Please Sir - I want some more.

[Borchester]

In a few short pages this thread has gone from a kind of discussion of sorts, to absolutely stinking of condescention and superiority. Its no wonder no one wants to discuss anything anymore.

Common little sod. He ought to be grateful that we take take any notice of him at all. Still, as the good book says in Proverbs 26:11, Dawg appears to have signed on again in the last month or so. Is he going to post anything or just sit there sniffing petrol fumes like all the other petrol heads?

[Sheepy]

Listen Sheepbrain, we have been paying debt down, no you haven't you have borrowed at a lesser rate until you borrow again at a higher rate. 
Every time interest rates rise so does the debt. Which once again Parliament voted for this crisis the same as the last and the same as the next one, so either the country is run by utter buffoons or the people who make the decisions are doing it with a purpose!
  https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/debt-interest-payments-balloon-to-120bn-and-could-derail-britain-s-battle-against-the-rising-cost-of-living/ar-AA10R7qP?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=011cda29803543e39930f45071d203dc

[Nick]

Every reputable scientist......all but a tiny fraction of mavericks - have stated offering reams of evidence in numerous science papers that global warming is real and that our global climate is being affected.

Do you honestly want me to waste my time quoting link after link to this? You are the one claimng they are all wrong, not me. The onus is on you to produce the evidence.

Here is the broad consensus of the vast majority...

Do scientists agree on climate change? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

I am not disputing that consensus. I am utterly convinced that they know more about it than you or me. It is you who are making the extraordinary claim that you know better than them. The onus is therefore on you to produce the evidence for that, including any scientific bona fides you may have that can justify your claim that most of the worlds' scientists are wrong and you know better.

They have not shown any evidence, please share some when you find it cause your reams has suddenly become a consensus. 

[Sheepy]

Heres another, once the oil giants found out the Russians and Iranians were selling oil capped at around 70$ the price shot down, if we had done the same at the pump, we would have halved inflation overnight, but were blocked from doing so and now inflation is running at over 10% and interest rates will be risen in line. Which will send the economy into reverse while the strikers want more money which will send inflation soaring again, economics ain't it, no it is engineered.

[Sheepy]

No, I want some facts.

You want someone to think for you.

Heres one in 6 days a ship carrying LNG will dock in the UK from Australia, while we pump gas into Europe so they can store what they aren't using, economics ain't it.

[T00ts]

Thing is Steve back when I were young we were told the earth was entering a new ice age by scientists,when I've mentioned this on forums I've been told "Ahh but the science is better,more advanced now so that prediction is wrong" well the science may have progressed but does it mean it's inffallible or possibly just as those predictions made in the latter half of the twentieth century is equally fallible?

Funny thing too though scientists now claim that prediction was never made,why would they do that? I might be getting old but my memory is fine.

I remember this clearly too. I was at infant school and remember being told that by the 90's Britain would be unliveable due to the ice. I had quite a few worried days. Thing with science is that it is constantly changing as circumstances and knowledge develops. Too often we are led to believe  that scientific claims are definitive. 

[cromwell]

You have throughout been disputing the climate scientists and Thunberg who simply follows them. Then you attempt to deny your denial when asked upon what basis you know more than they do in a pitiful attempt to evade having to justify such an extraordinary claim. Yet in the same breath you double down on it by quoting a link to one of the tiny minority who still doubts what is happening.

Most believe global warming is happening, as is reported by every reputable news agency. You doubt it. I ask you on what basis. You cite a single maverick. With no basis as to why he should be right and everyone else wrong. So he fed data through two models and got two results? All that proves is that at least one of the models was flawed. It is obvious which one this is likely to be.

Since I believe and trust majority scientific opinion I have no reason to prove anything since I am not trying to prove they are wrong. Unless you dispute that it is a majority scientific consensus, in which case on what basis? You are the one doubting majority scientific consensus, which clearly is tantamount to claiming you know better than them despite your denials. On what basis? Why do you think the vast majority of scientists are wrong? Where is your evidence for that? Liu is nowhere near enough in the face of scientific consensus.

You are doubting the science. Not me. Not Thunberg. You. The onus is upon you to demonstrate upon what grounds? Thus far you have failed utterly.

You seem to think it is my job to trawl through the internet all night trying to prove the scientists are right. It is not. They speak for themselves from a position of greater knowledge than either you or me. I am not challenging what they are telling us. You are.


You are being as slippery as an eel in trying to evade explaining why you seem to know more than they do, which you simultaneously claim  yet deny you are claiming at the same time.

Thing is Steve back when I were young we were told the earth was entering a new ice age by scientists,when I've mentioned this on forums I've been told "Ahh but the science is better,more advanced now so that prediction is wrong" well the science may have progressed but does it mean it's inffallible or possibly just as those predictions made in the latter half of the twentieth century is equally fallible?

Funny thing too though scientists now claim that prediction was never made,why would they do that? I might be getting old but my memory is fine.

[Borchester]

You have throughout been disputing the climate scientists and Thunberg who simply follows them. Then you attempt to deny your denial when asked upon what basis you know more than they do in a pitiful attempt to evade having to justify such an extraordinary claim. Yet in the same breath you double down on it by quoting a link to one of the tiny minority who still doubts what is happening.

Most believe global warming is happening, as is reported by every reputable news agency. You doubt it. I ask you on what basis. You cite a single maverick. With no basis as to why he should be right and everyone else wrong. So he fed data through two models and got two results? All that proves is that at least one of the models was flawed. It is obvious which one this is likely to be.

Since I believe and trust majority scientific opinion I have no reason to prove anything since I am not trying to prove they are wrong. Unless you dispute that it is a majority scientific consensus, in which case on what basis? You are the one doubting majority scientific consensus, which clearly is tantamount to claiming you know better than them despite your denials. On what basis? Why do you think the vast majority of scientists are wrong? Where is your evidence for that? Liu is nowhere near enough in the face of scientific consensus.

You are doubting the science. Not me. Not Thunberg. You. The onus is upon you to demonstrate upon what grounds? Thus far you have failed utterly.

You seem to think it is my job to trawl through the internet all night trying to prove the scientists are right. It is not. They speak for themselves from a position of greater knowledge than either you or me. I am not challenging what they are telling us. You are.


You are being as slippery as an eel in trying to evade explaining why you seem to know more than they do, which you simultaneously claim  yet deny you are claiming at the same time.

No, I want some facts.

You want someone to think for you.

[srb7677]

I am not making any such claim. I have asked for facts. You seem content that someone has told you that these scientists are extraordinary clever fellows (and of course, fellowesses). I am sure that is the case, but I would not mind the links that will show me how right they are and dim I am.

In the meanwhile, you might like this link.

Dr Liu is the head of climate research at the University of Madison Wisconsin, which in turn provides much of the data for Oxbridge. The good doctor once ran data through one of his models and found that the world was heating up. He then ran the same data through another model and found that it was cooling down.

Dr Liu then proceeded to piss himself laughing and published his results. However, that was in the days before St Glumburg and when a sense of humour was permissible on these matters.

https://aos.wisc.edu/~zliu/

You have throughout been disputing the climate scientists and Thunberg who simply follows them. Then you attempt to deny your denial when asked upon what basis you know more than they do in a pitiful attempt to evade having to justify such an extraordinary claim. Yet in the same breath you double down on it by quoting a link to one of the tiny minority who still doubts what is happening.

Most believe global warming is happening, as is reported by every reputable news agency. You doubt it. I ask you on what basis. You cite a single maverick. With no basis as to why he should be right and everyone else wrong. So he fed data through two models and got two results? All that proves is that at least one of the models was flawed. It is obvious which one this is likely to be.

Since I believe and trust majority scientific opinion I have no reason to prove anything since I am not trying to prove they are wrong. Unless you dispute that it is a majority scientific consensus, in which case on what basis? You are the one doubting majority scientific consensus, which clearly is tantamount to claiming you know better than them despite your denials. On what basis? Why do you think the vast majority of scientists are wrong? Where is your evidence for that? Liu is nowhere near enough in the face of scientific consensus.

You are doubting the science. Not me. Not Thunberg. You. The onus is upon you to demonstrate upon what grounds? Thus far you have failed utterly.

You seem to think it is my job to trawl through the internet all night trying to prove the scientists are right. It is not. They speak for themselves from a position of greater knowledge than either you or me. I am not challenging what they are telling us. You are. 


You are being as slippery as an eel in trying to evade explaining why you seem to know more than they do, which you simultaneously claim  yet deny you are claiming at the same time.

[Borchester]

Every reputable scientist......all but a tiny fraction of mavericks - have stated offering reams of evidence in numerous science papers that global warming is real and that our global climate is being affected.

Do you honestly want me to waste my time quoting link after link to this? You are the one claimng they are all wrong, not me. The onus is on you to produce the evidence.

Here is the broad consensus of the vast majority...

Do scientists agree on climate change? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

I am not disputing that consensus. I am utterly convinced that they know more about it than you or me. It is you who are making the extraordinary claim that you know better than them. The onus is therefore on you to produce the evidence for that, including any scientific bona fides you may have that can justify your claim that most of the worlds' scientists are wrong and you know better.

I am not making any such claim. I have asked for facts. You seem content that someone has told you that these scientists are extraordinary clever fellows (and of course, fellowesses). I am sure that is the case, but I would not mind the links that will show me how right they are and dim I am.

In the meanwhile, you might like this link.

Dr Liu is the head of climate research at the University of Madison Wisconsin, which in turn provides much of the data for Oxbridge. The good doctor once ran data through one of his models and found that the world was heating up. He then ran the same data through another model and found that it was cooling down.

Dr Liu then proceeded to piss himself laughing and published his results. However, that was in the days before St Glumburg and when a sense of humour was permissible on these matters.

https://aos.wisc.edu/~zliu/

[T00ts]

Every reputable scientist......all but a tiny fraction of mavericks - have stated offering reams of evidence in numerous science papers that global warming is real and that our global climate is being affected.

Do you honestly want me to waste my time quoting link after link to this? You are the one claimng they are all wrong, not me. The onus is on you to produce the evidence.

Here is the broad consensus of the vast majority...

Do scientists agree on climate change? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

I am not disputing that consensus. I am utterly convinced that they know more about it than you or me. It is you who are making the extraordinary claim that you know better than them. The onus is therefore on you to produce the evidence for that, including any scientific bona fides you may have that can justify your claim that most of the worlds' scientists are wrong and you know better.

I will agree that the scientific data that scientists have so far accumulated tells them that it's getting hotter etc. but we are told that the earth will burn and I have little trust in their notions that man can stop it. I also question that by putting existing data in necessarily means that their fortune telling is accurate. How can they tell us that nothing natural will change what they see as our future while using this possibly false info to create more jobs and  wealth for those lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time?

[srb7677]

No, I am claiming that that I am interested in maths and physics. However, if you would kindly provide me with the facts that you have gleaned from Greta Glumburg and the top scientists who have instructed her, then I will be much obliged

Every reputable scientist......all but a tiny fraction of mavericks - have stated offering reams of evidence in numerous science papers that global warming is real and that our global climate is being affected.

Do you honestly want me to waste my time quoting link after link to this? You are the one claimng they are all wrong, not me. The onus is on you to produce the evidence.

Here is the broad consensus of the vast majority...

Do scientists agree on climate change? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

I am not disputing that consensus. I am utterly convinced that they know more about it than you or me. It is you who are making the extraordinary claim that you know better than them. The onus is therefore on you to produce the evidence for that, including any scientific bona fides you may have that can justify your claim that most of the worlds' scientists are wrong and you know better.

[Borchester]

So you are good at maths and physics but your claim to know more than the worlds top climate scientists whom Thunberg follows is a bold one that needs substantiating if you are going to demonstrate that you are not an ostrich brain, .

No, I am claiming that that I am interested in maths and physics. However, if you would kindly provide me with the facts that you have gleaned from Greta Glumburg and the top scientists who have instructed her, then I will be much obliged

[srb7677]

Well, self praise is no recommendation Steve, but I do have degrees in both Maths and Physics and was always taught that the first thing to do was find out what the facts are. So far I haven't heard any, just a lot of partisan jibberish. But maybe I have missed it all, so if you could remind me I would be much obliged

So you are good at maths and physics but your claim to know more than the worlds top climate scientists whom Thunberg follows is a bold one that needs substantiating if you are going to demonstrate that you are not an ostrich brain, .

[Borchester]

And you have just appeared to showcase how much more intelligent she is than you.

If your definition of intelligence is to bury your head in the sand in response to unwelcome facts, hello Einstein.

Personally I think you are displaying all the intelligence of your typical ostrich.

Well, self praise is no recommendation Steve, but I do have degrees in both Maths and Physics and was always taught that the first thing to do was find out what the facts are. So far I haven't heard any, just a lot of partisan jibberish. But maybe I have missed it all, so if you could remind me I would be much obliged