Select to expand quoteParadox said..I would say that there is as much correllative evidence between global warming trends and natural temperature variance as there is with CO2 increases.
"You would say", would you Bootstrap?
So, show us the evidence that supports your statement I've quoted above and stop pretending we should just read your mind on this so-called evidence.
That's what I mean by "you're all over the shop". You ask for evidence to support the mainstream science of the day yet you provide zero evidence to support your hypothesis.
As for Naomi, as a member of the Heartland Institute, the Heartland provides direct support and funding for her propaganda. Heartland Institute is a disgrace, having spent decades discrediting the science of smoking related disease, they have now moved on to attempt to discredit the science of climate change.
Two things. Firstly we need to know Naomi grades at school at science subjects. I very doubt there are above average, rather the opposite, so her scientific approach don't have any basis. Questioning experts even more dissapoiting , because she don't have any arguments on her own. Secondly. What is message, if any? Everything is fine, we don't need to anything or change. Can she rather consider other caree? modeling, cheerleading,accounting, drink serving at pub? Complete waste of talent to engage into activity she don't have a slightest idea about.
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..
Two things. Firstly we need to know Naomi Greta grades at school at science subjects. I very doubt there are above average, rather the opposite, so her scientific approach don't have any basis. Questioning experts even more dissapoiting , because she don't have any arguments on her own. Secondly. What is message, if any? Everything is fine, we don't need to anything or change. Can she rather consider other caree? modeling, cheerleading,accounting, drink serving at pub? Complete waste of talent to engage into activity she don't have a slightest idea about.
There. Fixed it for ya!!
She's a member of, a spokesperson of and she takes funding for her speeches from the Heartland Institute, a lobby group that worked for decades to discredit the links between smoking and disease. Exxon Mobil is one of their biggest donors....
It doesn't matter what her grades are, her affiliations with this disreputable organisation demonstrates that she has zero credibility. Zilch.
Select to expand quotecisco said..Macroscien said..
Two things. Firstly we need to know Naomi Greta grades at school at science subjects. I very doubt there are above average, rather the opposite, so her scientific approach don't have any basis. Questioning experts even more dissapoiting , because she don't have any arguments on her own. Secondly. What is message, if any? Everything is fine, we don't need to anything or change. Can she rather consider other caree? modeling, cheerleading,accounting, drink serving at pub? Complete waste of talent to engage into activity she don't have a slightest idea about.
There. Fixed it for ya!!
yep, they both should back to school. But at least Greta message is simple. Don't throw plastic bottle into ocean. Hard not to agree with that and you don't computer models to tell you. Just look at pollution at beaches those islander paradise. message is about unneeded polution. avoid if you can. And we just happen to can now.
Does anyone remember that hole in the ozone layer? Wasn't it caused by man made chemicals or something? Didn't we ban something and it started to go away or something?
Select to expand quotestupid said..
Does anyone remember that hole in the ozone layer? Wasn't it caused by man made chemicals or something? Didn't we ban something and it started to go away or something?
Its still there Stupid
Didn't you realise that there was where common sense disappeared through!
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
She's a member of, a spokesperson of and she takes funding for her speeches from the Heartland Institute, a lobby group that worked for decades to discredit the links between smoking and disease. Exxon Mobil is one of their biggest donors....
It doesn't matter what her grades are, her affiliations with this disreputable organisation demonstrates that she has zero credibility. Zilch.
you still prefer to play the person rather than tackle the argument
Select to expand quotejapie said..stupid said..
Does anyone remember that hole in the ozone layer? Wasn't it caused by man made chemicals or something? Didn't we ban something and it started to go away or something?
Its still there Stupid
Didn't you realise that there was where common sense disappeared through!
archive.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/environment/environmental-reporting-series/environmental-indicators/Home/Atmosphere-and-climate/ozone-hole.aspx
"The ozone hole has started to shrink due to the phase-out of these substances, and it is possible that it will cease to form by the middle of this century."
Yah humans.
Select to expand quotecammd said..holy guacamole said..
She's a member of, a spokesperson of and she takes funding for her speeches from the Heartland Institute, a lobby group that worked for decades to discredit the links between smoking and disease. Exxon Mobil is one of their biggest donors....
It doesn't matter what her grades are, her affiliations with this disreputable organisation demonstrates that she has zero credibility. Zilch.
you still prefer to play the person rather than tackle the argument
Isn't the rule only sad old white men attack little girls?
Select to expand quotecammd said..you still prefer to play the person rather than tackle the argumentholy guacamole said..
She's a member of, a spokesperson of and she takes funding for her speeches from the Heartland Institute, a lobby group that worked for decades to discredit the links between smoking and disease. Exxon Mobil is one of their biggest donors....
It doesn't matter what her grades are, her affiliations with this disreputable organisation demonstrates that she has zero credibility. Zilch.
I'm addressing the argument at every level.
Seibt freely chose to affiliate with such a disgusting group. It reflects badly on her. She has zero credibility.
Select to expand quotePugwash said..
As emotional as Adriano
Pugwash pugwash. Do you think this little game of yours makes your inane posts any more valuable here?
Honestly who cares?
Peace be with you.
I mean you no ill will.
Up to you whether you wish to more mature about this or continue playing the man.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Pugwash said..
As emotional as Adriano
Pugwash pugwash. Do you think this little game of yours makes your inane posts any more valuable here?
Honestly who cares?
Peace be with you.
I mean you no ill will.
Up to you whether you wish to more mature about this or continue playing the man.
What on earth are you on about
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Sorry can't help you pugwash. Try moving on....you're getting nowhere....peace.
Soz, I don't understand this post either...
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
I stand by the facts surrounding Seibt's affiliations to the Heartland Institute. She's a member, gives talks under their banner and receives funds from them for her speeches outside of the US.
wtf, why would anyone be disputing that??? she clearly says all that, although I am unsure of the funding aspect, exept maybe travel costs. It's your assertions on Heartland that ive asked for evidence for. You have brought it up several times.
for example you state: "a lobby group that worked for decades to discredit the links between smoking and disease. Exxon Mobil is one of their biggest donors...." and
"This is a group of industrialists who have long questioned the link between smoking and cancer and heart disease and take a large part of their donations from Exxon Mobil. The Heartland Institute's core objective IS to spin misinformation and spread doubt."
Stay on track, don't dissemble and back those statements up because it sounds like a smear campaign to me and I bet it's either a total fabrication or a complete twisting of the truth.
I have no particular leaning to the Heartland Insititute's efforts, but everything I have read from them seems factual and on point, I cannot find any deliberate miss-information from them.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..holy guacamole said..
I stand by the facts surrounding Seibt's affiliations to the Heartland Institute. She's a member, gives talks under their banner and receives funds from them for her speeches outside of the US.
wtf, why would anyone be disputing that??? she clearly says all that, although I am unsure of the funding aspect, exept maybe travel costs. It's your assertions on Heartland that ive asked for evidence for. You have brought it up several times.
for example you state: "a lobby group that worked for decades to discredit the links between smoking and disease. Exxon Mobil is one of their biggest donors...." and
"This is a group of industrialists who have long questioned the link between smoking and cancer and heart disease and take a large part of their donations from Exxon Mobil. The Heartland Institute's core objective IS to spin misinformation and spread doubt."
Stay on track, don't dissemble and back those statements up because it sounds like a smear campaign to me and I bet it's either a total fabrication or a complete twisting of the truth.
I have no particular leaning to the Heartland Insititute's efforts, but everything I have read from them seems factual and on point, I cannot find any deliberate miss-information from them.
www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/tobacco-and-oil-pay-for-climate-conference-790474.html
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
You've provided no evidence or hard facts to back your claim that the current warming is largely or even equally natural. Only an argument and opinions.
you know I can't quite get whether you just have no ability to understand what I say or just choose to ignore it.
