Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Not politically expedient


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Not politically expedient Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/23/2013 1:20:08 PM   
VideoAdminChi


Posts: 3086
Joined: 8/6/2012
Status: offline 		FR,

This thread is locked for review.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/23/2013 4:31:18 PM   
VideoAdminChi


Posts: 3086
Joined: 8/6/2012
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to VideoAdminChi)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/23/2013 4:39:18 PM   
deathtothepixies


Posts: 683
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to VideoAdminChi)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/24/2013 9:04:56 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/24/2013 9:21:30 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/24/2013 11:04:42 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline 		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?

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 9/24/2013 11:11:17 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/24/2013 12:07:07 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline 		~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 . . .

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/24/2013 12:36:44 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/24/2013 1:08:25 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/24/2013 5:17:58 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/25/2013 6:40:15 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 51
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Not politically expedient Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.063