Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Jinx said:
durbster said:
In other words, it's a list of yet more science organisations that accept AGW is real and not at all what you presented it as.
The question was to find a scientific organisation that supports my view on CAGW. The viewpoint that there is no "C". I have been consistent on both this and the science thread that there is no C in CAGW and that there is no consensus that there is a C. There is no evidence that a C is even possible outside of the fantasy RCP 8.5 nonsense and without the C there is no problem.This may not be how the question was meant but was how I took the question.
None are Scientific Research Institutions.
Half of them are "think tanks". The other half are trade association type entities. From what I can see none carry out their own research on Climate Change. Most agree that AGW is real. Half are Petroleum associated organisations.
As for 'C' can I have a link to one of them that says 'C' isn't going to happen?
Are you not embarrassed that you posted such a list?
Beyond your functional illiteracy you still have no idea how research is conducted.
You have students...? You’re about as unemployable as a tutor as anyone I’ve ever met.
Walter Mitty would be proud of the scenarios you dream up for yourself.
Research eh? Well, got that scientific institute yet?
I have a range of students: very infrequent undergrad sessions each term thankfully; MA and PhD more regularly. You still have absolutely no idea how research is conducted.
You're a fake.
Diderot said:
If you could read and actually comprehend (big if of course), you would have deduced from my responses that your 'question', irrelevant and sophistic as it is, is irrelevant and sophistic. Meanwhile, you still fail to understand how research is conducted; is that because Skeptical Science has no stock answer for that one yet?
Waffle, waffle, waffle.You've tried but you can't find one.
I'll tell you something else my faux-pro, Professors with tutoring rolls also don't get involved in internet forum disputes, it's below them.
But then you're not a professor.
As for research, you posted a link that you said proved one thing but in fact, as was pointed out to you by others, actually said another. You hadn't even read it.
Atomic12C said:
gadgetmac said:
Turbobloke trolling the thread again with the discredited ..... blah blah 
And yet you post with your discredited nonsense everyday.You can't get more descredited than the root claim of your religion (man-made run away global warming) not following reality.
El stovey said:
Atomic12C said:
gadgetmac said:
Turbobloke trolling the thread again with the discredited ..... blah blah
And yet you post with your discredited nonsense everyday.You can't get more descredited than the root claim of your religion (man-made run away global warming) not following reality.
El stovey said:
Atomic12C said:
gadgetmac said:
Turbobloke trolling the thread again with the discredited ..... blah blah
And yet you post with your discredited nonsense everyday.You can't get more descredited than the root claim of your religion (man-made run away global warming) not following reality.
Then you have examples such as the IPCC using spurious grey literature (cf. Glaciergate) in its AR4 report to sex it up, and that's simply the tip of that iceberg.
The climate gate emails demonstrate systematic subversion of research practice, the peer review process and assorted but widespread f
kwittery from so-called experts. Then you have the notorious hockey stick b
ks. I could go on, but unlike Gadgetmac I have work to do.
El stovey said:
Ever so often they get their tails up and actually post their confused non science in the science forum. That’s always funny watching them trying to save face after a spanking.
The day Turbobloke gives me a spanking in the science forum is the day your mother is my fathers grand daughter.Did you just make that sentence up ?
Edited by Gandahar on Friday 22 March 14:34
Gandahar said:
El stovey said:
Ever so often they get their tails up and actually post their confused non science in the science forum. That’s always funny watching them trying to save face after a spanking.
The day Turbobloke gives me a spanking in the science forum is the day you mother is my fathers grand daughter.Did you just make that sentence up ?
gadgetmac said:
Turbobloke trolling the thread again with the discredited Susan Crockford.
Some things never change.
This is the 4th time he's done it. I know denier stuff is thin on the ground but even so...
She's never posted a peer reviewed paper on polar bears on her life unless of course you accept the GWPF as peer review.
Dr Ian Stewart, a real polar bear expert, described her as having "zero authority on the subject." What with her representing the GWPF and taking cash from Heartland please feel free to spend your hard earned cash on the book, I'll give it a miss thanks.
It's his hobby bless him, leave him alone.Some things never change.
This is the 4th time he's done it. I know denier stuff is thin on the ground but even so...
She's never posted a peer reviewed paper on polar bears on her life unless of course you accept the GWPF as peer review.
Dr Ian Stewart, a real polar bear expert, described her as having "zero authority on the subject." What with her representing the GWPF and taking cash from Heartland please feel free to spend your hard earned cash on the book, I'll give it a miss thanks.
With a name like turbobloke you know he is at least middle aged and worries about getting his medallion tangled up in his chest hairs constantly ...
I've been giving a nod that the the BBC will be asking Blue Peter to make him his own Papier-mâché based island so he can retire to....
Turboblokes are go !
It will be covered with glaciers for 12 months of the year of course as no global warming there. His Norwegian blue parrot will have to be defrosted every morning
El stovey said:
Gandahar said:
El stovey said:
Ever so often they get their tails up and actually post their confused non science in the science forum. That’s always funny watching them trying to save face after a spanking.
The day Turbobloke gives me a spanking in the science forum is the day you mother is my fathers grand daughter.Did you just make that sentence up ?
OK, let me saddle my horse.....
El stovey said:
What’s been discredited about man made global warming?
The failure of the models that were used when MMGW was the political tool to create policy back in the early 2000's.The un-predicted/unwanted 'pause in rising temps'.
The 'settled' science claim - when brand new warmist claims of the sea eating up all the warming.
The fact that Al Gore's claim of "millions will die by the year 2012"? was it? - because cities would be under water.
The fact that observed sea level rise and atmospheric temps are within a generalised region of natural variance.
The fact that published data seems to have undergone an amount of manipulation to hide the warm periods of the past and increase the warming trends of the present.
The media reporting that sea ice melt would increase sea levels.
The 97% consensus - widely discredited as nothing more than a political activism exercise of meaningless numbers.
Climate gate - The CRU and their 'data math tricks' to make more or less any input of large data to form a hockey stick graph.
The polar bears - no mention that human hunting of seals was an issue - bear population now stronger than ever.
etc. etc. etc. etc.
Now all this of course is not denying that the global temps are varying..... its not denying that humans have some cause and effect in that..... but there is great discredit in saying that humans are the main cause - trying to assert that as fact or as "settled science".
Who's done the discrediting.....reality has and continues to do it.
As the data rolls in over the past numerous years since the original MMGW prediction by Al Gore, and as reality fails to behave itself in terms of not running away with catastrophic warming, as per the predictions, ....it results that reality is discrediting the MMGW religion.
Of course I now wait for a point by point rebuttal and something along the lines that only certain approved members of the global population are 'allowed' to discredit anything regarding the religion.
Being that numerous climate scientists that have already discredited the science and the politics in the past are quickly subject to a witch hunt to
discredit their personality and integrity. The usual tactics of playing the man rather than their findings.
Gandahar said:
Maybe I should mosey into town then like Clint Eastwood about to shoot all the dumb feck Canutests down?
OK, let me saddle my horse.....
The science thread seems to be just full of bullsOK, let me saddle my horse.....
t from this thread unfortunately..I did post a bit of science whilst I was down there though. I am the next Shackleton
My memoirs will be up soon.
Edited by Gandahar on Friday 22 March 14:53
Atomic12C said:
El stovey said:
What’s been discredited about man made global warming?
The failure of the models that were used when MMGW was the political tool to create policy back in the early 2000's.The un-predicted/unwanted 'pause in rising temps'.
The 'settled' science claim - when brand new warmist claims of the sea eating up all the warming.
The fact that Al Gore's claim of "millions will die by the year 2012"? was it? - because cities would be under water.
The fact that observed sea level rise and atmospheric temps are within a generalised region of natural variance.
The fact that published data seems to have undergone an amount of manipulation to hide the warm periods of the past and increase the warming trends of the present.
The media reporting that sea ice melt would increase sea levels.
The 97% consensus - widely discredited as nothing more than a political activism exercise of meaningless numbers.
Climate gate - The CRU and their 'data math tricks' to make more or less any input of large data to form a hockey stick graph.
The polar bears - no mention that human hunting of seals was an issue - bear population now stronger than ever.
etc. etc. etc. etc.
Now all this of course is not denying that the global temps are varying..... its not denying that humans have some cause and effect in that..... but there is great discredit in saying that humans are the main cause - trying to assert that as fact or as "settled science".
Who's done the discrediting.....reality has and continues to do it.
As the data rolls in over the past numerous years since the original MMGW prediction by Al Gore, and as reality fails to behave itself in terms of not running away with catastrophic warming, as per the predictions, ....it results that reality is discrediting the MMGW religion.
Of course I now wait for a point by point rebuttal and something along the lines that only certain approved members of the global population are 'allowed' to discredit anything regarding the religion.
Being that numerous climate scientists that have already discredited the science and the politics in the past are quickly subject to a witch hunt to
discredit their personality and integrity. The usual tactics of playing the man rather than their findings.
Pithy answer please. Less than 4 letters.
Gandahar said:
Atomic12C said:
El stovey said:
What’s been discredited about man made global warming?
The failure of the models that were used when MMGW was the political tool to create policy back in the early 2000's.The un-predicted/unwanted 'pause in rising temps'.
The 'settled' science claim - when brand new warmist claims of the sea eating up all the warming.
The fact that Al Gore's claim of "millions will die by the year 2012"? was it? - because cities would be under water.
The fact that observed sea level rise and atmospheric temps are within a generalised region of natural variance.
The fact that published data seems to have undergone an amount of manipulation to hide the warm periods of the past and increase the warming trends of the present.
The media reporting that sea ice melt would increase sea levels.
The 97% consensus - widely discredited as nothing more than a political activism exercise of meaningless numbers.
Climate gate - The CRU and their 'data math tricks' to make more or less any input of large data to form a hockey stick graph.
The polar bears - no mention that human hunting of seals was an issue - bear population now stronger than ever.
etc. etc. etc. etc.
Now all this of course is not denying that the global temps are varying..... its not denying that humans have some cause and effect in that..... but there is great discredit in saying that humans are the main cause - trying to assert that as fact or as "settled science".
Who's done the discrediting.....reality has and continues to do it.
As the data rolls in over the past numerous years since the original MMGW prediction by Al Gore, and as reality fails to behave itself in terms of not running away with catastrophic warming, as per the predictions, ....it results that reality is discrediting the MMGW religion.
Of course I now wait for a point by point rebuttal and something along the lines that only certain approved members of the global population are 'allowed' to discredit anything regarding the religion.
Being that numerous climate scientists that have already discredited the science and the politics in the past are quickly subject to a witch hunt to
discredit their personality and integrity. The usual tactics of playing the man rather than their findings.
Pithy answer please. Less than 4 letters.
robinessex said:
Yes, he does actually. Very little of diddly squat sounds about right.
I expect some fellow cult members will be along to disagree with you any minute as most of them have finally now admitted that AGW is real. They’re just arguing
El stovey said:
They’re just arguing to save face about how bad it might be now.
Oh and exactly how bad would that be (AGW)? Want to add to the litany of failed guesses and predictions? If it's that bad, then of course you need to do something about it, but you don't really believe it's that bad otherwise you'd not be a 'climate criminal' would you? Unless of course, like so many alarmists, you're a hypocrite? Diderot said:
El stovey said:
They’re just arguing to save face about how bad it might be now.
Oh and exactly how bad would that be (AGW)? Want to add to the litany of failed guesses and predictions? If it's that bad, then of course you need to do something about it, but you don't really believe it's that bad otherwise you'd not be a 'climate criminal' would you? Unless of course, like so many alarmists, you're a hypocrite? Shouldn’t you be busy hinting you’re a scientist and droning on about your scientific research?
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
They’re just arguing to save face about how bad it might be now.
Oh and exactly how bad would that be (AGW)? Want to add to the litany of failed guesses and predictions? If it's that bad, then of course you need to do something about it, but you don't really believe it's that bad otherwise you'd not be a 'climate criminal' would you? Unless of course, like so many alarmists, you're a hypocrite? Shouldn’t you be busy hinting you’re a scientist and droning on about your scientific research?
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
They’re just arguing to save face about how bad it might be now.
Oh and exactly how bad would that be (AGW)? Want to add to the litany of failed guesses and predictions? If it's that bad, then of course you need to do something about it, but you don't really believe it's that bad otherwise you'd not be a 'climate criminal' would you? Unless of course, like so many alarmists, you're a hypocrite? Shouldn’t you be busy hinting you’re a scientist and droning on about your scientific research?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff