Yeah,... I'm secretly on the payroll of Allied and Pacific Coal. Just where do you dredge up this crap.
Is that a rant??
Only if you are one of their followers.It makes more sense than your argument that almost every field of science is involved in a gigantic conspiracy to make up climate change in order to extract vast sums of money from the poor "uneducated" public and this only being exposed by the unbiased views of the very companies who have the most to lose if this "conspiracy" succeeds.
I dunno, it was how the scammers themselves described their fiddling of the data. I just repeat the facts as i read them. I don't make them up or attempt to misconstrue them like our more "learned" friends.PS. I take it "finessed" is the new buzzword of the week I guess if you say it often enough others will believe it.
Only if you are one of their followers.
I dunno, it was how the scammers themselves described their fiddling of the data. I just repeat the facts as i read them. I don't make them up or attempt to misconstrue them like our more "learned" friends.
I form my opinions from what i see, I don't try to make the data fit my argument. It helps a lot.
I never saied that, but it appears you can see a connection, I'm not going to argue with you.So now I am in on the conspiracy as well, perhaps I need a few billion to research my involvement then.
That would be fine if it were only Fox who reported on it, but it was featured in our state papers neither of which are scandal rags, taking their copy from AAP/Reuters etc.The problem is that no one but you and Fox seems to believe there was any fiddling of the books but given that they are selling the same footage over and over again and calling them different events I am not sure anyone takes Fox too seriously.
But there was enough to arouse suspicions, and it was shown that the figures were fiddled for public consumption.As far as I can tell not one serious review of the data by the media or anyone else has uncovered anything more than the usual banter between an email group or are the media in on the conspiracy too?
But hey lets not let fact get in the way of dogma.
Can I suggest looking into the principle attributed to a 14th Century Franciscan Friar named William of Ockham, his principle has remained true right the way through to present times and I suspect will remain accurate for centuries to come.
Either the fossil fuel industry, their execs and shareholders wish to continue maximising profits by lobbying politicians and through employing fringe groups to do their dirty Public Relations work, or
its a conspiracy by several groups of independent scientists who have miraculously all fudged the data in the same way over many decades and arrive at the same conclusion.
Difficult one!
Milhouse: -- OK, here's what we've got: the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people --
Bart: Thank you.
Milhouse: -- under the supervision of the reverse vampires --
Lisa: [sighs]
Milhouse: -- are forcing our parents to go to bed early in a fiendish
plot to eliminate the meal of dinner. [sotto voce] We're
through the looking glass, here, people...
well now... science is more than just facts,much more than just so called facts, it is infact more about interpreting these facts in a particular frame work...
your facts are fine but the frame work is flawed and how the frame work was come up with the frame work has been made to find your conclusion rather than testing whether it is true or not...
and awhile back someone made comment on logic in a story invloving arson and a pub...
well this is your logic...
knock knock...
a insurance salesmen comes to the door attempting to sell you insurance for arson he produces a series of graphs showing evidence that arson is increasing in your area.
however his graph is to narrow fielded to prove anything and he also does not inform you of contradictory evidence but he actively suppresses it. this sham would be obvious if you were willing to question him, but you prefer to take his assurances. he assures you that as long as you hand over your money all will be fine and you can have peace of mind...
and then you hand over your money with out question because it apparently makes sense for you to hand over your money unquestioningly to someone who seeks to profit from the perceived problem at hand...
and awhile back someone made comment on logic in a story invloving arson and a pub...
well this is your logic...
knock knock...
a insurance salesmen comes to the door attempting to sell you insurance for arson he produces a series of graphs showing evidence that arson is increasing in your area.
however his graph is to narrow fielded to prove anything and he also does not inform you of contradictory evidence but he actively suppresses it. this sham would be obvious if you were willing to question him, but you prefer to take his assurances. he assures you that as long as you hand over your money all will be fine and you can have peace of mind...
and then you hand over your money with out question because it apparently makes sense for you to hand over your money unquestioningly to someone who seeks to profit from the perceived problem at hand...
Well there is more than £400 million being spent on flood defences next year alone, and the Thames flood barrier is one of the most famous defences in the world. I suppose if he focuses on these he will be accused of dealing with the symptoms rather than cause of the problem, as well as being selfish. I think the UK is the third largest emitter of CO2 historically.
I'm not sure how far you can go especially if climate change leads to heavier rainfall as well. You can't dam up all the rivers and coasts indefinitely. Scientists believe that if we go over about 3C the change will become self sustaining.
Over the long term even small changes in temperature can be quite devastating in terms of land loss. During the previous interglacial period, about 125,000 years ago, the average global temperature was around 1.3 degrees higher than it is today, as a result of changes in the earth’s orbit around the sun. A new paper in the scientific journal Nature shows that sea levels during that period were between 6.6 and 9.4 metres higher than today’s.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.