Bilboro-lad
-
Content Count
897 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Bilboro-lad
-
-
Re 97%.
This actually now becomes meaningless. In answer to where did you get the information you replied.
Post 97 Guardian, Post 121 The News.
Which makes either (a) very forgetful, therefore not worth listening to. Or (b) A liar, therefore not worth listening to.
I could include DIM but we all know that anyway.
Are you some kind of sociopath? You are certainly coming across as one. I note that you keep using the word 'we'. Who is 'we'? Why do you feel the need to have security in numbers (even if imagined)? You are coming across as a very weak individual issuing insults over a screen. Not very clever really is it? For the sake of all concerned, I'll ignore you and you ignore me eh? Why subject the other forum members to your unpleasantness? Is that a deal?
-
That's climate change that is.
-
There we go. You have brainwashed yourself into believing only what you want to believe. It's a well known phenomena.
That report came from people who work in the petrochemical industry in Alberta and nowhere else.
You have chosen to live a delusion and only you know why. Read ALL of the comments. After all, they are ALL strangers to you and me aren't they? Do you actually know any of them? Thought not.
-
Have a read of this web page - then go to the bottom of the page and read all the comments about who was really polled (Members of the oil and gas industry in Alberta)
-
While we are on the subject of quoting NASA - let's take a look at their main climate change page.
climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Well waddya know. Have you changed your mind now then?
-
No I haven't looked at the NASA site. When they all start to change their minds then so will I. At the moment it's on 97%.
-
It's not for me to decide whether or not climate change is man-made. That's for trained scientists at research establishments all over the world. I can put a thermometer out in the garden if that will help?
-
Oh I see. That's because you'd have to accept the truth and that would never do would it?
-
And as you keep stating NASA this and NASA that, are you aware NASA now contradicts your "97%" over so called man made global warming, ie CO2 emissions have caused "global warming"??? Don't believe me??? Then go here to NASA's own site..
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
Let me know when the 97% becomes 45% will you?
-
97% ?? I saw it on the News. You know that program that sets out to fool the unwary into believing lies on the behest of the government,
-
How well you describe yourself and your way of thinking.
Totally one sided no rationale to your train of thought if you can muster a train of thought that is.
Your non arguments sound more like an emergency siren Whee Whaa, Whee Whaa. on and on. Like I said same old words mostly meaningless.
And there we have it. A perfect example of irrational thought leading to a conspiratorial explanation. At one moment in time you had a 'Eureka moment' when all became clear to you. When was that?
-
Same old words; you don't have a very large vocabulary do you? Back to that poor education.
Now, because your daughter is studying a certain subject, it makes you a master of that too?
Delusions of grandeur come quickly to mind.
There, I've corrected it for you.
-
It all comes down to a pattern of irrational thought. You have chosen a set belief without evidence and then set out to prove yourself correct.
However, the secret is in the word 'irrational'.
Basically what it means is that you've brain-washed yourself into a belief pattern that you can no-longer control.
Any 'facts' that come to light that are against your beliefs will be investigated with suspicion and dismissed as falsehood or an attempt to hoodwink the unwary.
That's how conspiracy theories work.
If I say that 97% of climate scientists say that climate change is man made - you'll instantly say "Ah yes but if they want a research grant they have to be pro-climate change." That's irrational thought but because you have programmed your brain in a set way you cannot see it.
Without meaning to be rude, you have simply deluded yourself.
-
I'm guessing here, but do you mean:
"Delusions of grandeur"?
-
I had one out at Players when I was about 5. Black bung in mouth, black mask - then they went too light on the gas and I felt the whole thing being wrenched out. They've got one of those old black torture set-ups at the Brewhouse Yard museum if you feel brave.
-
So you are saying then that 97% of climate scientists cannot make up their own minds and arrive at the answer that YOU insist that they should therefore they are in league with the 'establishment' to make money from phony climate change. Err - forgive me if I slip you quietly into the basket of conspiracy theorists. Sorry about that, but you give me no alternative.
-
Like all conspiracy theorists, you are unable to recognise your foible.
It's GCSE psychology mate. My daughter is doing a psychology PhD - I've read her books.
Why don't you drop the child-like insults? It makes you look rather unintelligent.
-
I see the conspiracy theorists are back. Why does anyone watch or read the news if it's all rigged? Come on guys, tell me why you do it. Tell me how you keep up to date with current affairs. If you don't believe anything - why do you believe in denying climate change? Where does your info come from?
-
I neither believe nor disbelieve. The difference is that I follow scientific evidence gathered and interpreted by experts in their field.How do you come to your conclusions? Is it the 3%
-
The conspiracy theory comes back into the thread. There is no controlling underworld. Papers write the truth or look pretty silly afterwards.
-
It's not possible to garner information on a daily basis. It needs collating and analysing. That's what we pay scientists to do. At this point in time 97% agree that it is MAN making the climate change. When that figure falls - then I'll reconsider.
-
The Guardian. I'm familiar with semiconductor theory and valves. I do remember them arguing about whether lightning went upwards or downwards, but these are just single events, not a whole branch of science.
-
But that's how science works. Someone comes up with a theory that either holds up or it doesn't. That theory is challenged and altered according to investigation by thousands of trained people. At the moment 97% of them are in favour of man made climate change. If new evidence comes up then the theory will change. It's an on-going thing, it's not a one off statement unless it becomes a scientific law. At this point in time the scientific community are very much in favour of man ,made climate change. It's not my opinion, it's just where we are at this time. If the level falls from 97% to 55% then obviously I would be more sceptical. It's not good making up your mind that you don't believe it and then attempting to find some rather dubious map or graph to prove the point. Making a decision without proof or evidence is faith. We have faith that God created the earth in 6 days, but that';s not science is it?
-
I find it odd that you are the only person that has realised this. Why aren't you contacting the universities and telling them the secret? I read somewhere that they have looked and looked at solar activity but can find no link whatsoever. Why are the 97% so stupid if the answer is so simple? Are all scientists that dim - or just climate change scientists?
Where did you roam.
in Owt' Abaaht Nowt !
Posted
I lived in Bilborough until I was 13 so early days were all around Wollaton Hall, Sandhills, Hemlock Stone but mainly down the old Wollaton canal around the old train bridge and up the slag heaps of the pit. Does anyone remember the slag heap that was on fire underneath? We used to call it 'hot sands'. I guess it must had had a lightning strike one day and it smouldered forever.