Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[Wayoftheflower]

jshell said:

They are also seeing the bile, vitriol and phlegm spitting hysteria that remains almost the preserve of left wing poitics.

Irony.

[jshell]

Wayoftheflower said:

jshell said:

They are also seeing the bile, vitriol and phlegm spitting hysteria that remains almost the preserve of left wing poitics.

Irony.

Not at all. The right are uncaring, the left are the truly nasty side of politics. Many of the worst political leaders have hailed from the left. Most of the torture, rape and murder through history has come from the left.

[Wayoftheflower]

jshell said:

Wayoftheflower said:

jshell said:

They are also seeing the bile, vitriol and phlegm spitting hysteria that remains almost the preserve of left wing poitics.

Irony.

Not at all. The right are uncaring, the left are the truly nasty side of politics. Many of the worst political leaders have hailed from the left. Most of the torture, rape and murder through history has come from the left.

Irony squared.

[jshell]

Wayoftheflower said:

jshell said:

Wayoftheflower said:

jshell said:

They are also seeing the bile, vitriol and phlegm spitting hysteria that remains almost the preserve of left wing poitics.

Irony.

Not at all. The right are uncaring, the left are the truly nasty side of politics. Many of the worst political leaders have hailed from the left. Most of the torture, rape and murder through history has come from the left.

Irony squared.

Debunk it then. Come on...

[Wayoftheflower]

jshell said:

Wayoftheflower said:

jshell said:

Wayoftheflower said:

jshell said:

They are also seeing the bile, vitriol and phlegm spitting hysteria that remains almost the preserve of left wing poitics.

Irony.

Not at all. The right are uncaring, the left are the truly nasty side of politics. Many of the worst political leaders have hailed from the left. Most of the torture, rape and murder through history has come from the left.

Irony squared.

Debunk it then. Come on...

[jshell]

Wayoftheflower said:

jshell said:

Wayoftheflower said:

jshell said:

Wayoftheflower said:

jshell said:

They are also seeing the bile, vitriol and phlegm spitting hysteria that remains almost the preserve of left wing poitics.

Irony.

Not at all. The right are uncaring, the left are the truly nasty side of politics. Many of the worst political leaders have hailed from the left. Most of the torture, rape and murder through history has come from the left.

Irony squared.

Debunk it then. Come on...

'Rolleyes'? That all you've got? Are you like Ziggy, high on volume, low on content?

Here's your chance to post something of quality. Can't you? Tell me why the Left are not the nasty side of politics when the evidence points wholly in that direction.

[zygalski]

jshell said:

zygalski said:

Well it'd no doubt help your cause if big oil didn't support the IPCC on AGW.
What turning of the tide do you mean? Have a few more bloggers appeared on WUWT?

I know you don't like questions as you never answer, but let's try. Why do you suppose 'big oil' supports the IPCC on AGW?

Your words, take your time and add something worth while to the thread rather than your repetetive, vacuous sniping with absolutely zero content...

Check out their respective climate change commitment web pages.
If you need help finding them, let me know.

[Wayoftheflower]

jshell said:

Wayoftheflower said:

jshell said:

Wayoftheflower said:

jshell said:

Wayoftheflower said:

jshell said:

They are also seeing the bile, vitriol and phlegm spitting hysteria that remains almost the preserve of left wing poitics.

Irony.

Not at all. The right are uncaring, the left are the truly nasty side of politics. Many of the worst political leaders have hailed from the left. Most of the torture, rape and murder through history has come from the left.

Irony squared.

Debunk it then. Come on...

'Rolleyes'? That all you've got? Are you like Ziggy, high on volume, low on content?

Here's your chance to post something of quality. Can't you? Tell me why the Left are not the nasty side of politics when the evidence points wholly in that direction.

Take your adolescent need to descend to Godwin's law elsewhere. I'm pretty sure there's a Left vs Right thread you can contribute your "evidence" to somewhere.

Considering the "bile, vitriol and phlegm spitting hysteria" you've displayed in the last few hours I guess you'll be siding with team red.

[jshell]

Wayoftheflower said:

jshell said:

Wayoftheflower said:

jshell said:

Wayoftheflower said:

jshell said:

Wayoftheflower said:

jshell said:

They are also seeing the bile, vitriol and phlegm spitting hysteria that remains almost the preserve of left wing poitics.

Irony.

Not at all. The right are uncaring, the left are the truly nasty side of politics. Many of the worst political leaders have hailed from the left. Most of the torture, rape and murder through history has come from the left.

Irony squared.

Debunk it then. Come on...

'Rolleyes'? That all you've got? Are you like Ziggy, high on volume, low on content?

Here's your chance to post something of quality. Can't you? Tell me why the Left are not the nasty side of politics when the evidence points wholly in that direction.

Take your adolescent need to descend to Godwin's law elsewhere. I'm pretty sure there's a Left vs Right thread you can contribute your "evidence" to somewhere.

Considering the "bile, vitriol and phlegm spitting hysteria" you've displayed in the last few hours I guess you'll be siding with team red.

Crikey. You have even less content than I thought! Looking at your posts you simply read other's posts, google the content and then snipe at the poster. Why do you bother? You and Zyggy have added the sum total of ZERO to this thread. There's no attempt at debate, there's no individual thinking, there's, well, absolutly nothing. So, you're essentially valueless!


Oh, and Godwins law is obviously something else you've had to google, and also get wrong, as I never mentioned THAT individual.

Can you get things more wrong, or provide less content? Why don't you try...

[jshell]

zygalski said:

jshell said:

zygalski said:

Well it'd no doubt help your cause if big oil didn't support the IPCC on AGW.
What turning of the tide do you mean? Have a few more bloggers appeared on WUWT?

I know you don't like questions as you never answer, but let's try. Why do you suppose 'big oil' supports the IPCC on AGW?

Your words, take your time and add something worth while to the thread rather than your repetetive, vacuous sniping with absolutely zero content...

Check out their respective climate change commitment web pages.
If you need help finding them, let me know.

I asked you why. I don't think you know, but I actually explained it to you once before. So, it's all one-way traffic with you. Can you explain, or will you body-swerve this too??

You provide the same value to this and other threads as the Flower person, that is zero. Absolutely and utterly zero.

I've wondered why other posters actually attempt interaction wth you for a while now.

[jshell]

Guess they went all 'coy'.

[Wayoftheflower]

wc98 said:

zygalski said:

...says right wing blog.
:yawn:

is it true or not ?

So Mann vs Ball looks like an interesting and convoluted story. Mann not sharing his data seems very odd considering the ammount of ammunition is appears to hand to the denier side.

AFAIK the ruling hasn't been published yet but Mann has posted extract's of Ball's submission for dimissal on his twitter

In an affidavit supporting his application for terminating the lawsuit due to delay Ball refers to his ill health in points 82-84.

He also states there is a lack of damage to Mann's reputation because
"Dr. Ball's website did not appear in a Google Search of Dr. Mann or his research for at least 92% of all searchers.. Dr Ball's website has a low ranking and low popularity as calculated by Alexa.. ..there are eight years of evidence to support the complete lack of damage to reputation in BC or elsewhere" this is similar to the Ball vs Weaver

Until the actual court documents are released we're reliant on everyone's biased extracts, but to me it looks like the deniers jubilation at Ball "winning" isn't really warranted yet.

[mybrainhurts]

Cold said:

And here we have it. They've finally come out and said they want us to stop using our cars.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/2...

How can we take MPs seriously any more when they believe all this crap?

I do worry about Boris because his dad seems to be on the gullible-go-round.

I reckon we ought to corner him, get him pissed and plant a bloody great seed of reality in his head.

[gareth_r]

mybrainhurts said:

Cold said:

And here we have it. They've finally come out and said they want us to stop using our cars.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/2...

How can we take MPs seriously any more when they believe all this crap?

I do worry about Boris because his dad seems to be on the gullible-go-round.

I reckon we ought to corner him, get him pissed and plant a bloody great seed of reality in his head.

Guardian article said:

Myles Allen, a professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford, said: “It’s all too easy to lose the big picture in complicated to-do lists. Stopping climate change is astonishingly simple: we need to stop dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere...

That is, indeed, astonishingly simple. One might even say "incredibly simple".

Good news though, Professor Allen's discovery means that humans can maintain the current equable climate until the Sun dies. No more ice ages. No more whatever the opposite of ice ages are. Ever!

I, for one, welcome the fact that we no longer need fear that our descendants will be forced to move to the south of France.

[V10leptoquark]

gareth_r said:

Guardian article said:

Myles Allen, a professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford, said: “It’s all too easy to lose the big picture in complicated to-do lists. Stopping climate change is astonishingly simple: we need to stop dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere...

That is, indeed, astonishingly simple. One might even say "incredibly simple".

Good news though, Professor Allen's discovery means that humans can maintain the current equable climate until the Sun dies. No more ice ages. No more whatever the opposite of ice ages are. Ever!

I, for one, welcome the fact that we no longer need fear that our descendants will be forced to move to the south of France.

So what we have here is an Oxford professor stating that in order to hold the climate of the earth at its current position for eternity (or until of course as you mention , if the sun doesn't eat up the planet during its life cycle), that the solution is to simply stop the human CO2 contribution to the atmosphere?

Simples indeed.
Why didn't anyone else think of that?

So there we have it warm alarmists, your left wing paper of choice has reported the voice of authority (can't argue against an Oxford professor can we?), so we should all now wind back on our fears and alarmisms about having to learn to swim in the sea, the solution is that we can hold the climate where it currently is if you stop producing that bad CO2 - and the good news is that its ONLY the human CO2 that is the issue, easy solution to save the planet.

Phew - I thought we were all gonners for a moment!

[Jinx]

Wayoftheflower said:

So Mann vs Ball looks like an interesting and convoluted story. Mann not sharing his data seems very odd considering the ammount of ammunition is appears to hand to the denier side.

AFAIK the ruling hasn't been published yet but Mann has posted extract's of Ball's submission for dimissal on his twitter

In an affidavit supporting his application for terminating the lawsuit due to delay Ball refers to his ill health in points 82-84.

He also states there is a lack of damage to Mann's reputation because
"Dr. Ball's website did not appear in a Google Search of Dr. Mann or his research for at least 92% of all searchers.. Dr Ball's website has a low ranking and low popularity as calculated by Alexa.. ..there are eight years of evidence to support the complete lack of damage to reputation in BC or elsewhere" this is similar to the Ball vs Weaver

Until the actual court documents are released we're reliant on everyone's biased extracts, but to me it looks like the deniers jubilation at Ball "winning" isn't really warranted yet.

Then why would Mann say "We will likely challenge the dismissal of the suit"? From what I have read of the case (avoiding Twitter in the main) what led to the dismissal was Mann's inability to provide the documents required during the discovery phase - even after many requested delays?

[turbobloke]

Jinx said:

Wayoftheflower said:

So Mann vs Ball looks like an interesting and convoluted story. Mann not sharing his data seems very odd considering the ammount of ammunition is appears to hand to the denier side.

AFAIK the ruling hasn't been published yet but Mann has posted extract's of Ball's submission for dimissal on his twitter

In an affidavit supporting his application for terminating the lawsuit due to delay Ball refers to his ill health in points 82-84.

He also states there is a lack of damage to Mann's reputation because
"Dr. Ball's website did not appear in a Google Search of Dr. Mann or his research for at least 92% of all searchers.. Dr Ball's website has a low ranking and low popularity as calculated by Alexa.. ..there are eight years of evidence to support the complete lack of damage to reputation in BC or elsewhere" this is similar to the Ball vs Weaver

Until the actual court documents are released we're reliant on everyone's biased extracts, but to me it looks like the deniers jubilation at Ball "winning" isn't really warranted yet.

Then why would Mann say "We will likely challenge the dismissal of the suit"? From what I have read of the case (avoiding Twitter in the main) what led to the dismissal was Mann's inability to provide the documents required during the discovery phase - even after many requested delays?

Sharing scientific data is only part of the scientific method, what can we expect...Mann Doing A Jones simply won't do. It may work for a while with supine media hacks, of course.

