Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
Gadgetmac said:
El stovey said:
Gadgetmac said:
As if by magic the Marxist plot appears almost before I've had time to make my post.
I've got to buy a lottery ticket tonight.
I hope turbobloke is actually getting paid by someone for continuing to spout this misleading nonsense. Years of lying and misrepresenting scientists and doctoring quotes and hiding sources of his ”data”.I've got to buy a lottery ticket tonight.
Shown up time and time again on the climate threads for trying to deceive people. It can’t just be based on an irrational hatred of lefties, it must be a job. Maybe he’s one of the lucky ones, getting paid for his hobby.
it's something I've said myself on these threads before. The sheer volume of his posts and links and the time frame over which they are submitted to these threads demonstrates that he doesn't work for a living so presumably had to be getting an income from somewhere.Exxon are most generous I understand.
It’s a phenomenal amount of graft he puts into this promotional work. It’s not just the time spent posting it in here it’s the sheer amount of searching for these links, reading them and then posting them.
Frankly my company could do with somebody like him in our advertising dept.
His quest is clearly political on these threads so his accusation of ad hom doesn’t really stick. He’s politically motivated and as such his motivations and sources are open to scrutiny...and ridicule where it’s justified.
Quoting Johnny Ball being one such occasion yesterday.
Frankly my company could do with somebody like him in our advertising dept.
His quest is clearly political on these threads so his accusation of ad hom doesn’t really stick. He’s politically motivated and as such his motivations and sources are open to scrutiny...and ridicule where it’s justified.
Quoting Johnny Ball being one such occasion yesterday.
Gadgetmac said:
It’s a phenomenal amount of graft he puts into this promotional work. It’s not just the time spent posting it in here it’s the sheer amount of searching for these links, reading them and then posting them.
Frankly my company could do with somebody like him in our advertising dept.
His quest is clearly political on these threads so his accusation of ad hom doesn’t really stick. He’s politically motivated and as such his motivations and sources are open to scrutiny...and ridicule where it’s justified.
Quoting Johnny Ball being one such occasion yesterday.
I haven’t read ad homs from him though...have you?Frankly my company could do with somebody like him in our advertising dept.
His quest is clearly political on these threads so his accusation of ad hom doesn’t really stick. He’s politically motivated and as such his motivations and sources are open to scrutiny...and ridicule where it’s justified.
Quoting Johnny Ball being one such occasion yesterday.
It is perfectly possible to be political without ad homs?
El stovey said:
Kawasicki said:
I haven’t read ad homs from him though...have you?
It is perfectly possible to be political without ad homs?
But apparently not without lying constantly. It is perfectly possible to be political without ad homs?
Kawasicki said:
El stovey said:
Kawasicki said:
I haven’t read ad homs from him though...have you?
It is perfectly possible to be political without ad homs?
But apparently not without lying constantly. It is perfectly possible to be political without ad homs?
European Carmakers Facing Climate Policy Disaster
https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2019/10/29...
The answer apparently is increased taxpayer subsidies on EVs. Good job the EU economy isn't staring at recession.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2019/10/29...
The answer apparently is increased taxpayer subsidies on EVs. Good job the EU economy isn't staring at recession.
El stovey said:
Kawasicki said:
El stovey said:
Kawasicki said:
I haven’t read ad homs from him though...have you?
It is perfectly possible to be political without ad homs?
But apparently not without lying constantly. It is perfectly possible to be political without ad homs?
robinessex said:
They only have a belief, that's why
And the scientific consensus and the vast majority of scientists and every scientific institution of note on the planet.Whilst you have TB and his advocacy blogs.
Do you honestly believe you’re right and all those experts and institutions are wrong and part of a left wing conspiracy? What are your qualifications again?
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
They only have a belief, that's why
And the scientific consensus and the vast majority of scientists and every scientific institution of note on the planet.Whilst you have TB and his advocacy blogs.
Do you honestly believe you’re right and all those experts and institutions are wrong and part of a left wing conspiracy? What are your qualifications again?
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
They only have a belief, that's why
And the scientific consensus and the vast majority of scientists and every scientific institution of note on the planet.Whilst you have TB and his advocacy blogs.
