More lies from the climate change loons

Tommy Monk wrote:



You asked for evidence to back up what I posted above...


I have just posted the evidence but you completely ignored it...


So here it is again!!!


Try reading slowly...


The mini ice age is well documented... and seen in the GISP2 Antarctic ice core study too... which is the other side of the world... so a global cool period!


And...


According to a continuous study conducted by the NASA's Goddard institute, the Earth's average global temperature has risen by 0.8 degrees Celsius or 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the thermometer readings have risen continuously.21 Oct 2014

Andy wrote:Expect a reply from the climate change denyer that the top side of Earth is sunlit and hot, whilst underneath is dark and cold.
He believes the stats provided by the 0.5% of the populus who won't accept  the hard evidence.

Tommy Monk wrote:

The mini ice age is well documented... and seen in the GISP2, and Vostock Antarctic ice core study too... which is the other side of the world... so a global cool period!


And...


According to a continuous study conducted by the NASA's Goddard institute, the Earth'saverage global temperature has risen by 0.8 degrees Celsius or 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the thermometer readings have risencontinuously.21 Oct 2014


But we know the goddard institute have been caught out adjusting the data to exaggerate the amount of warming that they claim...

Plus... the old temp records are more inaccurate and less comprehensive in number of locations data is collected from, the further back in time the records go back...


And let's not forget... "since records began" is only about 150 years anyway... when we started coming out of the mini ice age period... so of course it's going to be a bit warmer now than then as we get back to what is the longer term normal warmer temps that we should be having!!!


Look at the data on graph over the last 10000 years!!!


It's mostly as warm or warmer than it is now!!!


Use your common sense!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:No... I earlier stated that in the last 100 years or so, there has only been about 0.7 deg Celsius temperatures rise...


Didge asked me to provide evidence of this, as he didn't believe it, so I quoted a source that he does believe, to back up what I said... although I don't trust the source myself, or the accuracy of the data used... as I explained on the post where i gave that quote...!


Please don't try to insult my integrity with your suggestions about what I posted... especially as you have failed to quote my post in full... but just quoted a section of it, out of context of the full post...!

Guest wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:No... I earlier stated that in the last 100 years or so, there has only been about 0.7 deg Celsius temperatures rise...


Didge asked me to provide evidence of this, as he didn't believe it, so I quoted a source that he does believe, to back up what I said... although I don't trust the source myself, or the accuracy of the data used... as I explained on the post where i gave that quote...!


Please don't try to insult my integrity with your suggestions about what I posted... especially as you have failed to quote my post in full... but just quoted a section of it, out of context of the full post...!

I have not insulted you at all?

And not only did i quote what you had posted, you also told a poster to read it slowly so he would understand, (that is very insulting and not the words of somebody who wants to debate ) In fact I copied and pasted your incomplete.paragraph  from the post above  , But i also added the sentence that completes the paragraph and provided a link to the source material, you did not do that.

That is how evidence is supplied, with links to source material ,rather than just an out of context ,cherry picked part of a paragraph as you did.

Now you claim i insulted your integrity with a link to the report you cited.? To be honest it seems all you want to do is start some kind of fight rather than address those points, and indeed the points i made earlier.

Well i long ago realised, no amount of science or peer reviewed data will convince ,you climate change denial people,so i don't bother
Because it is ultimately a waste of Time.

You instead insult people (sic), who disagree with your incomplete assessment ,and edited paragraphs ,with passive aggressive statements .

Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics (like passive aggressive replies) to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.

That is unfortunate ,because burying you head in the sand is no longer a option ,if we are to survive as a species.

Since the late 1970s, oil companies have published research broadly in line with the standard views on global warming. Despite this, oil companies organized a climate change denial campaign to disseminate public disinformation for several decades, a strategy that has been compared to the organized denial of the hazards of tobacco smoking by the tobacco industry.

So thank you Admin,for allowing me to post my points, (that he ignored) but i feel it is a waste of time , if all he is going to do is stamp his feet, and post graphs that are out of date,with no explanation And expect others to just accept them on face value, or post edited paragraphs.And stoke animosity with passive aggressive Statements.That's not debate..... or very adult.

Some people just want to watch the world  burn i guess.

So good luck
And thank you    

Syl wrote:
Odd that a 'new' poster who seemed to argue his points well decides to flounce at the first hurdle...……....agenda alert.

Guest wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:No... I earlier stated that in the last 100 years or so, there has only been about 0.7 deg Celsius temperatures rise...


Didge asked me to provide evidence of this, as he didn't believe it, so I quoted a source that he does believe, to back up what I said... although I don't trust the source myself, or the accuracy of the data used... as I explained on the post where i gave that quote...!


Please don't try to insult my integrity with your suggestions about what I posted... especially as you have failed to quote my post in full... but just quoted a section of it, out of context of the full post...!

I have not insulted you at all?

And not only did i quote what you had posted, you also told a poster to read it slowly so he would understand, (that is very insulting and not the words of somebody who wants to debate ) In fact I copied and pasted your incomplete.paragraph  from the post above  , But i also added the sentence that completes the paragraph and provided a link to the source material, you did not do that.

That is how evidence is supplied, with links to source material ,rather than just an out of context ,cherry picked part of a paragraph as you did.

Now you claim i insulted your integrity with a link to the report you cited.? To be honest it seems all you want to do is start some kind of fight rather than address those points, and indeed the points i made earlier.

Well i long ago realised, no amount of science or peer reviewed data will convince ,you climate change denial people,so i don't bother
Because it is ultimately a waste of Time.

You instead insult people (sic), who disagree with your incomplete assessment ,and edited paragraphs ,with passive aggressive statements .

Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics (like passive aggressive replies) to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.

That is unfortunate ,because burying you head in the sand is no longer a option ,if we are to survive as a species.

Since the late 1970s, oil companies have published research broadly in line with the standard views on global warming. Despite this, oil companies organized a climate change denial campaign to disseminate public disinformation for several decades, a strategy that has been compared to the organized denial of the hazards of tobacco smoking by the tobacco industry.

So thank you Admin,for allowing me to post my points, (that he ignored) but i feel it is a waste of time , if all he is going to do is stamp his feet, and post graphs that are out of date,with no explanation And expect others to just accept them on face value, or post edited paragraphs.And stoke animosity with passive aggressive Statements.That's not debate..... or very adult.

Some people just want to watch the world  burn i guess.

So good luck
And thank you    


 

Tommy Monk wrote:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/11/29/climategate-ii-more-smoking-guns-from-the-global-warming-establishment/

Andy wrote:Or perhaps he is embarrassed to be seen talking to the forum idiot.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Syl wrote:
Odd that a 'new' poster who seemed to argue his points well decides to flounce at the first hurdle...……....agenda alert.

"Odd" that the resident troll, death campaigner, xenophobic nutter and leading NF hatemonger Sly is straight on to 'fonken's case here...

Never forget that Sly was Stormee's #1 booster and defender,  a leading piece of shit hatemonger along with queen troll Horatio,  a lying old harridan..

And now she's laying into the sadly departed newest member on here.

Sly'dog calls out an imagined "agenda alert"  !!!

I call it deflection from Tommy's ongoing lies, outright harassment and lying bullshit alert for the wouldbe manipulator and lying troll Sly --  nasty old cow has failed miserably in trying to chase away me, Andy, Quill, (and replacing veya with HT as a mod'..).

So now she raises the notion of conspiratorial "agendas" on here ???
The sooner Sly and co. fuck off to join their fascist mentors Stormee, smelly', nicko and those other trolls the better off NF will be..

Andy wrote:Fonken will still be following the threads and forum.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Syl wrote:
Odd that a 'new' poster who seemed to argue his points well decides to flounce at the first hurdle...……....agenda alert.

"Odd" that the resident troll, death campaigner, xenophobic nutter and leading NF hatemonger Sly is straight on to 'fonken's case here...

Never forget that Sly was Stormee's #1 booster and defender,  a leading piece of shit hatemonger along with queen troll Horatio,  a lying old harridan..

And now she's laying into the sadly departed newest member on here.

Sly'dog calls out an imagined "agenda alert"  !!!

I call it deflection from Tommy's ongoing lies, outright harassment and lying bullshit alert for the wouldbe manipulator and lying troll Sly --  nasty old cow has failed miserably in trying to chase away me, Andy, Quill, (and replacing veya with HT as a mod'..).

So now she raises the notion of conspiratorial "agendas" on here ???
The sooner Sly and co. fuck off to join their fascist mentors Stormee, smelly', nicko and those other trolls the better off NF will be..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Syl wrote:
Odd that a 'new' poster who seemed to argue his points well decides to flounce at the first hurdle...……....agenda alert.

Never forget that Sly was Stormee's #1 booster and defender,  a leading piece of shit hatemonger along with queen troll Horatio,  a lying old harridan..

Andy wrote:July WAS the hottest year on earth EVER.

http://news.sky.com/story/july-was-the-hottest-month-ever-recorded-on-earth-say-scientists-11778176

So Tommy, take this , read it, understand it, then SHOVE IT WHERE THE SUN DONT SHINE.

gelico wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:



Never forget that Sly was Stormee's #1 booster and defender,  a leading piece of shit hatemonger along with queen troll Horatio,  a lying old harridan..

Never forget that wetwipe is a whining wanker

Tommy Monk wrote:


My points and the evidence provided still stands!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Show me the answers to my points and evidence, that you claim exist...!?


You can't because there aren't any answers!!!

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

gelico wrote:


Never forget that wetwipe is a whining wanker

"Wetwipe"  ==  just shows what a clueless braindead old slag you are,  having to resort to reccycling Horatio&Sly's brainless and meaningless juvenile taunts from two years ago...

"Whining"  ==  that's what you call it when anyone objects to your endless racist, sexist and neo-fascist rants..

"Wanker"  ==  yet you're one of the imbeciles who keeps on cheering on Trump over his jibes against the disabled, coloured people and immigrants, praising him on high at any opportunity.

You pathetic spineless disgusting little maggot..

phildidge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Show me the answers to my points and evidence, that you claim exist...!?


You can't because there aren't any answers!!!

They are written throughout this thread and many previously

What you fail to grasp is people will simple not bother debating you on topics where you avoid answering countless points and evidence

I mean the very first post from Folken for example, you ignored everything they stated

That is why people will lose interest in debating you

So maybe you mightwant to understand that for your own sake

Guest wrote:First Hi to everybody.

It's odd the thing you come across surfing the internet, and it was this post that spurred me to join.

To point out that Christopher Booker the author of the links you provided was one of the last remaining regular outlets for outright climate science denial in the UK’s mainstream press and that three of his favourite fallacies:

   Climate change is a con;
   More renewables mean the UK’s lights go out;
   India and China aren’t doing anything to cut their emissions, so why should the UK?

Each of these arguments has been debunked many, many times.

There is a huge consensus within climate science that rising temperatures is an extremely serious problem.as evidenced by, our own eyes and the latest IPCC report saying the world has to take action within 12 years to keep warming to a vaguely ‘safe’ level.

I am painfully aware that The climate deniers will not accept this, But it is a fact. like it or not

the UK’s lights haven’t gone out the UK’s electricity grid works perfectly 99.99999 percent of the time, even with renewables providing record-breaking amounts of power. in fact So far this year, Scotland's wind turbines have produced almost double the amount of wind energy needed to power every household in Scotland between January and July of 2019, Scotland generated 9,831,320 megawatt hours (MWh) of wind energy, as per data recorded by Weather Energy.

That's enough to power 182 percent of all 4.47 million Scottish homes, or nearly 100 percent of homes in both Scotland and the North of England, and i don't think that includes solar or hydro. So no the lights are not going out with more renewable energy Sources as he claimed

And China and India, with some hiccups, are definitely stepping up to the plate on climate change, to an extent. China is even being lauded as the world’s de facto climate leader after the US vacated that position in the wake of Trump’s  pulling the country out of the Paris Agreement. They know Unlike the U.S. president that transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy will ensure long-term economic development.

In fact China is moving to cut its CO2 emissions much faster than anyone expected, and is now on a path to achieving its Paris climate commitments, including peaking its CO2 emissions, well before its 2030 goal. China is on track to cutting its CO2 emissions by 0.5 percent this year as it burns less coal, building on a 0.7 percent reduction last year, and contributing to a global slowdown in CO2 emissions growth. it is true the largest power producers in China have asked the government to allow for the development of between 300 and 500 new coal power plants by 2030 in a move that could single-handedly jeopardise global climate change targets.However the Chinese government has not adopted the industry proposal.

Interestingly in his final column, Booker failed to mention that many of his arguments were based on the work of climate science denier blogger Paul Homewood not any actual science. you can read about Mr Homewoods claims here

GranthamInstitute/news/climate-change-deniers-trying-to-fool-the-public-again-about-extreme-weather/

You will have copy and search the above title ,as i am not able to post external links

Booker will die believing organisations with the science and incontrovertible evidence on their websites, like Nasa, NOAA, NCAR, the Royal Society, National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society etc etc etc, and about 70,000 expert climate scientists publishing in the field, many papers in Nature and Science, are wrong and he is right.


I guess its more a case of who or what you want to believe. facts be dammed

I personally choose experts and data, over unqualified opinions, of people who have only at best a basic understanding of the underlying science.
After all i would not want somebody whom knows a bit of First Aid operating on my heart , I want a qualified surgeon who has spent years in study with qualifications in heart surgery  

I cant change your mind about climate change ,only you can do that

But the evidence is clear and only muddied because some people think they are better scientists, than actual scientists.

Tommy Monk wrote:I've asked you before to post up the more accurate ice core studies that you claim exist... and I'm still waiting...!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:Post up the details that are relevant...

It's not my job to trawl through every word of every article you post up...

Waiting...!?

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Post up the details that are relevant...

It's not my job to trawl through every word of every article you post up...

Waiting...!?

Jesus tommy...did your mother wipe your ass, too?

gelico wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


"Wetwipe"  ==  just shows what a clueless braindead old slag you are,  having to resort to reccycling Horatio&Sly's brainless and meaningless juvenile taunts from two years ago...

"Whining"  ==  that's what you call it when anyone objects to your endless racist, sexist and neo-fascist rants..

"Wanker"  ==  yet you're one of the imbeciles who keeps on cheering on Trump over his jibes against the disabled, coloured people and immigrants, praising him on high at any opportunity.

You pathetic spineless disgusting little maggot..

i was the first one to call you wetwipe actually.  

your constant whining is what defines you

that, and being a wanker

also please stop trying to flirt with me, you're embarrassing yourself man

gelico wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


"Wetwipe"  ==  just shows what a clueless braindead old slag you are,  having to resort to reccycling Horatio&Sly's brainless and meaningless juvenile taunts from two years ago...

"Whining"  ==  that's what you call it when anyone objects to your endless racist, sexist and neo-fascist rants..

"Wanker"  ==  yet you're one of the imbeciles who keeps on cheering on Trump over his jibes against the disabled, coloured people and immigrants, praising him on high at any opportunity.

You pathetic spineless disgusting little maggot..

i was the first one to call you wetwipe actually.  

your constant whining is what defines you

that, and being a wanker

also please stop trying to flirt with me, you're embarrassing yourself man

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

gelico wrote:



i was the first one to call you wetwipe actually.  

your constant whining is what defines you

that, and being a wanker

also please stop trying to flirt with me, you're embarrassing yourself man

You're a fucking lying troll...

HT and co.were already insulting me when you were absent on one of your regular juvenile flounces..

I am neither a wanker, nor embarrasing myself "flirting" woih a nasty dog like you...

You're the one attacking me with your trolling --  all I'm doing is merely replying to your incessant lies and self-delusional trolling.  You started this abuse against me, and as always you will eventually cop it back threefold..

You manhating, racist, Trump-loving piece of fascist crap.

Syl wrote:Maybe the main reason we dont get many new members here is everything to do with the way this ONE poster on this site repeatedly spews out his sexist demented abuse to several of the female posters on this site?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Maybe the main reason we dont get many new members here is everything to do with the way this ONE poster on this site repeatedly spews out his sexist demented abuse to several of the female posters on this site?

I have to say respectfully, Syl, your continued squatting on your hatred for Wolf is probably drawing more attention to it for visitors, than anything else.  You, HT and gelico go back and forth, back and forth, and back and forth over the subject, so that no visitor could miss it.

If repetition is the key to marketing, y'all are fulfilling the need.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Maybe the main reason we dont get many new members here is everything to do with the way this ONE poster on this site repeatedly spews out his sexist demented abuse to several of the female posters on this site?

I have to say respectfully, Syl, your continued squatting on your hatred for Wolf is probably drawing more attention to it for visitors, than anything else.  You, HT and gelico go back and forth, back and forth, and back and forth over the subject, so that no visitor could miss it.

If repetition is the key to marketing, y'all are fulfilling the need.

Could I respectfully request that you take these off Quill?