Originally Posted by Maz
(Post 11640827)
|
Originally Posted by RA Dunk
(Post 11640846)
Seen this a few days ago, IIRC this is what they are teaching 'primary school' kids nowadays, fcuking disgrace if you ask me, brainwashing is the only way to describe it.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...-31041362.html |
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-31727699
Mistake my ar$e.. Nothing like brainwashing them while they are young. |
If you think that's bad, have a look at the Science (Physical World) syllabus:
Gloabl Warming and climate change taught as FACT, NO other theories allowed to be taught. Even Creationism gets a mention, but not anything to do with debunking the climate change myth. |
Originally Posted by alcazar
(Post 11640881)
If you think that's bad, have a look at the Science (Physical World) syllabus:
Gloabl Warming and climate change taught as FACT, NO other theories allowed to be taught. Even Creationism gets a mention, but not anything to do with debunking the climate change myth. |
Originally Posted by alcazar
(Post 11640881)
the climate change myth.
|
Sure.
Google it..knock yourself out:D |
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
(Post 11640934)
can we have some sources for that
|
Originally Posted by RA Dunk
(Post 11640970)
If you're saying it's not a myth then it's obviously a fact, do you have any sources for this?
|
So according to you science says that climate change is real?
Science also say's the planets temperature changes with natural cycles. So that pretty much blows you're science theory out of the water. |
Originally Posted by RA Dunk
(Post 11640998)
So according to you science says that climate change is real?
Science also say's the planets temperature changes with natural cycles. So that pretty much blows you're science theory out of the water. |
Originally Posted by Martin2005
(Post 11641011)
Please explain why?
|
Originally Posted by RA Dunk
(Post 11641016)
So you are admitting climate change is real?
I'll go with what the science says. |
Originally Posted by RA Dunk
(Post 11640970)
If you're saying it's not a myth then it's obviously a fact, do you have any sources for this?
you assert the claim, provide the sources that's all, quite straight forward really |
Originally Posted by RA Dunk
(Post 11640998)
So according to you science says that climate change is real?
Science also say's the planets temperature changes with natural cycles. So that pretty much blows you're science theory out of the water. |
Originally Posted by neil-h
(Post 11641109)
I really don't understand why so many people struggle with this. The issue isn't with whether or not climate change is real, the issue is whether or not it's influenced by mankinds activities.
It's beyond me how anybody could use this argument against the science? He seems to think that the facts of natural variations of the climate have somehow escaped the entire scientific community. Science is now 95%+ certain that humans are responsible for recent warming. You'd need to have a bloody set of facts to call it a myth. |
Originally Posted by neil-h
(Post 11641109)
I really don't understand why so many people struggle with this. The issue isn't with whether or not climate change is real, the issue is whether or not it's influenced by mankinds activities.
But yet the powers that be try to convince us it's actually man made and tax us on it. But people like Martin roll over like faithful little dogs and take they're reaming from the Government with pleasure. |
Originally Posted by Martin2005
(Post 11641113)
He thinks that man made climate change and natural climate variations are mutually exclusive.
It's beyond me how anybody could use this argument against the science? He seems to think that the facts of natural variations of the climate have somehow escaped the entire scientific community. Science is now 95%+ certain that humans are responsible for recent warming. You'd need to have a bloody set of facts to call it a myth. I saw a poster post on another thread - how he hated it when people ask for sources I assume he was levelling at me yet, on the WTC, I am asked to believe stuff, yet the evidence presented to support any claim that posters make is always either blatant lies or a massive misrepresentation of the facts or people who simply think the are the Messiah and yet I am the one with the closed mind!!!!! if you need an example of the importance of sources - watch the following news clip - the climate change denier David Bellamy simply out of his depth and conducting scientific fraud with "bent" sourcedata PLEASE DO NOT WATCH IF YOU HAVE, OR WANT TO MAINTAIN ANY RESPECT FOR DAVID BELLAMY - it is a bit tragic tbh the science has been basically settled please can someone put their sources for the "myths" around the science and climate change thanks |
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
(Post 11641171)
|
Originally Posted by RA Dunk
(Post 11641164)
Exactly! They know things are changing but they are unsure as to why things are changing, they don't know if the changes are natural or man made.
But yet the powers that be try to convince us it's actually man made and tax us on it. But people like Martin roll over like faithful little dogs and take they're reaming from the Government with pleasure. |
Originally Posted by Turbohot
(Post 11641195)
Monbiot rips Bellamy here quite severely, fair play.
pathetic and embarrassing but all these simple deniers of a "consensus" whether that is climate change, 911 or evolution all use the same tactics cherry picking data, unreliable and unattributed sources, quote mining (look it up in wiki) and just simple lies and like creationist and truthers, they simply keep repeating falsehoods and lies although absolutely happy to accept no science is ever settled, there always room for a better understanding of the world around us, and that the scientist have made errors, in judgement and sometimes exaggeration |
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
(Post 11641236)
yes, as I said in the spoiler alert - if you have any respect for him, you would after that shower of sh1t
pathetic and embarrassing but all these simple deniers of a "consensus" whether that is climate change, 911 or evolution all use the same tactics cherry picking data, unreliable and unattributed sources, quote mining (look it up in wiki) and just simple lies and like creationist and truthers, they simply keep repeating falsehoods and lies although absolutely happy to accept no science is ever settled, there always room for a better understanding of the world around us, and that the scientist have made errors, in judgement and sometimes exaggeration |
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
(Post 11641236)
yes, as I said in the spoiler alert - if you have any respect for him, you would after that shower of sh1t
pathetic and embarrassing but all these simple deniers of a "consensus" whether that is climate change, 911 or evolution all use the same tactics cherry picking data, unreliable and unattributed sources, quote mining (look it up in wiki) and just simple lies and like creationist and truthers, they simply keep repeating falsehoods and lies although absolutely happy to accept no science is ever settled, there always room for a better understanding of the world around us, and that the scientist have made errors, in judgement and sometimes exaggeration |
Originally Posted by Martin2005
(Post 11641280)
In a nutshell... Embarrassing.
and maybe this is the sort scientist James Delingpole (another anti-knowledge truther) is talking about when he says he does not do science, but is an "interpreter of interpretations" wtf does that even mean and science should be left to bloggers |
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
(Post 11641304)
I know quite staggering
and maybe this is the sort scientist James Delingpole (another anti-knowledge truther) is talking about when he says he does not do science, but is an "interpreter of interpretations" wtf does that even mean James Delingpole doesn't do science - he's "an interpreter of interpretations". - YouTube and science should be left to bloggers SN has plenty of interpreters of interpretations that go by the baseless interpretations, and that's about it. You should know the meaning of it, Hodgy. :D |
Well pretty scary that that should be the scientific process according to Delingpole
A load of youtube amateurs posting boll0x, in the same manner I have highlighted in the WTC thread Still always a few idiots who believe this stuff, after all (climate deniers, truthers, creationist) belief is unconditional on facts/figures or evidence |
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
(Post 11641352)
Well pretty scary that that should be the scientific process according to Delingpole
A load of youtube amateurs posting boll0x, in the same manner I have highlighted in the WTC thread Still always a few idiots who believe this stuff, after all (climate deniers, truthers, creationist) belief is unconditional on facts/figures or evidence Some people are just antagonists and irrationals. They just love to argue, I suppose. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:14 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands