Death
I'll take down dat coal powered MG, I tel u Hwat
I’d argue that it would help as there isn’t much you have to get people to lie to themselves so not much work involved.
Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon
- Thread starter kithnou
- Start date
- Status
I’d argue that it would help as there isn’t much you have to get people to lie to themselves so not much work involved.
The most dishonest campaigns have been factchecked and proven to be more successful
BirkenheadBlue
Player Valuation: £70m
You can argue that all you like. Pretty much everything says you’re wrong though.
"“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”. – IPCC TAR WG1, Working Group I:"
Hence no peer review paper can exist definitively attributing a single cause to the changing climate - man made or otherwise - but always remember the burden of proof must come from the proponent of an idea and as demonstrated the dangerous man made co2 notion has no observational peer reviewed evidence whatsoever. It is a product of gigo computer models which are erroneously offered as fact
Co2 is not dangerous but essential for plant life and at present levels, 400ppm, the planet is in co2 drought the most significant explosion of life on this planet came when co2 was in the order of thousands ppm (7000ppm I think) furthermore the various doom claims from terror fundamentalists are all covered by the null hypothesis. We exist in a naturally warming cycle, the long term depletion of polar ice is expected as is mild warming and the attribution of specific weather events like droughts, storms etc as man made co2 caused is science bereft wishful thinking.
Add in the only long term study of co2/temp relationship (800k yrs ice samples) irrefutably showing co2 rise lags warming in line with orbital cycles and it's a slam dunk - there really is nothing to worry about. I won't go into all the temp manipulations and other political chicanery of head honchos driving the cult, there's only a handful of them, because it makes supporters of the nonsense OD on doughnuts.
Suffice to say if people concentrate on robust rather than pseudo science it's a doozie
Death
I'll take down dat coal powered MG, I tel u Hwat
Alright alright
Chewbacca
Player Valuation: £35m
My bet is yet to be discovered illness, asteroid or nuclear carnage one thing is certain it won't be co2
Of course there are no actual peer reviewed scientific journals that prove man made climate change is fiction. Just like he never asked all the "name" climate scientists to send him peer-reviewed papers. And just like he won't address how and why computer models are bad; he just repeats tropes from a climate-change denial blog and says things like "coupled nonlinear chaotic system" as if to make it sound like he knows what he's talking about. He has NO idea what a "coupled nonlinear chaotic system" means. He somehow thinks ice-core data is the sine qua non upon which global warming evidence is based, and when you provide him with what he asks for (I provided him with a peer-reviewed paper that he asked for), he responded with a graph from a blog run by a TV weather personality, where the graph itself was made by a massage therapist who has taken money from the Heartland Institute. I'm not making this up. If I provide him with another peer-reviwed paper, he'll just find a way to say it was "modeled" or that it doesn't have his artificial and pointless requirement of ice core data (spoiler alert: Ice core data requires some model transformations, and ice core data has revealed an association between temperature and CO2 in industrial times) or suggest that there is an agenda-driven cabal of scientists who conspire to hide the truth (of which Barry Rathbone happens to be privy of). More simply, no need to waste your time with him as he has all the answers whereas all those thousands of scientists who have actual expertise--for example, those who understand what the phrase "coupled nonlinear chaotic system" means--are obviously just wrong. And of course, he's quick to suggest ad hominen if you describe his reasoning as poor or fallacious--this is all part of his perceived role as the calm but easily-aggrieved truth-teller who is happy to put forth numerous spurious and tendentious arguments but retreats quickly into calls of ad hominem when his arguments are refuted. Textbook Dunning-Kruger conspiracy theory territory here, nothing more.
And folks here can point back to this post above when Barry yammers on with his tiresome agenda. And now, back to that accused rapist Trump...
I guess to tie the two together, it’s this danger we now have of people on the internet being able to put out these half baked, lazy conspiracies as fact.
Everyone’s an ‘expert’ now. On trade deals, climate change, migration etc. You can go online and let yourself believe whatever suits you. Sure I heard Chomsky state in an interview once that the internet was a terrible thing because of this.
We now have the likes of Trump, able to put out unchallenged lies and paint himself as anti-establishment, whilst those that have actually researched and studied find their voices being drowned out in the utter nonsense.
As opposed to the requisite non model paper you were going to supply but yet again have failed to do so
Look it's really not the problem you imagine nor a reason for you to teeter so precariously on the edge of testiness. I respect your choice in avoiding robust science for gigo computer models but that is clearly faith and not robust science. Surely the honest thing is to admit no repeatable experiment or observational evidence for man made climate doom compliant with scientific method exists so you and the like minded can gather in a suitable building, maybe a barn or disused church, and terrify each other for hours on end about climate armageddon in less than 12yrs
Obviously a public already contemptuous of this spoofery will then demand funding be stopped and diverted to genuine issues but that's not a problem there's always private funding, try Elon Musk.
Back on topic so Trump is an accused rapist eh?
No smoke without fire, bit like scientists "hiding" something being shifty little sloths
Last edited:
Back on topic so Trump is a rapist eh?
I know this is akin to the question about peer reviewed evidence but just to make sure you're not just getting overwrought again can you furnish me with the date and time of his conviction please??
I wrote "accused rapist" and you can google it for yourself.
I re-read and changed it to something equally pertinent - no biggie
Lol Verrauxi smashing Baz all over the show
- Status