Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
turbobloke said:
El stovey said:
All your posts and predictions over the years have all turned out to be wrong.
I haven't made any predictions, and many of my post refer to the scientific literature.The predictions that have failed repeatedly for decades have arisen from agw garbage. I may well have posted some of those to highlight the garbage, that's not me / my posts being wrong either.
Your false claims reveal unprecedented levels of desperation. Watch out for a tipping point.
How anyone still believes anything you post is mind boggling.
El stovey said:
turbobloke said:
El stovey said:
All your posts and predictions over the years have all turned out to be wrong.
I haven't made any predictions, and many of my post refer to the scientific literature.The predictions that have failed repeatedly for decades have arisen from agw garbage. I may well have posted some of those to highlight the garbage, that's not me / my posts being wrong either.
Your false claims reveal unprecedented levels of desperation. Watch out for a tipping point.
How anyone still believes anything you post is mind boggling.
Meanwhile you continue to produce more co2 emissions in your daily working life than most of us do in our lifetimes. How does that fit in with your MMGW ideology?
Diderot said:
You come across as utterly foolish (as well as the arch hypocrite). As I invited you to do but you’ve not engaged yet, list all those predictions made by scientists about global heating that have come to pass ... thought not.
Meanwhile you continue to produce more co2 emissions in your daily working life than most of us do in our lifetimes. How does that fit in with your MMGW ideology?
You think you’d get the hint. Meanwhile you continue to produce more co2 emissions in your daily working life than most of us do in our lifetimes. How does that fit in with your MMGW ideology?
Why on earth do I have to answer your silly questions? Especially questions about predictions I haven’t made or ever quoted on here as evidence of anything. It’s classic straw man dogma for the radicalised like you and those fellow conspiracy theorists living in echo chambers.
I and other posters obviously ignore your nonsense. (Unlike you who frothily quotes me every time I post) How much emissions does your job in being a teacher in conspiracy b
ks at fake scientist polytechnic create? Are you responsible for any or all of it? Are you just responsible for the emissions for the department of conspiracy bks or for the entire fake scientist polytechnic? If you worked in a power station would you be responsible for all those emissions?
What about Robinessex who helped design the A380s wings, is he responsible for the emissions it makes?
Of course not, so stop being such a plonker and churning out the same glib nonsense.
You might not like posters pointing out your nutty ideology but that’s your lot when you’re a conspiracy theorist (which is what you are) thinking the scientific community (real not fake experts like you) and every scientific institution of note on the planet (plus most governments and media) are in on a Marxist plot involving the redistribution of wealth and other nefariousness.
When your ideology doesn’t stand up to the most basic of scrutiny and all your evidence comes from fringe blogs and YouTube instead of respected scientific publications and institutions you think you’d wonder if you’ve got it wrong? What do you teach your students about reliable sources of information? Hopefully it’s not to just to quote YouTube and wattsupwiththat and the GWPF or other fringe advocacy blogs like you and your 4 cult members do endlessly.
It’s a wonder you haven’t changed the scientific consensus yet. Oh no, it isn’t is it? because you’ve got no evidence to support any of your conspiracy theories at all.
Don’t you ever wonder why what would be the greatest travesty in the history of science attracts such little attention in here? Why it’s only you handful that can see the truth? Why’s everyone else is falling for it?
Maybe you will manage to provide some evidence to change the scientific consensus on AGW and that will then become the consensus but seeing where you guys get your facts from, it seems unlikely.
If you’re an academic with evidence of the scientific consensus being wrong, why not actually do something about it? You could publish a paper and even co write it with all the other conspiracy theorists on here?
If you think people that agree with the scientific consensus and the scientific community are foolish and you who follows Turbobloke and believes in conspiracy nonsense is in the know then quite frankly you need professional (nor fake expertise like yours) help.
PRTVR said:
El stovey said:
I get my facts from reliable sources you get yours from YouTube and wattsupwiththat.
How do you know they are reliable? How do you judge that the YouTube videos are unreliable.
Love that. Comedy gold!
zygalski said:
PRTVR said:
El stovey said:
I get my facts from reliable sources you get yours from YouTube and wattsupwiththat.
How do you know they are reliable? How do you judge that the YouTube videos are unreliable.
Love that. Comedy gold!
El stovey said:
Don’t you ever wonder why what would be the greatest travesty in the history of science attracts such little attention in here? Why it’s only you handful that can see the truth? Why’s everyone else is falling for it?
All the time 
Let's say temperatures had fallen by 1 degree, and the powers that be said it was because of co2, and produced some pretty graphs to prove it. Co2 up, temps down. Slam dunk? And then we had the reverse situation, of trying to avoid global cooling by reducing our emissions
Would you believe them? (If not why not?)
