Climate Change - Case Closed !

[Royal24s]

Figures that you'd also be climate change deniers in this echo chamber

What's to deny ?
It's over. It's being dumped.
Were you one of the ones who believed it then ?

[PG30]

Figures that you'd also be climate change deniers in this echo chamber

What's to deny ?
It's over. It's being dumped.
Were you one of the ones who believed it then ?

I prefer to believe the Evidence of rising tempatures, rising sea levels, over 200 countries agreeing together and 99% of scientists and experts rather than a guy on the Internet. Not everything is a lefty conspiracy

You're just turning into a parody of yourself

[Zambo]

Figures that you'd also be climate change deniers in this echo chamber

What's to deny ?
It's over. It's being dumped.
Were you one of the ones who believed it then ?

I prefer to believe the Evidence of rising tempatures, rising sea levels, over 200 countries agreeing together and 99% of scientists and experts rather than a guy on the Internet. Not everything is a lefty conspiracy

You're just turning into a parody of yourself

Anyone who denies that the climate is changing with all of the evidence available is a fruitcake. Those who believe we should spend zillions on trying to stop that happening is also a fruitcake.

[Fug1]

This makes sense to me,

[/url]https://youtu.be/SI5ulKiZAoE[url]

Not sure why link not working sorry.

It's David Mitchell's soapbox, burden of proof.

[Suhari]

This makes sense to me,

phpBB [video]

Not sure why link not working sorry.

It's David Mitchell's soapbox, burden of proof.

I fiddled.

[Fug1]

This makes sense to me,

phpBB [video]

Not sure why link not working sorry.

It's David Mitchell's soapbox, burden of proof.

I fiddled.

Cheers

[Royal24s]

This makes sense to me,

phpBB [video]

Not sure why link not working sorry.

It's David Mitchell's soapbox, burden of proof.

I fiddled.

Cheers

It might seem to make sense, but it really doesn't . He's another talented entertainer whose ego has misled him into thinking he must understand everything because he's on tv I'm afraid.
In short , he states some "facts" which are untrue, ( that all scientists agree), then uses them to reach a very unsound conclusion.
I know we keep hearing this stuff about all scientists agreeing - it's repeated like a mantra till enough people have heard it that they think it's true, but it's not.
Be honest, when you heard this comedian stating it,was there no a temptation to think, " oh, that must be right then, or he wouldn't say it". He's a very credible and likeable character, and he probably believes it, but it's just not true.
To demonstrate how daft his apparently logical conclusions are, let me use the same process with a different subject - surely, if someone has suggested that giant martian daffodils will grow on the motorways and block them , then the onus of proof would be on everyone else to disprove it and,even if we didn't believe it, we should spend billions of pounds and shut the roads just in case it was true.

Is this a rehearsal for "would I lie to you", or has he perhaps let his comedic success make him think he knows a bit more than he does ?

[subsub]

Figures that you'd also be climate change deniers in this echo chamber

[PG30]

This makes sense to me,

phpBB [video]

Not sure why link not working sorry.

It's David Mitchell's soapbox, burden of proof.

I fiddled.

Cheers

It might seem to make sense, but it really doesn't . He's another talented entertainer whose ego has misled him into thinking he must understand everything because he's on tv I'm afraid.
In short , he states some "facts" which are untrue, ( that all scientists agree), then uses them to reach a very unsound conclusion.
I know we keep hearing this stuff about all scientists agreeing - it's repeated like a mantra till enough people have heard it that they think it's true, but it's not.
Be honest, when you heard this comedian stating it,was there no a temptation to think, " oh, that must be right then, or he wouldn't say it". He's a very credible and likeable character, and he probably believes it, but it's just not true.
To demonstrate how daft his apparently logical conclusions are, let me use the same process with a different subject - surely, if someone has suggested that giant martian daffodils will grow on the motorways and block them , then the onus of proof would be on everyone else to disprove it and,even if we didn't believe it, we should spend billions of pounds and shut the roads just in case it was true.

Is this a rehearsal for "would I lie to you", or has he perhaps let his comedic success make him think he knows a bit more than he does ?

Can't believe I spent time reading the above.

I don't want facts to get in the way of your post-truth trolling. But the part where you say it's not true whilst offering nothing to back up your statement

Can't believe I'm biting but...

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - with a focus on human-caused or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) - have been undertaken since the 1990s.[1] A 2016 paper - co-authored by Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton and John Cook - based on a half a dozen independent studies by the authors - reported that 90%–100% of climate scientists who publish in peer-reviewed journals, had consensus that climate change can be attributed to human activity.[2]

n 2014, Bart Verheggen of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency surveyed 1,868 climate scientists. They found that 90% of those surveyed with more than 10 peer-reviewed papers related to climate agreed that human production of greenhouse gases was the main cause of global warming.[3

ames L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium,[4] analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[5] [6][7][8] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[9][10][11]


Etc. Etc. Etc.

I guess you're the one global warming scientist above who rejects it

[Royal24s]

This makes sense to me,

phpBB [video]

Not sure why link not working sorry.

It's David Mitchell's soapbox, burden of proof.

I fiddled.

Cheers

It might seem to make sense, but it really doesn't . He's another talented entertainer whose ego has misled him into thinking he must understand everything because he's on tv I'm afraid.
In short , he states some "facts" which are untrue, ( that all scientists agree), then uses them to reach a very unsound conclusion.
I know we keep hearing this stuff about all scientists agreeing - it's repeated like a mantra till enough people have heard it that they think it's true, but it's not.
Be honest, when you heard this comedian stating it,was there no a temptation to think, " oh, that must be right then, or he wouldn't say it". He's a very credible and likeable character, and he probably believes it, but it's just not true.
To demonstrate how daft his apparently logical conclusions are, let me use the same process with a different subject - surely, if someone has suggested that giant martian daffodils will grow on the motorways and block them , then the onus of proof would be on everyone else to disprove it and,even if we didn't believe it, we should spend billions of pounds and shut the roads just in case it was true.

Is this a rehearsal for "would I lie to you", or has he perhaps let his comedic success make him think he knows a bit more than he does ?

Can't believe I spent time reading the above.

I don't want facts to get in the way of your post-truth trolling. But the part where you say it's not true whilst offering nothing to back up your statement

Can't believe I'm biting but...

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - with a focus on human-caused or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) - have been undertaken since the 1990s.[1] A 2016 paper - co-authored by Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton and John Cook - based on a half a dozen independent studies by the authors - reported that 90%–100% of climate scientists who publish in peer-reviewed journals, had consensus that climate change can be attributed to human activity.[2]

n 2014, Bart Verheggen of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency surveyed 1,868 climate scientists. They found that 90% of those surveyed with more than 10 peer-reviewed papers related to climate agreed that human production of greenhouse gases was the main cause of global warming.[3

ames L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium,[4] analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[5] [6][7][8] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[9][10][11]


Etc. Etc. Etc.

I guess you're the one global warming scientist above who rejects it

I could certainly quote many eminent scientists who reject it, but there's not much point in that at this stage, and no point in re arguing the whole fraudulent bloody nonsense.
It's all over bar the shouting now because when the income streams run out so will the enthusiasm for the idea.

The actual subject of the thread is whether anyone thinks that dropping it will have any adverse effects whatever other than upon the income of the crooks who were running it.

[Royal24s]

By the way, congratulations on being the first person to swallow and then use the latest bit of information control unspeak " post truth".
Apparently it's the new " conspiracy theory " word weapon , because everyone was catching on to that one.

[Roy Twing]

I don't want facts to get in the way of your post-truth trolling. But the part where you say it's not true whilst offering nothing to back up your statement

Can't believe I'm biting but...

We all have our opinions and biases.

For my part I'm intrigued by this 'post-truth' phrase that the oxford dictionary has declared 'word of the year'. I never heard of it before 2 days ago.
Either I've been living under a rock, or there's something odd about its sudden rise to prominence.

[Roy Twing]

By the way, congratulations on being the first person to swallow and then use the latest bit of information control unspeak " post truth".
Apparently it's the new " conspiracy theory " word weapon , because everyone was catching on to that one.

Only just scrolled down and seen your comment about 'post-truth'.
Another month or so, and every yoghurt knitter and bbc presenter will swear its always been around around.

[subsub]

I could certainly quote many eminent scientists who reject it, but there's not much point in that at this stage, and no point in re arguing the whole fraudulent bloody nonsense

An admission of defeat if ever I heard one.
Case closed!

[Roy Twing]

I could certainly quote many eminent scientists who reject it, but there's not much point in that at this stage, and no point in re arguing the whole fraudulent bloody nonsense

An admission of defeat if ever I heard one.
Case closed!

I guess you would think that.
It would help to know who pays the wages of the eminent scientists who champion the 'green' viewpoint.
In the same way that I've yet to meet a public service employee who will admit that diversity training and the like is just so much hand-wringing drivel at taxpayers' expense.

[m4 colin]

This makes sense to me,

phpBB [video]

Not sure why link not working sorry.

It's David Mitchell's soapbox, burden of proof.

I fiddled.

Cheers

It might seem to make sense, but it really doesn't . He's another talented entertainer whose ego has misled him into thinking he must understand everything because he's on tv I'm afraid.
In short , he states some "facts" which are untrue, ( that all scientists agree), then uses them to reach a very unsound conclusion.
I know we keep hearing this stuff about all scientists agreeing - it's repeated like a mantra till enough people have heard it that they think it's true, but it's not.
Be honest, when you heard this comedian stating it,was there no a temptation to think, " oh, that must be right then, or he wouldn't say it". He's a very credible and likeable character, and he probably believes it, but it's just not true.
To demonstrate how daft his apparently logical conclusions are, let me use the same process with a different subject - surely, if someone has suggested that giant martian daffodils will grow on the motorways and block them , then the onus of proof would be on everyone else to disprove it and,even if we didn't believe it, we should spend billions of pounds and shut the roads just in case it was true.

Is this a rehearsal for "would I lie to you", or has he perhaps let his comedic success make him think he knows a bit more than he does ?

Can't believe I spent time reading the above.

I don't want facts to get in the way of your post-truth trolling. But the part where you say it's not true whilst offering nothing to back up your statement

Can't believe I'm biting but...

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - with a focus on human-caused or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) - have been undertaken since the 1990s.[1] A 2016 paper - co-authored by Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton and John Cook - based on a half a dozen independent studies by the authors - reported that 90%–100% of climate scientists who publish in peer-reviewed journals, had consensus that climate change can be attributed to human activity.[2]

n 2014, Bart Verheggen of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency surveyed 1,868 climate scientists. They found that 90% of those surveyed with more than 10 peer-reviewed papers related to climate agreed that human production of greenhouse gases was the main cause of global warming.[3

ames L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium,[4] analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[5] [6][7][8] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[9][10][11]


Etc. Etc. Etc.

Thats because if you dont say there is Global warming you wont get any research grant money There is also a good chance of losing tenure .Turkeys do not vote for Christmas.

[subsub]

In the same way that I've yet to meet a public service employee who will admit that diversity training and the like is just so much hand-wringing drivel at taxpayers' expense.

Careful with that shoehorn...

[Fug1]

This makes sense to me,

phpBB [video]

Not sure why link not working sorry.

It's David Mitchell's soapbox, burden of proof.

I fiddled.

Cheers

It might seem to make sense, but it really doesn't . He's another talented entertainer whose ego has misled him into thinking he must understand everything because he's on tv I'm afraid.
In short , he states some "facts" which are untrue, ( that all scientists agree), then uses them to reach a very unsound conclusion.
I know we keep hearing this stuff about all scientists agreeing - it's repeated like a mantra till enough people have heard it that they think it's true, but it's not.
Be honest, when you heard this comedian stating it,was there no a temptation to think, " oh, that must be right then, or he wouldn't say it". He's a very credible and likeable character, and he probably believes it, but it's just not true.
To demonstrate how daft his apparently logical conclusions are, let me use the same process with a different subject - surely, if someone has suggested that giant martian daffodils will grow on the motorways and block them , then the onus of proof would be on everyone else to disprove it and,even if we didn't believe it, we should spend billions of pounds and shut the roads just in case it was true.

Is this a rehearsal for "would I lie to you", or has he perhaps let his comedic success make him think he knows a bit more than he does ?

Can't believe I spent time reading the above.

I don't want facts to get in the way of your post-truth trolling. But the part where you say it's not true whilst offering nothing to back up your statement

Can't believe I'm biting but...

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - with a focus on human-caused or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) - have been undertaken since the 1990s.[1] A 2016 paper - co-authored by Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton and John Cook - based on a half a dozen independent studies by the authors - reported that 90%–100% of climate scientists who publish in peer-reviewed journals, had consensus that climate change can be attributed to human activity.[2]

n 2014, Bart Verheggen of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency surveyed 1,868 climate scientists. They found that 90% of those surveyed with more than 10 peer-reviewed papers related to climate agreed that human production of greenhouse gases was the main cause of global warming.[3

ames L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium,[4] analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[5] [6][7][8] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[9][10][11]


Etc. Etc. Etc.

Thats because if you dont say there is Global warming you wont get any research grant money There is also a good chance of losing tenure .Turkeys do not vote for Christmas.

Fair point.

As David Mitchell said in the you tube thingy surely it would have been sensible to prove it doesn't have a significant effect.

So bearing in mind the world is using fossil fuels to function you would have thought the World Goverments would try to prove it didnt need to worry about man-made climate change.

So with that in mind you have to wonder why they decided to prove it does. My guess is something to do with €£$!!!

I suppose it's a bit like slinging tax on smoking, they do it because they will raise more revenue potentially than what they will lose by people giving up. Of course if it is so bad for people and terrible they would make it illegal; I wonder why they haven't?? Hmmm. (I do realise smoking is bad for you, but my point is by proving burning fossil fuels is harmful they can tax the fucking life out of it, but proving it isnt they can't)

[PG30]

By the way, congratulations on being the first person to swallow and then use the latest bit of information control unspeak " post truth".
Apparently it's the new " conspiracy theory " word weapon , because everyone was catching on to that one.

Only just scrolled down and seen your comment about 'post-truth'.
Another month or so, and every yoghurt knitter and bbc presenter will swear its always been around around.

To be honest, only chucked in 'post-truth' to trigger you lot

[PG30]

This makes sense to me,

phpBB [video]

Not sure why link not working sorry.

It's David Mitchell's soapbox, burden of proof.

I fiddled.

Cheers

It might seem to make sense, but it really doesn't . He's another talented entertainer whose ego has misled him into thinking he must understand everything because he's on tv I'm afraid.
In short , he states some "facts" which are untrue, ( that all scientists agree), then uses them to reach a very unsound conclusion.
I know we keep hearing this stuff about all scientists agreeing - it's repeated like a mantra till enough people have heard it that they think it's true, but it's not.
Be honest, when you heard this comedian stating it,was there no a temptation to think, " oh, that must be right then, or he wouldn't say it". He's a very credible and likeable character, and he probably believes it, but it's just not true.
To demonstrate how daft his apparently logical conclusions are, let me use the same process with a different subject - surely, if someone has suggested that giant martian daffodils will grow on the motorways and block them , then the onus of proof would be on everyone else to disprove it and,even if we didn't believe it, we should spend billions of pounds and shut the roads just in case it was true.

Is this a rehearsal for "would I lie to you", or has he perhaps let his comedic success make him think he knows a bit more than he does ?

Can't believe I spent time reading the above.

I don't want facts to get in the way of your post-truth trolling. But the part where you say it's not true whilst offering nothing to back up your statement

Can't believe I'm biting but...

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - with a focus on human-caused or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) - have been undertaken since the 1990s.[1] A 2016 paper - co-authored by Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton and John Cook - based on a half a dozen independent studies by the authors - reported that 90%–100% of climate scientists who publish in peer-reviewed journals, had consensus that climate change can be attributed to human activity.[2]

n 2014, Bart Verheggen of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency surveyed 1,868 climate scientists. They found that 90% of those surveyed with more than 10 peer-reviewed papers related to climate agreed that human production of greenhouse gases was the main cause of global warming.[3

ames L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium,[4] analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[5] [6][7][8] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[9][10][11]


Etc. Etc. Etc.

Thats because if you dont say there is Global warming you wont get any research grant money There is also a good chance of losing tenure .Turkeys do not vote for Christmas.

Turkeys do not vote for Christmas?

Did you just miss the whole Brexit thing?

[Royal24s]

That pesky democracy thing again PG. Given Donald Trumps policy on climate change , I suppose the silly buggers voted to put an end to the global warming myth too.
Do you think democracy can be trusted to make decisions in a "post truth" world, or should we just let the very clever people, especially entertainers decide ?

[Fug1]

To be honest Royals, the idea of democracy is brilliant, but I'm not entirely convinced it's workable.

Not sure if there is another system that is acceptable out there, but, do we live in a democracy; I mean really? Or is it just a label we are using to call what we currently have?

Like you and others have pointed out, it appears things are only democratic when it suits the individual, otherwise it's a totally floored system.

How can half of the world's wealth be in the hands of 1% of the world's population in a democracy?

[Royal24s]

Well, I've said before that I think democracy is less important than guaranteeing rights for individuals and limiting the power of transient politicians .
How we choose those politicians doesn't matter so much really, but it's hard to think of a fairer system than democracy. Having said that, there are so many variations of it that it's not really correct to regard it as one system.
However , I think it's vital that whatever system we operate , providing we all know
the rules , to stick by the results . Otherwise we'd have permanent instability and civil disorder .
The rules can only be changed in between elections , not after them just because not everyone likes the result.
Incidentally , your last point suggests that a democracy includes a particular social view, but of course it doesn't . It's only the system for voting and as we know Adolf Hitler was elected , so it doesn't guarantee ethical behaviour by the winner - hence my opening remark.

[Roy Twing]

That pesky democracy thing again PG. Given Donald Trumps policy on climate change , I suppose the silly buggers voted to put an end to the global warming myth too.
Do you think democracy can be trusted to make decisions in a "post truth" world, or should we just let the very clever people, especially entertainers decide ?

We are all too stupid to know what's best for us according to this odious racist. No doubt a hero of tick, given his views.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nough.html

[Zambo]

Tossers like this have had their day. The HOL should be scraped along with the EU.