Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

Grizzly 45

civdef wrote: »

Well it’s fairly clear which side of the debate you fall on here- but will you admit that the number of real scientists (lets define that as people with PhDs in peer reviewed journals in a relevant topic) on one side massively outnumber the other?

No, I wil not admit that Civ, and I will also not let you set the narrative on it either.
As you well know there are more than enough qualified professors,PhDs and whatnot in various fields related to climate change that say this is just so much horse manure as well.
But obviously, we should swallow and not question the narrative of the great majority of climate alarmists with Phds who have been caught faking their data, and haven't once been right since 1964 in their doom sayings.

That's not science that's a CULT indoctrination technique.
Used by doomsaying cults to keep their sheep fleeced on when their version of end times didn't happen but have an excuse as to why the next prophecy will happen, and of course, it is hearsay and blasphemy to question the prophecies. Be it on the coming of the end times or that mankind will be doomed,on any arbitrary date it seems between 1964 and now 2050.
Is this the "A blind chicken will find occasionally some grains too"methodology?

If you consider that " Respectable and factual science" well then ....:rolleyes:

Please refute and explain why "science" has been wrong on all of these occasions when we were "all gonna die" events in the last 56 years?

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

otmmyboy2

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Please refute and explain why "science" has been wrong on all of these occasions when we were "all gonna die" events in the last 56 years?

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

I remember my geography teacher in secondary school when climate change came up that he had been told the same by his teachers, a good 45 years previous lol :P

civdef

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

No, I wil not admit that Civ, and I will also not let you set the narrative on it either.
As you well know there are more than enough qualified professors,PhDs and whatnot in various fields related to climate change that say this is just so much horse manure

Tell ya what- I’ll propose a number. 97%
To give myself a bit of credibility I’ll also provide some references.
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

Mellor

BattleCorp wrote: »

Is it a lawful request for the cops to ask you to step out of the car if they think you don't have the correct 'tag'?

If they believed the tag was incorrect or fake. Standard procedure would be to look up the tag on the system before approaching the car. So very hard to add any credit to the idea the tag was incorrect.

If they couldn’t see it. I’d expect them to at least look in the rear window before going on the offensive with a firearm and pepper spray.
Even if the request to pull over was lawful. His actions on the side of the road are why he was fired.

Mellor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Please refute and explain why "science" has been wrong on all of these occasions when we were "all gonna die" events in the last 56 years?

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

Those are newspaper headlines. Not scientific papers.

Not to saying, scientific papers predictions have never been wrong. But it’s a bit silly to pull random headlines over a half century time span and claim they’ve never been right.
This claim has already been disproven on thread.

Rows Grower

Mellor wrote: »

Those are newspaper headlines. Not scientific papers.

Not to saying, scientific papers predictions have never been wrong. But it’s a bit silly to pull random headlines over a half century time span and claim they’ve never been right.
This claim has already been disproven on thread.

I didn't bother looking at the link (or even finish reading the post to be honest) which made your first two sentences very funny.

civdef

I don't think middle is on the cards here, and also if that Christmas 2021 lockdown does come to fruition I think the entire gov should be thrown out for mismanagement of this pile of manure.
21 months and still using the big stick, with evidently still no other plan or approach bar rolling lockdowns until some arbitrary vaccination number has been reached?
Come on, that is utterly pathetic.

I'm all ears for an alternative. As are every government in the world, I'd say. What do you know everyone else doesn't?

There's probably a Nobel prize in it for whoever works that one out.

otmmyboy2

civdef wrote: »

I'm all ears for an alternative. As are every government in the world, I'd say. What do you know everyone else doesn't?

There's probably a Nobel prize in it for whoever works that one out.

An alternative, you mean to rolling lockdowns?

Off the top of my head - reopening.

People who are vulnerable, uncomfortable with going back to normal life etc can cocoon if they wish, continue in self imposed lockdown, but let other people who are willing and able to restart their lives do so.

Let people manage their own levels of risk rather than trying to nanny everyone and vilifying & smearing those who disagree with you.

Look at other countries and their approaches to getting out of this lunatic lockdown cycle.

There are other ways of dealing with covid, the WHO even said lockdowns should not be used as the primary way to control it.

Is anyone going to deny that is exactly what our gov are doing and have been doing?

