Clever bloke says global warming is a sack of arse
Discussion
Nothing to add here except....
Brilliant. Curse the media with their agenda to overstate the case against man made global warming - the b
ds.
el stovey said:
The media tries to give both sides of the argument but I think it massively overstates the support there is for non MMGW among scientists.
HAAA!!!!! AHAHAHAHAHAAAAA! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! AHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!! HA HA HAH HA HA HA HA HA!!Brilliant. Curse the media with their agenda to overstate the case against man made global warming - the b
ds._dobbo_ said:
Nothing to add here except....
Brilliant. Curse the media with their agenda to overstate the case against man made global warming - the bds.
el stovey said:
The media tries to give both sides of the argument but I think it massively overstates the support there is for non MMGW among scientists.
HAAA!!!!! AHAHAHAHAHAAAAA! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! AHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!! HA HA HAH HA HA HA HA HA!!Brilliant. Curse the media with their agenda to overstate the case against man made global warming - the b
ds.
el stovey said:
jbi said:
el stovey said:
He must be right and all the other many of thousands of scientists are wrong. 
The community is largely divided on the issue, It's a gravy train IMO
The media tries to give both sides of the argument but I think it massively overstates the support there is for non MMGW among scientists.
t!"_dobbo_ said:
Nothing to add here except....
Brilliant. Curse the media with their agenda to overstate the case against man made global warming - the bds.
I read quite a lot of scientific journals, magazines like new scientist and articles published by The British Antarctic Survey, NASA, the Met Office etc. and see very little argument against MMGW. I suppose people on here think they are all involved in some kind of elaborate tax scam or are lying to get funding.el stovey said:
The media tries to give both sides of the argument but I think it massively overstates the support there is for non MMGW among scientists.
HAAA!!!!! AHAHAHAHAHAAAAA! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! AHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!! HA HA HAH HA HA HA HA HA!!Brilliant. Curse the media with their agenda to overstate the case against man made global warming - the b
ds.When I see a debate on the news or in the newspapers or program like newsnight etc they usually have one bloke arguing for and one against, it gives an impression there is an almost equal support for both sides where there clearly isn't amongst scientists and meteorologists. Every time someone argues against MMGW on the TV we have a thread about it on here, with posters praising their enlightenment. It's not uncommon.
I'd love to believe it was all just rubbish. It suits me 100% but the only place I actually ever read a consensus against MMGW is on here, an internet car forum. I suppose you think there is an almost equal support for and against MMGW in the scientific community? It's certainly not the impression I get.
It's like this thread, "clever bloke says global warming is a load of arse" no mention of the much larger number of clever people who disagree with him. Why aren't people posting that any other scientific theory that the vast majority of scientists support but hasn't been proven 100% is a load of arse?
It seems OK to agree with 'the majority of scientists' on everything but MMGW. That seems a bit odd doesn't it?
Edited by el stovey on Wednesday 13th October 15:32
But when one side is paid money to promote something that is virtually impossible to pin down either way, why would you waste your career trying to put up an argument against it when there are more impressive and achievable targets available?
I wouldn't necessarily describe one side being relatively quiet as a concensus.
I wouldn't necessarily describe one side being relatively quiet as a concensus.
TuxRacer said:
But when one side is paid money to promote something that is virtually impossible to pin down either way, why would you waste your career trying to put up an argument against it when there are more impressive and achievable targets available?
Do you think that sounds reasonable? That MMGW scientists are all being paid and the other lot (who aren't being paid) simply can't be bothered arguing against them? Presumably there are plenty of scientists on the 'other side' also being if that is the way science now works?
Edited by el stovey on Wednesday 13th October 16:03
el stovey said:
Do you think that sounds reasonable? That MMGW scientists are being paid and the other lot (who aren't being paid) can't be bothered arguing against them?
I suspect, rather than not being paid to just sit on the other side, they're being paid to work on other projects.el stovey said:
Presumably there are plenty of scientists on the 'other side' also being if that way science works?
I can't raed that! 
TuxRacer said:
el stovey said:
Presumably there are plenty of scientists on the 'other side' also being if that is the way science now works?
Sorry, I still can't read it!Edited by el stovey on Wednesday 13th October 16:03
If pro MMGW scientists are only taking that view because they are being paid, why assume non MMGW scientists are not being paid also? Presumably there are plenty of wealthy people that would benefit in each camp.
TuxRacer said:
I see hardly anyone with the necessary funds who stands to lose out though. The big energy companies seem likely to win out either way. I just don't see where the funding would come from.
Oil companies, oil producing countries?I don't think funding is an issue myself but just answering your question.
el stovey said:
I'd love to believe it was all just rubbish. It suits me 100% but the only place I actually ever read a consensus against MMGW is on here, an internet car forum. I suppose you think there is an almost equal support for and against MMGW in the scientific community? It's certainly not the impression I get.
The people commenting on here on the climate realist side include a significant number of well qualified scientists with relevant experience and expertise. That's the problem with true believers wading in and thinking it's a bunch of petrolheads and nothing more. Long may they think so and enjoy the fruits of their misconceptions, but there's no need for others to make unfounded assumptions.The other side to that coin is that to a very large degree it's totally irrelevant who's saying what, the only relevance relates to the subjective side of some people in the way they judge the messenger rather than the message, which we see on here all the time. If individuals have the background to make sense of the messages, i.e. data and interpretation using sound science, for themselves then there's no problem. The issue arises when they don't and though that's not their fault or anybody else's it doesn't mean that everybody else in the debate should be taken as occupying a similar position.
One thing that we can say, based on evidence, is that if there truly are believers (see what I did there) who are scientists on the warmist side contributing to these threads then they do a fantastic job of faking ignorance, given the number of times we've gone through their crass offerings "nothing has happened since Arrhenius" and casino stats and tractor kinetics and laws of thermos dynamics and the rest there's little room for doubt.
On the money side, the global climate change industry is now said to be worth more than $528bn.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-climate-change-...
Whatever else, if money talks that's plenty enough to chat for quite a while.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-climate-change-...
Whatever else, if money talks that's plenty enough to chat for quite a while.
turbobloke said:
el stovey said:
I'd love to believe it was all just rubbish. It suits me 100% but the only place I actually ever read a consensus against MMGW is on here, an internet car forum. I suppose you think there is an almost equal support for and against MMGW in the scientific community? It's certainly not the impression I get.
The people commenting on here on the climate realist side include a significant number of well qualified scientists with relevant experience and expertise. That's the problem with true believers wading in and thinking it's a bunch of petrolheads and nothing more. Long may they think so and enjoy the fruits of their misconceptions, but there's no need for others to make unfounded assumptions.You'd think that with all these "well qualified scientists with relevant experience and expertise" there would be at least an even split for and against if indeed opinion is anywhere near that divided over the issue.
Why are there so few (none apparently) qualified scientists supporting MMGW on here?
el stovey said:
turbobloke said:
el stovey said:
I'd love to believe it was all just rubbish. It suits me 100% but the only place I actually ever read a consensus against MMGW is on here, an internet car forum. I suppose you think there is an almost equal support for and against MMGW in the scientific community? It's certainly not the impression I get.
The people commenting on here on the climate realist side include a significant number of well qualified scientists with relevant experience and expertise. That's the problem with true believers wading in and thinking it's a bunch of petrolheads and nothing more. Long may they think so and enjoy the fruits of their misconceptions, but there's no need for others to make unfounded assumptions.You'd think that with all these "well qualified scientists with relevant experience and expertise" there would be at least an even split for and against if indeed opinion is anywhere near that divided over the issue.
Why are there so few (none apparently) qualified scientists supporting MMGW on here?
s2art said:
el stovey said:
turbobloke said:
el stovey said:
I'd love to believe it was all just rubbish. It suits me 100% but the only place I actually ever read a consensus against MMGW is on here, an internet car forum. I suppose you think there is an almost equal support for and against MMGW in the scientific community? It's certainly not the impression I get.
The people commenting on here on the climate realist side include a significant number of well qualified scientists with relevant experience and expertise. That's the problem with true believers wading in and thinking it's a bunch of petrolheads and nothing more. Long may they think so and enjoy the fruits of their misconceptions, but there's no need for others to make unfounded assumptions.You'd think that with all these "well qualified scientists with relevant experience and expertise" there would be at least an even split for and against if indeed opinion is anywhere near that divided over the issue.
Why are there so few (none apparently) qualified scientists supporting MMGW on here?
Still the vast majority of PH scientists apparently hold 'non MMGW' views. Whilst it would appear that outside here the consensus is different.
el stovey said:
s2art said:
el stovey said:
turbobloke said:
el stovey said:
I'd love to believe it was all just rubbish. It suits me 100% but the only place I actually ever read a consensus against MMGW is on here, an internet car forum. I suppose you think there is an almost equal support for and against MMGW in the scientific community? It's certainly not the impression I get.
The people commenting on here on the climate realist side include a significant number of well qualified scientists with relevant experience and expertise. That's the problem with true believers wading in and thinking it's a bunch of petrolheads and nothing more. Long may they think so and enjoy the fruits of their misconceptions, but there's no need for others to make unfounded assumptions.You'd think that with all these "well qualified scientists with relevant experience and expertise" there would be at least an even split for and against if indeed opinion is anywhere near that divided over the issue.
Why are there so few (none apparently) qualified scientists supporting MMGW on here?
Still the vast majority of PH scientists apparently hold 'non MMGW' views. Whilst it would appear that outside here the consensus is different.
After all "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" (Upton Sinclair)
So perhaps if we remove from the equation all scientists whose salary, tenure, career, reputation and the rest depend on manmadeup warming junkscience, and then compare the views of the disinterested remainder, what would the result be like?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff