Jump to content

Climate activists disrupt British cities with 'summer uprising'


snoop1130

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

^^^

First, I showed you the GIF, and you demanded a link to the originals. Then I showed you the originals and you demanded a link to the GIF.

 

Don't you think it's about time you stopped being so demanding, and relying on other people to do your work for you?

 

As a further point, the GIF is not the crux of the matter; it's just a rehash of the two NASA graphs which show that the data was changed, a point which is not disputed by anyone, even NASA itself.

 

I've made a reasonable effort to recall the source of the GIF. That's all I am prepared to do, no matter how long you keep on whining about it.

You posted the Gif ( ripped content), provide a link to where you got it from.

 

Your miraculous recovery of the links to the original source used in the Gif belies your claim you can’t recall the source of the Gif.

 

I’ve been very clear I want to see where you are getting your secondhand arguments from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 279
  • Created
  • Last Reply
36 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

^^^

First, I showed you the GIF, and you demanded a link to the originals. Then I showed you the originals and you demanded a link to the GIF.

 

Don't you think it's about time you stopped being so demanding, and relying on other people to do your work for you?

 

As a further point, the GIF is not the crux of the matter; it's just a rehash of the two NASA graphs which show that the data was changed, a point which is not disputed by anyone, even NASA itself.

 

I've made a reasonable effort to recall the source of the GIF. That's all I am prepared to do, no matter how long you keep on whining about it.

 

There was another time when you tried to pull the same sh*t. Made claims,refused to provide the source and told your questioners to do the research themselves. You receive quite a castigation from a moderator for trying to pull that sh*t.

Honorable people back up their claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Your miraculous recovery of the links to the original source used in the Gif belies your claim you can’t recall the source of the Gif.

There's nothing miraculous about it, though I understand it may appear that way to people unused to doing research.

 

I knew the organisation that had produced the graphs, I knew the dates they had been published. It really isn't difficult to track down the relevant documents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

There's nothing miraculous about it, though I understand it may appear that way to people unused to doing research.

 

I knew the organisation that had produced the graphs, I knew the dates they had been published. It really isn't difficult to track down the relevant documents.

I've spent much of my life doing  research and getting paid handsomely for it, thank you for reminding me of many happy times.

 

However, my research is not what is at question, it is where you are getting your secondhand arguments from. 

 

You've presented statements regarding data which have been shot down in flames, you stick to these exposed fallacies but are unable, or unwilling to tell us where you are getting your secondhand arguments from. 

 

It is absolutely  reasonable to present arguments made by others to support your own point of view, but if you do so you need to provide a link to the information, images, arguments you have borrowed.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

However, my research is not what is at question, it is where you are getting your secondhand arguments from. 

Now you're just making stuff up again, in the standard disagreeable SJW fashion.

 

I am not making any arguments, secondhand or otherwise.

 

I am pointing out that NASA altered temperature data (which it has admitted) in such a way as to increase the apparent warming of the earth. Those adjustments were heavily criticized by many commentators, many of whom stated bluntly in public that the data had been "doctored". However, the adjustments were supported as normal practice by others.

 

If you want to continue arguing on the basis of things I haven't said, you'll have to do it by yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I am pointing out that NASA altered temperature data

Like other statements you have made and for which you have failed to provide a citation, you fail to understand a basic principle of argumentation, namely, that the onus is on you, not others, to provide a source of information for your claims.  Otherwise, your claims are not taken seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I have stated that all the data is available in the two links I provided. I have also stated that I no longer have a link to the source of the old GIF which merely aggregates that data. 

Hey. Why not take the advice a certain Rick Bradford gave?

 

"If it's important to you, I suggest Googling "NASA adjusts temperature record" or "NASA doctors data", something along those lines, and you should be able to run it down."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Now you're just making stuff up again, in the standard disagreeable SJW fashion.

 

I am not making any arguments, secondhand or otherwise.

 

I am pointing out that NASA altered temperature data (which it has admitted) in such a way as to increase the apparent warming of the earth. Those adjustments were heavily criticized by many commentators, many of whom stated bluntly in public that the data had been "doctored". However, the adjustments were supported as normal practice by others.

 

If you want to continue arguing on the basis of things I haven't said, you'll have to do it by yourself.

And the names of some of these commentators? Their qualifications? Or are you going to tell me to do that research for myself as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I already did so, in post #122. ????

 

Huh?  You've proven nothing.  You posted two sources that prove nothing about your claim that the data is cooked.

 

Your little conspiracy theory that NASA scientists are corrupt, which you're trying to peddle, is nothing but absurd and asinine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Idiots. I know in my home town of Bristol some guy got held up in the gridlock caused by these protesters while trying to visit the bedside of his dying father and was unable to see him before he passed away.

 

Talk about winning hearts and minds! No doubt many stories like this, totally the wrong way to go about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SteveStevens said:

Huh?  You've proven nothing.  You posted two sources that prove nothing about your claim that the data is cooked.

 

Your little conspiracy theory that NASA scientists are corrupt, which you're trying to peddle, is nothing but absurd and asinine.

Well, it would be if I had made any such claim. But I didn't, not even close.

 

Stop making things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Well, it would be if I had made any such claim. But I didn't, not even close.

 

Stop making things up.

Erm.....

 

23 hours ago, RickBradford said:

The doctoring of temperature records is a matter of public record.

 

 

22 hours ago, RickBradford said:

No, I'm not.

 

I'm saying the data was changed. There's no debate about that; it was changed. The preferred term is "statistical homogenization", which you can find multiple citings of.

 

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

 

 

I am pointing out that NASA altered temperature data (which it has admitted) in such a way as to increase the apparent warming of the earth. Those adjustments were heavily criticized by many commentators, many of whom stated bluntly in public that the data had been "doctored". However, the adjustments were supported as normal practice by others.

 

It looks like someone has hacked your account and making claims that you quite rightly now deny. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Well, it would be if I had made any such claim. But I didn't, not even close.

 

Stop making things up.

Stop lying.

Here is a direct quote from you in regards to that issue (Post #117)

"The doctoring of temperature records is a matter of public record.

The charts come from NASA."

And here's the definition of doctoring.

"to change a document in order to deceive people:"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

It looks like someone has hacked your account and making claims that you quite rightly now deny. 

 

You have something of a tin ear when it comes to debate.

 

Just because I point out the many criticisms of NASA (and others), doesn't mean I accept blindly what the critics say. I put the information out there so people can discuss it (or could, if they weren't blind ideologues).

 

The recurring problem with SJW types is that they are forever attributing motives to other people, which have no basis in reality. It goes with the badge, I suppose.

 

One piece of advice: Don't judge other people by your own standards. You may see every link as an attempt to back up an argument. I don't.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

"The doctoring of temperature records is a matter of public record.

It is.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/13/doctored-data-not-u-s-temperatures-set-a-record-this-year/#1044b7666184

 

I think you should be rather cautious about accusing people of lying; it's a very disagreeable thing to do and reflects badly on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Now all we need is your arguments on how much influence human activity is having on the climate.

 

Then we can examine your understanding of the mechanisms by which those influences occur.

 

I've already expressed my views on this. To repeat, the complexity and chaotic nature of climate make it impossible to accurately quantify the role of the numerous influences that contribute to any change in climate.

 

Describing CO2 emissions as the main culprit and the main driver of the current warming, and describing such warming as potentially catastrophic, is an unsubstantiated alarm which has been created to make political action more effective. Refer Prof. Stephen Scheider's comments in an earlier post.

 

If CO2 were a pollutant, like Carbon Monoxide or Nitrogen Dioxide, or Particulate Carbon, I would be concerned. But it isn't, so my concern is about unnecessarily depriving ourselves of the benefits of cheap and reliable energy which could be used to shape the environment, strengthen homes, build more flood mitigation dams, and so on, to protect people from the expected continuation of extreme weather events that have occurred in the past when COO2 levels were lower.

 

However, I admit there can be advantages in creating unsubstantiated alarm about an issue in order to encourage people to behave sensibly and in the interests of the community and the environment. An example is the creation of the myth of 'eternal damnation in hell' for those who misbehave in this life. Throughout the ages, I presume there have been many people who have refrained from theft and murder as a result of a belief in such a myth, and who might not have refrained in the absence of such a myth, and in the absence of a modern police force.

 

This is why AGW alarmism is often described as a type of religion. Certainty in the bad effects of CO2 has to be maintained in order for the move towards renewables to continue, despite the negative effects of increased energy costs and decreased reliability of supply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

It is.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/13/doctored-data-not-u-s-temperatures-set-a-record-this-year/#1044b7666184

 

I think you should be rather cautious about accusing people of lying; it's a very disagreeable thing to do and reflects badly on you.

You really should spend some time looking into who's opinions you are offering up before hitting the return button. 

 

The 'Opinion Piece' you have linked is written by James Taylor, he is not a scientist but a lawyer and holds the post of 'Senior Fellow for Environment and Energy Policy at the Heartland Institute'.

 

The Heartland Institute is a rightwing lobby group, overtly a climate change denialist organisation and with a proud history lobby in favour of tobacco companies and against the regulation of smoking. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

 

Please let's have less of these biased political lobby group links. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

It is.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/13/doctored-data-not-u-s-temperatures-set-a-record-this-year/#1044b7666184

 

I think you should be rather cautious about accusing people of lying; it's a very disagreeable thing to do and reflects badly on you.

Still lying. Here's what you wrote

"The doctoring of temperature records is a matter of public record."

You stated that as a fact.

And once again you go to dubious sources for support:

 A quote from James Taylor, the President of the Spark Freedom Foundation. It's the internet. You can find someone to back any position. Why should anyone pay any serious attention to him? What are his qualifications to pronounce on scientific issues?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I've already expressed my views on this. To repeat, the complexity and chaotic nature of climate make it impossible to accurately quantify the role of the numerous influences that contribute to any change in climate.

 

Describing CO2 emissions as the main culprit and the main driver of the current warming, and describing such warming as potentially catastrophic, is an unsubstantiated alarm which has been created to make political action more effective. Refer Prof. Stephen Scheider's comments in an earlier post.

 

If CO2 were a pollutant, like Carbon Monoxide or Nitrogen Dioxide, or Particulate Carbon, I would be concerned. But it isn't, so my concern is about unnecessarily depriving ourselves of the benefits of cheap and reliable energy which could be used to shape the environment, strengthen homes, build more flood mitigation dams, and so on, to protect people from the expected continuation of extreme weather events that have occurred in the past when COO2 levels were lower.

 

However, I admit there can be advantages in creating unsubstantiated alarm about an issue in order to encourage people to behave sensibly and in the interests of the community and the environment. An example is the creation of the myth of 'eternal damnation in hell' for those who misbehave in this life. Throughout the ages, I presume there have been many people who have refrained from theft and murder as a result of a belief in such a myth, and who might not have refrained in the absence of such a myth, and in the absence of a modern police force.

 

This is why AGW alarmism is often described as a type of religion. Certainty in the bad effects of CO2 has to be maintained in order for the move towards renewables to continue, despite the negative effects of increased energy costs and decreased reliability of supply.

Another example of relying on semantics for an argument. 

 

ie. Is or is not CO2 a pollutant?

 

Here's an observation, it doesn't matter whether CO2 is called a pollutant of not, it absolutely is a greenhouse gas. The release of CO2 from burning fossil fuels (ie releasing CO2 that has been locked up over hundreds of millions of years) is a cause of rising environmental temperatures. You'll need to re-write the laws of physics to demonstrate it is not. 

 

Yes the climate is chaotic and difficult to model (refer earlier discussions on the need for more data) but calculating the amount of heat energy in the atmosphere and how that changes when increasing levels of greenhouse gases are added is not difficult. 

 

Your assertions of a generated 'unsubstantiated alarm' are an opinion which if you don't accept the scientific consensus is going to be difficult to disabuse you of, so I'll put it down to your opinion.  

 

Alternative (non fossil fuels) sources of energy are becoming cheaper by the day. 

 

Apart from an apparent need to be 'Contrary'  I'm not seeing any convincing arguments from you. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

^^^

Your personal opinion of the writer is irrelevant.

 

The doctoring of the data is, as you can see, a matter of public record.

 

I understand your fascination with mendacious and unpleasant slurs, but it really isn't a good look.

The motives of the writer of an opinion piece are entirely relevant, as is your lack of understanding of data science. 

 

Found that link yet?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

^^^

Your personal opinion of the writer is irrelevant.

 

The doctoring of the data is, as you can see, a matter of public record.

 

I understand your fascination with mendacious and unpleasant slurs, but it really isn't a good look.

Really? So anyone can cite anybody as authoritative no matter what their objective qualifications are? I guess that puts a whole new light on the issue of peer review. Is it my opinion that the author of this piece is not a scientist? Or is he in fact not a scientist? 

 

No, the doctoring of the data is not a matter of public record.

And once again here's the definition of doctoring:

"to change a document in order to deceive people:"

Accusations of the doctoring of data is a matter of public record. But that's quite a different thing.

 

You really shouldn't be the party talking about what isn't a good look. It is to laugh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posts and supplies bickering about providing links have been removed.  Once again, please back up your research with supporting links, if there is no valid link to support your claims, don't bother posting:

 

15) Any links posted must lead to the website the link indicates. Links that are misleading or direct to a site different than the one indicated are not allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Another example of relying on semantics for an argument. 

 

ie. Is or is not CO2 a pollutant?

 

Here's an observation, it doesn't matter whether CO2 is called a pollutant of not, it absolutely is a greenhouse gas. The release of CO2 from burning fossil fuels (ie releasing CO2 that has been locked up over hundreds of millions of years) is a cause of rising environmental temperatures. You'll need to re-write the laws of physics to demonstrate it is not. 

 

Yes the climate is chaotic and difficult to model (refer earlier discussions on the need for more data) but calculating the amount of heat energy in the atmosphere and how that changes when increasing levels of greenhouse gases are added is not difficult. 

 

Your assertions of a generated 'unsubstantiated alarm' are an opinion which if you don't accept the scientific consensus is going to be difficult to disabuse you of, so I'll put it down to your opinion.  

 

Alternative (non fossil fuels) sources of energy are becoming cheaper by the day. 

 

Apart from an apparent need to be 'Contrary'  I'm not seeing any convincing arguments from you. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And since it is de-alkalinizing the oceans and seas, I think that's enough to qualify it as a pollutant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2019 at 8:07 PM, bristolboy said:

Nonsense. 

New data confirm increased frequency of extreme weather events

Globally, according to the new data, the number of floods and other hydrological events have quadrupled since 1980 and have doubled since 2004, highlighting the urgency of adaptation to climate change. Climatological events, such as extreme temperatures, droughts, and forest fires, have more than doubled since 1980. Meteorological events, such as storms, have doubled since 1980.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180321130859.htm

nonsense

 

https://www.thegwpf.com/ipcc-report-extreme-weather-events-not-getting-worse/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

Political lobbying groups are not a good argument against science.

 

GWPF’s whole purpose is climate change denial and opposition to legislation and regulation based on the findings of climate change science.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...