Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[PRTVR]

Gadgetmac said:

Pupp said:

Heads up for a documentary on Beeb 4 at 9pm this eve about the Uni of EA 'Climategate' affair.
Blood pressure pills might be advised...

It won't matter what is said...it's the BBC so rejection of it is guaranteed.

Only because the BBC to allow green peace to help set the guidelines for matters pertaining to climate change.
They also lied about who attended the meeting and used expensive barristers at tax payers expenses to try to prevent publication of their names, so excuse me if I don't find the BBC impartial, they are not.

[Gadgetmac]

PRTVR said:

Gadgetmac said:

Pupp said:

Heads up for a documentary on Beeb 4 at 9pm this eve about the Uni of EA 'Climategate' affair.
Blood pressure pills might be advised...

It won't matter what is said...it's the BBC so rejection of it is guaranteed.

Only because the BBC to allow green peace to help set the guidelines for matters pertaining to climate change.
They also lied about who attended the meeting and used expensive barristers at tax payers expenses to try to prevent publication of their names, so excuse me if I don't find the BBC impartial, they are not.

So you won't be watching it then?

[PRTVR]

Gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

Gadgetmac said:

Pupp said:

Heads up for a documentary on Beeb 4 at 9pm this eve about the Uni of EA 'Climategate' affair.
Blood pressure pills might be advised...

It won't matter what is said...it's the BBC so rejection of it is guaranteed.

Only because the BBC to allow green peace to help set the guidelines for matters pertaining to climate change.
They also lied about who attended the meeting and used expensive barristers at tax payers expenses to try to prevent publication of their names, so excuse me if I don't find the BBC impartial, they are not.

So you won't be watching it then?

yes I will watch, it's always interesting to see the other perspective, even though it's wrong.
Have you any comments on the BBC meeting and people who attended regarding policy regarding climate change?

[Gadgetmac]

PRTVR said:

Gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

Gadgetmac said:

Pupp said:

Heads up for a documentary on Beeb 4 at 9pm this eve about the Uni of EA 'Climategate' affair.
Blood pressure pills might be advised...

It won't matter what is said...it's the BBC so rejection of it is guaranteed.

Only because the BBC to allow green peace to help set the guidelines for matters pertaining to climate change.
They also lied about who attended the meeting and used expensive barristers at tax payers expenses to try to prevent publication of their names, so excuse me if I don't find the BBC impartial, they are not.

So you won't be watching it then?

yes I will watch, it's always interesting to see the other perspective, even though it's wrong.
Have you any comments on the BBC meeting and people who attended regarding policy regarding climate change?

I don't know enough about it but unlike climate change deniers (who also don't know enough about the subject) I won't rush to a judgement just to satisfy my political beliefs.

[robinessex]

Gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

Gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

Gadgetmac said:

Pupp said:

Heads up for a documentary on Beeb 4 at 9pm this eve about the Uni of EA 'Climategate' affair.
Blood pressure pills might be advised...

It won't matter what is said...it's the BBC so rejection of it is guaranteed.

Only because the BBC to allow green peace to help set the guidelines for matters pertaining to climate change.
They also lied about who attended the meeting and used expensive barristers at tax payers expenses to try to prevent publication of their names, so excuse me if I don't find the BBC impartial, they are not.

So you won't be watching it then?

yes I will watch, it's always interesting to see the other perspective, even though it's wrong.
Have you any comments on the BBC meeting and people who attended regarding policy regarding climate change?

I don't know enough about it but unlike climate change deniers (who also don't know enough about the subject) I won't rush to a judgement just to satisfy my political beliefs.

Here, let me help you:-

The BBC's 'dirty little secret' lands it in a new scandal

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9684775/The-BB...

[Gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

Gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

Gadgetmac said:

Pupp said:

Heads up for a documentary on Beeb 4 at 9pm this eve about the Uni of EA 'Climategate' affair.
Blood pressure pills might be advised...

It won't matter what is said...it's the BBC so rejection of it is guaranteed.

Only because the BBC to allow green peace to help set the guidelines for matters pertaining to climate change.
They also lied about who attended the meeting and used expensive barristers at tax payers expenses to try to prevent publication of their names, so excuse me if I don't find the BBC impartial, they are not.

So you won't be watching it then?

yes I will watch, it's always interesting to see the other perspective, even though it's wrong.
Have you any comments on the BBC meeting and people who attended regarding policy regarding climate change?

I don't know enough about it but unlike climate change deniers (who also don't know enough about the subject) I won't rush to a judgement just to satisfy my political beliefs.

Here, let me help you:-

The BBC's 'dirty little secret' lands it in a new scandal

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9684775/The-BB...

You've got tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers to work your way through and yet expect me to read an article on a subject that frankly only deniers are upset about?

