Just stoking the fire. ;) ;)

Where do you get your info?

why do people keep linking to that rubbish website?

it was specifically set up to attack skeptics and independent scientists for the consumption of ignorant plebs who think the last word is the correct word

Edited by ricecrackers: 23/3/2014 04:43:45 PM

Just stoking that fire a bit……..

;) ;)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years-advanced.htm

Well, yes. Say that then. The vast majority of evidence shows proposition x is true...

Otherwise, what you have is nothing more than an argument from authority.

Well, yes. Say that then. The vast majority of evidence shows proposition x is true...

Otherwise, what you have is nothing more than an argument from authority.

and yet none of those things exist to prove human activity is causing global warming... or even climate change

today's climate change fearmongers are yesterday's flat earthers
today's chief scientist is yesterday's pope

see how this works

dissenters are ostracized and silenced by the majority as the ruling class of the majority are afraid their fraud will fall apart

all the while the head of the CSRIO sits on the board of a major international investment bank

http://www.csiro.au/Portals/About-CSIRO/Who-we-are/Executive/MeganClark.aspx

among other things...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/csiro-denies-its-head-megan-clark-has-any-conflict-of-interest-over-carbon-store-role/story-fn59niix-1226170818106

If the proposition was backed up by mountains of evidence, it was peer reviewed, it was published in credible journals, it was experimentally replicated and confirmed, if it were statistically analysed to consider hidden biases then yes, yes I would believe that coal is made from fairy floss.

Because that is how science works.

Just WOW! Off to the homeopathy clinic for you then.

When old folk lament the lack of critical thinking and the dumbing down of society this must be what they are talking about.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/homeopathy/

Edited by munrubenmuz: 23/3/2014 03:13:22 PM

[youtube]OjD0e1d6GgQ[/youtube]

If 99% of scientists were of the opinion that coal is made entirely of fairy floss, would that make it true?

if 99 out of 100 doctors told me i was going to die,
i'd be seeing the 1 guy that was going to give me some hope

If you disagree with the diagnosis of 99 out of 100 doctors and instead choose to go with the lone dissenter's opinion then it is you Sir, that are thick, not I.

I will bid you good afternoon because it is clear you are both delusional.

oh dear

There is definitely a large cost. But when you look at some of things governments spend money on, I would say it's an acceptable use of taxpayer money

i think he is

](*,) Are you sincerely that thick?

i already told you to read what i wrote in another thread. you refused to do it. laziness must define you hence your ignorance on this matter.

the banking industry as well as the gas&oil industry stand to benefit as the proposed taxes will affect the competing coal industry the worst.

For your sake let's hope 99% of doctors don't diagnose you or someone you love with cancer.

Just answer the question, you are embarrassing yourself.

Who has the most to gain with maintaining the status quo?

Let's put some figures on the scales here to help you. $4.7 billion (according to your video so a fact) to the AGW "scam" in the USA annually vs a multi-trillion dollar industry receiving anywhere from $14 to $52 billion dollars a year in the US. http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

Why won't you answer the question?

they're not taking any action at all
they're merely moving money around and moving pollution around

for example, modern pollution free coal power plants are closing down in the USA to be replaced by primitive non scrubbed dirty coal plants over the border in Mexico. this is the result of your climate scare fraud, you're actually creating more pollution.

I agree re. the finality of fossil fuels. But to suggest there is no cost to addressing climate change is insanity.

Exactly. And given fossil fuels are finite (or are we going to argue that too) then, whether its done now or later, something will eventually have to be done to wean ourselves off them.

Even if climate change isn't real, there is no major negative to taking action as if it is

and around and round we go :roll:

A bit of Occam's razor is what's needed here.

Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. One shouldn't say 99 % of scientists believe proposition x is valid, therefore we should think the same. You're better served by saying, the vast majority of evidence suggests that climate change is real....

You see, you out yourself again. The links are not opinions they are an investigation and a statistical* breakdown of the "scientists" that signed the petition. Again, you can have your own opinions, you can't have your own facts.

(* Disclaimer: Mathematical statistical theory is a construct of big pharma, the CSIRO and the illuminati.)

The breakdown clearly shows that the 9000 figure and even more so the 30000 figure is a laughable joke.

Happy to argue facts. The facts are right there.





Edited by munrubenmuz: 23/3/2014 02:18:22 PM

Both of you blokes are correct of course. As we all know there are those that doubt the efficacy of vaccinations and those that doubt (or outright deny) evolution.

As there is not 100% consensus on both subjects and since, as you both say, science is not a vote, I propose that evolution and vaccination (and add any theory you care to name, there are those that deny general relativity) are merely constructs of those in the pay of big umm (insert some rubbish about grants here) and therefore not to be believed.

I mean the evidence is clear. Only 99% of scientists agree that these are facts but unfortunately, by your logic, science is not a vote and "truth is not determined by plebiscite" so we'll just write those 2 subjects off as the playthings of overactive imaginations.

Do you think we should discount evolution or vaccinations because there are some lunatics on the edges that think these things are lies?

Clearly you blokes don't have a leg to stand on.

And I notice you ignored my question again.




Edited by munrubenmuz: 23/3/2014 01:58:06 PM

Truth is not determined by plebiscite.