You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > BBC (again)
August 9 2022 6.21pm

BBC (again)

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 163 of 167 < 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 >

 

Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 18 Jul 22 5.26pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

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)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mapletree's Profile Mapletree Flag Croydon 18 Jul 22 5.28pm Send a Private Message to Mapletree Add Mapletree as a friend

Originally posted by W12

It's not all scientists though is it.

[Link]

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 A bit out of date now though given the recent science on polar ice caps.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mapletree's Profile Mapletree Flag Croydon 18 Jul 22 5.29pm Send a Private Message to Mapletree Add Mapletree as a friend

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''
James Powell - 2019

Edited by Mapletree (18 Jul 2022 5.31pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 18 Jul 22 5.32pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

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)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mapletree's Profile Mapletree Flag Croydon 18 Jul 22 5.34pm Send a Private Message to Mapletree Add Mapletree as a friend

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.

[Link]

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag The garden of England 18 Jul 22 5.37pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

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 donít doubt we are having an effect on the climate. Itís the amount over such a short period I doubt. The sums donít add up. I posted earlier that all we see are worst case scenarios. Give me the best scenario. Thatís like believing every time you cross the road your going to get knocked down.
Potentially you could but your chances if you follow the rules are negligent. The same as in some equations the chances of all the ice melting and the earth warming by loads of degrees are negligible. Where are those sums. This isnít factual itís done by numbers in agreement alone. Yes you can say why take the chance but life ainít like that. Worst vs best. Thatís all I want to see. There are many factors to create the worst case and we are on number 3 of about a 100.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 18 Jul 22 5.37pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Apparently just applying logic means you've read something on the web.

Oh well.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag The garden of England 18 Jul 22 5.38pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

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.

[Link]

Well they need employment so thereís a bonus.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mapletree's Profile Mapletree Flag Croydon 18 Jul 22 5.54pm Send a Private Message to Mapletree Add Mapletree as a friend

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.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View PalazioVecchio's Profile PalazioVecchio Flag south pole 18 Jul 22 6.02pm Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio Add PalazioVecchio as a friend

i just bumped the other thread....relevant to climate change.

please keep this thread here on the bbc.

God knows we all have enough bile and invective for the beeb without getting near Greta Thunberg and her nutty stuff.

 


7 points from Manchester last season

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mapletree's Profile Mapletree Flag Croydon 18 Jul 22 6.03pm Send a Private Message to Mapletree Add Mapletree as a friend

Originally posted by cryrst

And here it is in a nutshell. I have stated that I donít doubt we are having an effect on the climate. Itís the amount over such a short period I doubt. The sums donít add up. I posted earlier that all we see are worst case scenarios. Give me the best scenario. Thatís like believing every time you cross the road your going to get knocked down.
Potentially you could but your chances if you follow the rules are negligent. The same as in some equations the chances of all the ice melting and the earth warming by loads of degrees are negligible. Where are those sums. This isnít factual itís done by numbers in agreement alone. Yes you can say why take the chance but life ainít like that. Worst vs best. Thatís all I want to see. There are many factors to create the worst case and we are on number 3 of about a 100.

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.

[Link]

We need to re-freeze the polar ice caps and very very quickly before we reach a tipping point

[Link]

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?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 18 Jul 22 6.05pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

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)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 163 of 167 < 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > BBC (again)