Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
jshell said:
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?Just sayin...
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 said:
jshell said:
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?Just sayin...
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.
jshell said:
Gadgetmac said:
jshell said:
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?Just sayin...
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.
ks are full of insight and intrigue. 
Gadgetmac said:
jshell said:
Gadgetmac said:
jshell said:
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?Just sayin...
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.
ks are full of insight and intrigue. 
jshell said:
Gadgetmac said:
jshell said:
Gadgetmac said:
jshell said:
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?Just sayin...
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.
ks are full of insight and intrigue. robinessex said:
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?
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 ?
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.
Edited by robinessex on Thursday 14th November 15:00
It's freely available in the BBC Trust's 2007 report on impartiality - an 81 page document - but the part devoted to climate change is just this:
"Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.
The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space. ‘Bias by elimination’ is even more offensive today than it was in 1926. The BBC has many public purposes of both ambition and merit – but joining campaigns to save the planet is not one of them. The BBC’s best contribution is to increase public awareness of the issues and possible solutions through impartial and accurate programming. Acceptance of a basic scientific consensus only sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny of the arguments surrounding both causation and solution. It remains important that programme-makers relish the full range of debate that such a central and absorbing subject offers, scientifically, politically and ethically, and avoid being misrepresented as standard-bearers. "
Shocking!
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/p...
Gadgetmac said:
jshell said:
Gadgetmac said:
jshell said:
Gadgetmac said:
jshell said:
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?Just sayin...
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.
ks are full of insight and intrigue. 
>Pats Gadgetmac gently on the head with no condescencion intended<
kerplunk said:
robinessex said:
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?
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 ?
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.
Edited by robinessex on Thursday 14th November 15:00
It's freely available in the BBC Trust's 2007 report on impartiality - an 81 page document - but the part devoted to climate change is just this:
"Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.
The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space. ‘Bias by elimination’ is even more offensive today than it was in 1926. The BBC has many public purposes of both ambition and merit – but joining campaigns to save the planet is not one of them. The BBC’s best contribution is to increase public awareness of the issues and possible solutions through impartial and accurate programming. Acceptance of a basic scientific consensus only sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny of the arguments surrounding both causation and solution. It remains important that programme-makers relish the full range of debate that such a central and absorbing subject offers, scientifically, politically and ethically, and avoid being misrepresented as standard-bearers. "
Shocking!
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/p...
"What’s the BBC’s position?
Man-made climate change exists: If the science proves it we should report it. The BBC accepts that the best science on the issue is the IPCC’s position, set out above.
Be aware of ‘false balance’: AS CLIMATE CHANGE IS ACCEPTED AS HAPPENING, YOU DO NOT NEED A ‘DENIER’ TO BALANCE THE DEBATE. Although there are those who disagree with the IPCC’s position, very few of them now go so far as to deny that climate change is happening. TO ACHIEVE IMPARTIALITY, YOU DO NOT NEED TO INCLUDE OUTRIGHT DENIERS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN BBC COVERAGE, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken. However, the BBC does not exclude any shade of opinion from its output, and with appropriate challenge from a knowledgeable interviewer, there may be occasions to hear from a denier.
There are occasions where contrarians and sceptics should be included within climate change and sustainability debates. These may include, for instance, debating the speed and intensity of what will happen in the future, or what policies government should adopt. Again, journalists need to be aware of the guest’s viewpoint and how to challenge it effectively. As with all topics, we must make clear to the audience which organisation the speaker represents, potentially how that group is funded and whether they are speaking with authority from a scientific perspective – in short, making their affiliations and previously expressed opinions clear."
My capitals
jshell said:
Oh, right, erm, well done you! Good effort, that really showed me.
>Pats Gadgetmac gently on the head with no condescencion intended<
"Pats Gadgetmac on the head with no condescension.." There's an emoji for that...like you didn't know >Pats Gadgetmac gently on the head with no condescencion intended<
Quick, Greta hasn't been abused for at least 1/2 an hour....now that's REAL input.
robinessex said:
kerplunk said:
robinessex said:
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?
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 ?
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.
Edited by robinessex on Thursday 14th November 15:00
It's freely available in the BBC Trust's 2007 report on impartiality - an 81 page document - but the part devoted to climate change is just this:
"Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.
The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space. ‘Bias by elimination’ is even more offensive today than it was in 1926. The BBC has many public purposes of both ambition and merit – but joining campaigns to save the planet is not one of them. The BBC’s best contribution is to increase public awareness of the issues and possible solutions through impartial and accurate programming. Acceptance of a basic scientific consensus only sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny of the arguments surrounding both causation and solution. It remains important that programme-makers relish the full range of debate that such a central and absorbing subject offers, scientifically, politically and ethically, and avoid being misrepresented as standard-bearers. "
Shocking!
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/p...
"What’s the BBC’s position?
Man-made climate change exists: If the science proves it we should report it. The BBC accepts that the best science on the issue is the IPCC’s position, set out above.
Be aware of ‘false balance’: AS CLIMATE CHANGE IS ACCEPTED AS HAPPENING, YOU DO NOT NEED A ‘DENIER’ TO BALANCE THE DEBATE. Although there are those who disagree with the IPCC’s position, very few of them now go so far as to deny that climate change is happening. TO ACHIEVE IMPARTIALITY, YOU DO NOT NEED TO INCLUDE OUTRIGHT DENIERS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN BBC COVERAGE, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken. However, the BBC does not exclude any shade of opinion from its output, and with appropriate challenge from a knowledgeable interviewer, there may be occasions to hear from a denier.
There are occasions where contrarians and sceptics should be included within climate change and sustainability debates. These may include, for instance, debating the speed and intensity of what will happen in the future, or what policies government should adopt. Again, journalists need to be aware of the guest’s viewpoint and how to challenge it effectively. As with all topics, we must make clear to the audience which organisation the speaker represents, potentially how that group is funded and whether they are speaking with authority from a scientific perspective – in short, making their affiliations and previously expressed opinions clear."
My capitals
Gadgetmac said:
jshell said:
Oh, right, erm, well done you! Good effort, that really showed me.
>Pats Gadgetmac gently on the head with no condescencion intended<
"Pats Gadgetmac on the head with no condescension.." There's an emoji for that...like you didn't know >Pats Gadgetmac gently on the head with no condescencion intended<
Quick, Greta hasn't been abused for at least 1/2 an hour....now that's REAL input.
jshell said:
Gadgetmac said:
jshell said:
Oh, right, erm, well done you! Good effort, that really showed me.
>Pats Gadgetmac gently on the head with no condescencion intended<
"Pats Gadgetmac on the head with no condescension.." There's an emoji for that...like you didn't know >Pats Gadgetmac gently on the head with no condescencion intended<
Quick, Greta hasn't been abused for at least 1/2 an hour....now that's REAL input.
Gadgetmac said:
jshell said:
Gadgetmac said:
jshell said:
Oh, right, erm, well done you! Good effort, that really showed me.
>Pats Gadgetmac gently on the head with no condescencion intended<
"Pats Gadgetmac on the head with no condescension.." There's an emoji for that...like you didn't know >Pats Gadgetmac gently on the head with no condescencion intended<
Quick, Greta hasn't been abused for at least 1/2 an hour....now that's REAL input.
jshell said:
Gadgetmac said:
jshell said:
Gadgetmac said:
jshell said:
Oh, right, erm, well done you! Good effort, that really showed me.
>Pats Gadgetmac gently on the head with no condescencion intended<
"Pats Gadgetmac on the head with no condescension.." There's an emoji for that...like you didn't know >Pats Gadgetmac gently on the head with no condescencion intended<
Quick, Greta hasn't been abused for at least 1/2 an hour....now that's REAL input.
Then, later this evening, you can use up all of your stored emojis on here after the BBC4 program on Climategate has aired.
Gadgetmac said:
Here, take out your frustrations on this...use it as a verbal pinata...
Then, later this evening, you can use up all of your stored emojis on here after the BBC4 program on Climategate has aired.
'kin ell, mate! You've developed an unhealthy obsession with that vulnerable, exploited child. Step back for your own sake as you're looking really quite creepy now... Then, later this evening, you can use up all of your stored emojis on here after the BBC4 program on Climategate has aired.
jshell said:
Gadgetmac said:
'kin ell, mate! You've developed an unhealthy obsession with that vulnerable, exploited child. Step back for your own sake as you're looking really quite creepy now... Triggered much?
Whatever floats your boat I suppose.
Gadgetmac said:
jshell said:
Gadgetmac said:
'kin ell, mate! You've developed an unhealthy obsession with that vulnerable, exploited child. Step back for your own sake as you're looking really quite creepy now... Triggered much?
Whatever floats your boat I suppose.
Keep posting, but I'm out and won't be responding to you on climate threads. I suspect others may not either...
jshell said:
Gadgetmac said:
jshell said:
Gadgetmac said:
'kin ell, mate! You've developed an unhealthy obsession with that vulnerable, exploited child. Step back for your own sake as you're looking really quite creepy now... Triggered much?
Whatever floats your boat I suppose.
Keep posting, but I'm out and won't be responding to you on climate threads. I suspect others may not either...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff