Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Climate Change - General Discussion : Read the Mod Note in post #1 before posting

13567…27

Comments

  • #102
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    gabeeg wrote: »
    Here's the thing, lads, you need to explain how and why there is a global conspiracy amongst scientists of all stripes to push this agenda.
    How did they manage to pull this amazing con off, and how do they continue to further indoctrinate students entering the field on an ongoing basis.

    Without that, you don't have a leg to stand on


    I think I explained it pretty well in this post, particularly the part where I linked to the UN page which gives an overview of its aims about using climate change and it's IPCC scientists as a lever to modify the global economic capitalist system.


    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105937954&postcount=88

    Thing is, it's done in the open. No data from most of the world, data that is there gets adjusted to suit the narrative.

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-land-sfc-mntp/201712.gif


    The one thing I'd pull you up on is your contention that scientists of all stripes are pushing the agenda.

    There's no evidence to suggest that the world's 8 million scientists are involved.

    The UN's IPCC is restricted to just a couple of thousand politically motivated scientists collectively drafting summaries for politicians.


  • #103
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,268 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Dakota Dan wrote:
    You must be living a very modest lifestyle.


    You d be surprised the amount of people that think climate change is complete nonsense, it was upsetting to hear the doomsday clock was advanced again yesterday, one of the reasons cited was indeed climate change.


  • #104
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    You d be surprised the amount of people that think climate change is complete nonsense, it was upsetting to hear the doomsday clock was advanced again yesterday, one of the reasons cited was indeed climate change.

    ??? Please elaborate


  • #105
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,268 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Gaoth Laidir wrote:
    ??? Please elaborate


    For some strange reason I'm unable to post Link, tis all over the internets, including rte

    edit:

    https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0125/936016-doomsday-clock/


  • #106
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    ??? Please elaborate


    The end is nigh. Sort of.

    The usual stuff inter-generational stuff, fretting about nuclear war etc.

    Read it listening to Two Tribes by Frankie Goes to Hollywood for full effect;)


    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-42823734


  • #107
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,268 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    dense wrote: »
    The end is nigh. Sort of.

    The usual stuff inter-generational stuff, fretting about nuclear war etc.

    Read it listening to Two Tribes by Frankie Goes to Hollywood for full effect;)


    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-42823734

    very reputable scientific organisation, regularly cited by well respected academics including noam chomsky. the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists have now included environmental issues in their review system. even though i expected this advancement of the clock, its still disturbing to see it happen.


  • #108
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,725 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    The doomsday clock is a political device, not a scientific one. It's great for highlighting to the public what the most pressing existential concerns for human civilization are, but it's not going to convince anyone who doesn't accept that these problems are real.
    It's what happens when scientists try to make a political point, but It's an inherently unscientific exercise because they're putting probabilities onto events that have no precedence in history.

    What is the actual probability of a nuclear war? Well, there has never been one, and there might never be one, so it's all just assumptions based on guesses without any objective way of justifying the risk.

    Humans can create predictive models of nature and tamper with them by changing the variables and validating them with regression testing against known outcomes, these models can come up with a good approximation of what the likely outcomes will be, but to do that with political systems creates an infinite spin off of counter factual histories that can never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction. So when you have a natural process that is intrinsically linked to human action, then the doomsday clock becomes less scientific and more mystic meg.

    That said, even the science doesn't convince certain types of people who believe in one world government and massive conspiracies to falsify temperature records as evidenced by certain posters on here who trawl through websites looking for headlines they can take totally and utterly out of context.


  • #109
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,268 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The doomsday clock is a political device, not a scientific one. It's great for highlighting to the public what the most pressing concerns for human civilization are, but it's not going to convince anyone who doesn't accept that these problems are real.

    That said, even the science doesn't convince certain types of people who believe in one world government and massive conspiracies to falsify temperature records as evidenced by certain posters on here who trawl through websites looking for headlines they can take totally and utterly out of context.

    am i right in saying many scientists are indeed on the board of the atomic sciences?


  • #110
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,725 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    am i right in saying many scientists are indeed on the board of the atomic sciences?

    Yeah, they're scientists, and they're trying to approach it using a scientific methodology, but the outcome of a 'doomsday clock' is unscientific because there is no scientific justification for putting that hand at 2 minutes to midnight, or 90 seconds to midnight. There is no scientific way of calculating if the human species will be extinct or civillisation will end in a hundred years or a million years.

    The doomsday clock is a measure of how worried these scientists are, but worry isn't a scientific measurement.

    We should probably take notice of it, but not use it as a primary argument, but rather look at the individual underlying justifications for why these scientists feel so worried and assess what if anything we can or should do to reduce those risks.


  • #111
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,268 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Yeah, they're scientists, and they're trying to approach it using a scientific methodology, but the outcome of a 'doomsday clock' is unscientific because there is no scientific justification for putting that hand at 2 minutes to midnight, or 90 seconds to midnight. There is no scientific way of calculating if the human species will be extinct or civillisation will end in a hundred years or a million years.

    The doomsday clock is a measure of how worried these scientists are, but worry isn't a scientific measurement.

    We should probably take notice of it, but not use it as a primary argument, but rather look at the individual underlying justifications for why these scientists feel so worried and assess what if anything we can or should do to reduce those risks.

    some good points alright, even your own arguments about climate change are enough to justify this advancement in my opinion


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    The fact that this has been brought up as an attempt at a discussion on climate change is laughable. Unbelievable...


  • #113
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    very reputable scientific organisation, regularly cited by well respected academics including noam chomsky. the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists have now included environmental issues in their review system. even though i expected this advancement of the clock, its still disturbing to see it happen.

    Hyperbole at its finest.


  • #114
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,725 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    The fact that this has been brought up as an attempt at a discussion on climate change is laughable. Unbelievable...

    We should stick to the science and if 97% of the published science supports the mainstream view, then you should be able to put forward a very strong defence if you choose to believe a contrarian who has an outlier position. On what basis is the outlier more likely to be true than the mainstream established science?



  • #115
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,725 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    The fact that this has been brought up as an attempt at a discussion on climate change is laughable. Unbelievable...

    I note you're not so quick to admonish when someone on your 'side' of the debate puts forward a transparently terrible 'analysis'

    Some of the 'arguments' put forward against climate change on this thread are nothing but a 'one world government' conspiracy theory and blatant misrepresentation of the sources.


  • #116
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Akrasia wrote: »
    We should probably take notice of it,

    No, we really shouldn't. If I want some quality political advice and analysis, the last people I would listen to are scientists. They can shove their 'dooms day' prediction up their backside, which is where they pulled it from in the first place.

    New Moon



  • #117
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    dense wrote: »

    Read it listening to Two Tribes by Frankie Goes to Hollywood for full effect;)


    'Rage Hard' would be better!


    "Though laughter of angels resounding
    From heaven keep fighting the favours
    of charlatan saviours, charlatan saviours"


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9AXDPCWics

    New Moon



  • #118
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    We should stick to the science and if 97% of the published science...

    That's a very big IF. Too big, in fact.


  • #119
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    I note you're not so quick to admonish when someone on your 'side' of the debate puts forward a transparently terrible 'analysis'

    Some of the 'arguments' put forward against climate change on this thread are nothing but a 'one world government' conspiracy theory and blatant misrepresentation of the sources.

    I assume you're talking about dense? From what I have seen he has backed up every point with references, none of which, by the way, you have been able to discredit. I don't go for the one world conspiracy nonsense, so on that we agree, but looking at the science overall I believe that climate sensitivity is lower than widely accepted (by your 97% or otherwise), and definitely believe that the horror stories being portrayed by the likes of yourself, but especially Wanderer and his wheel of misfortune, are grossly exaggerated to the point of being hysterical.


  • #120
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,268 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    I assume you're talking about dense? From what I have seen he has backed up every point with references, none of which, by the way, you have been able to discredit. I don't go for the one world conspiracy nonsense, so on that we agree, but looking at the science overall I believe that climate sensitivity is lower than widely accepted (by your 97% or otherwise), and definitely believe that the horror stories being portrayed by the likes of yourself, but especially Wanderer and his wheel of misfortune, are grossly exaggerated to the point of being hysterical.

    fair enough:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/11/climate-scientists-emit-30000-tonnes-c02

    New Moon



  • #122
    gabeeg
    Registered Users Posts: 1,591 ✭✭✭gabeeg


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    I assume you're talking about dense? From what I have seen he has backed up every point with references, none of which, by the way, you have been able to discredit. I don't go for the one world conspiracy nonsense, so on that we agree, but looking at the science overall I believe that climate sensitivity is lower than widely accepted (by your 97% or otherwise), and definitely believe that the horror stories being portrayed by the likes of yourself, but especially Wanderer and his wheel of misfortune, are grossly exaggerated to the point of being hysterical.

    No one bothered to discredit Denses links because no one read past the first headline or paragraph.
    Why? Because it's the same one world conspiracy nonsense you dismiss yourself.


  • #123
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    gabeeg wrote: »
    No one bothered to discredit Denses links because no one read past the first headline or paragraph.
    Why? Because it's the same one world conspiracy nonsense you dismiss yourself.

    If you don't bother to read all opinion on the topic then that says a lot.


  • #124
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,725 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/11/climate-scientists-emit-30000-tonnes-c02

    Is this supposed to be evidence that climate scientists don't believe their own research?

    What other point could you be making?


  • #125
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,725 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    I assume you're talking about dense? From what I have seen he has backed up every point with references, none of which, by the way, you have been able to discredit.
    Did you read any of his sources? Did you find any credible? or of the credible ones, did they actually support his argument?

    I don't go for the one world conspiracy nonsense, so on that we agree, but looking at the science overall I believe that climate sensitivity is lower than widely accepted (by your 97% or otherwise), and definitely believe that the horror stories being portrayed by the likes of yourself, but especially Wanderer and his wheel of misfortune, are grossly exaggerated to the point of being hysterical.
    We're already at 1 - 1.2 degrees above pre industrial temperatures. 1.5 degrees was supposed to be the limit to avoid serious long term consequences. You should know how much energy is encapsulated in a 1 degree global average temperature increase. Its enormous, and way beyond natural fluctuations on this timescale.

    I hope that climate sensitivity is low, but i fear that it might be higher. If you can assuage my fears by showing me where this extra energy from radiative forcing via ghgs ends up, I'll be happy to join the optimistic side of the global warming argument.

    As far as I can tell, thermohaline currents subducting heat into the deep ocean is the only plausible mechanism for mitigating radiative forcing, but all the best oceanographers I've ever come across are amongst the least optimistic about global warming


  • #126
    George Sunsnow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,043 ✭✭✭George Sunsnow


    To be fair
    Pre industrial instruments were weak compared to today’s and few and far between
    Bring today’s to pre industrial times and prehistoric times and do a like for like comparison before panicking or before being hoodwinked by disingenuous hobby horse riding tax collectors

    Being sensible rather than panicking is the way forward here
    Panicking leads to perhaps rushed less thought out decisions and mistakes


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    gabeeg
    Registered Users Posts: 1,591 ✭✭✭gabeeg


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    If you don't bother to read all opinion on the topic then that says a lot.

    I quite literally don't have the time to read all the mulch coming out of global conspiracy theorists.

    Just like you


  • #128
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    As some may be aware of, I've had little luck getting a relevant response from the Think or swim blogsite.

    I've also submitted my query to this weblog, but no reply, as yet.

    http://www.caraaugustenborg.com/latest-news/long-live-the-status-quo-behind-the-scenes-of-a-tv-climate-debate#comments

    I'll keep checking.


    The next port of call was the Citizens Assembly on Climate Change, today.


    I asked the same questions I've asked at the other two activist sites, this time as a research enquiry.

    "To whom it concerns,

    I am undertaking independent climate change research, initially intended for online publication, and potentially in print.

    Two quick questions for the Citizens Assembly on Climate Change.

    Has the Assembly ascertained the percentage of global climate change attributable to Ireland?

    And separately, has the Assembly ascertained what percentage of global climate change can be averted should the proposals formulated by the Citizens Assembly on Climate Change be implemented in Ireland?

    Thank you in advance"

    Maybe it'll be a case of third time lucky.

    I'll keep everyone posted on the response, or lack of one.

    If you have the time, and are concerned about your own "Carbon Footprint", why not ask these questions of other activists?


  • #129
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,725 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    As some may be aware of, I've had little luck getting a relevant response from the Think or swim blogsite.

    I've also submitted my query to this weblog, but no reply, as yet.

    http://www.caraaugustenborg.com/latest-news/long-live-the-status-quo-behind-the-scenes-of-a-tv-climate-debate#comments

    I'll keep checking.


    The next port of call was the Citizens Assembly on Climate Change, today.


    I asked the same questions I've asked at the other two activist sites, this time as a research enquiry.

    "To whom it concerns,

    I am undertaking independent climate change research, initially intended for online publication, and potentially in print.

    Two quick questions for the Citizens Assembly on Climate Change.

    Has the Assembly ascertained the percentage of global climate change attributable to Ireland?

    And separately, has the Assembly ascertained what percentage of global climate change can be averted should the proposals formulated by the Citizens Assembly on Climate Change be implemented in Ireland?

    Thank you in advance"

    Maybe it'll be a case of third time lucky.

    I'll keep everyone posted on the response, or lack of one.

    If you have the time, and are concerned about your own "Carbon Footprint", why not ask these questions of other activists?
    To all the less dense posters on here, do you really want to be associated with this kind of nonsense?


  • #130
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,725 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    George Sunsnow wrote: »
    To be fair
    Pre industrial instruments were weak compared to today’s and few and far between
    Bring today’s to pre industrial times and prehistoric times and do a like for like comparison before panicking or before being hoodwinked by disingenuous hobby horse riding tax collectors

    Being sensible rather than panicking is the way forward here
    Panicking leads to perhaps rushed less thought out decisions and mistakes
    The greenhouses effect was discovered over 150 years ago, global warming has been quietly predicted since the 1960s. The only reason panic is even an option, is because sane analysis has been systematically avoided for 3 generations.


  • #131
    gabeeg
    Registered Users Posts: 1,591 ✭✭✭gabeeg


    George Sunsnow wrote: »
    To be fair
    Pre industrial instruments were weak compared to today’s and few and far between
    Bring today’s to pre industrial times and prehistoric times and do a like for like comparison before panicking or before being hoodwinked by disingenuous hobby horse riding tax collectors

    Who are you calling a disingenuous hobby house riding tax collector?
    And why?

    What could it possibly mean?
    George Sunsnow wrote: »
    To be fair
    Panicking leads to perhaps rushed less thought out decisions and mistakes

    Were you panicking when you tried to write that sentence?
    It has me in hysterics.

    You people that find yourselves second guessing scientists, can often barely string a few words together in a coherent manner.

    There are notable exceptions.
    And one of those notable exceptions conducts the most popular thread in boards.ie history.

    I've enjoyed MT and his input here for almost a decade. He's not always right, but he's invariably a good read and a good insight. Funny too.

    I've hated seeing him use his vaunted position to express his own doubts.
    He's entitled to his opinion. In another context it could be a really illuminating input.
    But here, where he is a demigod, its just reckless.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    gabeeg wrote: »
    No one bothered to discredit Denses links because no one read past the first headline or paragraph.

    A serious analysis concluding that "no one read beyond the first paragraph or headline"????

    OK. That's an impressive claim.

    Any chance of laying out the procedures enabling such a claim to be made?


  • #133
    gabeeg
    Registered Users Posts: 1,591 ✭✭✭gabeeg


    dense wrote: »
    A serious analysis concluding that "no one read beyond the first paragraph or headline"????

    OK. That's an impressive claim.

    Any chance of laying out the procedures enabling such a claim to be made?

    There was no procedure beyond empathy.

    I'm assuming... Hoping... That when most people start reading the stuff you post they realise it's incredibly silly.

    It's not a global conspiracy. That's all in your head


  • #134
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    gabeeg wrote: »

    I've enjoyed MT and his input here for almost a decade. He's not always right, but he's invariably a good read and a good insight. Funny too.