Shock horror, BBC using a mixture of Scientists, activists and others (including someone from BP Oil) to help them make policy and didn't invite anyone from the GWPF. When 97% of scientists are supporting your stance then you might have a real issue until then cry me a river.

You're going to need a defibrillator later tonight Rob

[kerplunk]

dickymint said:

jshell said:

robinessex said:

Science speak for the maths models are bks. RIP

Links in quite nicely with what I just read over at Tallblokes ....

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2019/11/13/climate...

As I commented on the politics thread, November 11th is an odd time of year to issue a model-obs 'update' - most people do them early in the year when the annual averages come out.

Looks like McKitrick has seen how the 2019 data is panning out and didn't want a graph with a narrative-spoiling uptick at the end .

[robinessex]

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

Gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

Gadgetmac said:

Pupp said:

Heads up for a documentary on Beeb 4 at 9pm this eve about the Uni of EA 'Climategate' affair.
Blood pressure pills might be advised...

It won't matter what is said...it's the BBC so rejection of it is guaranteed.

Only because the BBC to allow green peace to help set the guidelines for matters pertaining to climate change.
They also lied about who attended the meeting and used expensive barristers at tax payers expenses to try to prevent publication of their names, so excuse me if I don't find the BBC impartial, they are not.

So you won't be watching it then?

yes I will watch, it's always interesting to see the other perspective, even though it's wrong.
Have you any comments on the BBC meeting and people who attended regarding policy regarding climate change?

I don't know enough about it but unlike climate change deniers (who also don't know enough about the subject) I won't rush to a judgement just to satisfy my political beliefs.

Here, let me help you:-

The BBC's 'dirty little secret' lands it in a new scandal

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9684775/The-BB...

You've got tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers to work your way through and yet expect me to read an article on a subject that frankly only deniers are upset about?

Shock horror, BBC using a mixture of Scientists, activists and others (including someone from BP Oil) to help them make policy and didn't invite anyone from the GWPF. When 97% of scientists are supporting your stance then you might have a real issue until then cry me a river.

You're going to need a defibrillator later tonight Rob

You forgot they tried to sue a couplee of old age pensioners to keep it under the table. Something to hide then?

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

As I commented on the politics thread, November 11th is an odd time of year to issue a model-obs 'update' - most people do them early in the year when the annual averages come out.

Looks like McKitrick has seen how the 2019 data is panning out and didn't want a graph with a narrative-spoiling uptick at the end .

Uptick?

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

As I commented on the politics thread, November 11th is an odd time of year to issue a model-obs 'update' - most people do them early in the year when the annual averages come out.

Looks like McKitrick has seen how the 2019 data is panning out and didn't want a graph with a narrative-spoiling uptick at the end .

Uptick?

You need to compare 2019 to 2018 dummy

[Gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

You forgot they tried to sue a couplee of old age pensioners to keep it under the table. Something to hide then?

You know who wrote that article and what his beliefs were right?

Man walked with Dinosaurs....earth only 6,000 years old.

Why is it all of the deniers links end up at some crackpot or other?

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

You need to compare 2019 to 2018 dummy

Your implication was there was an uptick coming at the end of 2019 (hence the model comparison now).

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

You need to compare 2019 to 2018 dummy

Your implication was there was an uptick coming at the end of 2019 (hence the model comparison now).

That makes no sense - McKitrick's graph uses annual datapoints and I mentioned annual averages in my post, yet you thought it was about something else - weird reading comprehension.

There is an uptick coming when the 2019 'datapoint' is in. Hope that's clear.

McKitrick's timing is sound in some ways I'm sure - there probably wouldn't be a cheque in the post from a libertarian 'thinktank' for a graph with a narrative-spoiling uptick at the end.

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 14th November 13:47

[robinessex]

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

You forgot they tried to sue a couplee of old age pensioners to keep it under the table. Something to hide then?

You know who wrote that article and what his beliefs were right?

Man walked with Dinosaurs....earth only 6,000 years old.

Why is it all of the deniers links end up at some crackpot or other?

No matter what you post/write, it's a fact. Keep swerving though, and/or head in the sand

Who were the SECRET 28 who ended all climate debate at the BBC?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/29/boaden_tr...

Row over BBC climate change conference 'cover up'

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc...

The 'secret' list of the BBC 28 is now public – let's call it 'TwentyEightGate'

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/12/breaking-th...

BBC secret exposed: Greenpeace, activists, BP decide what “science” brits see — Hello TwentyEightGate

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/bbc-secret-expose...

Shall I stop now ?

[jshell]

robinessex said:

No matter what you post/write, it's a fact. Keep swerving though, and/or head in the sand

Who were the SECRET 28 who ended all climate debate at the BBC?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/29/boaden_tr...

Row over BBC climate change conference 'cover up'

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc...

The 'secret' list of the BBC 28 is now public – let's call it 'TwentyEightGate'

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/12/breaking-th...

BBC secret exposed: Greenpeace, activists, BP decide what “science” brits see — Hello TwentyEightGate

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/bbc-secret-expose...

Shall I stop now ?

You know he has loads of free time on his hands and is just trolling the climate threads, right? Like WOTF and Zyggy, there's nothing to his posts except repetition, endless insults and 99%/97%. He finds it funny, but is not here to have his (or the others) mind(s) changed.

Just sayin...

[Gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

You forgot they tried to sue a couplee of old age pensioners to keep it under the table. Something to hide then?

You know who wrote that article and what his beliefs were right?

Man walked with Dinosaurs....earth only 6,000 years old.

Why is it all of the deniers links end up at some crackpot or other?

No matter what you post/write, it's a fact. Keep swerving though, and/or head in the sand

Who were the SECRET 28 who ended all climate debate at the BBC?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/29/boaden_tr...

Row over BBC climate change conference 'cover up'

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc...

The 'secret' list of the BBC 28 is now public – let's call it 'TwentyEightGate'

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/12/breaking-th...

BBC secret exposed: Greenpeace, activists, BP decide what “science” brits see — Hello TwentyEightGate

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/bbc-secret-expose...

Shall I stop now ?

"Keep swerving"?

I'm not swerving at all.

I'm glad the BBC used pro AGW advocates to help form policy.

If the beeb are reporting on Brain Surgery I don't want to hear what a homeopath thinks about the subject I want to hear what Brain Surgeons have to say.

You make it sound like it should be a level playing field. That's nonsense.

HTH.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Thursday 14th November 14:59

[robinessex]

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

You forgot they tried to sue a couplee of old age pensioners to keep it under the table. Something to hide then?

You know who wrote that article and what his beliefs were right?

Man walked with Dinosaurs....earth only 6,000 years old.

Why is it all of the deniers links end up at some crackpot or other?

No matter what you post/write, it's a fact. Keep swerving though, and/or head in the sand

Who were the SECRET 28 who ended all climate debate at the BBC?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/29/boaden_tr...

Row over BBC climate change conference 'cover up'

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc...

The 'secret' list of the BBC 28 is now public – let's call it 'TwentyEightGate'

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/12/breaking-th...

BBC secret exposed: Greenpeace, activists, BP decide what “science” brits see — Hello TwentyEightGate

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/bbc-secret-expose...

Shall I stop now ?

"Keep swerving"?

I'm not swerving at all.

I'm glad the BBC used pro AGW advocates to help form policy.

If the been are reporting on Brain Surgery I don't want to hear what a homeopath thinks about the subject I want to hear what Brain Surgeons have to say.

You make it sound like it should be a level playing field. That's nonsense.

HTH.

Try justifying the BBC stance, instead of waffling like a politician who's been nailed to the spot. What I posted is a FACT. Have you forgotten the BBC is supposed to be unbiased, it's in their charter? How about if they only decide to promote Conservative Election manifesto stuff for the coming election?

Edited by robinessex on Thursday 14th November 15:00

[Gadgetmac]

jshell said:

You know he has loads of free time on his hands and is just trolling the climate threads, right? Like WOTF and Zyggy, there's nothing to his posts except repetition, endless insults and 99%/97%. He finds it funny, but is not here to have his (or the others) mind(s) changed.

Just sayin...

There's nothing in you or any off your fellow armchair climate experts posts to change the mind of anybody...who do you think you are?

Try changing the minds of a few scientists or institutions and MAYBE I'll sit up. But you can't do that can you.

As for trolling I'm afraid it's you that's trolling the planet arguing against mainstream climate science and for the cult position.

[Gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

Try justifying the BBC stance, instead of waffling like a politician who's been nailed to the spot. What I posted is a FACT.

It may well be a FACT but I don't disagree with what they did. Try to read more slowly it might help.

[jshell]

Gadgetmac said:

jshell said:

You know he has loads of free time on his hands and is just trolling the climate threads, right? Like WOTF and Zyggy, there's nothing to his posts except repetition, endless insults and 99%/97%. He finds it funny, but is not here to have his (or the others) mind(s) changed.

Just sayin...

There's nothing in you or any off your fellow armchair climate experts posts to change the mind of anybody...who do you think you are?

Try changing the minds of a few scientists or institutions and MAYBE I'll sit up. But you can't do that can you.

As for trolling I'm afraid it's you that's trolling the planet arguing against mainstream climate science and for the cult position.

Troll Triggered!