More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

Pete

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Jim Craik said:
So Pete, now you admit that you see this as an "argument", where you only take one side.

Like I said, you have no interest in the truth, no interest in finding facts, you just want to win the "argument".

Pete, you say:

"Why the fuck would I post anything that supports his argument?"

My argument is that I do not know..........

Since Pete admits that he does not care about the truth, he only want to win the "argument"....

I think any post by Pete should be taken for what he says they are.....

One sided, cherry picked data only designed to win an "argument".
Click to expand...

Jim show me where I said that I do not care about the truth!

I firmly believe the truth is that Al Gore the IPPC and your Government do not give a toss about the climate but only about the redistribution of wealth and lining their pockets at the expense of the sheeple.
 
Jim Craik

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Pete, the only support to ANY side I have given is that we are obviously warming, what is the cause for that, I DO NOT KNOW!!!!

You are as bad as Mr Gore, he is absolutly certain that it is all man, your view is that man has nothing to do with it.

You both can not be right, but you both are likey wrong.
 
Last edited:
B

Brian Stewart
Supporter
Larry L. said:
I'd go with Pete looooooooong before believing anything Gore says.

Deepening divide over climate change sparks fierce debate | Fox News

'Just askin'...
Click to expand...

As I have said many times before - check the source. Some of the people Doug McKelway quotes in his article obviously haven't checked theirs. I've had a quick scan of the NIPCC report (all 1062 pages) and it offers very little in the way of new evidence. Most of the report simply regurgitates stuff we have known for some time, in many cases for better than 100 years (CO2 helps plants grow, etc). No-one disputes this stuff. However, they do put an anti-AGW spin on the findings of a huge number of the papers they cite, despite the fact that the authors are supporters of Anthropogenic Climate Change (e.g. Phil Jones). I took a little more interest in the chapter on aquatic life, since that is my specialist area. Some of the interpretations they put on some papers are tenuous at best or just plain wrong and fly in the face of what the authors, some of whom are friends on mine, have concluded. Further, they ignore many, many papers by researchers who have come up with findings completely contrary to what they have published.

Of course it would be naive of me to suggest that the "warmist" camp don't do this too.

Unfortunately, the lack of peer review means that anyone can publish pretty much anything on the web. The trick is to do the research to sort the chaff from the hay. Unless I can verify the source I seldom believe anything I read on the web.

The fact remains that published peer reviewed papers supporting Anthropogenic Climate Change currently outnumber those refuting it by eight or nine to one (and not because that's where the money is - do you really think the "skeptic" side is not extremely well funded also?). Some very high profile "skeptics" such as Bjorn Lomborg have changed sides in recent years and I suspect that will continue as the evidence mounts.
 
Jim Craik

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Pete said:
Jim show me where I said that I do not care about the truth!
Click to expand...

Pete, someone who cared about the truth would actually know that both sides have valid points. Someone who cared about the truth would not say....

"Why the fuck would I post anything that supports his argument?"

Someone who cared about the "TRUTH" would not continually post only one side of a discussion.
 
L

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
brianstewart said:
The fact remains that published peer reviewed papers supporting Anthropogenic Climate Change currently outnumber those refuting it...
Click to expand...

Back in the day, the number of those supporting the idea that the earth was flat out numbered those who thought it was round, too. Ditto the pros and cons regarding the EARTH being the center of the universe.

I ask again - what happened to the ICE AGE we were told was all but upon us in the 1970s?

Eeeeeeeeh, heck with it. I ended my "vacation" too soon. I'm resuming it...
 
B

Brian Stewart
Supporter
Larry L. said:
Back in the day, the number of those supporting the idea that the earth was flat out numbered those who thought it was round, too. Ditto the pros and cons regarding the EARTH being the center of the universe.
Click to expand...

Exactly the sort of argument I would make Larry. It's just the same. You simply use the wrong start point. The flat earthers gradually came round as more evidence piled up and we are now at the stage where most agree it is round. When climate change (or the ozone hole) was first suggested, very few people were convinced and most said "no way we could have that much influence". I was one of them. Now however, the evidence for climate change and our involvement in it is becoming more and more compelling year by year.
 
A

Al Wohlstrom

Jim Craik said:
Al,

Show us some examples is where I supported both sides.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Originally Posted by Jim Craik View Post
So Pete, now you admit that you see this as an "argument", where you only take one side.

Like I said, you have no interest in the truth, no interest in finding facts, you just want to win the "argument".

Pete, you say:

"Why the fuck would I post anything that supports his argument?"

My argument is that I do not know..........

Since Pete admits that he does not care about the truth, he only want to win the "argument"....

I think any post by Pete should be taken for what he says they are.....

One sided, cherry picked data only designed to win an "argument".
 
Pete

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Jim Craik said:
Pete, someone who cared about the truth would actually know that both sides have valid points. Someone who cared about the truth would not say....

"Why the fuck would I post anything that supports his argument?"

Someone who cared about the "TRUTH" would not continually post only one side of a discussion.
Click to expand...

So when have you ever posted something that was against the warmists point of view?
You are up to your old trick of bringing in diversionary tactics.
 
Jim Craik

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Pete said:
So when have you ever posted something that was against the warmists point of view?
You are up to your old trick of bringing in diversionary tactics.
Click to expand...

Pete,

I do not post on this subject because I do not know enough to be sure, but I do comment on others posts. I'm happy to point out the absudity of people who profess to KNOW IT ALL.

Believe me, if we had folks posting non-stop warmer propaganda, I would be all over them.

But the funny thing is no one posts warmer propaganda, we only get you flat earth guys:)
 
Last edited:
L

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
brianstewart said:
Exactly the sort of argument I would make Larry. It's just the same. You simply use the wrong start point. The flat earthers gradually came round as more evidence piled up and we are now at the stage where most agree it is round. When climate change (or the ozone hole) was first suggested, very few people were convinced and most said "no way we could have that much influence". I was one of them. Now however, the evidence for climate change and our involvement in it is becoming more and more compelling year by year.
Click to expand...

You evidently missed my point, which was: Just because a "majority" believes 'W-Y-Z' does NOT necessarily mean their view is correct.

But, again - what happened to that '70s "Ice Age"?

(Crap! What happened to my darned "vaycay"!!!?)
 
Pete

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Jim Craik said:
Pete,

I do not post on this subject because I do not know enough to be sure, but I do point out the absudity of people who profess to KNOW IT ALL.

Believe me, if we had folks posting non-stop warmer propaganda, I would be all over them.

But the funny thing is no one posts warmer propaganda, we only get you flat earth guys:)
Click to expand...

You do not post on this subject!:laugh: Now I know you are suffering from memory loss.
 
K

Keith

Moderator
Jim Craik said:
Pete,

I do not post on this subject because I do not know enough to be sure, but I do comment on others posts. I'm happy to point out the absudity of people who profess to KNOW IT ALL.

Believe me, if we had folks posting non-stop warmer propaganda, I would be all over them.

But the funny thing is no one posts warmer propaganda, we only get you flat earth guys:)
Click to expand...

If we applied that rule globally, the world's media, including the internet, would be silenced. How can you possibly critique others' posts if you are NOT in possession of all, or much of the relevant knowledge? (Which no one is for sure)

You have just admitted that rather than debate about the issues, you continually take a personal contrary approach against the actual people that post their opinions.


Sorry Jim but you just outed yourself.
 
A

Al Wohlstrom

What is really funny is that the same people that are pushing climate change/global warming were preaching about an Ice age in the late 70s and early 80s. The end result for both was redistributing "other peoples money".
 
Pete

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Spot on Al, this entire scam has nothing to do with saving the planet and everything to do with lining the pockets of the Chardonnay Socialists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

blueovalz
Science vs Beliefs
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
8K
Larry L.
L
Pete
Is the Carbon Emissions /Global warming thing B.S.
2
Replies
27
Views
6K
bannedleader
B
Back
Top