|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 5, 2010 19:37:46 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by bluebiro on Sept 5, 2010 19:39:35 GMT 1
May I politely suggest that AGW be kept to this thread, and not be brought up in threads about unrelated topics?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 5, 2010 19:47:50 GMT 1
May I politely suggest that AGW be kept to this thread, and not be brought up in threads about unrelated topics? I wholeheartedly agree bluebiro. That way there will be something for everyone to discuss.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 5, 2010 20:18:16 GMT 1
Sorry, rsmith, but this is simply no more than unfounded propaganda on the part of The Telegraph. Hidden agendas everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 5, 2010 20:27:15 GMT 1
May I politely suggest that AGW be kept to this thread, and not be brought up in threads about unrelated topics? Are you saying keep AGW solely to this thread? One called; The Great Global Warming Swindle?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 5, 2010 20:27:23 GMT 1
That's a good start Abacus! Begin by stating obviously what I'm getting at except in reverse. How original!
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 5, 2010 20:30:42 GMT 1
May I politely suggest that AGW be kept to this thread, and not be brought up in threads about unrelated topics? Are you saying keep AGW solely to this thread? One called; The Great Global Warming Swindle? I entirely agree, lazarus.
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 5, 2010 20:31:55 GMT 1
But there's no science in this thread - that is what this board is about isn't it?
Surely we're not going off the rails already?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 5, 2010 20:33:29 GMT 1
That's a good start Abacus! Begin by stating obviously what I'm getting at except in reverse. How original! Well, rsmith, it is one thing to make claims about the IPCC in a politically motivated newspaper and quite another to produce strong evidence supporting such scandalous claims!
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 5, 2010 20:35:07 GMT 1
But there's no science in this thread - that is what this board is about isn't it? Surely we're not going off the rails already? No science to AGW? You are joking of course.
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 5, 2010 20:40:59 GMT 1
There's no science in the opening post or any of the replies - just politics, spin, bias, media reporting, call it what you will
Yes there is science in AGW
However, there's none on this thread and the OP makes no comment or question related to science.
To suggest that all AGW discussion should be kept to one thread where the opening post makes no attempt to mention the SCIENCE of AGW is laughable.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 5, 2010 20:42:29 GMT 1
Well well, we meet at last, lazarus. I agree, why restrict such a hugely important subject to this thread. There's so much to discuss: Political motivation Falsified data Vested interests Contrary evidence To name but a few. First off, I think we should all disclose our "positions" and allegiances. I'm a fisherman, I'm somewhere between an anarchist and free market capitalist. I believe in truth, honour and integrity and will speak plainly. I detest green propaganda. Apologies in advance for being rude and appearing agressive - I live and work in a harsh environment and have no time for platitudes.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 5, 2010 20:50:44 GMT 1
Well To suggest that all AGW discussion should be kept to one thread where the opening post makes no attempt to mention the SCIENCE of AGW is laughable. Well, this is how AGW sceptics conduct their crusade against it, i.e. by unfounded claims based on misinformation. In fact, no AGW sceptic really wants to get into the science because it is robust and conclusive.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 5, 2010 20:54:49 GMT 1
Yep abacus, the models are great. The statistical analysis of the data is great. Pity the data is....eh....Wilbur Wright. Robust and conclusive my ass.
|
|
|
Post by alanseago on Sept 5, 2010 20:55:55 GMT 1
There are an unlimited number of boards on here. You can, if the Admin OKs it, start a new one for every subject. It is an Anna-free zone, your admin takes all the decisions.
|
|