albion1971: Carryfast wrote:Why would I want to open my mind …
because you just might find that you are completely biased and wrong most of the time…simple really.
There’s no danger of him ever realising that …
Which has always been the left wingers’ reply of choice when anyone dares to challenge their bs ideology.It’s obvious who’s wrong and biased in the case of the bs global warming agenda.
Aye, duck. Seems I was right.
You got that scientific paper published yet? Or have you realised that your only line of, er, argument is “Carl Sagan liked his weed”? You do know Sagan is not the only scientist to back up global warming theory, don’t you? And that a fondness for weed is not necessarily inconsistent with a scintillating scientific career? Can you refute any of the science behind climate change? Do you know anything of ice core analysis? Or palaeoclimate reconstruction using pollen data? Any chance you could enlighten us about what analysis methods you could use to obtain palaoeclimatic data from a peat core? Might you one day acknowledge that science - proper, “hard”, rigorous, peer reviewed science - involves rather more work than your own method of Googling, and then cherrypicking a couple of results which back up your preconceived views while automatically dismissing any which don’t? I’m not holding my breath …
It was actually mainly that drugged up hippy Sagan who originated the bs theory based on his ( wrong ) observations of Venus.It’s also no surprise that you’ve avoided my question asking you to show a direct mathematical link and resulting reference points between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures on Earth.Everything else which you’ve said is just what would be expected of loony left bias and indoctrination which,contrary to being funny,such as in the video posted previously,inevitably, eventually turns into something much more serious and dangerous.
In which case it’s no surprise that you’ve got obviously communist subversive zb’s like Russell Brand on your side of the argument.In which case if/when those extreme leftist zb’s like him ever do succeed in imposing their ideas on everyone else,you can bet that the scenario in that video would be all too real instead of it just being a good laugh at the raving global warming believers’ expense.
Not answering any of my questions then. I can only assume you know nothing about the science behind climate change, which is what I would have concluded anyway.
However, since I seem to be a glutton for punishment, I’ll ask again. Can you tell me how you might use ice core analysis to provide evidence of past temperature changes? Such as that presented here … sciencemag.org/content/286/5446/1815.full … is some more ice core analysis which shows CO2 concentrations in the pre-industrial Holocene atmosphere.
Don’t believe the ice core data? Fine. Have a look at some peat core analyses instead. I did some work on this myself during my academic career, doing mineral magnetic analysis of a core I took from the Loch Ness catchment. Here … jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1 … 3505554023
Have a read of that lot old son, then post some proper counter evidence of your own. If nothing else, this should at least show you how science works, and how it’s really not a matter of left - (or right - or straight ahead - ) wing bias. There is no bias in proper science: the results show what they show and hypotheses are formed and modified accordingly. Your approach, on the other hand, is to decide what you want to believe and go out of your way to ignore anything which contradicts it. This is religion, not science.
Rhythm Thief:
Not answering any of my questions then. I can only assume you know nothing about the science behind climate change, which is what I would have concluded anyway.
It’s you who’s not answering a simple question.Which isn’t surprising being that there is no link and your whole argument is just a case of typical leftist bs propaganda.The only surprise being the amount of people who believe it all.
Rhythm Thief:
Go on then … if it’s “bs”, rebut it. Shouldn’t be difficult for a man of your intellect.
I have rebutted it but it’s just that being a typical indoctrinated believer you can’t/don’t want to understand or listen to anything which goes against that indoctrination.Which having plenty of experience of the leftist cause is nothing new to me.
Rhythm Thief:
Go on then … if it’s “bs”, rebut it. Shouldn’t be difficult for a man of your intellect.
I have rebutted it but it’s just that being a typical indoctrinated believer you can’t/don’t want to understand or listen to anything which goes against that indoctrination.Which having plenty of experience of the leftist cause is nothing new to me.
No you haven’t. Where’s your figures? Your evidence? Your references?
When I say “rebuttal” I don’t mean your usual playground level, swivel eyed foaming loony mix of insults and childish rhetoric. I mean proper, researched, detailed scientific rebuttal of any of the papers I’ve posted links to above. Until then, stop talking about things you don’t understand.
Rhythm Thief:
Go on then … if it’s “bs”, rebut it. Shouldn’t be difficult for a man of your intellect.
I have rebutted it but it’s just that being a typical indoctrinated believer you can’t/don’t want to understand or listen to anything which goes against that indoctrination.Which having plenty of experience of the leftist cause is nothing new to me.
No you haven’t. Where’s your figures? Your evidence? Your references?
When I say “rebuttal” I don’t mean your usual playground level, swivel eyed foaming loony mix of insults and childish rhetoric. I mean proper, researched, detailed scientific rebuttal of any of the papers I’ve posted links to above. Until then, stop talking about things you don’t understand.
It’s your lot who are making the case that there is a link between CO2 and temperature so it’s you and your lot who need to provide the exact relevant figures showing that link in terms of day to day real world temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels.Which you and any of your bs 'scientific theories obviously can’t because such a link doesn’t exist.As for childish rhetoric I think that description fits Russell Brand’s loony leftist agenda perfectly and it’s no surprise that he’s one of the believers.Yet more reason to vote for Farage and UKIP instead of the loony left Lab/LibDem/Con agenda.
Muckaway:
I thought this was Trucknet, not Greenpeace. ■■■■ .net
The greens have actually been infiltrated by the loony left which is why we’ve now got so called ‘greens’ who want to concrete over the countryside with houses and railway lines and make us dependent on expensive nuclear energy while taxing road transport off the roads.All based on a pro immigration,car and truck hating,bs global warming agenda.
Carryfast:
It’s your lot who are making the case that there is a link between CO2 and temperature so it’s you and your lot who need to provide the exact relevant figures showing that link in terms of day to day real world temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels.Which you and any of your bs 'scientific theories obviously can’t because such a link doesn’t exist.As for childish rhetoric I think that description fits Russell Brand’s loony leftist agenda perfectly and it’s no surprise that he’s one of the believers.Yet more reason to vote for Farage and UKIP instead of the loony left Lab/LibDem/Con agenda.
Ah, you’re a UKIP voter. That explains everything.
Have you reads all those links I’ve posted? You’ll find plenty of evidence - including the sort of figures you keep asking me for - in them. You see, old horse, the great thing about science is it’s true, whether you believe it or not.
Why do you keep mentioning Russell Brand? He’s not a scientist, no more than you are.
Carryfast:
It’s your lot who are making the case that there is a link between CO2 and temperature so it’s you and your lot who need to provide the exact relevant figures showing that link in terms of day to day real world temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels.Which you and any of your bs 'scientific theories obviously can’t because such a link doesn’t exist.As for childish rhetoric I think that description fits Russell Brand’s loony leftist agenda perfectly and it’s no surprise that he’s one of the believers.Yet more reason to vote for Farage and UKIP instead of the loony left Lab/LibDem/Con agenda.
Ah, you’re a UKIP voter. That explains everything.
Have you reads all those links I’ve posted? You’ll find plenty of evidence - including the sort of figures you keep asking me for - in them. You see, old horse, the great thing about science is it’s true, whether you believe it or not.
Why do you keep mentioning Russell Brand? He’s not a scientist, no more than you are.
Firstly UKIP wouldn’t be my first choice but considering that they are better than putting in a bunch of raving hysterical global warming believers with loony left communist type tendencies absolutely Farage’s lot would get my vote.The reason I mentioned Rusell Brand was because he was invited onto that leftist cause Channel 4 news to provide his views concerning the issue.In which in addition to calling for a literal revolution as would be expected in view of his commy beliefs the ■■■■■■ also provided his views concerning the global warming scam.No surprise he’s a believer.
As for the bs which you’ve provided all I’ve seen is yet more propaganda with no direct mathematical link.Which is obvious considering that even the believers like you can’t provide it when asked to because it doesn’t exist.I think the type of communist zb’s that make up the believers ranks are clear from this article.IE a bunch of dictatorial loony left commy radicals with no electoral mandate are trying to dictate who can and can’t represent us.Just as I said the global warming scam is actually a Trojan horse that’s concealing something far more dangerous in the form of a power grab by raving communist zb’s.
You’ll never get it, CF … not if I spend the rest of my life posting links to reputable scientific papers. It’s “science”, not “propaganda” or “lefty bs” or anything else. Science. The data show what they show, and hypotheses are formed and tested accordingly. No amount of silly childish nonsense from you changes that.
Rhythm Thief:
You’ll never get it, CF … not if I spend the rest of my life posting links to reputable scientific papers. It’s “science”, not “propaganda” or “lefty bs” or anything else. Science. The data show what they show, and hypotheses are formed and tested accordingly. No amount of silly childish nonsense from you changes that.
As I’ve seen it the so called ‘reputable science’ is saying that flooding and gales in England,caused by the effects on the jet stream of extreme cold weather in North America during the Winter,is ‘evidence’ of ‘global warming’.Being that such flooding and gales are supposedly unprecedented here.
Then we’ve got a green politician,with no electoral mandate,saying that any elected government minister who agrees with the ‘reputable’ evidence which disagrees that the planet is being subjected to so called CO2 induced ‘global warming’ should be removed from office.
It’s all now a matter of democracy in wether the UK population wants to join the collective hysteria of the believers in the global warming cause or ( rightly ) reject it.The fact that the believers vary between Communist revolutionaries to others who’s idea of science is unquestioning belief and the inability to debate the issues intelligently can only be a good thing.As I’ve said that’s why I’d vote for UKIP being that,so far,it seems to be the only political group that hasn’t allowed itself to join in such collective unreasoned hysteria.
That’s the problem: it’s not about how you see it, or indeed how I see it or anyone else sees it. The data show what they show, and more data are gathered which either support the hypothesis proposed on the basis of the initial data, or don’t. Unless you have, or can find, equally rigorously researched data which contradict that hypothesis, that’s all there is to it. There’s no bias, no agenda, no Russell Brand: not at the research stage, anyway. If it’s published in a reputable scientific journal, and no evidence can (yet) be found to contradict it, then it’s as near to unvarnished plain truth as it can be.