[Deleted User] wrote: » again thats a little bit of point missing, isnt it now thats understandable, ive read a few of your 30 odd posts too and youre clearly shooting with a shotgun and not a rifle. a stylistic choice, nothing wrong with that! now, i set out very clearly where- on the specific point, and it's important, isnt it, to be specific?- that kyussb of any poster in this thread has no credibility to bandy about accusations of politicisation. and i set out in the same post the rationale and while you might think it is incumbent on me, having made such comment, to therefore somehow prove my own credibility in making incessant accusations against other posters in this thread of 'politicisation' id point out that a) it isn't, really. b) im not making such incessant accusations, am i? so while its nice to get yr uh ""feedback"" on what your projections of my views on education, the scientific method and all that might be, and your review of my general performance in the thread- welcome to the thread, btw- its well look its of little interest to me that you would feel compelled to do so. the point stands.
SafeSurfer wrote: » Why continue to label people as “climate change deniers” when they have not denied climate change?
SaintLeibowitz wrote: » What credibility do you hold? When it comes to climate change.. I'm seeing nothing, absolutely nothing. You don't understand your limitations when it comes to this subject. That's fine. Ignorance is fine, but don't proclaim your ignorance over experts(and I'm not talking about kyuss here, though he's clearly more read on this subject than you are) He does have a point. When people link to think tanks funded by the fossil fuel industry and lassiez faire free marketers, they should be called out. If they keep linking to think tanks funded by fossil fuel industry and laissez faire free marketers, they should then be laughed at.
gozunda wrote: » No one is "dodging" that constant daft obsessive repetitive question. It is simply irrelevant to the discussion in hand. Though I would certainly agree the other obsession of the Green New Deal is certainly political.
Woodsie1 wrote: » What credibility do you hold? When it comes to climate change.. I'm seeing nothing, absolutely nothing.
SaintLeibowitz wrote: » ...
KyussB wrote: » Climate change denial, or global warming denial is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
SaintLeibowitz wrote: » I'm sure snoop is not in the market for an arselicker(see what I did there?, I sure am funny).
SaintLeibowitz wrote: » What credibility do you hold? When it comes to climate change.. I'm seeing nothing, absolutely nothing.You don't understand your limitations when it comes to this subject. That's fine. Ignorance is fine, but don't proclaim your ignorance over experts(and I'm not talking about kyuss here, though he's clearly more read on this subject than you are) He does have a point. When people link to think tanks funded by the fossil fuel industry and lassiez faire free marketers, they should be called out. If they keep linking to think tanks funded by fossil fuel industry and laissez faire free marketers, they should then be laughed at.
Deleted User wrote: » ach i regret thanking woods1es post now, but no going back eh
[Deleted User] wrote: » short of copying and pasting my response to you again, i fail to see what else to say that might draw your attention any further to the salient points. but what are we here for if not to waste our time nest pas i. are you asking me about my general credibility? what's the possible relevance? ive set out quite clearly where kyuss has, imo, no credibility on the actual specific point- accusations of politicisation. now, you either do or dont understand that. nothing wrong with the latter of course. might be mistaken for ....ignorance....but nothing wrong with ignorance! ii. i fail to see where your (now repeated) claims that im claiming expertise over experts is relevant to the post you keep asking about. or where im claiming any such expertise at all, in fact- though of course, maintaining an interest in such a thread over the course of its shall we say evolution will no doubt have me pooh-poohing plenty of experts, recognised and otherwise, as suits my opinion. not for me to say you should pay any particular heed to my doing so one way or the other. but kindly don't attempt to put me on a pedestal i havent asked for so you can throw fruit at me for being there. that would be very odd behaviour from you, after all.
gozunda wrote: » Again not having a go but none of that eally makes any sense does it ...
KyussB wrote: » Reminder that these two posters regularly defend/back-up sources linked to Koch funding (some of the most notorious propagandists on the planet) - and have repeatedly refused/dodged the simple question, about whether a pattern of funding from the Koch oil oligarchs, is discreditable to people claiming to be 'experts' on climate change. It is quite simple to discredit these posters - just ask and watch them refuse to answer the simple question: Is Koch funding discreditable to people claiming to be climate 'experts'/'scientists'?
KyussB wrote: » It's a bit odd how the denialist crowd go the "accuse the other side first, of what you're guilty of..." route all the time. It doesn't help, you know - it just backfires, like so: You actually visibly have a lot in common with the chemtrail activists - as a chemtrail activist would regularly cite cranks who are in denial of science, to push their views - and this is precisely what you do on a regular basis, with e.g. people like Ray Bates previously. Same with others paintaing use of the word 'denial' as being religious: It is the position of those denying science - i.e. refusing to accept and contradicting overwhelming scientific consensus and evidence - who are basing their views entirely upon beliefs - beliefs which are so fanatical and rabid, and in contradiction of reality/science/evidence, that they are bordering on religious.
Woodsie1 wrote: » I see...Wasnt funny or original though. What credentials have you?
KyussB wrote: » So climate change 'experts' who happen to deny the scientific consensus on climate change are 'relevant' - and the reputations and funders of same said 'experts' is irrelevant, that right? You're happy to back/support those 'experts' - but suddenly any analysis of their funders and reputation is irrelevant and off-topic?There's a lot of debating over credibility here, now - and defending the above doesn't do your own any favours - which is why I'm happy to keep pressing the point.An easy way for you/others to restore some kind of credibility though, would be to acknowledge the fairly simple question I put forward. The reason you collectively don't do this, though - is because you know you'll quickly run out of sources you can use to back your views, then - which wouldn't be, in your own potential words (if you had answered the question), discreditable. That's the only reason any of you refuse to answer and acknowledge Koch funding as discreditable. Everyone reading can see that.
Woodsie1 wrote: » Seems none of the Greta arselickers can respond to any points without snidey little insults
SaintLeibowitz wrote: » Eally. What the fcuk those that mean?
SaintLeibowitz wrote: » It was funny. Its just not funny to you because its at your expense.
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » Could you please address the points I made about the current bushfires and one by one explain why they're flawed, bearing in mind that I'm just quoting the national meteorological agency of the country in question.
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » Kyuss, I take it you were having a bad day and this attitude you have is not you. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as we all have our bad days. Now, would you please mind telling me who tf these Koch's (sic) are? I've never heard of them, apart from in your repeated obsessive accusations against anyone who dares question anything. You really are in the chemtrail activist type of paranoia box. You need to calm down. I never mentioned Bates here, but what that has to do with the topic I was discussing is not clear. Could you please address the points I made about the current bushfires and one by one explain why they're flawed, bearing in mind that I'm just quoting the national meteorological agency of the country in question. Tell me How was unable or unwilling to do so, but even he didn't resort to the foul-mouthed attack that you did. As I said, maybe you were having one of those days. It's alright, you're with friends here.
Tuisceanch wrote: » This is where you have me confused. The article linked https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/old-hat-is-there-a-link-between-climate-change-and-bushfires-20191111-p539d2.html stated: "As the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO pointed out in last year's latest State of the Climate report, the number of the most extreme 10 per cent of fire weather days based on the fire danger index "has increased in recent decades across many regions of Australia, especially in southern and eastern Australia". The state of the climate report it refers to was produced by the Bureau of Meteorology, the very organization you then linked to refute the articles assertions assertions but in that report it states: "Australia’s weather and climate continues to change in response to a warming global climate. Australia has warmed by just over 1 °C since 1910, with most warming since 1950. This warming has seen an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events and increased the severity of drought conditions during periods of below-average rainfall. Eight of Australia’s top ten warmest years on record have occurred since 2005. The year-to-year changes in Australia’s climate are mostly associated with natural climate variability such as El Niño and La Niña in the tropical Pacific Ocean and phases of the Indian Ocean Dipole in the Indian Ocean. This natural variability now occurs on top of the warming trend,which can modify the impact of these natural drivers on the Australian climate.Increases in temperature are observed across Australia in all seasons with both day and night-time temperatures showing warming. The shift to a warmer climate in Australia is accompanied by more extreme daily heat events. Record-warm monthly and seasonal temperatures have been observed in recent years, made more likely by climate change."http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/State-of-the-Climate-2018.pdf
KyussB wrote: » No I'm fine, thanks I'm just fairly direct in posting style, and like to rip through all of the (usually blindingly obvious) conflicts of interest in sources people cite. You made fairly strong claims to being just interested in the science - so the past frequent refernce to the Bates guy, I thought was a very good indication of the opposite - given how discreditable he is. He is linked to the GWPF - which itself is linked to Koch funding - and the Koch's are some of the biggest propagandists on the planet - funding propaganda on everything from climate change denial, denial of the negative health effects of tobacco, support for racist apartheid in South Africa, mass-privatization-of-literally-everything, stripping workers rights, supporting child labour etc etc.. Pretty much every single source involved with climate change denial, is easly linked back to think tanks they fund - that's why they come up pretty much unendingly.
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » Now exactly where have I been refuting anything quoted in that article? I haven't. You're not paying attention. I was referring to this current bushfire - ffs I'm having to repeat myself - which would probably not be happening if the IOD were not so positive. I never once said anything about longterm trends in forecasts conditions. You and some others have been trying to imply that I have, but all you're doing is making yourselves look like fools. So please, go back and quote the parts where I'm supposed to have questioned it. You won't find any. A new low.
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » The message that is going out the the people is not one that is based on ALL the facts. The only man-made signal in these latest fires is down to how they were started. The conditions that have led to their severity and duration are due to a 100% natural phenomenon, as explained in great detail by learned meteorologists way more qualified than me.
Tell me how wrote: » For the love of God. If you are deliberately trying to focus on a single bush fire, storm or flood then there will never be a shortage of people saying it cannot be proven definitively that it was as a consequence of human impacted climate change. Everyone else is talking about the scientific evidence of the growing frequencies and severity of such events, you're detracting from any argument to try to do something about it because of pedantry.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)
