Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Jesus, even if I was a fully signed up it's-all-a-conspiracy-to-tax-us skeptic, I'd still find this guy insufferable.
Or a file?
But, really, George Monbiot isn't any better.
as Jimmy boy.
Delingpole is entertaining, so there is a difference.
Monbiot is a bit Vanilla but I guess that's his schtick
which is y'know, kinda important
was insufferable because he was "deluded" too.
delingpole writes a snarky weblog that has at best a tangential relationship to reality
who disagree strongly with the concensus opinion that global warming is significantly (and potentially catastrophically) caused/exacerbated by mankind.
not physicists, not chemists, not nutters who got their pHDs online for $50 from the 'university of oxbridge', but actual researchers in climate science?
I mean I've got a doctorate and I put my weight fully behind the notion that human organised activity has increased the proportion of greenhouse gasses.
Greenhouse gasses have the effect of increasing the amount of heat retained by the earth.
since the mean temperature of the earth has been seen to be rising, a logical scientific conclusion is that the human activities have contributed in whole or part to this increase.
Do you 'Raanraals' - the human being - the human scientist, find flaw with what I have said?
If so please detail your objections (unknowns and not having full data is not really an objection.....we will never have full data, there will never be no unknowns, there will never be a true pure control test)
Scientific concensus has historically been proved wrong numerous times over history. And those who disagree with the concensus have always been pilloried (or dismissed as unqualified mavericks, much as ottermagic does above) until proved right.
of empirical, peer-reviewed scientific progress.
For example, there's a big difference between
a) the scientific consensus on AGW, with a minority of voices in opposition;
b) the Church forcing Galileo to recant his claim that the earth moves around the sun
the maverick geniuses are few and far between.
Of course the deluded people(and their supporters)uniformly believe that they are the true geniuses.
but the argument that these people are having is not likely to be graced by either side admitting to that sort of thing.....remember before the majority of opinion was AGAINST the idea of humans causing global warming (because itwas political and involved championing various technologies (the most significant being petrochemical industries and their derivatives and their supporters)
Actually previous to that when I was preteen I used to read books concerning say human activities since the industrial revoilution (books published in the 60s and then 70's didnt seem to have much controversy when they simply stated.....since the start of the industrial revolution the increase in temperature has been significantly increased. ....their interpretation was that it was due to human activity.....of course there could be other unknown factors....there can always be these....there could be ones that are suppressing human activity excesses that we dont know of.........
which is why i would like to draw you to answering the question about whether you think human activity increases greenhouse gasses....and whether these gasses increase the heat retained by the earths atmoshphere, and whether it is logical or illogical to conclude that this is likely to therefore mean that this IS a factor in any increase in mean average global temperatures? (allowing for the fac tthat yes there are always unknwns)
But I can also understand why there are sceptics out there. I don't think you need to be a swivel-eyed loon.
I can't be bothered to dig it out again, but out of all those that signed the Manhatten Declaration, there are, in all the world, a bare handful (about 2%) of credible, independent climateologists that don't think that global warming is occuring and that is isn't made worse or caused by human activity.
who think think that homeopathy works better than a placebo too.
- one think
15 minutes ago
"You don't have to be a scientist to work out which group is full of lies, deceit and scheming."
1 minute ago
"If you don't have the ability to perform the experiments that they do, then yes, you do."
"Climate Science is a discredited and highly nebulous field."
The guy's a professional lay-troll, and the people who find him entertaining are the same as those that don't realise that Top Gear is a comedy show.
"what proportion of increase in global temperatures is due to human activity and increased greenhouse gas emission and what is due to other factors, both terrestrial and extra-terrestrial (axis of Earth's orbit, sunspot activity)"?
There are hundreds of well known peer-reviewed papers which document this in meticulous detail.
Come back to me if you have questions.
I presume you mean the IPCC??
The papers referenced go back more than 100 years before the establisment of the IPCC.
the papers written during the lifetime of the IPCC were published in such hotbeds of conspiracy as:
American Journal of Science
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Geophysical Research Letters
J. Atmospheric Sciences
Are they all in on it?
Now, go back to wetting your knickers at Guardian website articles.
is that even if you doubt that anthropogenic global warming is happening, his insistence on comparing climate change activists to the Nazis makes him look like a swivel-eyed loon.
And is also the name of a Zionist website that encourages its readers to flood the comments under any Guardian article that criticises Israel.
and then claims that the commenters "below mine are hundreds if not thousands of PhD level astrophysicists, engineers, geologists, mathematicians, chemists and so on who would soon give short shrift to any post that wasn’t supported by hard evidence."
You can then pretty much pick and choose from these great minds at will:
"Thank you very much, Moonbat and trolls here who are desperate to still sell us their religion of AGW.
Thanks to you, councils, airport authorities, railways, the Highway agency have not spent money on snow-clearing equipment, because there would only be mild winters in future, and snow would be a thing of the past.
Thanks to you, all of us living in small side streets even in big cities cannot even get to the main roads - not by foot, and not even in a car.
Thanks to you, there has been no mail at all since Friday.
Thanks to you, rubbish collections are suspended.
In case you've forgotten - it is Christmas in a few days.
Some of us will spend that time in hospital with broken limbs.
Some of us cannot now buy fresh vegetables nor collect what they've ordered."
"Yes ....the predictions of the warmists are turning to pants....but it is warmer, we know this because Moonbat and the Met Office have consulted the great oracle at Delphi, scattered the chicken entrails and re-sited all the cheap Chinese made thermometers at airports and a couple up "Two Jags" exhausts!!"
Also - you can always tell when someone is a wannabe Littlejohn / John Gaunt when they make up tenuous nicknames for people they don't like...
If you pull that thread, what he/she is essentially saying is that Philip Hammond, the Highways Agency, BAA and others are in the pockets of the climate change lobby.
he has terrible opinions on music.
Even before I became aware of his political opinions, I knew he wasn’t to be trusted when I read a review of the week’s singles in which he was full of praise for Toploader’s ‘Dancing In The Moonlight’.