26 Dec 2019, 10:09 pm
Rainbow_Belle wrote:
Governments refuse to take action on climate change because they are corrupt and incompetent and place profits ahead of people and the environment.
Is not. <pout>
27 Dec 2019, 10:16 am
Pepe wrote:
If you look closely into the infamous 97% figure,
You will find that many of the so-called climate scientists are actually "Citizen Scientist Activists" which had an agenda to push.
If you look at the more recent: "500 climate scientists sign a petition",
You will note Micky Mouse and others of his ilk were part of the 500.
You will find that many of the so-called climate scientists are actually "Citizen Scientist Activists" which had an agenda to push.
If you look at the more recent: "500 climate scientists sign a petition",
You will note Micky Mouse and others of his ilk were part of the 500.
Already tackled this with the now departed solosailor. An open platform is always open to trolls. If you check the skeptic article from Forbes I posted from an ex oil exec he concedes even if the % is 80 of scientists you can't ignore anthropogenic climate change - fixation over 1-2 trolls is just a red herring
27 Dec 2019, 10:19 am
27 Dec 2019, 1:18 pm
27 Dec 2019, 2:19 pm
27 Dec 2019, 2:23 pm
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
You bring rare intelligence and information into the climate change debate.
He failed my challenge...the person he named is a known fraud with links to the Trump administration (the latter is not very surprising as anybody associated with trump is somehow tainted)
Sorry mate.
Based on my estimates, he has a lot more Credibility Coinage than you do.
Say "CC",
"You can't say no."
27 Dec 2019, 2:30 pm
Pepe wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Firstly,
Why is the far left afraid of sceptics?
If the sceptics talk rubbish, it only helps their cause.
Why is the far left afraid of sceptics?
If the sceptics talk rubbish, it only helps their cause.
No, because most people won't understand it's rubbish.
Firstly,
Wow, finally existential recognition.
Secondly,
You do see the irony here?
Non-far-left thinkers can say the same thing,
Hence the need for scepticism rather than simply accepting what has been given them on a silver platter.
Either side can use this tactic of obfuscation, no?
And from what I have seen, both do.
However, one side was able to convince the scientific community. Not knowing anything else, we should generally trust the scientific community when they are overwhelmingly siding with a point of view.
27 Dec 2019, 2:35 pm
cyberdad wrote:
Already tackled this with the now departed solosailor. An open platform is always open to trolls. If you check the skeptic article from Forbes I posted from an ex oil exec he concedes even if the % is 80 of scientists you can't ignore anthropogenic climate change - fixation over 1-2 trolls is just a red herring
Based on what I have come across,
The ancient Roman era had higher temperatures than we do now, and they flourished,
Erm, until they did not.
Damn Barbarian Horde.
There has always been climate change.
Adapting to the changing conditions seems like a better strategy than creating an economic and cultural stone age.
That and focusing on the biggest emitters of plant food, China.
Simples.
27 Dec 2019, 2:41 pm
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Already tackled this with the now departed solosailor. An open platform is always open to trolls. If you check the skeptic article from Forbes I posted from an ex oil exec he concedes even if the % is 80 of scientists you can't ignore anthropogenic climate change - fixation over 1-2 trolls is just a red herring
Based on what I have come across,
The ancient Roman era had higher temperatures than we do now, and they flourished,
Erm, until they did not.
Damn Barbarian Horde.
There has always been climate change.
Adapting to the changing conditions seems like a better strategy than creating an economic and cultural stone age.
That and focusing on the biggest emitters of plant food, China.
Simples.
You dress up your denialism in a lot of breezy rhetoric. Anyway, no it's not true. That climate has changed before does NOT mean that the current warming is not due to human activity. And the current round of warming is warmer than the Medieval Warm Period:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
The solid black line refers to instrumental temperature measurements.
Tollorin
Veteran
Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
27 Dec 2019, 2:43 pm
27 Dec 2019, 2:51 pm
beneficii wrote:
Pepe wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Firstly,
Why is the far left afraid of sceptics?
If the sceptics talk rubbish, it only helps their cause.
Why is the far left afraid of sceptics?
If the sceptics talk rubbish, it only helps their cause.
No, because most people won't understand it's rubbish.
Firstly,
Wow, finally existential recognition.
Secondly,
You do see the irony here?
Non-far-left thinkers can say the same thing,
Hence the need for scepticism rather than simply accepting what has been given them on a silver platter.
Either side can use this tactic of obfuscation, no?
And from what I have seen, both do.
However, one side was able to convince the scientific community. Not knowing anything else, we should generally trust the scientific community when they are overwhelmingly siding with a point of view.
Sceptics which reviewed "The Science" have said it was bogus science,
That incorporated mostly "Citizen Scientist" who were actually activists and not "Climate Scientists".
Any true "Scientific Community" would welcome scepticism.
Scepticism is at the heart of "Scientific Methodology",
And to simply say: "The science has been settled/proven",
Even when modelling and predictions have been shown to be false/inaccurate,
Well then, what "Credibility Coinage" do groups like that actually have?
If you are happy to hang your brain on a hook and let other people do your thinking for you,
That is your choice.
I prefer to be sceptical because I have been around for over 60 years,
Have seen the lack of respect the NT community has for the Truth.
I have seen the depths of political thuggery and buggery and the loss of credibility as a result.
But perhaps I am too rational.
Perhaps I too should hang up my brain and simply enjoy the emotionalistic roller-coaster ride to our inevitable extinction event because of the Chinese non-compliance.
27 Dec 2019, 2:55 pm
Tollorin wrote:
Do you have any idea of the amount of cherry picking I read from deniers?
Do you have any idea of the amount of cherry picking and kaka I read/hear from climate change catastrophists?
<wave at Extinction Rebellion>
27 Dec 2019, 4:54 pm
Pepe wrote:
Tollorin wrote:
Do you have any idea of the amount of cherry picking I read from deniers?
Do you have any idea of the amount of cherry picking and kaka I read/hear from climate change catastrophists?
<wave at Extinction Rebellion>
Yeah but they're the ones with colored spiky line charts.
27 Dec 2019, 5:45 pm
Pepe wrote:
The biggest enemy of climate change alarmists is their own catastrophist rhetoric,
And their unrealised predictions.
And their unrealised predictions.
27 Dec 2019, 5:50 pm
EzraS wrote:
Yeah but they're the ones with colored spiky line charts.
Some of those might be a wee bit inconvenient to the Alarmist narrative:
And remember: Scale matters.
27 Dec 2019, 6:05 pm
SoloSailor wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Yeah but they're the ones with colored spiky line charts.
Some of those might be a wee bit inconvenient to the Alarmist narrative:
And remember: Scale matters.
This is a Gish gallop. If you have a point to make, make it. And make sure you provide your sources.
