This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
BBC (again)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 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) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| 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 A bit out of date now though given the recent science on polar ice caps.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 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)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 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) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 18 Jul 22 5.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
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.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
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.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 18 Jul 22 5.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
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 a moderator to this post |
|
| 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.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 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.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
PalazioVecchio  south pole 18 Jul 22 6.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
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.
Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 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?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 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) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.