Anthropogenic climate change? I don't think so.

Deepwading

Member
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
You two are a fine pair of shills with 69 posts combined.
And again, no counter-argument, but smear tactics, defamatory language and a vain try to spread panic.
Is this how you are going to convince people the hoax you're promoting is real? Don't you think you should bring a bit more to the table to defend your agenda?

View attachment 35367

I think "Canewizard' has answered my question.

Well and truly exposed. Hoisted by his (or her) own petard, as we say here.
 

tom_o_m

Member
Messages
62
Reaction score
4
You two are a fine pair of shills with 69 posts combined.
And again, no counter-argument, but smear tactics, defamatory language and a vain try to spread panic.
Is this how you are going to convince people the hoax you're promoting is real? Don't you think you should bring a bit more to the table to defend your agenda?

View attachment 35367

69 posts on a fishing forum does not discount us from having the right to call out your nonsense on an unrelated issue. You are the one who has been petty and calling childish names. I worked for 3 years in the Department for Energy and Climate Change, while not a climate expert I have some background. Probably more than you. The thing is, I recognise and defer to science, it is simply irrefutable in my mind. I have refuted the arguments by correctly pointing out that the vast majority of credibly scientists, over 90%, say that you and your convenient quasi science is bull.

You're just embarrassing yourself now. Do please continue by all means, it does not reflect poorly on me.
 

Canewizard

New member
Messages
396
Reaction score
0
The only ones making fools of themselves with rudimentary half-knowledge, are you two clowns.

Your 98% lie has already been refuted by 'toasted heretic', but since I'm the one who's actually looking for facts instead of an emotional overreaction, here's an article for you, explaining how the 98% came to pass.

Greatest Hoax of 21st Century! 98% Scientists DO NOT Believe Climate Change is Man-Made

'The 98% lie comes from a 2009 American Geophysical Union survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey that was sent to 10,257 scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois.'

'The widely used survey was sent to only 10,000 scientists. Only 3,000 of those came back and only 77 peer-reviewed climate scientists actually participated!'

'There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis. Yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.'

So what you're trying to sell is, that the opinion of 77 climate scientists outweighs 30k scientists who distance themselves from manmade climate change?

Over 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change A Hoax | Humans Are Free

I do, however, believe that we are destroying habitat and biodiversity on a unprecedented scale with all the synthetic chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, etc.

That's something you should (and could justifiedly) be worried about.

Also, you could be worried about the vast amounts of methane trapped in arctic circles, because it is far more potent than CO2.

But you can't trick people into paying trillions of shekels if you focus on methane.
This should give food for thought, even for the most ingenious among us.

Unlike you, I have a solid scientific background with degrees in relevant fields of study. And that's the reason why I'm not falling for this insupportable theory.

The way you two are trying to convince people without factual information, makes me wonder, whether you're in on the scam. But maybe it's just lack of horizon and you don't know any better.

It's your turn now, but please spare me the propaganda techniques (smearing, panicking, etc) and come up with something solid.

If you don't, this debate is over and it will be obvious who won this argument.

You're welcome.
 

Isisalar

Well-known member
Messages
1,156
Reaction score
403
Location
North west London
Indeed, anyone employed in perpetuating the man made climate change myth can't really give an unbiased view.
It's understandable because of the brainwashing in the education system the last 40 odd years.
Of course we need to do whatever we can to minimise pollution of any sort.
Atmosphere wise until we plug all the volcanoes any action to reduce vehicle emissions is totally futile.

"The way you two are trying to convince people without factual information, makes me wonder, whether you're in on the scam. But maybe it's just lack of horizon and you don't know any better."

". I worked for 3 years in the Department for Energy and Climate Change, while not a climate expert I have some background".
 
Last edited:

Jonsey

Well-known member
Messages
371
Reaction score
275
Location
Wild west of Wales
The only ones making fools of themselves with rudimentary half-knowledge, are you two clowns.

Your 98% lie has already been refuted by 'toasted heretic', but since I'm the one who's actually looking for facts instead of an emotional overreaction, here's an article for you, explaining how the 98% came to pass.

Greatest Hoax of 21st Century! 98% Scientists DO NOT Believe Climate Change is Man-Made

'The 98% lie comes from a 2009 American Geophysical Union survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey that was sent to 10,257 scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois.'

'The widely used survey was sent to only 10,000 scientists. Only 3,000 of those came back and only 77 peer-reviewed climate scientists actually participated!'

'There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis. Yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.'

So what you're trying to sell is, that the opinion of 77 climate scientists outweighs 30k scientists who distance themselves from manmade climate change?

Over 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change A Hoax | Humans Are Free

I do, however, believe that we are destroying habitat and biodiversity on a unprecedented scale with all the synthetic chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, etc.

That's something you should (and could justifiedly) be worried about.

Also, you could be worried about the vast amounts of methane trapped in arctic circles, because it is far more potent than CO2.

But you can't trick people into paying trillions of shekels if you focus on methane.
This should give food for thought, even for the most ingenious among us.

Unlike you, I have a solid scientific background with degrees in relevant fields of study. And that's the reason why I'm not falling for this insupportable theory.

The way you two are trying to convince people without factual information, makes me wonder, whether you're in on the scam. But maybe it's just lack of horizon and you don't know any better.

It's your turn now, but please spare me the propaganda techniques (smearing, panicking, etc) and come up with something solid.

If you don't, this debate is over and it will be obvious who won this argument.

You're welcome.

C’mon, 2 mins on google fact checking the **** your referring to dispels it as conspititorial, oil driven rubbish. Facts please, peer reviewed facts..
 

Deepwading

Member
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
Forum Troll alert! (and I don't mean hanging a spinner over the back of a boat!)

The only ones making fools of themselves with rudimentary half-knowledge, are you two clowns.

Your 98% lie has already been refuted by 'toasted heretic', but since I'm the one who's actually looking for facts instead of an emotional overreaction, here's an article for you, explaining how the 98% came to pass.

Greatest Hoax of 21st Century! 98% Scientists DO NOT Believe Climate Change is Man-Made

'The 98% lie comes from a 2009 American Geophysical Union survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey that was sent to 10,257 scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois.'

'The widely used survey was sent to only 10,000 scientists. Only 3,000 of those came back and only 77 peer-reviewed climate scientists actually participated!'

'There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis. Yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.'

So what you're trying to sell is, that the opinion of 77 climate scientists outweighs 30k scientists who distance themselves from manmade climate change?

Over 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change A Hoax | Humans Are Free

I do, however, believe that we are destroying habitat and biodiversity on a unprecedented scale with all the synthetic chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, etc.

That's something you should (and could justifiedly) be worried about.

Also, you could be worried about the vast amounts of methane trapped in arctic circles, because it is far more potent than CO2.

But you can't trick people into paying trillions of shekels if you focus on methane.
This should give food for thought, even for the most ingenious among us.

Unlike you, I have a solid scientific background with degrees in relevant fields of study. And that's the reason why I'm not falling for this insupportable theory.

The way you two are trying to convince people without factual information, makes me wonder, whether you're in on the scam. But maybe it's just lack of horizon and you don't know any better.

It's your turn now, but please spare me the propaganda techniques (smearing, panicking, etc) and come up with something solid.

If you don't, this debate is over and it will be obvious who won this argument.

You're welcome.

One again, I think "Canewizard' has answered my original question.

It's worth noting the tone; use of cartoons; the characteristic memes; the seemingly obligatory insults following exposure, and the endless list of alternative 'facts' that are so readily assembled.

Interestingly, there's still no explanation from the source of the diatribe as to why this sort of stuff is being posted on the 'salmon fishing forum'? There's not a mention of water, rivers, lakes, fish, fishing, tackle ...or indeed Salmon!
 

Toasted heretic

Well-known member
Messages
2,451
Reaction score
32
The only ones making fools of themselves with rudimentary half-knowledge, are you two clowns.

Your 98% lie has already been refuted by 'toasted heretic', but since I'm the one who's actually looking for facts instead of an emotional overreaction, here's an article for you, explaining how the 98% came to pass.

Greatest Hoax of 21st Century! 98% Scientists DO NOT Believe Climate Change is Man-Made

'The 98% lie comes from a 2009 American Geophysical Union survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey that was sent to 10,257 scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois.'

'The widely used survey was sent to only 10,000 scientists. Only 3,000 of those came back and only 77 peer-reviewed climate scientists actually participated!'

'There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis. Yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.'

So what you're trying to sell is, that the opinion of 77 climate scientists outweighs 30k scientists who distance themselves from manmade climate change?

Over 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change A Hoax | Humans Are Free

I do, however, believe that we are destroying habitat and biodiversity on a unprecedented scale with all the synthetic chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, etc.

That's something you should (and could justifiedly) be worried about.

Also, you could be worried about the vast amounts of methane trapped in arctic circles, because it is far more potent than CO2.

But you can't trick people into paying trillions of shekels if you focus on methane.
This should give food for thought, even for the most ingenious among us.

Unlike you, I have a solid scientific background with degrees in relevant fields of study. And that's the reason why I'm not falling for this insupportable theory.

The way you two are trying to convince people without factual information, makes me wonder, whether you're in on the scam. But maybe it's just lack of horizon and you don't know any better.

It's your turn now, but please spare me the propaganda techniques (smearing, panicking, etc) and come up with something solid.

If you don't, this debate is over and it will be obvious who won this argument.

You're welcome.

Not sure how you can construe my post as having in any way supported your supposition, the study you're referencing is over twenty years old with the shakiest possible methodology from a source that provided advice for parrents concerned by socialist ideology within the education system.
The amended percentile I reference is well below what is broadly observed as placebo / background in any population level study..
 

Canewizard

New member
Messages
396
Reaction score
0
You're free to believe whatever you want.
I have to say tho, I find it kind of funny, that you're still not coming up with an argument but call me a troll instead. And then you wonder, why I call you a shill and use a meme or two.
This has never been about denying climate change, but the IPCC's consensus that most/all of it since the 50's is manmade and the scam behind it to rip people off with their carbon credit scheme (Trillions).
For those interested I'll attach a presentation of Lord Christopher Monckton, you might want to listen to. I suppose you AGW afficionados won't listen to it, but make some more snarky comments instead, but that's okay.
I'll look back in 40 years, laughing and knowing I (and millions of others) were right all along.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uma-w6caJhY&t=307s
 
Last edited:

Deepwading

Member
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
Time for a 'Deep clean' of this Forum?

You're free to believe whatever you want.
I have to say tho, I find it kind of funny, that you're still not coming up with an argument but call me a troll instead. And then you wonder, why I call you a shill and use a meme or two.
This has never been about denying climate change, but the IPCC's consensus that most/all of it since the 50's is manmade and the scam behind it to rip people off with their carbon credit scheme (Trillions).
For those interested I'll attach a presentation of Lord Christopher Monckton, you might want to listen to. I suppose you AGW afficionados won't listen to it, but make some more snarky comments instead, but that's okay.
I'll look back in 40 years, laughing and knowing I (and millions of others) were right all along.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uma-w6caJhY&t=307s

Nope - still no mention of fish, fishing, rivers, water etc.

No cartoons in this latest one (thankfully), but an interesting (and very telling) use of language.
All suggests a source far away from UK shores perhaps?
 

tom_o_m

Member
Messages
62
Reaction score
4
I shouldn't rise to it, I know, but fine. Evidence.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Oh and I worked on energy infrastructure agreements, at DECC, so natural gas pipelines. Hence pointing out I was not a climate change expert.

The two of you are a right pair, insulting random people from the comfort of your home. It is a shame on such a pleasant and engaging forum to find people like you.
 

tom_o_m

Member
Messages
62
Reaction score
4
Here's the direct quote from Nasa:

Scientific Consensus
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
 

Birkin

Well-known member
Messages
2,905
Reaction score
804
Location
Cheshire
So you’re educated, but would still rather listen to trump supporting computer scientist with political ambition, rather than 98% of the scientific community?
The science is clear, the cause and the drivers are clearly understood. There is no argument, it’s not a case of belief. You can either understand a scientific fact or ignore it formulating whatever conspiratorial nonsense that fits your prerogative..
Scientific information can be interpreted in whichever way you want to as proved by our friend Mr Jaffa with regard to salmon farming.
 

Jonsey

Well-known member
Messages
371
Reaction score
275
Location
Wild west of Wales
Scientific information can be interpreted in whichever way you want to as proved by our friend Mr Jaffa with regard to salmon farming.

A fact is a statement that can be verified. It can be proven to be true or false through objective evidence. An opinion is a statement that expresses a feeling, an attitude, a value judgment, or a belief. Climate change at the rate we are currently witnessing it is driven by Human beings, fact..
 

mows

Well-known member
Messages
4,472
Reaction score
3,606
Location
edzell
A fact is a statement that can be verified. It can be proven to be true or false through objective evidence. An opinion is a statement that expresses a feeling, an attitude, a value judgment, or a belief. Climate change at the rate we are currently witnessing it is driven by Human beings, fact..
Honest, I'd agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.

A fact is 100%. Show me the science that claims 100%.
 

SJF

Member
Messages
79
Reaction score
18
Keep yer head in the Sand as long as you like - but that won't stop it!

"Anthropogenic climate change evidence reaches ‘gold standard’
By Jack Loughran

Published Tuesday, February 26, 2019

Evidence that human activities are responsible for climate change has reached a “gold standard”, making it virtually irrefutable from a scientific perspective, researchers say.

Their confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level they said. This is a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the current evidence will be proved to be incorrect.

Such a “gold standard” was applied in 2012, for instance, to confirm the discovery of the Higgs boson subatomic particle, a basic building block of the universe.

The research could increase pressure on governments to cut their carbon emissions. US President Donald Trump has often cast doubt on global warming and plans to pull out of the 197-nation Paris climate agreement which seeks to end the fossil fuel era this century by shifting to cleaner energies such as wind and solar power.

“Humanity cannot afford to ignore such clear signals,” the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory-led team wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change, referring to satellite measurements of rising temperatures over the past 40 years."


Full article here - and all over other newspapers today.


Anthropogenic climate change evidence reaches ‘gold standard’ | E&ampT Magazine
 
Last edited:

salarchaser

Well-known member
Messages
3,716
Reaction score
2,698
Location
Cheshire
In my opinion (Not fact) man has ideas of grandeur if he thinks he can materially change climate.
In the past, before man walked the earth, the temperature has been significantly warmer and significantly colder than it is right now.
What / who is to say we are not just experiencing standard fluctuations (whatever they may be) that have been experienced down the millennia?
There are forces at work within our planet far greater than man can currently exhibit.
A lot of people make a lot of money out of presenting / publishing information. If everyone agreed or expressed the same view, how would all these academics make a living?

Eggs are bad for you/ eggs are nutritious/ eggs increase cholesterol/ eggs are full of protein and help you lose weight / etc/ etc/ etc......

:confused:

Always thought the summer's were a lot hotter in the 70s. Drier in the 70s.

You can draw trendline and extrapolate, take other sets of data and interpolate and draw a different trendline.
What data set do you want to give you what result?

I blame Brexit myself, and cows.
 

Isisalar

Well-known member
Messages
1,156
Reaction score
403
Location
North west London
"We're all doomed unless we take drastic action. Pay some extra taxes though and that will help stop the weather"

Salvation is at hand chaps, the ISIS bride thread can even be resurrected.
A new App Dissenter | Comment On Any URL Online is up and running, part of Gab. Copy and paste any page URL into the site and you can start a discussion.
Guaranteed no censorship at all, no thread closing, no mods. Popular threads remain at the top, unpopular ones sink to the bottom.
 
Last edited:

bluejay

Active member
Messages
243
Reaction score
33
mows,
Yes, I'd say its time for some inconvenience, some real inconvenience this time!
 
Top