Maybe the earth's temperature is always in a state of flux, and is quite capable of going up or down without our help. Or that too much of a conspiracy theory for you?
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
You come across as utterly foolish (as well as the arch hypocrite). As I invited you to do but you’ve not engaged yet, list all those predictions made by scientists about global heating that have come to pass ... thought not.
Meanwhile you continue to produce more co2 emissions in your daily working life than most of us do in our lifetimes. How does that fit in with your MMGW ideology?
You think you’d get the hint. Meanwhile you continue to produce more co2 emissions in your daily working life than most of us do in our lifetimes. How does that fit in with your MMGW ideology?
Why on earth do I have to answer your silly questions? Especially questions about predictions I haven’t made or ever quoted on here as evidence of anything. It’s classic straw man dogma for the radicalised like you and those fellow conspiracy theorists living in echo chambers.
I and other posters obviously ignore your nonsense. (Unlike you who frothily quotes me every time I post) How much emissions does your job in being a teacher in conspiracy b
ks at fake scientist polytechnic create? Are you responsible for any or all of it? Are you just responsible for the emissions for the department of conspiracy bks or for the entire fake scientist polytechnic? If you worked in a power station would you be responsible for all those emissions?
What about Robinessex who helped design the A380s wings, is he responsible for the emissions it makes?
Of course not, so stop being such a plonker and churning out the same glib nonsense.
You might not like posters pointing out your nutty ideology but that’s your lot when you’re a conspiracy theorist (which is what you are) thinking the scientific community (real not fake experts like you) and every scientific institution of note on the planet (plus most governments and media) are in on a Marxist plot involving the redistribution of wealth and other nefariousness.
When your ideology doesn’t stand up to the most basic of scrutiny and all your evidence comes from fringe blogs and YouTube instead of respected scientific publications and institutions you think you’d wonder if you’ve got it wrong? What do you teach your students about reliable sources of information? Hopefully it’s not to just to quote YouTube and wattsupwiththat and the GWPF or other fringe advocacy blogs like you and your 4 cult members do endlessly.
It’s a wonder you haven’t changed the scientific consensus yet. Oh no, it isn’t is it? because you’ve got no evidence to support any of your conspiracy theories at all.
Don’t you ever wonder why what would be the greatest travesty in the history of science attracts such little attention in here? Why it’s only you handful that can see the truth? Why’s everyone else is falling for it?
Maybe you will manage to provide some evidence to change the scientific consensus on AGW and that will then become the consensus but seeing where you guys get your facts from, it seems unlikely.
If you’re an academic with evidence of the scientific consensus being wrong, why not actually do something about it? You could publish a paper and even co write it with all the other conspiracy theorists on here?
If you think people that agree with the scientific consensus and the scientific community are foolish and you who follows Turbobloke and believes in conspiracy nonsense is in the know then quite frankly you need professional (nor fake expertise like yours) help.
Diderot said:
So after all that hot air, consensus claptrap and conspiracy nonsense, you cannot find a single prediction about global warming that has come to pass.
Just look for yourself. 30 seconds googling gives loads of articles from reliable sources. Here’s an article from NASAs jet propulsion laboratory linking to Berkeley, It’s from real experts and respected scientific institutions unlike your fake polly science credentials or Turbobloke/mybrainhurts/dickymint so you probably will think it’s all b
ks. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-...
No need to keep asking me to vouch for past predictions though as A) they’re not for me to defend and nothing to do with me and B) I can’t be arsed replying to conspiracy theorists and more of your nonsense for a bit.
Cheerio.
Lotus 50 said:
Eerrm let me think…. How about increased CO2 = higher global surface temperatures?
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temper...
Erm equally you can say increased global surface temperatures = higher CO2 (oceans outgas CO2 as they warm) so not much of a prediction is it?https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temper...
Jinx said:
Erm equally you can say increased global surface temperatures = higher CO2 (oceans outgas CO2 as they warm) so not much of a prediction is it?
(Fwfw I deleted the post because El Stovy had already made the point)Yes but in this case it is CO2 forcing temps (there are many sources that show this and I posted them a few pages ago), what you have highlighted though is one of the concerns re feedback effects. The source of the CO2 increases in the atmosphere has very clearly been demonstrated as being anthropogenic.
El stovey said:
Just look for yourself. 30 seconds googling gives loads of articles from reliable sources.
Here’s an article from NASAs jet propulsion laboratory linking to Berkeley, It’s from real experts and respected scientific institutions unlike your fake polly science credentials or Turbobloke/mybrainhurts/dickymint so you probably will think it’s all bks.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-...
No need to keep asking me to vouch for past predictions though as A) they’re not for me to defend and nothing to do with me and B) I can’t be arsed replying to conspiracy theorists and more of your nonsense for a bit.
Cheerio.
See their diagram versus the oceans one below:Here’s an article from NASAs jet propulsion laboratory linking to Berkeley, It’s from real experts and respected scientific institutions unlike your fake polly science credentials or Turbobloke/mybrainhurts/dickymint so you probably will think it’s all b
ks. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-...
No need to keep asking me to vouch for past predictions though as A) they’re not for me to defend and nothing to do with me and B) I can’t be arsed replying to conspiracy theorists and more of your nonsense for a bit.
Cheerio.
Jinx said:
El stovey said:
Just look for yourself. 30 seconds googling gives loads of articles from reliable sources.
Here’s an article from NASAs jet propulsion laboratory linking to Berkeley, It’s from real experts and respected scientific institutions unlike your fake polly science credentials or Turbobloke/mybrainhurts/dickymint so you probably will think it’s all bks.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-...
No need to keep asking me to vouch for past predictions though as A) they’re not for me to defend and nothing to do with me and B) I can’t be arsed replying to conspiracy theorists and more of your nonsense for a bit.
Cheerio.
See their diagram versus the oceans one below:Here’s an article from NASAs jet propulsion laboratory linking to Berkeley, It’s from real experts and respected scientific institutions unlike your fake polly science credentials or Turbobloke/mybrainhurts/dickymint so you probably will think it’s all b
ks. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-...
No need to keep asking me to vouch for past predictions though as A) they’re not for me to defend and nothing to do with me and B) I can’t be arsed replying to conspiracy theorists and more of your nonsense for a bit.
Cheerio.
Meanwhile,the UK government has in mind a ban on gas boilers, and the related rollout of air source or ground source heat pumps for most of the country’s 26 million households, with installation rates of 600,000 a year as soon as 2028. Politicians say so therefore it will happen on time and at cost below expectation (as always). Just as the German government warns of dangerous water pollution and the public health threat from use of heat pumps.
Clean and green, from rare earth extraction onwards, keep up the panic.
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
So after all that hot air, consensus claptrap and conspiracy nonsense, you cannot find a single prediction about global warming that has come to pass.
Just look for yourself. 30 seconds googling gives loads of articles from reliable sources. Here’s an article from NASAs jet propulsion laboratory linking to Berkeley, It’s from real experts and respected scientific institutions unlike your fake polly science credentials or Turbobloke/mybrainhurts/dickymint so you probably will think it’s all b
ks. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-...
No need to keep asking me to vouch for past predictions though as A) they’re not for me to defend and nothing to do with me and B) I can’t be arsed replying to conspiracy theorists and more of your nonsense for a bit.
Cheerio.
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
You come across as utterly foolish (as well as the arch hypocrite). As I invited you to do but you’ve not engaged yet, list all those predictions made by scientists about global heating that have come to pass ... thought not.
Meanwhile you continue to produce more co2 emissions in your daily working life than most of us do in our lifetimes. How does that fit in with your MMGW ideology?
You think you’d get the hint. Meanwhile you continue to produce more co2 emissions in your daily working life than most of us do in our lifetimes. How does that fit in with your MMGW ideology?
Why on earth do I have to answer your silly questions? Especially questions about predictions I haven’t made or ever quoted on here as evidence of anything. It’s classic straw man dogma for the radicalised like you and those fellow conspiracy theorists living in echo chambers.
I and other posters obviously ignore your nonsense. (Unlike you who frothily quotes me every time I post) How much emissions does your job in being a teacher in conspiracy b
ks at fake scientist polytechnic create? Are you responsible for any or all of it? Are you just responsible for the emissions for the department of conspiracy bks or for the entire fake scientist polytechnic? If you worked in a power station would you be responsible for all those emissions?
What about Robinessex who helped design the A380s wings, is he responsible for the emissions it makes?
Of course not, so stop being such a plonker and churning out the same glib nonsense.
You might not like posters pointing out your nutty ideology but that’s your lot when you’re a conspiracy theorist (which is what you are) thinking the scientific community (real not fake experts like you) and every scientific institution of note on the planet (plus most governments and media) are in on a Marxist plot involving the redistribution of wealth and other nefariousness.