    I've hated seeing him use his vaunted position to express his own doubts.
    He's entitled to his opinion. In another context it could be a really illuminating input.
    But here, where he is a demigod, its just reckless.

    I'm intrigued at this statement. Why do you hate seeing him express his doubts? Why do you say reckless? Is it because he's a climatologist with vast experience and, as you say, a respected poster on this forum? Is the fact that he's one of your 3% of cats that says no? Would you just rather he kept his comments to himself because they're not what you want to hear and people may actually listen, reading beyond the first line?

    What if he agreed with you? Would it be the same story?


  • #135
    Nabber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,855 ✭✭✭Nabber


    Didn’t 97% of scientists think the earth was flat or that the sun circled the earth?

    I’m all for factual science, but to follow something based on how much of the community follows is just plain stupid.


  • #136
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    gabeeg wrote: »
    You people that find yourselves second guessing scientists, can often barely string a few words together in a coherent manner.

    .

    I read another climate based (UK) forum, that is far more vigorous and bitchy than anything in this thread, but one overarching theme that I have observed from the pro Climate Change lobby is the one such as above, where any opposing thought leads to an attack on the poster themselves, their lack of 'coherence' and an often not so subtle assumption that they are 'ignorant' and less educated than they are.

    Needless to say, this says more about them than it does about they which they attack in such a manner. And such people are to be avoided.

    New Moon



  • #137
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Is this supposed to be evidence that climate scientists don't believe their own research?

    What other point could you be making?

    :confused:

    It is what it is. I said nuffin...

    Nice try at deflecting from points raised in the article itself, which I note, you didn't even attempt to comment on.

    New Moon



  • #138
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    gabeeg wrote: »
    I quite literally don't have the time to read all the mulch coming out of global conspiracy theorists.

    Just like you

    Yep, just like you I've no time for conspiracy theories, however I do check everything that's posted to confirm whether it is "mulch" or not. If you don't look at it, how can you state it's mulch? You can't have an opinion on something you haven't read. That makes you a conspirator just like them.


  • #139
    Atlantic Dawn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 84,216 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn
    M


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The greenhouses effect was discovered over 150 years ago, global warming has been quietly predicted since the 1960s. The only reason panic is even an option, is because sane analysis has been systematically avoided for 3 generations.

    Then why was this winter much colder than last year, should it not be called a new term that would fit with random changes in something people called weather, could we use a term that would allow for changes high and low where scientist bankrolled to waffle about it make a living, perhaps we could call it climate change in that the weather changes and dat?


  • #140
    gabeeg
    Registered Users Posts: 1,591 ✭✭✭gabeeg


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    What if he agreed with you? Would it be the same story?

    I'll answer this back to front of you don't mind, as this was the only question you asked which genuinely challenged me.

    I'd probably use it to my advantage, being honest with you.
    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    I'm intrigued at this statement. Why do you hate seeing him express his doubts? Why do you say reckless? Is it because he's a climatologist with vast experience and, as you say, a respected poster on this forum? Is the fact that he's one of your 3% of cats that says no? Would you just rather he kept his comments to himself because they're not what you want to hear and people may actually listen, reading beyond the first line?

    What if he agreed with you? Would it be the same story?

    He's not an experienced climatologist. He's MT Cranium.
    MT Cranium is the legend that got 2010 right.
    MT Cranium is a weather God around these parts.

    The man behind MT Cranium is another matter entirely, and I'd never seek to silence him.
    His thoughts on climate change are probably very interesting, and I'd love to read them.


  • #141
    gabeeg
    Registered Users Posts: 1,591 ✭✭✭gabeeg


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    I read another climate based (UK) forum, that is far more vigorous and bitchy than anything in this thread, but one overarching theme that I have observed from the pro Climate Change lobby is the one such as above, where any opposing thought leads to an attack on the poster themselves, their lack of 'coherence' and an often not so subtle assumption that they are 'ignorant' and less educated than they are.

    Needless to say, this says more about them than it does about they which they attack in such a manner. And such people are to be avoided.

    Well that's mighty big of you to read and enjoy things that are completely incoherent.

    Keep up the good work


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Irishsneachta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 48 ✭Irishsneachta


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    I'm intrigued at this statement. Why do you hate seeing him express his doubts? Why do you say reckless? Is it because he's a climatologist with vast experience and, as you say, a respected poster on this forum? Is the fact that he's one of your 3% of cats that says no? Would you just rather he kept his comments to himself because they're not what you want to hear and people may actually listen, reading beyond the first line?

    What if he agreed with you? Would it be the same story?

    He disregards the 97% because of 3 weather forums he follows lol. Where anybody can claim to be anything from behind a keyboard. Not very scientific lol

    His other reason is pressure to say yes, very scientific again.

    No studies to back up the ludicrous claims, just lunacy. Believe 97% of Scientists or someone who bases his opinions on the above reasons lol. I will give this thread something tho, first time I've seen a majority of flat earthers on one thread.


  • #143
    Irishsneachta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 48 ✭Irishsneachta


    George Sunsnow wrote: »
    To be fair
    Pre industrial instruments were weak compared to today’s and few and far between
    Bring today’s to pre industrial times and prehistoric times and do a like for like comparison before panicking or before being hoodwinked by disingenuous hobby horse riding tax collectors

    Being sensible rather than panicking is the way forward here
    Panicking leads to perhaps rushed less thought out decisions and mistakes

    This is just so thick. Where to begin.


  • #144
    gabeeg
    Registered Users Posts: 1,591 ✭✭✭gabeeg


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    Yep, just like you I've no time for conspiracy theories, however I do check everything that's posted to confirm whether it is "mulch" or not. If you don't look at it, how can you state it's mulch? You can't have an opinion on something you haven't read. That makes you a conspirator just like them.

    I have a system for this.

    If someone posts a few links that are complete rubbish, the kind of rubbish that you don't believe in yourself GL, then I stop reading their links entirely.

    Dense has stated his belief in the global conspiracy that you and I don't believe in.
    So why would either of us indulge his silly waffle?


  • #145
    Irishsneachta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 48 ✭Irishsneachta


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    No, we really shouldn't. If I want some quality political advice and analysis, the last people I would listen to are scientists. They can shove their 'dooms day' prediction up their backside, which is where they pulled it from in the first place.

    The last people you would listen to are Scientists? Probably the most pig ignorant statement I've read. Yeah sure listen to some old fella in the pub instead. That old fella is probably you lol


  • #146
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    gabeeg wrote: »
    Well that's mighty big of you to read and enjoy things that are completely incoherent.

    Keep up the good work

    Not big of me at all. I understood totally what GS was saying. I'll leave the pedantics of how he said it to ostentatious wannabes like yourself.

    New Moon



  • #147
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Irishsneachta wrote: »
    The last people you would listen to are Scientists? Probably the most pig ignorant statement I've read. Yeah sure listen to some old fella in the pub instead. That fella is probably you lol

    You just called a previous post 'thick'. Now it's my turn...

    New Moon



  • #148
    Danno
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    Very interesting thread (so far) and somewhat comforting to hear that there is a rather broad Church here with regards to this topic whereas a few years ago, many would have had inhibitions about speaking out against "the machine" that really is a select few peddling nonsense on the back of a genuine concern. I am highly sceptical of what is being sold. Make no mistake, this is another market - but this is market 2.0, for our minds.


  • #149
    Irishsneachta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 48 ✭Irishsneachta


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    You just called a previous post 'thick'. Now it's my turn...

    Yeah there's quite a gathering of you on this thread. You're probably the thickest of them all tho and that's saying something lol. Mr Scientists are last people I'd listen too. Thick af lol


  • #150
    gabeeg
    Registered Users Posts: 1,591 ✭✭✭gabeeg


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    Not big of me at all. I understood totally what GS was saying. I'll leave the pedantics of how he said it to ostentatious wannabes like yourself.

    No you don't, it was a word salad.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Irishsneachta wrote: »
    Yeah there's quite a gathering of you on this thread. You're probably the thickest of them all tho and that's saying something lol. Mr Scientists are last people I'd listen too. Thick af lol

    Must you keep using that 'lol' thing. It offends my senses.

    New Moon



Advertisement