I have never claimed current warming is largely or equally natural variance, or CO2 driven or anything else. Thats what you keep saying I have said, when I have not. My point is that the correllation with CO2 levels and global warming is not that strong as the warming trend was in place well before the CO2 levels were high enough to have an effect.
All I have done is provided evidence that the current warming trend started around 200years ago and is still continuing and that natural trend can't be dismissed as having no ongoing effect.
I will make it clear for you....the level of contribution of CO2 to current observed warming is not known. NOT KNOWN..... IS NOT KNOWN BY ANYONE.....IS A SOURCE OF SIGNIFICANT DEBATE BY SCIENTISTS....ALL CLAIMS OTHERWISE ARE THEORY ONLY (ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT)
Regarding your graph, im not sure what that means, it no secret or even debated that CO2 levels have risen and are currently 30% higher than at any time in the recent past (from your graph).....if you are trying to suggest that CO2 emmissions from 1800 created a strong warming trend immediately that has continued at the same rate since then, I think you had better find some backup for that, because I don't think anyone disputes that the influence of CO2 on warming was miminal until mid 1900's.
Select to expand quote
and....? I see nothing that editorial apart from vague unsupported claims and even those claims don't support HG's pretty specific comments.
I have no doubt thier funding comes from donations, they certainly are not government funded. Why does who donated to them make what they say wrong? Sounds like a political smear approach to me. What would be worrying is if it was clear they were being influence by thier donators to skew or falsefy data or reach conclusions that are unsupported by the data.
There is a vague reference to them challenging some claim about the effects of passive smoking?? I don't know what the claims were? Maybe they were right to challenge them, the claim could have been that passive smoking gives you autism or makes you gay???? Or maybe they were just challenging that the data on passive smoking was pretty thin to conclude too much apart that it's not desirable?? That would just be scientific skeptisism, not an ensorsement to smoke aorund your kids.
Lack of details and facts usually means a beat up.
Select to expand quotecisco said..Macroscien said..
Two things. Firstly we need to know Naomi Greta grades at school at science subjects. I very doubt there are above average, rather the opposite, so her scientific approach don't have any basis. Questioning experts even more dissapoiting , because she don't have any arguments on her own. Secondly. What is message, if any? Everything is fine, we don't need to anything or change. Can she rather consider other caree? modeling, cheerleading,accounting, drink serving at pub? Complete waste of talent to engage into activity she don't have a slightest idea about.
There. Fixed it for ya!!
Well no you didn't fix it. All Greta is saying is to take the advice of the experts and get on with it. Naomi is attempting to discredit the experts and substitute her own advice.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Beersy said..
www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/tobacco-and-oil-pay-for-climate-conference-790474.html
and....? I see nothing that editorial apart from vague unsupported claims and even those claims don't support HG's pretty specific comments.
I have no doubt thier funding comes from donations, they certainly are not government funded. Why does who donated to them make what they say wrong? Sounds like a political smear approach to me. What would be worrying is if it was clear they were being influence by thier donators to skew or falsefy data or reach conclusions that are unsupported by the data.
There is a vague reference to them challenging some claim about the effects of passive smoking?? I don't know what the claims were? Maybe they were right to challenge them, the claim could have been that passive smoking gives you autism or makes you gay???? Or maybe they were just challenging that the data on passive smoking was pretty thin to conclude too much apart that it's not desirable?? That would just be scientific skeptisism, not an ensorsement to smoke aorund your kids.
Lack of details and facts usually means a beat up.
Oh dear....The Heartland Institute challenged the medical evidence that smoking caused all manner of diseases including working DIRECTLY with Phillip Morris. If you don't know how to use Google, try the local library.
They and anyone directly associated have zero credibility.
By further denying this paradox and quoting laypersons associated with this despicable group not befitting the title Institute, your credibility also approaches zero.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..holy guacamole said..
I stand by the facts surrounding Seibt's affiliations to the Heartland Institute. She's a member, gives talks under their banner and receives funds from them for her speeches outside of the US.
wtf, why would anyone be disputing that??? she clearly says all that, although I am unsure of the funding aspect, exept maybe travel costs. It's your assertions on Heartland that ive asked for evidence for. You have brought it up several times.
for example you state: "a lobby group that worked for decades to discredit the links between smoking and disease. Exxon Mobil is one of their biggest donors...." and
"This is a group of industrialists who have long questioned the link between smoking and cancer and heart disease and take a large part of their donations from Exxon Mobil. The Heartland Institute's core objective IS to spin misinformation and spread doubt."
Stay on track, don't dissemble and back those statements up because it sounds like a smear campaign to me and I bet it's either a total fabrication or a complete twisting of the truth.
I have no particular leaning to the Heartland Insititute's efforts, but everything I have read from them seems factual and on point, I cannot find any deliberate miss-information from them.
LOL, you think everything the Heartland Institute is factual and on point. That's telling. How Ian seems to think you have a scientific background when you can roll out pearler like that is astounding.
Have you not read up on their origins? They started as a pro-tobacco lobbyist and worked directly with Phillip Morris.
......FFS.
...and to think IanK rated him as having a scientific background yet he doesn't realise Heartland was one of the number one pro-tobacco lobbyists of the '80's and '90's and one of their biggest donors is Exxon Mobil.
This is public knowledge.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
...and to think IanK rated him as having a scientific background yet he doesn't realise Heartland was one of the number one pro-tobacco lobbyists of the '80's and '90's and one of their biggest donors is Exxon Mobil.
Whats Science got to do with any of that? It's Just more wild unsubstiantiated statements that are particularly unhelpful. If these guys are the antichrist as you say I'm sure there will be plenty of hard evidence available right? The only confirmed info I can find is that they got involved in the 80's in opposing increased taxation on tabacco and yes worked with tabacco companies on it. I know plenty of people who still have the same view on tabacco tax themselves. So what.
Science and the scientific process is about factual evidence and balanced debate. Not about moral choices or soapboxing emotionally virtuous outbursts. Just because they started out as a lobby group that defended the rights of smokers and tabacco farmers isn't exactly a damning indictment on thier credibility now.
If you have some evidence that this organisation has or is deliberately falsified facts or aimed to deliberately decieved by distorting the truth or are being influenced by their doners then I will be happy to agree they are not worth listening to. Until then I have no reason to doubt they have been and are still working with facts.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..holy guacamole said..
...and to think IanK rated him as having a scientific background yet he doesn't realise Heartland was one of the number one pro-tobacco lobbyists of the '80's and '90's and one of their biggest donors is Exxon Mobil.
Whats Science got to do with any of that? It's Just more wild unsubstiantiated statements that are particularly unhelpful. If these guys are the antichrist as you say I'm sure there will be plenty of hard evidence available right? The only confirmed info I can find is that they got involved in the 80's in opposing increased taxation on tabacco and yes worked with tabacco companies on it. I know plenty of people who still have the same view on tabacco tax themselves. So what.
Science and the scientific process is about factual evidence and balanced debate. Not about moral choices or soapboxing emotionally virtuous outbursts. Just because they started out as a lobby group that defended the rights of smokers and tabacco farmers isn't exactly a damning indictment on thier credibility now.
If you have some evidence that this organisation has or is deliberately falsified facts or aimed to deliberately decieved by distorting the truth or are being influenced by their doners then I will be happy to agree they are not worth listening to. Until then I have no reason to doubt they have been and are still working with facts.
Did I say the Heartland Institute are the anti- Christ?
No.
I said they spent the better part of their first 20 years spreading misinformation and lies about the hazards of smoking.
They lost that battle fair and square so they moved onto climate change in 2008.
Science has a lot to do with it in fact. Science and medicine.
Mate, I think you've exposed yourself as a bit of a poor researcher by trying to defend the Heartland Institute.
At least do some research before you spout further and embarrass yourself anymore.
