RE: Not politically expedient

RE: Not politically expedient (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

VideoAdminChi -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/23/2013 1:20:08 PM)
FR, This thread is locked for review.

VideoAdminChi -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/23/2013 4:31:18 PM)
Unlocked. A number of posts have been removed. If you did not receive a gold letter for your post and would like it back to repost, please let me know via CMail. Certain members should pay attention to this: Please do not make other posters the topic.

deathtothepixies -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/23/2013 4:39:18 PM)
as an aside maybe http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/21/climate-change-ipcc-global-warming I imagine they are all talking bollocks though

FirmhandKY -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/24/2013 9:04:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1998, roughly, 364 ppm. Today 395. Since 1998 temperatures have gone up as I've shown previously. NASA and CERN have made no such claims and virtually no scientists working in relevant fields agree. Are you saying that "no scientists working in relevant fields agree" that the source of AGW is increased man-made CO2? And neither has NASA? As always read what I write not the crazy shit you wish I wrote. It's not "crazy shit". It's a question. Because your writing style and substance is often disjointed and confusing. I wish to ensure that if I address you, I address what you are actually saying, not a guess about what you might, kinda, sorta be saying. Firm

DomKen -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/24/2013 9:21:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1998, roughly, 364 ppm. Today 395. Since 1998 temperatures have gone up as I've shown previously. NASA and CERN have made no such claims and virtually no scientists working in relevant fields agree. Are you saying that "no scientists working in relevant fields agree" that the source of AGW is increased man-made CO2? And neither has NASA? As always read what I write not the crazy shit you wish I wrote. It's not "crazy shit". It's a question. Because your writing style and substance is often disjointed and confusing. I wish to ensure that if I address you, I address what you are actually saying, not a guess about what you might, kinda, sorta be saying. Firm I replied to a post. Read it and maybe you'll understand.

tweakabelle -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/24/2013 11:04:42 AM)
The Daily Mail's claims are false. I believe that the Mail has subsequently published corrections to its false reports. Check out this analysis of the claims and the way in which some media have seized upon the false claims to assert that IPCC's report on climate change is erroneous, when it was the media itself that was making all the mistakes: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/ (episode 34, Sept 2013) Need I add that those media making and/or publicising the false claims are the same media that have been running 'climate skeptic' campaigns for some time now, grossly misinforming their readers about climate change?

vincentML -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/24/2013 12:07:07 PM)
~FR~ Predictions, predictions, predictions . . . increasing atmospheric CO2, CH4, H20, whatever, will cause an increase of x degrees C in Earth's atmospheric temp over the next several decades. How can a linear prediction be made about determinsitic causes in a nonlinear, dynamic system? Where are the butterflies of chaos? Have they been forgotten? Are they being ignored? Or are we to believe climate models take every butterfly into account? Curious is all . . .

FirmhandKY -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/24/2013 12:36:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The Daily Mail's claims are false. I believe that the Mail has subsequently published corrections to its false reports. Check out this analysis of the claims and the way in which some media have seized upon the false claims to assert that IPCC's report on climate change is erroneous, when it was the media itself that was making all the mistakes: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/ (episode 34, Sept 2013) Need I add that those media making and/or publicising the false claims are the same media that have been running 'climate skeptic' campaigns for some time now, grossly misinforming their readers about climate change? How about the Huffington Post article? Firm

mnottertail -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/24/2013 1:08:25 PM)
Since it says something entirely different and claims entirely different things making none of the extravagant impugnations that the Mail has, it probably is not needing corrections.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/24/2013 5:17:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Since it says something entirely different and claims entirely different things making none of the extravagant impugnations that the Mail has, it probably is not needing corrections. The main difference is the headline. The majority of the body of the articles convey the same information, although with a slight different take on the interpretation. Firm

mnottertail -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/25/2013 6:40:15 AM)
No, not really. And one attributes this and that motives to the events clearly not in evidence, or clearly something the bullshitter has no intimate knowledge of, while the other does not. They both said 1998, the congruence ends there.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125