Do you honestly believe you’re right and all those experts and institutions are wrong and part of a left wing conspiracy? What are your qualifications again?
What’s my job got to do with anything? I’m not saying I’m, right and the entire scientific community are in on an elaborate deception for wealth redistribution.
You must wonder why the biggest fraud in scientific history and indeed humanity hasn’t been uncovered yet despite your evidence? Even you must think (with your logic and common sense) why’s it just a few of us (with no qualifications) that can see the truth?
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
They only have a belief, that's why
And the scientific consensus and the vast majority of scientists and every scientific institution of note on the planet.Whilst you have TB and his advocacy blogs.
Do you honestly believe you’re right and all those experts and institutions are wrong and part of a left wing conspiracy? What are your qualifications again?
What’s my job got to do with anything? I’m not saying I’m, right and the entire scientific community are in on an elaborate deception for wealth redistribution.
You must wonder why the biggest fraud in scientific history and indeed humanity hasn’t been uncovered yet despite your evidence? Even you must think (with your logic and common sense) why’s it just a few of us (with no qualifications) that can see the truth?
Etypephil said:
A remarkable number of posts here comprised solely of personal attacks: the mark of those with no valid case to make.
What a bunch of foolish AGW sheep.
It’s the climate politics thread.What a bunch of foolish AGW sheep.
If you want evidence go to the renewables thread or the climate science thread, where your lot get shown up whenever they post by experts and real scientists, not fake and dishonest internet blaggers.
The politics of climate science is posters like TB quoting politically funded advocacy blogs that seek to create doubt and muddy the waters like the tobacco industry did with smoking. In some instances it’s actually exactly the same groups supporting these blogs that supported the tobacco industry’s claims.
You guys are just like the people that said there no real evidence that smoking causes cancer. You’re believing propaganda that goes against the scientific consensus and if your side had any actual evidence then the consensus would be changed and we’d move on with that new knowledge.
Instead you have to create the narrative that science and peer review and scientific consensus are all suddenly broken and corrupt and involved in a global left wing political plot for wealth redistribution.
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
They only have a belief, that's why
And the scientific consensus and the vast majority of scientists and every scientific institution of note on the planet.Whilst you have TB and his advocacy blogs.
Do you honestly believe you’re right and all those experts and institutions are wrong and part of a left wing conspiracy? What are your qualifications again?
What’s my job got to do with anything? I’m not saying I’m, right and the entire scientific community are in on an elaborate deception for wealth redistribution.
You must wonder why the biggest fraud in scientific history and indeed humanity hasn’t been uncovered yet despite your evidence? Even you must think (with your logic and common sense) why’s it just a few of us (with no qualifications) that can see the truth?
Jinx said:
[cough] QED Stovey - you've provided a fine example of attacking the person ("what are your qualifications again?") and highlighted your belief in the institutions/scientific community (is there such a thing - most scientists I have known are fiercely independent and protective of their research) .
As I said above, my qualifications are irrelevant as I’m not saying I’m right and the scientific community are wrong. I’m asking Robinessex about his, to establish the basis for his consensus changing knowledge that he appears to be unwilling to use to actually change the scientific consensus. Are there other branches of science he/you think are all b
ks? Is it just climate science you think is full of liars making up stuff for funding? Good news though, science is full of times when people have gone against the flow and provided evidence that’s changed the reasoned collective judgment of the scientific community. AGW deniers have to actually do something with this evidence though otherwise they’re just going to remain stuck looking like conspiracy theorists.
El stovey said:
And the scientific consensus and the vast majority of scientists and every scientific institution of note on the planet.
Do you honestly believe you’re right and all those experts and institutions ....
Going by believer standards, your statement is void. The vast majority of the scientists can be ignored as anyone who isn't a 'climate scientist' should not be included as they don't have the required qualifications to support the position. Do you honestly believe you’re right and all those experts and institutions ....
It's been stated by many of your faith brethren that only climate scientists can argue against it, so why can non climate scientists support it?
Not every scientific institution employs climate scientists, so why are those without a bonafide 'expert' allowed to support it unless it's entirely political?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff