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

"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

Options
1…2829313334…44

Comments

  • Options
    #902
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,356 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Ah yes. The "Big Eco" conspiracy to make millions by getting us to stop over-consuming. Hate those lads. Shower of b*stards


  • Options
    #903
    Kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    Can we close this thread please?

    "Debate" on climate change is about as valid as flat earth debate. Or the tooth fairy. This thread is pointless. All's it serves is giving nutbars an audience. The thread title itself tells you all you need to know about what you are engaging with.


  • Options
    #904
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,285 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Kirby wrote: »
    Can we close this thread please?

    "Debate" on climate change is about as valid as flat earth debate. Or the tooth fairy. This thread is pointless. All's it serves is giving nutbars an audience. The thread title itself tells you all you need to know about what you are engaging with.


    It gives me the occasional chuckle so not totally pointless


  • Options
    #905
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    The world needs more people like this guy




    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/18/artist-gavin-turk-arrested-in-london-climate-change-protest


  • Options
    #906
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,421 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Kirby wrote: »
    Can we close this thread please?

    "Debate" on climate change is about as valid as flat earth debate. Or the tooth fairy. This thread is pointless. All's it serves is giving nutbars an audience. The thread title itself tells you all you need to know about what you are engaging with.

    Yes, quick close down the debate.

    Maybe “deniers” should be burned at the stake if it doesn’t release too much carbon.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #907
    bodhrandude
    Registered Users Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭bodhrandude


    Why is the OP all blank, what did it say apart from thread title.

    If you want to get into it, you got to get out of it. (Hawkwind 1982)



  • Options
    #908
    mikhail
    Registered Users Posts: 3,863 ✭✭✭mikhail


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Yes, quick close down the debate.
    Quick? This thread is four months of people attempting to reason with one poster.


  • Options
    #909
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,421 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    mikhail wrote: »
    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Yes, quick close down the debate.
    Quick? This thread is four months of people attempting to reason with one poster.

    Four months? So there is no decisive argument to prove man made climate change and the 12 year point of no return doomsday predictions?

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #910
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Four months? So there is no decisive argument to prove man made climate change and the 12 year point of no return doomsday predictions?

    We have substantial amounts of evidence. Dense tends to treat everything that backs up climate change as socialist conspiracies....


  • Options
    #911
    mikhail
    Registered Users Posts: 3,863 ✭✭✭mikhail


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Four months? So there is no decisive argument to prove man made climate change and the 12 year point of no return doomsday predictions?
    No, all it shows is that dense would bob in the water, being nibbled at by sharks, still demanding evidence that there was a hole in the boat. I don't know why anyone entertains cranks like him.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #912
    2011
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 12,551 Mod ✭✭✭✭2011


    @ dense: let’s suppose you and all of the other science deniers are correct. What is your plan when you have used up all of the fossil fuels? What will your energy source be then? Would you not think it prudent to invest in renewable energy sources now so that you have an alternative? Would more efficient less polluting industries extend the life of your beloved fossil fuels? Wouldn’t looking at these alternatives keep those “nutters” that believe in stupid things like maths and facts happy are well as you?


  • Options
    #913
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,421 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    2011 wrote: »
    @ dense: let’s suppose you and all of the other science deniers are correct. What is your plan when you have used up all of the fossil fuels? What will your energy source be then? Would you not think it prudent to invest in renewable energy sources now so that you have an alternative? Would more efficient less polluting industries extend the life of your beloved fossil fuels? Wouldn’t looking at these alternatives keep those “nutters” that believe in stupid things like maths and facts happy are well as you?

    When you say “science deniers” do you mean skeptics of a certain scientific theory.
    Scientific theories which were once regarded as fact have been proven to be wrong before.

    What’s different here is the vitriol directed at any one who questions the theory.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #914
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    When you say “science deniers” do you mean skeptics of a certain scientific theory.
    Scientific theories which were once regarded as fact have been proven to be wrong before.

    What’s different here is the vitriol directed at any one who questions the theory.

    Sample of the crap dense posts that is far from respectful...
    dense wrote: »
    Tell the conscientious objector that two wrongs don't make a right.


    Because here you have the typical lefty who is claiming the high moral ground, banging on endlessly about humanity being destroyed by carbon emissions whilst simultaneously urging individuals NOT to take steps to reduce their carbon footprint.


