This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
BBC (again)
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
| W12 18 Jul 22 4.54pm | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Are you trying to say climate change is a lie? And that all scientists have the same pay master? On another note, how would you like to buy some of my recently created and highly efficacious huile de python? It's not all scientists though is it. The only difference is that these scientists do not receive funding to come to predetermined conclusions. The climate doom mongers have been at it for years and literally none of the their predictions have been realised. The whole narrative is just another fear campaign set up in order to justify a further transfer of wealth, power and property rights to billionaire Oligarchs.
|
|
 cryrst  The garden of England 18 Jul 22 4.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by W12
It's not all scientists though is it. The only difference is that these scientists do not receive funding to come to predetermined conclusions. The climate doom mongers have been at it for years and literally none of the their predictions have been realised. The whole narrative is just another fear campaign set up in order to justify a further transfer of wealth, power and property rights to billionaire Oligarchs. But they’re not funny looking Scandinavian girls who have got very rich along with her parents.
|
|
Mapletree  Croydon 18 Jul 22 5.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by PalazioVecchio
Remember the scientists paid by the tobacco or the wine-trade to lie to us ? Those scientists started to build their cases in response to a much larger group of scientists becoming alarmed by tobacco. A very different situation when 100% of climate scientists agree. But hey, I may as well yell down a well. Some people think they are being objective when in fact they are simply gullible. Want to buy some huile de python?
|
|
| Mapletree Croydon 18 Jul 22 5.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by W12
It's not all scientists though is it. The only difference is that these scientists do not receive funding to come to predetermined conclusions. The climate doom mongers have been at it for years and literally none of the their predictions have been realised. The whole narrative is just another fear campaign set up in order to justify a further transfer of wealth, power and property rights to billionaire Oligarchs. You are simply being feckin idiotic. Yes, the doom sayers are being proved right. I can't get into your link but clearly you didn't read mine. 100% of scientists agreed and 97% of articles. The 3% were articles that lacked scientific rigour. What on earth is wrong with you. You want to bury your head in sand until it's too late? Or do you actually realise that tomorrow will be the hottest day on record but not care because, hey, if we all end up living in deserts you will be too old to care. I have you down as selfish, you simply can't be as stupid as you pretend ''Some sceptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past. (Galileo is often invoked, though his fellow scientists mostly agreed with his conclusions—it was church leaders who tried to suppress them.) Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results. Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming. “Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” Edited by Mapletree (18 Jul 2022 5.25pm) Edited by Mapletree (18 Jul 2022 6.19pm)
|
|
| Stirlingsays 18 Jul 22 5.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Those scientists started to build their cases in response to a much larger group of scientists becoming alarmed by tobacco. A very different situation when 100% of climate scientists agree. But hey, I may as well yell down a well. Some people think they are being objective when in fact they are simply gullible. Want to buy some huile de python? 100% of selected climate scientists agree. It's stuff like that which damages your argument.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 18 Jul 22 5.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by W12
It's not all scientists though is it. The only difference is that these scientists do not receive funding to come to predetermined conclusions. The climate doom mongers have been at it for years and literally none of the their predictions have been realised. The whole narrative is just another fear campaign set up in order to justify a further transfer of wealth, power and property rights to billionaire Oligarchs. Will Happer. Not a climate scientist so not included in my 100%. Also a swivel eyed loon used by Trump. Albeit he does not deny man-induced climate change, only the scale of the potential effects. A bit out of date now though given the recent science on polar ice caps.
|
|
| Mapletree Croydon 18 Jul 22 5.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
100% of selected climate scientists agree. It's stuff like that which damages your argument. Where does it say 'selected'? Read the original, ''Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming'' Edited by Mapletree (18 Jul 2022 5.31pm)
|
|
| Stirlingsays 18 Jul 22 5.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Where does it say 'selected'? You implied it with your post: A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%, and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change. Papers that disagreed with the consensus either cannot be replicated or contain errors. Who do we trust with the highlighted text? Those pushing for climate change consensus or not.....Mmmmm. Also saying 100 percent agree leaves a misleading impression....it doesn't say how much they agree on or on to how much extent. For example, I would agree that human input has had an affect on climate change. That doesn't mean I agree with a lot of what comes out of the climate change community. Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Jul 2022 5.33pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| cryrst The garden of England 18 Jul 22 5.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Will Happer. Not a climate scientist so not included in my 100%. Also a swivel eyed loon used by Trump. Albeit he does not deny man-induced climate change, only the scale of the potential effects. A bit out of date now though given the recent science on polar ice caps. And here it is in a nutshell. I have stated that I don’t doubt we are having an effect on the climate. It’s the amount over such a short period I doubt. The sums don’t add up. I posted earlier that all we see are worst case scenarios. Give me the best scenario. That’s like believing every time you cross the road your going to get knocked down.
|
|
| cryrst The garden of England 18 Jul 22 5.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
At this point I shall just give up trying to reason with unreasonable people who always somehow know better due to some nonsense they read on the interweb. If anyone that has a scientific background in climatology cares to debate then I will re-engage. Meanwhile I shall try to get out of the record breaking heat whilst considering how the hell farming is going to cope with constantly having to creep North to get away from the growing heat in the South. Well they need employment so there’s a bonus.
|
|
| Mapletree Croydon 18 Jul 22 5.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
You implied it with your post: Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Jul 2022 5.33pm) No I didn't, shame you can't read. 100% of climate scientists agree and 97% of articles on climate also agree The other 3% were reviewed and the outcome published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology, as detailed in my post below. All were found to be flawed. Then people proudly wheel out Will Happer, an 83 year old with no climate background who happens to have been used by Trump. The vitriol aimed at all of those scientists and climate activists is just beyond mad. So I repeat, why on earth do scientists even bother when the religion of the interweb conspiracy is clearly far more close to the truth. I assume you are busily building statues of heads to put up on the coast as we write.
|
|
| Mapletree Croydon 18 Jul 22 6.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
And here it is in a nutshell. I have stated that I don’t doubt we are having an effect on the climate. It’s the amount over such a short period I doubt. The sums don’t add up. I posted earlier that all we see are worst case scenarios. Give me the best scenario. That’s like believing every time you cross the road your going to get knocked down. No, it is you that is negligent. You can't even see what is around you year on year and this very week, yet you bombastically declare you are right and literally every climate scientist is wrong. We need to take action to stop things getting worse, very quickly before the methane in the permafrost is released by thawing. We need to re-freeze the polar ice caps and very very quickly before we reach a tipping point People deflecting the argument for no apparent reason other than to be argumentative or to save themselves a few quid in taxes are the enemy of every single person on earth now and those to come. Initially more those in low lying and very poor countries but in the end all of us. London is one of the more vulnerable cities. But hey ho, what do you care eh?
|
|
| Stirlingsays 18 Jul 22 6.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
No I didn't, shame you can't read. 100% of climate scientists agree and 97% of articles on climate also agree The other 3% were reviewed and the outcome published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology, as detailed in my post below. All were found to be flawed. Then people proudly wheel out Will Happer, an 83 year old with no climate background who happens to have been used by Trump. The vitriol aimed at all of those scientists and climate activists is just beyond mad. So I repeat, why on earth do scientists even bother when the religion of the interweb conspiracy is clearly far more close to the truth. I assume you are busily building statues of heads to put up on the coast as we write. Yes you did. The heat is obviously getting to you along with the criticism.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
PalazioVecchio  south pole 18 Jul 22 6.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
bbc thread, for bbc outrage.
Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford |
|
| cryrst The garden of England 18 Jul 22 7.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
No, it is you that is negligent. You can't even see what is around you year on year and this very week, yet you bombastically declare you are right and literally every climate scientist is wrong. We need to take action to stop things getting worse, very quickly before the methane in the permafrost is released by thawing. We need to re-freeze the polar ice caps and very very quickly before we reach a tipping point People deflecting the argument for no apparent reason other than to be argumentative or to save themselves a few quid in taxes are the enemy of every single person on earth now and those to come. Initially more those in low lying and very poor countries but in the end all of us. London is one of the more vulnerable cities. But hey ho, what do you care eh? So the first line about I believe we are having an effect but question to what level means I don’t believe it’s happening does it. You need to actually read and not just see what you want!
|
|
| Stirlingsays 18 Jul 22 7.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
So the first line about I believe we are having an effect but question to what level means I don’t believe it’s happening does it. You need to actually read and not just see what you want! Ever since covid Maple's been very short tempered. I reckon the syrup's costing more. Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Jul 2022 7.21pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| cryrst The garden of England 18 Jul 22 7.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Ever since covid Maple's been very short tempered. I reckon the syrup's costing more. Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Jul 2022 7.21pm)
|
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.