Emma Thompson on Global Warming

[White Dove]

I'd be more inclined to trust real scientists on the subject to be honest.

This is an interesting blog.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/11/models-vs-observations-plotting-a-conspiracy/

Well at least things seem to be not as catastrophic as predicted by Al Gore and his fellow Noble prize winner

 

[WA ROO]

The Keystone XL pipeline is dead.



http://www.vox.com/2015/11/6/9681340/obama-rejects-keystone-pipeline

Warren Buffett is dancing in the street
All the way to banking another couple of billion

 

[not a warmonger]

I'd be more inclined to trust real scientists on the subject to be honest.

This is an interesting blog.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/11/models-vs-observations-plotting-a-conspiracy/

Well at least things seem to be not as catastrophic as predicted by Al Gore and his fellow Noble prize winner

If you think that the curent mass extinction underway is not catastrophic

 

[not a warmonger]

Warren Buffett is dancing in the street
All the way to banking another couple of billion

How'sTransCanada looking?

 

[White Dove]

If you think that the curent mass extinction underway is not catastrophic

I fail to see any evidence to support that current mass extinction theory of yours is underway.

 

[not a warmonger]

I fail to see any evidence to support that current mass extinction theory of yours is underway.

What do you think happens when temp goes up rapidly relative to geological timescale?

 

[WA ROO]

How'sTransCanada looking?

No where as good as BNSF

 

[White Dove]

What do you think happens when temp goes up rapidly relative to geological timescale?

On current data it's called a farce.

 

[apparentlydead]

How about you provide actual proof of AGW? The IPCC has said they cannot explain the pause in slightly increasing temperatures. Don't worry though. They did say that temps should start to rise again next decade.

So, you answer my request with a question.

I'm struggling to remember a bigger lightweight than you in over a decade on here.

You are just a nothing poster overall.

 

[medusala]

I guess listening to Watson's ideas on global warming is no less silly than listening to Meds' opinions on economics.

That would make sense only if you were delusional enough to believe that Gough was anything other than Australia's worst (by Flemington straight) post war pm.

Why is it your typical believer (ex Goldman types who smell the cash) in AGW Armageddon also has no clue at all on economics?

Correlation or causation?

 

[Lebbo73]

So, you answer my request with a question.

I'm struggling to remember a bigger lightweight than you in over a decade on here.

You are just a nothing poster overall.

Massive fail once again by you. Just like Rise Up, quick to attack the poster because you have nothing. Move along now!

 

[Grin]

That would make sense only if you were delusional enough to believe that Gough was anything other than Australia's worst (by Flemington straight) post war pm.

Abbott was by far the worst.
But why start letting reality interfere with your beliefs now?

 

[apparentlydead]

Massive fail once again by you. Just like Rise Up, quick to attack the poster because you have nothing. Move along now!

You were asked to articulate the dismissal of the science with some evidence, instead of your normal shrill squealing.

You seem to find this task impossible.

I don't need to provide proof as a multitude of scientists have done this for me and it is a matter of public record.

Shit, you could even begin with that total loon Ian Plimer and work yourself up.

Here's another hint, you could quote a recent hilarious report which states that coral atoll countries under threat from rising sea levels have nothing to worry about because the coral will outgrow the sea level rise and the wonderful ocean will wash more sand up higher. It's quite incredible reasoning.

You'll find it fascinating and definitely be dumb enough to believe it!

 

[Todman]

Abbott was by far the worst.
But why start letting reality interfere with your beliefs now?

If you think that then he must have done his job.

 

[Gough]

What is Abbott's legacy in your view?

 

[Ripper]

Please enlighten us with your version of discrediting the science.

You can even use graphs and charts if you like.

The science is not settled bushie, even the scientists admit that in private.

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't.

Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I
almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will
show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year
extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we
believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know ****-all about what
the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know
with certainty that we know ****-all).

Plenty more where that came from. Anyone who reckons it is "Settled" is having a lend of you.

 

[not a warmonger]

The science is not settled bushie, even the scientists admit that in private.





Plenty more where that came from. Anyone who reckons it is "Settled" is having a lend of you.

maybe in your mind, but among the climite science community, its a a done deal with 97% concensus the earth is warming and we are responisible

 

[apparentlydead]

The science is not settled bushie, even the scientists admit that in private.





Plenty more where that came from. Anyone who reckons it is "Settled" is having a lend of you.

I wasn't asking you Bob.

 

[not a warmonger]

On current data it's called a farce.

yes you are right. Govenemnts reponse to the current and projected data is a farce.

 

[Lebbo73]

maybe in your mind, but among the climite science community, its a a done deal with 97% concensus the earth is warming and we are responisible

You do know that 97% figure is a lie, don't you? medusala and others have previously posted the facts on where that figure came from.
apparentlydead you don't need my evidence to tell you that you are dribbling verbal diarrhoea about AGW. There is plenty of evidence already available on BF.

 

[apparentlydead]

You do know that 97% figure is a lie, don't you? medusala and others have previously posted the facts on where that figure came from.
apparentlydead you don't need my evidence to tell you that you are dribbling verbal diarrhoea about AGW. There is plenty of evidence already available on BF.

Evidence which you seem unable and unwilling to find.

Lightweight.

Run back under Meds petty coat, Princess.

 

[not a warmonger]

You do know that 97% figure is a lie, don't you? medusala and others have previously posted the facts on where that figure came from.
apparentlydead you don't need my evidence to tell you that you are dribbling verbal diarrhoea about AGW. There is plenty of evidence already available on BF.

what did the survey that you conducted on all peer reviewed climate science papers show?

 

[rodney hoo]

You don't have to be a brain surgeon to reliase that the human race is polluting the atmosphere. It's very clear the majority of climate scientists believe it has to stop and it should.
Those of you apposing the science should ask your selves a few questions no matter what you beleive.
1- in the sixties governments ran advertisements to stop throwing rubbish out car windows because it was polluting the streets. The majority now comply.
2- if your neighbors decided they did not want to pay council fees and through all there rubbish into there back, front yards let sewer run would you be happy with pollution.
3- we all used to burn our grass cuttings and it was stopped because our hoses stunk for days and it became illegal.
If the answer is no why should we be polluting the atmosphere even if you disagree with the scientists, commonsense should tell us to stop before it's to late.

 

[Lester Burnham]

You don't have to be a brain surgeon to reliase that the human race is polluting the atmosphere. It's very clear the majority of climate scientists believe it has to stop and it should.
Those of you apposing the science should ask your selves a few questions no matter what you beleive.
1- in the sixties governments ran advertisements to stop throwing rubbish out car windows because it was polluting the streets. The majority now comply.
2- if your neighbors decided they did not want to pay council fees and through all there rubbish into there back, front yards let sewer run would you be happy with pollution.
3- we all used to burn our grass cuttings and it was stopped because our hoses stunk for days and it became illegal.
If the answer is no why should we be polluting the atmosphere even if you disagree with the scientists, commonsense should tell us to stop before it's to late.

I'm guessing that you're not a brain surgeon.

 

[apparentlydead]

I'm guessing that you're not a brain surgeon.

And I'm guessing that you're not a climate scientist.

That, however, doesn't stop you proclaiming to know more than people who are.