When your ideology doesn’t stand up to the most basic of scrutiny and all your evidence comes from fringe blogs and YouTube instead of respected scientific publications and institutions you think you’d wonder if you’ve got it wrong? What do you teach your students about reliable sources of information? Hopefully it’s not to just to quote YouTube and wattsupwiththat and the GWPF or other fringe advocacy blogs like you and your 4 cult members do endlessly.
It’s a wonder you haven’t changed the scientific consensus yet. Oh no, it isn’t is it? because you’ve got no evidence to support any of your conspiracy theories at all.
Don’t you ever wonder why what would be the greatest travesty in the history of science attracts such little attention in here? Why it’s only you handful that can see the truth? Why’s everyone else is falling for it?
Maybe you will manage to provide some evidence to change the scientific consensus on AGW and that will then become the consensus but seeing where you guys get your facts from, it seems unlikely.
If you’re an academic with evidence of the scientific consensus being wrong, why not actually do something about it? You could publish a paper and even co write it with all the other conspiracy theorists on here?
If you think people that agree with the scientific consensus and the scientific community are foolish and you who follows Turbobloke and believes in conspiracy nonsense is in the know then quite frankly you need professional (nor fake expertise like yours) help.
.Diderot said:
So after all that hot air, consensus claptrap and conspiracy nonsense, you cannot find a single prediction about global warming that has come to pass.
I made that eight times "conspiracy" got a mention along with the other usual accusations of 'Marxism', 'nutters', 'echo chamber' (when the only echo in here is himself yodelling to himself on some remote mountain top ) etc' etc..... Then tries to defend his hypocrisy of polluting the planet for a living by trying to implicate others that don't feel the slightest need to feel guilt! By the way I used to work for Rolls Royce building and re-building Tornado RB199, Concorde Olympus 593 and Harrier Pegasus engines should I repent for keeping them fly boys in the sky Anyhow top rant for first thing in the morning but very reminiscent of this
"........ never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."
Problem is Stoves it aint working in this "little old backwater forum of a car enthusiasts website"
Diderot said:
And one second Googling reveals myriad laughable predictions of doom and apocalypse which never came to pass. And as others have pointed out, the graph you posted only serves to demonstrate the abject failure of models.
So if the models prove to be wrong, it means (the narrative will be) reducing co2 was successful. Which means pats on the back all round. Splendidjohnboy1975 said:
Diderot said:
And one second Googling reveals myriad laughable predictions of doom and apocalypse which never came to pass. And as others have pointed out, the graph you posted only serves to demonstrate the abject failure of models.
So if the models prove to be wrong, it means (the narrative will be) reducing co2 was successful. Which means pats on the back all round. SplendidWe're well past the models being wrong. Accuracy of coin flipping is celebrated as skill!
turbobloke said:
ISWYM but reducing CO2 was successful? Carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise in spite of decades of IPCC hot air and all the political posturing, plus of course extra taxes. No sign of any change unless the models forecast another global financial crisis and that would be temporary as per the previous example..
We're well past the models being wrong. Accuracy of coin flipping is celebrated as skill!
I've said before, there's little point reducing our co2 output (a gnats fart by comparison) whilst China builds a new coal fired power station every day (or whatever the stat is)We're well past the models being wrong. Accuracy of coin flipping is celebrated as skill!
Its all virtue signalling b
ks designed to appeal to the feeble minded. A cleaner planet would be great (no argument from me (*)) but I'm not sure its compatible with capitalism, or indeed a projected 10b people.(*) To the question "do you want a cleaner planet Yes/No I'd answer yes. To the question "do you want a cleaner planet at the expense of your current lifestyle I'd answer no. This is why we are not being given a choice in the matter, as I'm sure I'm not alone
johnboy1975 said:
turbobloke said:
ISWYM but reducing CO2 was successful? Carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise in spite of decades of IPCC hot air and all the political posturing, plus of course extra taxes. No sign of any change unless the models forecast another global financial crisis and that would be temporary as per the previous example..
We're well past the models being wrong. Accuracy of coin flipping is celebrated as skill!
I've said before, there's little point reducing our co2 output (a gnats fart by comparison) whilst China builds a new coal fired power station every day (or whatever the stat is)We're well past the models being wrong. Accuracy of coin flipping is celebrated as skill!
Its all virtue signalling b
ks designed to appeal to the feeble minded. A cleaner planet would be great (no argument from me (*)) but I'm not sure its compatible with capitalism, or indeed a projected 10b people.(*) To the question "do you want a cleaner planet Yes/No I'd answer yes. To the question "do you want a cleaner planet at the expense of your current lifestyle I'd answer no. This is why we are not being given a choice in the matter, as I'm sure I'm not alone
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff