• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate Resistance Getting Organized

Threegoofs said:
Gosh.

Seems like they would know that, given they have PhDs who specifically research solar influences on climate.

But I guess you’d know better.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they do know. They have an agenda and are intellectually dishonest.

Do you really believe they have an ounce of integrity?
 
Threegoofs said:
Ah, yes.


It’s a giant worldwide conspiracy.
Click to expand...

I'm not willing to call it a conspiracy. If it goes that far, then they are criminals and should be jailed.

I have explained many times how the solar influence is incorrectly calculated in the IPCC material.

Are you telling us you are so scientifically illiterate, you cannot follow?
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm not willing to call it a conspiracy. If it goes that far, then they are criminals and should be jailed.

I have explained many times how the solar influence is incorrectly calculated in the IPCC material.

Are you telling us you are so scientifically illiterate, you cannot follow?
Click to expand...

Sure.

You don’t want to call it a conspiracy because that sounds crazy and idiotic.

But when the entire scientific community misses this ‘obvious’ omission, and the only one who picks up on it is an anonymous DP poster who claims he is an ‘auto-didact’... i can see no other way to describe it but ‘giant worldwide conspiracy’.

Can you not follow that simple logic?
 
Threegoofs said:
Sure.

You don’t want to call it a conspiracy because that sounds crazy and idiotic.

But when the entire scientific community misses this ‘obvious’ omission, and the only one who picks up on it is an anonymous DP poster who claims he is an ‘auto-didact’... i can see no other way to describe it but ‘giant worldwide conspiracy’.

Can you not follow that simple logic?
Click to expand...

I don't think they missed it. I think they are afraid to rock the boat.
 
This is what fair-mindedness looks like. Let me know when RealClimate posts something by a skeptic.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]There are three types of climate change denier, and most of us are at least one[/h][FONT=&quot]From The Conversation Last week, amid the cacophony of reactions to Greta Thunberg’s appearance before the United Nations Climate Action Summit, a group of self-proclaimed “prominent scientists” sent a registered letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres. The letter, headed “There is no climate emergency”, urged Guterres to follow: …a climate policy based on sound science,…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
This is what fair-mindedness looks like. Let me know when RealClimate posts something by a skeptic.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]There are three types of climate change denier, and most of us are at least one[/h][FONT=&quot]From The Conversation Last week, amid the cacophony of reactions to Greta Thunberg’s appearance before the United Nations Climate Action Summit, a group of self-proclaimed “prominent scientists” sent a registered letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres. The letter, headed “There is no climate emergency”, urged Guterres to follow: …a climate policy based on sound science,…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Actually, it’s what high standards look like.

All the fake polar bear experts, oil money shills, unqualified pseudonymous idiots and pretend House of Lords members can’t get a voice there.
 
Threegoofs said:
Actually, it’s what high standards look like.

All the fake polar bear experts, oil money shills, unqualified pseudonymous idiots and pretend House of Lords members can’t get a voice there.
Click to expand...

And yet WUWT does not fear your prejudice, while RC fears Shaviv, Svensmark, et al.
 
Threegoofs said:
Right.

Because they have incredibly low standards. See Monckton, Christopher.
Click to expand...

That's wrong but beside the point (which you seem to be trying hard to dodge). WUWT gives a platform to its opponents; RC does not.
 
Jack Hays said:
That's wrong but beside the point (which you seem to be trying hard to dodge). WUWT gives a platform to its opponents; RC does not.
Click to expand...

I’m not dodging anything.

RC has stsndards, WUWT will post any trash they feel like posting.
 
Threegoofs said:
Sure. I remember the smears on Mann, and others.

Real ‘fair’. [emoji849]
Click to expand...

And yet Mann has always had a standing invitation to post his defense at WUWT.
Meanwhile, RC and other "consensus" outlets do their best to restrict skeptic access.
 
Jack Hays said:
And yet Mann has always had a standing invitation to post his defense at WUWT.
Meanwhile, RC and other "consensus" outlets do their best to restrict skeptic access.
Click to expand...
The heretic is seldom welcome at church!
 
Jack Hays said:
Scientists skeptical of the current AGW advocacy campaign and climate hysteria have taken steps to organize their resistance. This should surprise no one.

[FONT=&][/FONT]
Global Climate Intelligence Group founded

[FONT=&]By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley The Global Climate Intelligence Group, whose objective is to put the science back into climate science, comprises scientists, professionals and researchers from many nations, has already attracted some 500 signatures for what began life scant weeks ago as the European Climate Declaration. The group, and the declaration, are the brainchild…
Continue reading →

[/FONT][FONT="]. . . The declaration says –[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]There is no climate emergency[/FONT]
[FONT="]A global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation. . . .[/FONT]
[FONT=&]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

AWESOME!!!!

just like:

truthers that think bush planned it
Birthers
Anti-vaxxers
flat earthers
Holocaust deniers
etc etc

all nutters and retards
 
Jack Hays said:
And yet Mann has always had a standing invitation to post his defense at WUWT.
Meanwhile, RC and other "consensus" outlets do their best to restrict skeptic access.
Click to expand...

Mann has standards, so why would he post on a trash site?
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]The Conversation: “democracy may be an obstacle to … action … on climate change”[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest essay by Eric Worrall PHD student Christian Elliott is worried that democracy, the tendency for Conservatives to sometimes win elections, is impeding vital progress on climate change; though he hopes that reframing the issue and tackling negative stereotypes may bring Conservatives on board. Both conservatives and liberals can agree on action on climate change October…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
Mann apparently likes to lob insults and hide. Like the coward he is.
Bottom line: WUWT welcomes free speech. RC and Mann do not.
Click to expand...

I think I see the problem.

You don’t understand the concept of ‘high standards’

LOL
 
Jack Hays said:
You don't understand free speech or fairness. High standards have nothing to do with this. That's BS deflection.
Click to expand...

I understand it quite well.

Your favorite site publishes certified crap. It’s not ‘free speech’ or ‘fairness’.

It’s deliberate misinformation.
 
Threegoofs said:
I understand it quite well.

Your favorite site publishes certified crap. It’s not ‘free speech’ or ‘fairness’.

It’s deliberate misinformation.
Click to expand...

So . . . would you call "The Conversation" crap? Would you say WUWT's invitation to Mann is "crap?" Fact is that WUWT seeks to broaden the discussion, while the "consensus" sites seek to exclude dissident views.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom