ocean conditions are changing due to Rapid Global Climate Shift

You don't get it, these mash potato eaters are after the money and power. They don't care about anyone or the environment. They spend their lives in conferences eating some kind of meat and mash potato thinking that they know better than anyone else and that they can solve all the worlds problems. That is what global government is about.

 

Er - - what's your point?

 

People with global agendas don't care about anyone but themselves. Global thinkers are the real greedy ******** that are tricking people with made to order science. They are in business of making money off peoples fears. Is that clear enough.?

 

Nope.

I don't see how so-called "global thinkers" are tricking people with science - unless you mean the oil interests trying to convince people there's no problem with global warming - which is supposed to be the discussion in this topic.

 

Now, *that* is an outright lie.

I guess that when you've either decided to depart from the forum or have been kicked off, it doesn't matter what you say on the way out the door, but nevertheless, that statement is an outright lie.

PDW

 

That article raises some interesting points WRT old structures in Europe but I can't really take it seriously - it uses temperatures in degrees F and nobody on this planet with any pretensions to science does that. It's idiotic.

Notwithstanding that, sea level rise is an established fact. As I live on the edge of a drowned river valley, I have daily visible proof of it. That the sea level is continuing to rise (slowly) is also a fact.

My biggest complaint is that it's taking too long as I need around 1m to have a waterfront deep enough to launch my boat from rather than trucking it elsewhere.

PDW

 

Does a 3% inaccuracy constitute an "outright lie"?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
...humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

Look at the figures - active publishers on climate change are certainly in the 98% range, so to call Boston an "outright liar" you will have to qualify your statement.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Boston
The theory of Rapid Global Climate Shift has a 98% consensus view with the only dissenting parties being those paid off by the oil and gas industry.
Now, *that* is an outright lie.

I guess that when you've either decided to depart from the forum or have been kicked off, it doesn't matter what you say on the way out the door, but nevertheless, that statement is an outright lie.

PDW

 

Am I to assume that you don't understand predicate logic or set theory as well?

PDW

 

Now you attack me for objecting to an ad hominem attack on someone else. By the way, I did a first year degree mathematics and a full Electronics Engineering degree at a British University, so I have some understanding of logic and set theory - but why am I forced to defend my understanding of such arcane subjects just to engage in discourse?

Your belligerence is totally overpowering, you have already called someone an "OUTRIGHT LIAR" who has however loosely referred to information that is published by accepted scientific authorities.

You may try to justify yourself with abject and twisted geek logic, but you are still far beyond the bounds of civility and propriety and should apologise.

 

Let's please try to keep discussions polite to one another. Thanks.

 

My, my - I take it that a question of mine, without any stated overtones, is considered by you to be an ad-hominem attack? Only to you, I think.

You may have studied predicate logic and/or set theory at some time in the past, but it seems that you don't *understand* it.

Now, Boston made 2 statements, to wit:
"The theory of Rapid Global Climate Shift has a 98% consensus view with the only dissenting parties being those paid off by the oil and gas industry."

I'll dissect them for you.

Statement 1:
"The theory of Rapid Global Climate Shift has a 98% consensus view"

You say it's ~95%, I'm not taking issue with it.

Statement 2:
"with the only dissenting parties being those paid off by the oil and gas industry."

Boston has defined a binary data set.

Now, to falsify this second statement, by rules of logic, I only need to find a *single* example of a person who dissents *and* isn't being paid off by the oil & gas industry.

I am such a person.

Therefore, the statement is false.

As I have pointed this out to Boston in the past, he has made a false statement in wilful denial of at least one exception.

Therefore, the false statement is deliberate, or in other words, is a lie.

You will be waiting for a very, very long time for an apology from me. Frankly, you should thank me for giving you an example of how to parse and analyse sentences, but I expect that you lack sufficient grace to acknowledge your position.

PDW

 

I'm glad I didn't read past your first sentence. You are hereby on ignore.

 

Well, I got some 'brain' food for thought for those in favor of lower population.
The culling of the herd includes you and YOUR family.
300 million planned to survive out of 7 billion current population?
Your chance of being among the lucky, in an equitable names drawn from a huge hat, would be 1 in 23. Load a 24 shot revolver with 23 bullets, spin cylinder and shoot yourself in the head.

BUT, it's not an equitable chance at all!
The ELITE choose who's names go into the hat, for the few available vacancys not already claimed by THEM for their family and friends.
Your chance of being in the future gene pool is NIL if you let them get away with this!

 

Good morning, Yobarnacle. We won't go down quietly, so you ZPG folks will need first aid kits with lots of corks, sutures and a front loader.

 

In case a SINGLE exception gets thrown out as an anomaly. I'm ANOTHER dissenting party, though not a scientist, and not being paid by anyone.
Ergo the statement is INDEED false.