    Their hope is that individuals do not take action, because any reduction in emissions that came from it would damage their agenda, which is a political one, which is openly begging for a new global socialist regime.

    You've just exposed their political agenda and they're hell bent on using junk science from the UN to have it implemented.


    It's all very Mary Robinson too.


    Someone who has been advising others about the benefits of not eating meat for years is now, at the age of 75, toying with the idea of it applying to herself.


  • Options
    #915
    Kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Yes, quick close down the debate.

    But there IS no debate. That's the problem.

    A few people screaming out that the sky is green doesn't make the colour of the sky a debate.

    There are just some people that either through vested interest or mental illness that you will find on the "other" side of issues like flat earth, anti-vax, climate change, etc.

    There comes a point where you have done your best to help but you have to admit defeat and just stop enabling them. This thread should have been locked months ago, to be honest. It's just giving trolls what they want.


  • Options
    #916
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,421 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Kirby wrote: »
    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Yes, quick close down the debate.

    But there IS no debate. That's the problem.

    A few people screaming out that the sky is green doesn't make the colour of the sky a debate.

    There are just some people that either through vested interest or mental illness that you will find on the "other" side of issues like flat earth, anti-vax, climate change, etc.

    There comes a point where you have done your best to help but you have to admit defeat and just stop enabling them. This thread should have been locked months ago, to be honest. It's just giving trolls what they want.

    Can human caused climate change skepticism really be lumped together with flat earthists and anti Vaxers.

    Labeling people who hold different views as having mental illness doesn’t do a lot to convince people who are interested in the subject but are skeptical of some of the claims made by the climate change lobby.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #917
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Can human caused climate change skepticism really be lumped together with flat earthists and anti Vaxers.

    Labeling people who hold different views as having mental illness doesn’t do a lot to convince people who are interested in the subject but are skeptical of some of the claims made by the climate change lobby.

    He's ascribing it to a socialist conspiracy to establish a new world order of some kind.... Sounds as wacky as the flat earthers tbh......


  • Options
    #918
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Can human caused climate change skepticism really be lumped together with flat earthists and anti Vaxers.

    No, but arguing that climate change is a socialist plot certainly can. What dense is posting isn't skepticism. It's full blown conspiracy theory nonsense.
    Labeling people who hold different views as having mental illness doesn’t do a lot to convince people who are interested in the subject but are skeptical of some of the claims made by the climate change lobby.

    Let's not pretend the claims of having a mental illness are only on one side of the debate here. I agree that people shouldn't be shunned for being skeptical, but at this point the arguments on here go well beyond mere skepticism.


  • Options
    #919
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,303 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Regarding the calls for this thread to be closed, while I can see the merit in that, its going around in circles, but given the fact that the Dense tends to pop up In every thread on this topic and uses the same conspiratorial reasoning in every thread on this topic. Closing this thread would just be shutting down any discussion on the most important issue of our generation on this forum.

    Posters like dense love to have the discussion shut down and split up because it makes it easier for them to hit and run with the same debunked papers and talking points.

    While Dense will never be open to changing his/her mind, dense does post the kinds of pseudo skeptical arguments that are prima facie convincing until they are challenged with legitimate or more up to date science.


  • Options
    #920
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Can human caused climate change skepticism really be lumped together with flat earthists and anti Vaxers.

    Labeling people who hold different views as having mental illness doesn’t do a lot to convince people who are interested in the subject but are skeptical of some of the claims made by the climate change lobby.

    Yes, yes it can. There is no difference between anti-vaxers and human caused climate change deniers in particular. They both argue against an overwhelming body of evidence and a scientific consensus using strawman arguments, bogus and debunked research whilst hopping all over any even perceived mistakes as if it causes all the other science to be wrong aswell.

    Then there is also the big-pharma conspiracy which is no different to the big-eco conspiracy, i.e. it's all about money., or one big capitalist/socialist conspiracy.


  • Options
    #921
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,421 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Can human caused climate change skepticism really be lumped together with flat earthists and anti Vaxers.

    Labeling people who hold different views as having mental illness doesn’t do a lot to convince people who are interested in the subject but are skeptical of some of the claims made by the climate change lobby.

    Yes, yes it can. There is no difference between anti-vaxers and human caused climate change deniers in particular. They both argue against an overwhelming body of evidence and a scientific consensus using strawman arguments, bogus and debunked research whilst hopping all over any even perceived mistakes as if it causes all the other science to be wrong aswell.

    Then there is also the big-pharma conspiracy which is no different to the big-eco conspiracy, i.e. it's all about money., or one big capitalist/socialist conspiracy.

    I don’t think it is that simple and the two are not in fact comparable.
    Polio vaccines for example work because their affects can be clearly measured. I don’t know of any credible medical experts who deny the effectiveness of vaccines such as the polio vaccine.
    However man made climate change is still a theory. That is the timescale that human affects on climate change have been observed for is, in the greater scheme of things, tiny.
    There are also many eminent experts in their respective scientific fields in climatology who disagree with the theory of man made climate change even though their names have been included in the UN list of 2,500 experts who unanimously agreee that man made climate change is a reality.

    Also I would suggest that those who argue against a current scientific consensus are not necessarily incorrect.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #922
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    batgoat wrote: »
    He's ascribing it to a socialist conspiracy to establish a new world order of some kind.... Sounds as wacky as the flat earthers tbh......


    Not sure who you're referring to as "he", but are you not up to speed on the UN'S stated aims?


    In your own words, what is meant by this UN press release:

    https://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

    By all means stick your head in the sand but please don't deny that there's an a radical agenda to alter the prevailing economic and political global structures amongst those seeking to repair the apparently "broken climate".

    It is an agenda primarily pushed by the left, the likes of Akrasia, Paul Murphy and Coppinger and others who profess to be socialists, and who are highly displeased with the system that Friends of the Earth describe as "barbaric", capitalism.


    I look forward to reading your own interpretation.


  • Options
    #923
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,303 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    I don’t think it is that simple and the two are not in fact comparable.
    Polio vaccines for example work because their affects can be clearly measured. I don’t know of any credible medical experts who deny the effectiveness of vaccines such as the polio vaccine.
    However man made climate change is still a theory. That is the timescale that human affects on climate change have been observed for is, in the greater scheme of things, tiny.
    There are also many eminent experts in their respective scientific fields in climatology who disagree with the theory of man made climate change even though their names have been included in the UN list of 2,500 experts who unanimously agreee that man made climate change is a reality.

    Also I would suggest that those who argue against a current scientific consensus are not necessarily incorrect.
    Those who argue against the current consensus need to step up and provide a scientific basis for their objections that stands up to scrutiny and answers more questions than they ask.

    Of the 'skeptics' who disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change, they can't even agree amongst themselves
    Here are some of the reasons so called 'skeptics' give to challenge climate change
    It's the sun
    It's El Nino/La Nina
    It's the NAO
    Its all within natural variation
    CO2 is just a trace gas
    Co2 isn't actually increasing
    CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas
    The recent past was warmer than it is now
    CO2 is beneficial
    The climate sensitivity is very low
    Climate has changed in the past therefore it's natural
    Humans are too insignificant to cause climate change
    Humans are causing other problems that we should tackle first before we look at climate change
    There isn't enough data to conclude anything yet
    It's too late to do anything
    Humans are powerless to reduce climate change
    Humans cannot 'control' the climate
    It's all a conspiracy, the real scientists are being hounded out of their jobs
    The models are unreliable
    Proxy records are unreliable
    Observations are unreliable
    The historical record is unreliable
    The record has been falsified deliberately to make it look like the planet is warming
    The ice is melting because of underwater volcanoes
    The CO2 increase is because of volcanoes
    Scientists were wrong before when they predicted an ice age
    It's all a plot by governments to increase taxes

    etc etc

    The point being, that the objections to climate science are all over the map. On one side you have the vast majority of climate scientists who accept the greenhouse effect and broad agreement on climate sensitivity being within the generally accepted range

    On the other side are dozens of already falsified theories that contradict each other and can not explain the observations
    Skeptics are reduced to looking to poke holes in the existing theories and haven't got a single alternative explanation for the observed warming that stands up to any scrutiny (when they're not denying the warming entirely)

    I asked dense before to explain how climate changes naturally and dense refused point blank to offer any theory or explanation for natural climate change. The reason for this is obvious. The only drivers of climate change in the past that cannot be ruled out as a factor in todays warming, is the greenhouse effect.


  • Options
    #924
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    2011 wrote: »
    @ dense: let’s suppose you and all of the other science deniers are correct. What is your plan when you have used up all of the fossil fuels? What will your energy source be then? Would you not think it prudent to invest in renewable energy sources now so that you have an alternative? Would more efficient less polluting industries extend the life of your beloved fossil fuels? Wouldn’t looking at these alternatives keep those “nutters” that believe in stupid things like maths and facts happy are well as you?


    We are looking at alternatives and heavily investing in them.
    But unless you believe the conspiracy theories that suggest that we would have alternative energies only for the fact that big oil and government suppressed them and killed their inventors, we do not have an alternative to using fossil fuels. Nuclear might be an option but the environmentalists don't want that either.

    So we are currently not in any position to rapidly switch to an alternative energy source that does not exist and it is foolish and dishonest to give the impression to people that we are. Those people then believe that the process of switching over to an alternative source is simply being held up by red tape etc.

    It's also a bit childish to talk about my "beloved fossil fuels".

    What proponents of the AGW theory are seeking is a global transformation of society, and I've yet to read a description of what that transformation will transform.

    "Limiting global warming to 1.5ºC would require rapid, far-
    reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society, the IPCC said in a new assessment."

    Would you or anyone else who endorses the UNIPCC position here ever please explain the global economic and societal transformation that you are seeking that you believe are essential to prevent/fix/control/combat/repair "climate change"?


    These unprecedented changes to all aspects of our lives must be implemented within a 12 year window or we're fűcked apparently.

    What are they, how will they be implemented globally if nations are slow to act?
    Who will police, monitor and ensure global compliance with the regulations that will need to be drafted to ensure that these unprecedented changes you are proposing are implemented correctly and fairly across the world?


    We are told by Akrasia that a global solution is the only hope. Seems right, individual nations just arent doing enough and individual action is futile, the evidence is there that nothing so far is working, in spite of all the warnings and pleas, global emissions just keep on rising and continue "breaking the climate".

    So a powerful global entity in charge seems like the best and most efficient way of doing what is necessary, if you disagree with that, please outline the alternatives.

    Thing is, none of them have worked so far, hence the urgent and dire situation the IPCC says we're now in.


  • Options
    #925
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Those who argue against the current consensus need to step up and provide a scientific basis for their objections that stands up to scrutiny and answers more questions than they ask.

    Of the 'skeptics' who disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change, they can't even agree amongst themselves
    Here are some of the reasons so called 'skeptics' give to challenge climate change
    It's the sun
    It's El Nino/La Nina
    It's the NAO
    Its all within natural variation
    CO2 is just a trace gas
    Co2 isn't actually increasing
    CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas
    The recent past was warmer than it is now
    CO2 is beneficial
    The climate sensitivity is very low
    Climate has changed in the past therefore it's natural
    Humans are too insignificant to cause climate change
    Humans are causing other problems that we should tackle first before we look at climate change
    There isn't enough data to conclude anything yet
    It's too late to do anything
    Humans are powerless to reduce climate change
    Humans cannot 'control' the climate
    It's all a conspiracy, the real scientists are being hounded out of their jobs
    The models are unreliable
    Proxy records are unreliable
    Observations are unreliable
    The historical record is unreliable
    The record has been falsified deliberately to make it look like the planet is warming
    The ice is melting because of underwater volcanoes
    The CO2 increase is because of volcanoes
    Scientists were wrong before when they predicted an ice age
    It's all a plot by governments to increase taxes

    etc etc

    The point being, that the objections to climate science are all over the map. On one side you have the vast majority of climate scientists who accept the greenhouse effect and broad agreement on climate sensitivity being within the generally accepted range

    On the other side are dozens of already falsified theories that contradict each other and can not explain the observations
    Skeptics are reduced to looking to poke holes in the existing theories and haven't got a single alternative explanation for the observed warming that stands up to any scrutiny (when they're not denying the warming entirely)

    I asked dense before to explain how climate changes naturally and dense refused point blank to offer any theory or explanation for natural climate change. The reason for this is obvious. The only drivers of climate change in the past that cannot be ruled out as a factor in todays warming, is the greenhouse effect.




    Even the IPCC has acknowledged that their hypothesis is not backed by evidence:


    In summary …. it is likely that since 1951 there have been statistically significant increases in the number of heavy precipitation events (e.g., above the 95th percentile) in more regions than there have been statistically significant decreases, but there are strong regional and subregional variations in the trends.

    In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.

    In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice.

    Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century and it remains uncertain whether any reported long-term increases in tropical cyclone frequency are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.

    In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low. There is also low confidence for a clear trend in storminess proxies over the last century due to inconsistencies between studies or lack of long-term data in some parts of the world (particularly in the SH).



    Likewise, confidence in trends in extreme winds is low, due to quality and consistency issues with analysed data.


    If man made climate change is indeed a thing, the IPCC is having a very hard time detecting it. But don't let that get in the way of your narrative.






    http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/mindex.shtml


  • Options
    #926
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,356 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    There we go. Only took 62 pages to get to the root of it. Nothing to do with science or climate change. Just a paranoia about a New World Order which has resulted in viewing everything as an "attack vector". That explains the lack of anything resembling a discussion on the accuracy of the science. One side is trying to discuss science while the other is discussing the belief in nefarious conglomerates seeking global domination. Both might be valid topics of discussion in their own right but they aren't interchangeable.


  • Options
    #927
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    I don’t think it is that simple and the two are not in fact comparable.
    Polio vaccines for example work because their affects can be clearly measured. I don’t know of any credible medical experts who deny the effectiveness of vaccines such as the polio vaccine.
    However man made climate change is still a theory. That is the timescale that human affects on climate change have been observed for is, in the greater scheme of things, tiny.
    There are also many eminent experts in their respective scientific fields in climatology who disagree with the theory of man made climate change even though their names have been included in the UN list of 2,500 experts who unanimously agreee that man made climate change is a reality.

    Also I would suggest that those who argue against a current scientific consensus are not necessarily incorrect.

    The affects of climate change can be clearly measured too.


  • Options
    #928
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    xckjoo wrote: »
    There we go. Only took 62 pages to get to the root of it. Nothing to do with science or climate change. Just a paranoia about a New World Order which has resulted in viewing everything as an "attack vector". That explains the lack of anything resembling a discussion on the accuracy of the science. One side is trying to discuss science while the other is discussing the belief in nefarious conglomerates seeking global domination. Both might be valid topics of discussion in their own right but they aren't interchangeable.


    If you're so unhappy with this thread, you have a number of options at your disposal which include not looking at it, not commenting, making a relevant contribution to it or even starting a different thread where you lay out the rules about how the thread should progress, what it should contain and what it shouldn't, who can post in it , and what they can post in it, in order that you might be completely satisfied with it.


    You are not being forced to participate in this thread, indeed your participation and contribution to it is minimal one way or another, consisting primarily of predictably randomly commenting about posters in order to deflect from the points being discussed, which you now concede "might be valid topics".


    How might they be "valid topics" and at the same time not be up for discussion here?

    Why don't you want them discussed here? It seems a good a place as anywhere else to discuss them?

    The truth is, you don't want the UNIPCC's stated urgent global transformation agenda, based on incontrovertible climate science discussed here or anywhere else. That is quite clear by now.

    Because whenever I ask what this unprecedented global transformation will involve, or how it might urgently and properly be implemented and monitored, and how it's "unprecedented" changes will impact upon every aspect of society, you and everyone else here endorsing it just start mumbling something about conspiracy theories and a new world order.


  • Options
    #929
    bodhrandude
    Registered Users Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭bodhrandude


    No one answered my query, why was the OP removed?

    If you want to get into it, you got to get out of it. (Hawkwind 1982)



  • Options
    #930
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,285 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    bodhrandude wrote: »
    No one answered my query, why was the OP removed?


    you need to ask the OP that


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #931
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,356 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    bodhrandude wrote: »
    No one answered my query, why was the OP removed?


    Dunno. Noticed that a while ago but no explanation has been given (or looked for really). From memory it was a bit of a rambly rant with the usual nonsense about how nobody believes in man-made climate change but they were the only ones with the "balls" to come out and say it. The discussion was actually reasonable enough for the first few pages. OP didn't engage too much beyond the original post and a few pokes to get the ball rolling. Other factors took over soon enough.


Advertisement