2 Donald Trump DVD ads when they click on that site? Or is it just me? I hope it's not just me.

gadgetmac

5,065 posts

47 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
Randy Winkman said:
gadgetmac said:
turbobloke said:
Meanwhile...climate politics from the political blog Climate Depot.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/03/14/massively-...
Ah, Marc Morano again, thats at least 50 times that you’ve quoted the no-climate-science-qualifications mouthpiece for the Heartland Institute.

And this time he’s blogging about the fraud who’d like everyone to think he co-founded Greenpeace....and who also isn’t a Climate Scientist.

What a great double act they make.
Does everyone see the 2 Donald Trump DVD ads when they click on that site? Or is it just me? I hope it's not just me.
Fortunately I don't see them.

El stovey

25,164 posts

202 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
So we shouldn't 'assume' that wc98, Robinessex and diderot are telling the truth? Well the truth as they see it at least?

OK.
Seems an very odd retort, even for deeps.

I’m beginning to think it’s a bot that only gets activated at night time now.

gadgetmac

5,065 posts

47 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
El stovey said:
gadgetmac said:
So we shouldn't 'assume' that wc98, Robinessex and diderot are telling the truth? Well the truth as they see it at least?

OK.
Seems an very odd retort, even for deeps.

I’m beginning to think it’s a bot that only gets activated at night time now.
hehe

I can only 'assume' that it's such a clever reply that us mere mortals can't understand it's hidden depths.

It's what happens when you're one of the top 1% in the country.

Edited by gadgetmac on Saturday 16th March 11:55

Diderot

3,912 posts

131 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
Straight from the Stovey school of irony and utter hypocrisy comes Richard Branson's recent twitter comment on the Cwimate kids strike bks:

"The window of opportunity for humanity to avert the most catastrophic impacts of global warming is closing. I applaud students for reminding us what’s at stake - their future, and the future of humanity."

https://twitter.com/richardbranson/status/11062096...


The comments are probably not going the way the bearded hypocrite intended.








gadgetmac

5,065 posts

47 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
You really are a card. Every scientific institution in the world? Oh really? Have you checked the position of every single one? And don't keep banging on about the mythical 97% consensus - does you even fewer favours than your incessant recourse to the 'flat earther' rubbish. Anyone would think you're a troll. Oh wait.
Well faux-pro, start naming some scientific institutions that don't believe in AGW.

It's been asked a thousand times before on this thread and never got a single reply.

Get started. I'll wait. And remember, the Heartland Institute funded by big oil doesn't count.