Fair enough in the beginning but 14 months later and looking on to 21 months later?

Doing the same thing again and again is ridiculous, so stop the rolling lockdowns and implement another policy!

Even our leaders and NPHET agree that a zero covid island is not a practical approach, so what is their strategy of rolling lockdowns aimed to achieve?

We cannot eradicate covid.
Whenever we reopen the country, our economy, industry etc it will re-emerge.

So what is their plan 14 months later?
Nada.
Zip.
Zilch.

Just talk of vaccines and "not ruling out another lockdown".

It is, as I said before, pathetic.

These are the people paid to(among other things) figure a way out of this and they have failed miserably.

Finally, "everyone else"?

Several other countries seem to have somewhat of a clue to getting out of lockdowns, so why not follow their leads?
They haven't even had as strict a lockdown as ours have been, and continue to be for the forseeable.

Texas recently re-opened, lifted it's mask mandate and their hospitalisations are going down.
Florida never locked down!
Sweden never locked down, only issued recommendations and guidelines.
The UK are reopening.
New cases in Germany are on the rise despite the highest mask mandate compliance in the EU.

After 14 months of trial there has to be some degree of retrospective analysis to see what worked and what did not. Look at the first to see should it be modified, and scrap the latter.

I also think it is interesting that from a 24 line post answering your previous query fully that you will pick out the final 4 lines to take issue with, but not the rest. :P

Grizzly 45

Mellor wrote: »

Those are newspaper headlines. Not scientific papers.

Not to saying, scientific papers predictions have never been wrong. But it’s a bit silly to pull random headlines over a half century time span and claim they’ve never been right.
This claim has already been disproven on thread.

Well please provide scientific papers " to refute them then? And please tell us which one of the varied and multiple scenarios have come even 50% true in the Climate alarmists predictions over the last 57 years?

civdef

I also think it is interesting that from a 24 line post answering your previous query fully that you will pick out the final 4 lines to take issue with, but not the rest. :P

I really hate those long line by line quote posts- and life is too short to be writing them.

If I thought your plan would work I’d be all for it. But it won’t.

Grizzly 45

civdef wrote: »

Tell ya what- I’ll propose a number. 97%
To give myself a bit of credibility I’ll also provide some references.
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

And let me debunk your 97% of scientists claim...Right here.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/

Even NASA has its own dissenters.
https://financialpost.com/business-insider/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change

THE SCIENCE is SETTLED!! Al Gore:D:D:D


"After 15 years in the top committee, I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective,""Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now."

Dr Patrick Moore Co-founder of Greenpeace
interview independent newspaper Feb 2014

civdef

You’ve just posted links to media stories again- but anyway give me a number you can point to?

That second Forbes article has some, as a starting point.

Grizzly 45

Oh!...How predictable was this?:rolleyes:;
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/pfizer-boss-says-third-dose-of-covid-19-vaccine-likely-needed-within-12-months-40319574.html

civdef

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Oh!...How predictable was this?:rolleyes:;
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/pfizer-boss-says-third-dose-of-covid-19-vaccine-likely-needed-within-12-months-40319574.html

That a coronavirus spreading across the world at an unprecedented rate would mutate sufficiently to need updated vaccines? Virtually a certainty.

Why the rolleyes?

Grizzly 45

civdef wrote: »

You’ve just posted links to media stories again- but anyway give me a number you can point to?

That second Forbes article has some, as a starting point.

And please provide me with ,one,factual,climate alarmist, event that actually happened in the period 1964 to2021IF you can. Surely ALL of these learned people and their reams of reports and thesis cant be ALL wrong to have not called one event correctly?;)
Also do explain why;
The Medieval warm period is always excluded from their research?

As is the period known as "the years without Summer" 536/539?Even chronicled in Ireland?

Why they will not allow anyone to research and verify their findings and analyse the raw data? After all isn't that part of science that anyone can replicate and confirm an experiment to prove its veracity?

Say who their sponsors of their research are?

otmmyboy2

civdef wrote: »

I really hate those long line by line quote posts- and life is too short to be writing them.

If I thought your plan would work I’d be all for it. But it won’t.

Great rebuttal, so much detail lol

Why even question if you don't want to bother with the reply :rolleyes:

Cass

civdef wrote: »

Tell ya what- I’ll propose a number. 97%

I'm going to tell Yubabill, he hates that number.

Its a lie, or more accurately a purposeful misrepresentation.

If you want more, including reference material, read this article from 2015.

Cass

Cass wrote: »

Here it is people. Best part is, and please God sense the sarcasm, anything and I mean anything that the Government find offensive will be banned.

The really scary part of all this is you don't have to be abusive or overtly threatening for it to be classed as hate speech. Even politely worded speech if deemed hateful or inciting hatred, BUT NOT THREATENING, will be prosecutable.

Well, its happening. The 2021 bill is on its way through the various stages, but will be a thing shortly.

otmmyboy2

Cass wrote: »

Well, its happening. The 2021 bill is on its way through the various stages, but will be a thing shortly.

Lovely.
A segregated society now featuring thought police.

Utterly lovely. :mad:

Cass

It'll be fun. Can't wait for the first court case.

otmmyboy2

Cass wrote: »

It'll be fun. Can't wait for the first court case.

Tell me about it.
Proposed text here-
https://assets.gov.ie/132606/94b418bb-83ae-49f6-bf51-cf38cf15c805.pdf

A person is guilty of an offence who –
communicates to the public or a section of the public by any means, for
the purpose of inciting, or being reckless as to whether such
communication will incite, hatred against another person or group of
people due to their real or perceived association with a protected
characteristic.

With protected characteristics being-

“protected characteristic” means race; colour; nationality; religion, ethnic or
national origin; sexual orientation; gender; or disability

That is crazy broad in its current stage. Can almost hear the solicitors and barristers furiously calculating their new earnings from this.

Cass

Most religions view homosexuality as an abomination and/or sin. So will expressing these religious views now be a crime?

Travellers have a disproportionately higher rate of incarceration by population size so is pointing this out a crime?

As for gender, are we going down that road here?

The intent bit is what bothers me. How do you prove what is in someone's head? I see the, in my view, ridiculous theory of unconscious bias so is this going to be used as a reason for prosecution?

I just don't get hate crime. Crime is hateful so why put special circumstances based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Surely its heinous regardless of the "persuasion" of the victim? IOW if assaulting someone gets you 5 years why does it turn into 10 because they're black, white, green or pink? It'll open the door for people to claim every assault (physical or otherwise) on them is due to some form of "-ism".

tudderone

I was verbally abused for being white, in dublin, but let me guess, thats not covered by this Orwellian nonsense ? What is hate crime anyway ? They seriously want to give people six months because someones feelings got hurt.

Cass

Cass wrote: »

Priceless.

Anti white, blm co-founder who is a self described communist buys a $1.4 million house in a 90% white neighbourhood with only a 1.7% black population. blm took in over $90 million in donations last year and even her own have attacked her because as one said "i'm trying to buy cots for elderly people to keep them of the floor and you spend millions on a house, in a white neighbourhood".

Facebook, and i presume other media will follow suit, are blocking the sharing or posting of this story and even blocking the news paper that broke the story from posting it.

On a related note Twitter banned Project Veritas for their expose on CNN.

But not to worry, nothing to see here, no bias, no agenda. Move along. :rolleyes:

otmmyboy2

tudderone wrote: »

I was verbally abused for being white, in dublin, but let me guess, thats not covered by this Orwellian nonsense ? What is hate crime anyway ? They seriously want to give people six months because someones feelings got hurt.

Oh no, that'd be mad.

It's up to 12 months summary, up to 5 years indictment.
And that lovely class A fine(5k on summary). :rolleyes:

I cannot think of a single person in my life who hasn't been verbally abused for something on that protected list.

Mellor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well please provide scientific papers " to refute them then? And please tell us which one of the varied and multiple scenarios have come even 50% true in the Climate alarmists predictions over the last 57 years?

They are sensationalist headlines, misunderstandings and exaggerations. I don’t need scientific backing to point that out.
I’m refuting your claims not the headlines themselves.

And I’m sure plenty of scientific studies have proven accurate - not all of course. I don’t claim to know them all. But off the top of my head one that stands out is the idea that;
CFCs and similar fluorocarbons are depleting the ozone layer.
We stopped using them, depletion stopped and has even now begun to regenerate. Fairly clear example of the scientific community being correct.

So course you still get science deniers and conspiracy theorist claiming it coincidently spontaneously regenerated. Nothing you can do about those types.

Grizzly 45

Mellor wrote: »

They are sensationalist headlines, misunderstandings and exaggerations. I don’t need scientific backing to point that out.
I’m refuting your claims not the headlines themselves.

Well refute them...provide some proof that these learned papers were correct and that we would have an ice age by the year 2000...because I seem to have missed that one. Or that the climate alarmist spokesman Al Gore, who assuredly would be well informed by science on this topic claimed that the arctic ice would be gone by 2006 [now postponed to 2030]and the sea levels would be swamping his newly acquired beachfront house in the same year?
No proof to dispute these ...you have no argument...Next point...

And I’m sure plenty of scientific studies have proven accurate - not all of course.

How about 99% of them since 1964 written by supposed experts in their fields? Show me ONE demontrateable doom prediction that came 100% true and accurate in that time frame?

I don’t claim to know them all. But off the top of my head one that stands out is the idea that;

Good that you used that particular phrase.

CFCs and similar fluorocarbons are depleting the ozone layer.
We stopped using them, depletion stopped and has even now begun to regenerate. Fairly clear example of the scientific community being correct.
So course you still get science deniers and conspiracy theorist claiming it coincidently spontaneously regenerated. Nothing you can do about those type

Jurys out on that one too.
Just as much as you get climate alarmists claiming it was a problem in the first place, and can neither prove or disprove that manmade CFCs caused this hole, that it isn't there naturally or is a requirement for the planet healths. Or can explain how a pretty much post1940s product suddenly amounted to megatonnage use to create this problem.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

Most religions view homosexuality as an abomination and/or sin. So will expressing these religious views now be a crime?

Travellers have a disproportionately higher rate of incarceration by population size so is pointing this out a crime?

As for gender, are we going down that road here?

The intent bit is what bothers me. How do you prove what is in someone's head? I see the, in my view, ridiculous theory of unconscious bias so is this going to be used as a reason for prosecution?

I just don't get hate crime. Crime is hateful so why put special circumstances based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Surely its heinous regardless of the "persuasion" of the victim? IOW if assaulting someone gets you 5 years why does it turn into 10 because they're black, white, green or pink? It'll open the door for people to claim every assault (physical or otherwise) on them is due to some form of "-ism".

Maybe we should found a "church of the gun owner and field sports" and avail of this legal protection here?The antis are already trying it on with
" the church of the fox" in the UK. We could already claim this group is a congregation and we have been accused pf being "gun worshippers".So tack onto that "and proud of it!" We get the mods signed up as Reverends,and we already have the makings of a religion.

Mellor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well refute them...provide some proof that these learned papers were correct and that we would have an ice age by the year 2000...because I seem to have missed that one. Or that the climate alarmist spokesman Al Gore, who assuredly would be well informed by science on this topic claimed that the arctic ice would be gone by 2006 [now postponed to 2030]and the sea levels would be swamping his newly acquired beachfront house in the same year?
No proof to dispute these ...you have no argument...Next point...

Read what I said. I’m not disputing the headlines. I’m disputing your claims. That’s not difficult to grasp.

Papers sensationalise studies all the time. Of course misinterpreted studies won’t come true.
To present random headlines as scientific consensus is frankly laughable.

How about 99% of them since 1964 written by supposed experts in their fields? Show me ONE demontrateable doom prediction that came 100% true and accurate in that time frame?

You do realise that predictions are made based on the situation at the time.The idea is we act, and prevent it from happening.
If we do act, and prevent something. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t accurate. I didn’t think I’d have to point that out, but here we are.

Jurys out on that one too.
Just as much as you get climate alarmists claiming it was a problem in the first place, and can neither prove or disprove that manmade CFCs caused this hole, that it isn't there naturally or is a requirement for the planet healths. Or can explain how a pretty much post1940s product suddenly amounted to megatonnage use to create this problem.

Just to clarify, are you claiming that the ozone hole was never as big as they said?
Or that it hasn’t gotten smaller?

BattleCorp

tudderone wrote: »

I was verbally abused for being white, in dublin, but let me guess, thats not covered by this Orwellian nonsense ? What is hate crime anyway ? They seriously want to give people six months because someones feelings got hurt.

This legislation is the equivalent of the 'idon'tlikedelookofdat' that's embedded in firearms legislation.