Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Author
Discussion

gadgetmac

5,057 posts

47 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
It's a case of vocal activists pushing a line
This, from you, without a trace of irony.

Well done.

gadgetmac

5,057 posts

47 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
LoonyTunes said:
Just to check, are saying that they are ALL lying? And the scientific establishment are in on it?
Not going to answer then? Probably wise.
Yeah, you’ve stumped him and the rest of us with that one whilst simultaneously bringing down the whole precarious house of cards that AGW is built on.

Back to the drawing board for the tens of thousands of Scientics and all of the Institutions they work for. frown

Jasandjules

62,165 posts

168 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
Yeah, you’ve stumped him and the rest of us with that one whilst simultaneously bringing down the whole precarious house of cards that AGW is built on.

Back to the drawing board for the tens of thousands of Scientics and all of the Institutions they work for. frown
Realistically you are simply showing your sub optimal IQ level and inability to follow logical conclusions with such comments.


gadgetmac

5,057 posts

47 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
gadgetmac said:
Yeah, you’ve stumped him and the rest of us with that one whilst simultaneously bringing down the whole precarious house of cards that AGW is built on.

Back to the drawing board for the tens of thousands of Scientics and all of the Institutions they work for. frown
Realistically you are simply showing your sub optimal IQ level and inability to follow logical conclusions with such comments.
And you’re not with your inane question that has been asked many times before?



El stovey

25,158 posts

202 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
gadgetmac said:
Yeah, you’ve stumped him and the rest of us with that one whilst simultaneously bringing down the whole precarious house of cards that AGW is built on.

Back to the drawing board for the tens of thousands of Scientics and all of the Institutions they work for. frown
Realistically you are simply showing your sub optimal IQ level and inability to follow logical conclusions with such comments.
What exactly is your question?

If it’s do I believe everything the government tell me? Then the answer is no.

The point put to you was for any deception to work, most if not all governments and scientific bodies and media etc would all have to be in on this lie. Which I think we can all agree is unlikely isn’t it?

That’s why your question was stupid.

Advertisement

LoonyTunes

2,870 posts

14 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
El stovey said:
Jasandjules said:
gadgetmac said:
Yeah, you’ve stumped him and the rest of us with that one whilst simultaneously bringing down the whole precarious house of cards that AGW is built on.

Back to the drawing board for the tens of thousands of Scientics and all of the Institutions they work for. frown
Realistically you are simply showing your sub optimal IQ level and inability to follow logical conclusions with such comments.
What exactly is your question?

If it’s do I believe everything the government tell me? Then the answer is no.

The point put to you was for any deception to work, most if not all governments and scientific bodies and media etc would all have to be in on this lie. Which I think we can all agree is unlikely isn’t it?

That’s why your question was stupid.
For somebody with an "optimal IQ" you'd think he could work out where his question would inevitably lead.

He must have skipped breakfast this morning.

Jasandjules

62,165 posts

168 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
El stovey said:
The point put to you was for any deception to work, most if not all governments and scientific bodies and media etc would all have to be in on this lie. Which I think we can all agree is unlikely isn’t it?
So, whilst you accept (rightly of course) that a Govt will lie not least in order to control, you consider that scientific bodies will never lie? And the press? That is your logical conclusion? I see.

El stovey

25,158 posts

202 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
So, whilst you accept (rightly of course) that a Govt will lie not least in order to control, you consider that scientific bodies will never lie? And the press? That is your logical conclusion? I see.
No again.

The logical conclusion is that for the kind of mass deception you seem to be hinting at to succeed and a false scientific consensus to exist. All the scientific bodies and governments and media and scientists would have to be in on it.

This would clearly be conspiracy theory madness.


Jasandjules

62,165 posts

168 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
El stovey said:
The logical conclusion is that for the kind of mass deception you seem to be hinting at to succeed and a false scientific consensus to exist. All the scientific bodies and governments and media and scientists would have to be in on it.

This would clearly be conspiracy theory madness.
And the sun revolves around the earth, correct? Yes or No.

El stovey

25,158 posts

202 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
El stovey said:
The logical conclusion is that for the kind of mass deception you seem to be hinting at to succeed and a false scientific consensus to exist. All the scientific bodies and governments and media and scientists would have to be in on it.

This would clearly be conspiracy theory madness.
And the sun revolves around the earth, correct? Yes or No.
No.

Jasandjules

62,165 posts

168 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
El stovey said:
No.
I see. So you can accept that all the scientific institutions and Govt of the world lied then? But they can't now? How very interesting indeed.

Diderot

3,912 posts

131 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
LoonyTunes said:
gadgetmac said:
Strawman

Answer his question.
He needs to play this game. Its the only one left. Argue in the margins.
Why would anyone read up on every scientific institutions position on just one aspect of AGW?

Does he think that you have to read every statement or paper published from every Government or Scientist or Science Institute or Science dept in every University?

Does he expect every single one to agree with every other one on every single thing?

The fact is that they do all appear to agree on base assumption that AGW is a fact.

It’s a question borne of desperation.
Still swerving I see.

So you claim something without verifying it is true? Are you seriously that guillble? That’s just intellectually lazy and indeed dangerous. You also make some interesting observations about the logical issues with the concept of a political consensus masquerading as a scientific one; you believe it to be one thing when the reality suggests otherwise.

I really do want to know whether you have even bothered to check the Academie des Science position on the pause that you deny exists. It is absolutely germane to this discussion since 1. You are misrepresenting their position and 2. using your argument who would you rather believe, Loony Tunes or a venerable institution on the matter whether the pause did or didn’t happen.

I hesitate to use the word troll, but I do think you are intellectually lazy, ovine, and guileless.

gadgetmac

5,057 posts

47 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
El stovey said:
Jasandjules said:
So, whilst you accept (rightly of course) that a Govt will lie not least in order to control, you consider that scientific bodies will never lie? And the press? That is your logical conclusion? I see.
No again.

The logical conclusion is that for the kind of mass deception you seem to be hinting at to succeed and a false scientific consensus to exist. All the scientific bodies and governments and media and scientists would have to be in on it.

This would clearly be conspiracy theory madness.
Not to conspiracy loons theorists. To them it’s entirely possible and to some it’s actually probable.

And do you know how they try to insert themselves into normal discourse?

They ask if you think Governments ever lie? wink

El stovey

25,158 posts

202 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
El stovey said:
No.
I see. So you can accept that all the scientific institutions and Govt of the world lied then? But they can't now? How very interesting indeed.
That’s astonishing.





Jasandjules

62,165 posts

168 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
El stovey said:
That’s astonishing.
Oh you didn't know about the Sun issue? I suppose a lack of knowledge is unfortunate but now you know more.

Whilst I am loathe to refer to Wiki, this situation renders it the easiest option

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

El stovey

25,158 posts

202 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
El stovey said:
That’s astonishing.
Oh you didn't know about the Sun issue? I suppose a lack of knowledge is unfortunate but now you know more.

Whilst I am loathe to refer to Wiki, this situation renders it the easiest option

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
I’m astonished that you’re using this as an argument to justify your conspiracy nonsense.

Unlike you apparently, we all know about Galileo. In fact we’re hoping Turbobloke can repeat the awesomeness of his historic scientific discovery but alas he seems unwilling to share his data and findings with the scientific community and therefore is unlikely to change the scientific consensus.

Hopes now lie with dickymint and wc98 and rob from Essex but despite having no scientific credentials whatsoever and actually no jobs, they too seem unwilling to publish their historic discovery and change the scientific consensus.

As an aside, perhaps if you check out the dates that Galileo lived and other things (like the facts) that were going on at the time and then ask yourself if events 500 years ago are really a good example to fuel your apparent belief of a global conspiracy involving most governments and scientific institutions and scientists and the media in today’s technologically advanced and connected world.


Edited by El stovey on Sunday 16th September 20:41

LoonyTunes

2,870 posts

14 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
roflroflrofl

Oh fk, he's serious... yikes


El stovey

25,158 posts

202 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
LoonyTunes said:
roflroflrofl

Oh fk, he's serious... yikes
Yes indeed, the latest cult member is comparing the events around the time of Copernicus with the AGW consensus today.

Kawasicki

5,827 posts

174 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
El stovey said:
LoonyTunes said:
roflroflrofl

Oh fk, he's serious... yikes
Yes indeed, the latest cult member is comparing the events around the time of Copernicus with the AGW consensus today.
A modern scientific consensus that is/was wrong...it has many similarities to climate science.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier....

Kawasicki

5,827 posts

174 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
wink

From The NY Times....

“With skeptical scientists ostracized, the public debate and research agenda became dominated by the fat-is-bad school. Later the National Institutes of Health would hold a “consensus conference” that concluded there was “no doubt” that low-fat diets “will afford significant protection against coronary heart disease” for every American over the age of 2.”

How apt...

“the low-fat recommendations were endorsed by 92 percent of “the world’s leading doctors.”

Settled science. What a crock of shi t.

Edited by Kawasicki on Sunday 16th September 21:32