[jshell]

V10leptoquark said:

gareth_r said:

Guardian article said:

Myles Allen, a professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford, said: “It’s all too easy to lose the big picture in complicated to-do lists. Stopping climate change is astonishingly simple: we need to stop dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere...

That is, indeed, astonishingly simple. One might even say "incredibly simple".

Good news though, Professor Allen's discovery means that humans can maintain the current equable climate until the Sun dies. No more ice ages. No more whatever the opposite of ice ages are. Ever!

I, for one, welcome the fact that we no longer need fear that our descendants will be forced to move to the south of France.

So what we have here is an Oxford professor stating that in order to hold the climate of the earth at its current position for eternity (or until of course as you mention , if the sun doesn't eat up the planet during its life cycle), that the solution is to simply stop the human CO2 contribution to the atmosphere?

Simples indeed.
Why didn't anyone else think of that?

So there we have it warm alarmists, your left wing paper of choice has reported the voice of authority (can't argue against an Oxford professor can we?), so we should all now wind back on our fears and alarmisms about having to learn to swim in the sea, the solution is that we can hold the climate where it currently is if you stop producing that bad CO2 - and the good news is that its ONLY the human CO2 that is the issue, easy solution to save the planet.

Phew - I thought we were all gonners for a moment!

Wait! It's almost as if....no, can't be....wait, is it an effort to make 'political' change?

[turbobloke]

jshell said:

V10leptoquark said:

gareth_r said:

Guardian article said:

Myles Allen, a professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford, said: “It’s all too easy to lose the big picture in complicated to-do lists. Stopping climate change is astonishingly simple: we need to stop dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere...

That is, indeed, astonishingly simple. One might even say "incredibly simple".

Good news though, Professor Allen's discovery means that humans can maintain the current equable climate until the Sun dies. No more ice ages. No more whatever the opposite of ice ages are. Ever!

I, for one, welcome the fact that we no longer need fear that our descendants will be forced to move to the south of France.

So what we have here is an Oxford professor stating that in order to hold the climate of the earth at its current position for eternity (or until of course as you mention , if the sun doesn't eat up the planet during its life cycle), that the solution is to simply stop the human CO2 contribution to the atmosphere?

Simples indeed.
Why didn't anyone else think of that?

So there we have it warm alarmists, your left wing paper of choice has reported the voice of authority (can't argue against an Oxford professor can we?), so we should all now wind back on our fears and alarmisms about having to learn to swim in the sea, the solution is that we can hold the climate where it currently is if you stop producing that bad CO2 - and the good news is that its ONLY the human CO2 that is the issue, easy solution to save the planet.

Phew - I thought we were all gonners for a moment!

Wait! It's almost as if....no, can't be....wait, is it an effort to make 'political' change?

Blimey. Really?!

[zygalski]

jshell said:

zygalski said:

jshell said:

zygalski said:

Well it'd no doubt help your cause if big oil didn't support the IPCC on AGW.
What turning of the tide do you mean? Have a few more bloggers appeared on WUWT?

I know you don't like questions as you never answer, but let's try. Why do you suppose 'big oil' supports the IPCC on AGW?

Your words, take your time and add something worth while to the thread rather than your repetetive, vacuous sniping with absolutely zero content...

Check out their respective climate change commitment web pages.
If you need help finding them, let me know.

I asked you why. I don't think you know, but I actually explained it to you once before. So, it's all one-way traffic with you. Can you explain, or will you body-swerve this too??

You provide the same value to this and other threads as the Flower person, that is zero. Absolutely and utterly zero.

I've wondered why other posters actually attempt interaction wth you for a while now.

Well it's all a giant global socio-political scientific conspiracy isn't it?
Radical Left winger's grouped together with Exxon Mobil, 192 signatory countries of the Kyoto Protocol & NASA to falsify the greatest cover-up in history.

It's a good job we have you and the 6 other blokes here to help uncover the conspiracy on a car owner's forum, else we'd all be in deep trouble.

Oh, and apologies I didn't answer you straight away. I have something away from this forum I prefer to do. It's called having a life.
You should try it some time.