Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[robinessex]

LoonyTunes said:

ludo said:

robinessex said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

Let me put it like this. I ask you to design a building in an earthquake prone area. In the last 40 years there has been 2 magnitude 4 earthquakes. 500, 1000 and 15000 years ago there were magnitude 9 earthquakes. Would you say the magnitude 9 earthquakes should be ignored because the area was not populated then, and nobody was injured?

My logic is that whether or not the area was populated in the past is irrelevant to the current earthquake risk.

The obvious failure in the analogy being that we can't see earthquakes coming.

True. But we don't rush around like headless chickens trying to stop them, do we? I wonder why?

scientific content: NIL

Just thank your lucky stars he's not posting daily links to the BBC's Science webpage on here and adding his own criticisms after each one.

Beebs science webpage should be renamed propaganda

[ludo]

robinessex said:

Beebs science webpage should be renamed propaganda

Are you trying to rename this thread or just ignore its current title (and hence obstruct discussion of the actual topic)?

[robinessex]

ludo said:

robinessex said:

Beebs science webpage should be renamed propaganda

Are you trying to rename this thread or just ignore its current title (and hence obstruct discussion of the actual topic)?

Wasn't me who introduced the BBC here. I wonder who it was?

[ludo]

robinessex said:

Wasn't me who introduced the BBC here. I wonder who it was?

If you have any specific scientific criticism of the article, present it. If you just want to engage in pointless partisan blog-rhetoric, then please keep it for the political debate, rather than disrupt the discussion here, it really is rather tedious.

[dickymint]

ludo said:

robinessex said:

Wasn't me who introduced the BBC here. I wonder who it was?

If you have any specific scientific criticism of the article, present it. If you just want to engage in pointless partisan blog-rhetoric, then please keep it for the political debate, rather than disrupt the discussion here, it really is rather tedious.

What article? I've gone back till Monday and can't find any link or reference to "any article" - have I missed it?

[robinessex]

LoonyTunes said:

Just thank your lucky stars he's not posting daily links to the BBC's Science webpage on here and adding his own criticisms after each one.

It was him.

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

LoonyTunes said:

Just thank your lucky stars he's not posting daily links to the BBC's Science webpage on here and adding his own criticisms after each one.

It was him.

Why are you poisoning this thread now with your inane ramblings? Keep it to the Politics thread unless you have some science to post. This thread is a good, informative, read at present. You’ll notice I’m not posting in here...please follow my lead.

[robinessex]

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

LoonyTunes said:

Just thank your lucky stars he's not posting daily links to the BBC's Science webpage on here and adding his own criticisms after each one.

It was him.

Why are you poisoning this thread now with your inane ramblings? Keep it to the Politics thread unless you have some science to post. This thread is a good, informative, read at present. You’ll notice I’m not posting in here...please follow my lead.

Your usual rude response. I've not posted any inane ramblings, that's your job in the other forum. Of course, you can exclude/ignore your friend Durbster for that crime here though.

[dickymint]

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

LoonyTunes said:

Just thank your lucky stars he's not posting daily links to the BBC's Science webpage on here and adding his own criticisms after each one.

It was him.

Why are you poisoning this thread now with your inane ramblings? Keep it to the Politics thread unless you have some science to post. This thread is a good, informative, read at present. You’ll notice I’m not posting in here...please follow my lead.

Try adding/questioning some Science when you do then - for that matter try doing similar in the politics and renewables threads as opposed to following people around for the sole purpose of slagging them off and trolling.

Meanwhile what link were you referring to Ludo?

[deeps]

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

LoonyTunes said:

Just thank your lucky stars he's not posting daily links to the BBC's Science webpage on here and adding his own criticisms after each one.

It was him.

Why are you poisoning this thread now with your inane ramblings? Keep it to the Politics thread unless you have some science to post. This thread is a good, informative, read at present. You’ll notice I’m not posting in here...please follow my lead.

"you'll notice I'm not posting in here"... it's like a primary school playground whenever gadget turns up!

But yes, Loony did actually start it.

Gadget is a card, such a hypocrite not only by having the largest carbon footprint and proudly bragging about it at the same time as being the most vocal climate alarmist, but also because he happily disrupts the climate politics thread every day with constant repetitive appeals to authority, then types that hypocritical post above, like he actually believes the words of a rude arrogant person when typed on a different thread should carry some weight!

I've got news for you gadget, where you type your words matters not, you will be judged as the same rude hypocrite in 'science' as you are in 'politics'.

[LoonyTunes]

FFS Can't you and Dicky bugger off back to the Politics thread. This is all part of how you operate, drown out the thread with trash talk.

It was started here:

ludo said:

robinessex said:

True. But we don't rush around like headless chickens trying to stop them, do we? I wonder why?

scientific content: NIL

[gadgetmac]

dickymint said:

Try adding/questioning some Science when you do then - for that matter try doing similar in the politics and renewables threads as opposed to following people around for the sole purpose of slagging them off and trolling.

Isn't that EXACTLY why you have been removed from the politics thread, you followed somebody about and trolled them over 30 times.

[ludo]

dickymint said:

Meanwhile what link were you referring to Ludo?

I can't remember of the top of my head. It is a standard rhetorical ploy to increase the effort of your opponent to make some vague and specious claim so that they then waste time finding out exactly what they were referring to. Seen it all before and I'm not going to fall for it. If Robin has a specific scientific criticism and can give a link to the BBC article, I'll be happy to discuss it.

In science the source of a claim is more or less irrelevant and you have to address the content. Some sources are more reliable than others, but to get to the truth of the matter, you have to discuss the merits of the scientific argument. So this sort of ad-hominem against the BBC or Wikipedia or Skeptical Science or WUWT is usually just a means of avoiding discussing the science. If you are confident you are right about the science, why on Earth would you want to do that? If you just wanted to understand the science and didn't have a strong view, why would you want to do that? If you just wanted to win an argument in the WWW and you knew the science didn't really support your position very well, then I can understand why someone would do that! ;o)

Edited by ludo on Friday 22 March 08:51

[dickymint]

ludo said:

dickymint said:

Meanwhile what link were you referring to Ludo?

I can't remember of the top of my head. It is a standard rhetorical ploy to increase the effort of your opponent to make some vague and specious claim so that they then waste time finding out exactly what they were referring to. Seen it all before and I'm not going to fall for it. If Robin has a specific scientific criticism and can give a link to the BBC article, I'll be happy to discuss it.

In science the source of a claim is more or less irrelevant and you have to address the content. Some sources are more reliable than others, but to get to the truth of the matter, you have to discuss the merits of the scientific argument. So this sort of ad-hominem against the BBC or Wikipedia or Skeptical Science or WUWT is usually just a means of avoiding discussing the science. If you are confident you are right about the science, why on Earth would you want to do that? If you just wanted to understand the science and didn't have a strong view, why would you want to do that? If you just wanted to win an argument in the WWW and you knew the science didn't really support your position very well, then I can understand why someone would do that! ;o)

Edited by ludo on Friday 22 March 08:51

Apologies, I thought you were referring to a specific article so wanted to read it.

[ludo]

dickymint said:

ludo said:

dickymint said:

Meanwhile what link were you referring to Ludo?

I can't remember of the top of my head. It is a standard rhetorical ploy to increase the effort of your opponent to make some vague and specious claim so that they then waste time finding out exactly what they were referring to. Seen it all before and I'm not going to fall for it. If Robin has a specific scientific criticism and can give a link to the BBC article, I'll be happy to discuss it.

In science the source of a claim is more or less irrelevant and you have to address the content. Some sources are more reliable than others, but to get to the truth of the matter, you have to discuss the merits of the scientific argument. So this sort of ad-hominem against the BBC or Wikipedia or Skeptical Science or WUWT is usually just a means of avoiding discussing the science. If you are confident you are right about the science, why on Earth would you want to do that? If you just wanted to understand the science and didn't have a strong view, why would you want to do that? If you just wanted to win an argument in the WWW and you knew the science didn't really support your position very well, then I can understand why someone would do that! ;o)

Edited by ludo on Friday 22 March 08:51

Apologies, I thought you were referring to a specific article so wanted to read it.

no problem, it could be that there wasn't one and Robin was just bluffing. The BBC do have some interesting science articles from time to time, so it wouldn't surprise me if I had posted one.

[Gandahar]

Current global sea ice is 3rd lowest in the last 40 years



A few years back when Antarctic sea ice extent was high the scientific concensus was that the Antarctic was guarded from climate change by the southern ocean and its winds.

Has that barrier been broken down now? Antarctic sea ice extent been low for 3 years now



This seems out of sync with the SAO that was ascribed to it originally. The SAO went out of phase.

[deeps]

LoonyTunes said:

FFS Can't you and Dicky bugger off back to the Politics thread. This is all part of how you operate, drown out the thread with trash talk.

FFS. Who do you think you are? If someone like gadget posts utter tripe can not it be responded to? Get off your high horse.

Loony Tunes said:

It was started here:

ludo said:

robinessex said:

True. But we don't rush around like headless chickens trying to stop them, do we? I wonder why?

scientific content: NIL

No. It was in fact started here...

Loony Tunes said:

Just thank your lucky stars he's not posting daily links to the BBC's Science webpage on here and adding his own criticisms after each one.

Is that or is that not "trash talk" ?

Loony Tunes - yet another Alarmist hypocrite that wants his cake and eat it.

[deeps]

Gandahar said:

A few years back when Antarctic sea ice extent was high the scientific concensus was that the Antarctic was guarded from climate change by the southern ocean and its winds.

Interesting. The letters B and S spring to mind. By the way, I'm not doubting what you said at all.

[gadgetmac]

deeps said:

LoonyTunes said:

FFS Can't you and Dicky bugger off back to the Politics thread. This is all part of how you operate, drown out the thread with trash talk.

FFS. Who do you think you are? If someone like gadget posts utter tripe can not it be responded to? Get off your high horse.

Loony Tunes said:

It was started here:

ludo said:

robinessex said:

True. But we don't rush around like headless chickens trying to stop them, do we? I wonder why?

scientific content: NIL

No. It was in fact started here...

Loony Tunes said:

Just thank your lucky stars he's not posting daily links to the BBC's Science webpage on here and adding his own criticisms after each one.

Is that or is that not "trash talk" ?

Loony Tunes - yet another Alarmist hypocrite that wants his cake and eat it.

I think you’ll find that Loony’s comment was in response to Robinessex’s not before it.

It’ll be a tough one for you in particular to wrap your head around but a response FOLLOWS and doesn’t precede.

[ludo]

deeps said:

Gandahar said:

A few years back when Antarctic sea ice extent was high the scientific concensus was that the Antarctic was guarded from climate change by the southern ocean and its winds.

Interesting. The letters B and S spring to mind. By the way, I'm not doubting what you said at all.

Looks to me like the chance of an interesting discussion of the science here has dropped to zero and it is just the usual content-free partisan blog rhetoric. Too dull for me.