Forethat

29 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

He has specifically stated that he was misrepresented on the documentary and that it did not represent his views. 
 

He should know. 

Ok. But he's making a factual statement. It is impossible to misrepresent that statement.

Quote

“The ocean is the major reservoir into which carbon dioxide goes when it comes out of the atmosphere or to from which it is readmitted to the.. the atmosphere. If you heat the surface of the ocean it tends to emit carbon dioxide. So similarly if you cool the ocean surface the ocean can dissolve more carbon dioxide.”

17 minutes ago, samran said:

You mean like Professor Jeffery Foss who has a PhD in....philosophy! 

 

What are his climate science credentials? 

 

Your 500 scientists are vanishing before our eyes, a bit like the polar ice caps.

I believe you're barking up the wrong tree. It's not MY list. I simply informed you lot that they have sent the letter to the UN and I can't seem to find any media coverage. I also understand that every climate alarmist feels the need to discredit anyone who disagrees - "those who disagree are stupid" - but I think my point is more than valid: there is NO consensus with regards to the reasons for climate change.

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

The same documentary that Wunsch himself says misrepresented his views. 
 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/

 

 

Potentially. But these are his own words (and I don't see how they can be taken out of context):

Quote

Carl wunsch is professor of oceanography at MIT. He was also visiting professor in oceanography at Harvard University and University College London. And a senior visiting fellow in Mathematics and physics at the University of Cambridge. He is the author of four major textbooks on oceanography. 

 

“The ocean is the major reservoir into which carbon dioxide goes when it comes out of the atmosphere or to from which it is readmitted to the.. the atmosphere. If you heat the surface of the ocean it tends to emit carbon dioxide. So similarly if you cool the ocean surface the ocean can dissolve more carbon dioxide.”

34 minutes ago, samran said:

You guys like to bang on about MSM and fake news,  but are pretty rat-$h!t at checking facts. 

 

So who are some of these prominent ‘scientists’?

 

 - VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY / UNITED KINGDOM: A conservative UK politician.

 

- Viv Forbes: Australian coal miner

 

- Terry Dunleavy: Kiwi Conservative party advisor, journalist and winegrower.

 

yes, eminent scientists all of them. I wont go on...

 

No, that wasn't my point at all. What I did point out was that 500 scientists have sent a letter to the UN headquarters where they claim that the global warming hysteria is a hoax. Not me.

I mentioned that this isn't anything you'll read about in MSM.

Feel free to prove me wrong. 

By the way, there are 188 Professors on that list. You fail to mention any of them. 6 PhD:s. 5 NASA engineers. 24 Physicists. I won't go on...

9 minutes ago, samran said:

Is this the same you tube channel where I can find out about Area 54 and where Elvis currently lives?

No, it is a Channel 4 documentary from 2007.

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Given that Professor Carl Wunsch has frequently protested that his views have been taken out of context you might provide a link to that claim.

 

But his view is that the increasing levels of CO2 are caused by an increase in temperature? Not the other way around. Am I incorrect?

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

Perhaps i didn't express myself clearly..

what i mean to say, is that there are speculations on the media, about the scientists of both sides of the debate, being paid to promote their agenda.

... it doesn't surprise me at all tbh.

Of course. That's just politics.

On 9/27/2019 at 5:50 AM, bristolboy said:

In other words, it doesn't support your contention that "multiple PhDs and Professors from MIT are voicing an opinion in direct contradiction to the climate change hysteria."

 

Yes it does. Professor Carl Wunsch is another MIT Professor who has a completely different view. To make it short, his view is that the high levels of CO2 are caused by an increase in temperature. Not the other way around.

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Few days ago, in my home country too, a group of 200 prominent scientists have made a strong statement against the global warming hysteria.

Today on the news, there is some speculation about the "anti-hysteria scientists" being paid by the oil multi-nationals, so the debate seems pretty much open.

There are speculations in the news? I think the alarmists have accused scientists for exactly that for more than 30 years. So far I have never seen ONE ounce of proof. But feel free to change my mind by providing some.

2 minutes ago, puipuitom said:

In quite some countries the president is elected out of many candidates. When one candidate has 50%+1 of the votes, he/she is elected in the first round. If not, nr 1 + 2 are in the next round.

Why this could not be done for a Brexit / leave versus remain vote  ?  Or are the British so … they cannot select out of more as two options ? 

When in your option, nr 2 = Leave would have won, but.. split over 3 alternatives, it would be the job of the negociators to find a "new deal" the mayority could accept.

And if not.. in the second referendum which deal is prefered. If then any deal presented would be rejected, as the consequences were seen as too high, still option 1) would be feft .

Floats my boat!

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Maybe you should reacquaint yourself with the meaning of "prospect"

"the possibility or likelihood of some future event occurring."

In other words. "prospect" is neutral. The possibility can be high or low. High prospect: pound declines. Low prospect: pound rises.

Maybe you should reacquaint yourself with the meaning of "GBPTHB down below 38 again."

13 minutes ago, Sujo said:

A guess at best.

 

But if they werent on the panel then they werent that good.

Plenty of them is listed as scientists in support of ACC who doesn't even agree and have asked to be removed. Even example of scientists who have threatened to file a lawsuit unless their name is being removed.

My experiences of peer review and academic progress tell me that the most controversial subjects tend to have a 50/50 divide.

Note that I don't support either one, I'm simply expressing an opinion in terms of how big support there is for a theory.

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Which is irrelevant as thousands of scientists have a consensus its settled science.

And most likely just about as many who don't agree.

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

No, I just don't watch TV or videos on Facebook. I read. And you still haven't said who he is. Hiding something?

Not really. But I admit it's amusing that you don't know the MiT PhD who invented email and is now making his mark in the climate debate. Good thing is you've learned something new today. Congratulations. Keep it up!

http://shiva4senate.com/

Just now, bristolboy said:

 

Wrong. Right at the beginning he questions carbon tax credits on the grounds that it's supporting pollution. In other words, unlike denialists, he thinks CO2 is a pollutant.

And who exactly is this person? Got a link for him? Vimeo offers no information. He just gives a surname which I can't make out.

As for me getting it wrong that he's a PhD and not a professor, you must be desperate for victories to think that has any bearing on the issue at hand.

He's written books and is running for Senate. Surprised you don't know who he is, but that just shows how uninformed you are.

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

That professor is not questioning the dangers posed by ACC. He is only questioning a method used to lower CO2. He has a problem with that particular means, not the goal. And while I'm not sure I even understand this, "Sceptics are typically retired (so they don't risk getting shunned)." I'm sure it's baseless. 

Perhaps your reading comprehension is simply not up to par? You really need to pay more attention to what posters write. The person in the video I linked is not a Professor. I have no doubt that you have no clue who he is, but no, he's a PhD. And he's voicing an opinion in direct contradiction to the climate change hysteria. 

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

In other words, it doesn't support your contention that "multiple PhDs and Professors from MIT are voicing an opinion in direct contradiction to the climate change hysteria."

 

That is exactly what it supports. The question is why MIT have more than one that are active. Two of them are actively producing media. Sceptics are typically retired (so they don't risk getting shunned). 

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Apart from Richard Lindzen, who are these MIT professors and PhD's. Or are you claiming that Lindzen suffers from multiple personality disorder and all of his personalities disagree with anthropogenic climate change? And you think that even if they exist they wouldn't be outnumbered by MIT professors and PhD's who disagree with them?

And of course, the whole problem of giving climate skeptics equal time is that they are a tiny minority in the climatological community. And as time passes by and the atmosphere grows steadily warmer, they are a shrinking minority at that.

What I'm saying is that if I'm noticing that multiple PhDs and Professors from MIT are voicing an opinion in direct contradiction to the climate change hysteria. Why MiT?

Here's another one. He doesn't question ACC but the motives for taxing producers of CO2 (since it will not lead to reduced CO2 production).

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

It's magical thinking when someone believes that odometer numbers have an effect on the lottery.

It's also magical thinking when someone thinks that the prospects for brexit don't effect the value of the pound.

I'd say the magical thinking is being done when one believes that the prospects for Brexit only affect the value of the pound in one direction. If that was the case and the pound drops each time Brexit comes closer, the pound would strengthen as soon a Brexit seems unlikely. But it doesn't. It appears, there are other factors. Which was my point...

2 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Yes, of course, I was stating my opinion.

 

Unless he resigns first, which seems a push today (or otherwise leaves office), I am 100% confident he will be impeached, based solely on the evidence (his statements, his tweets, the WB complaint, and the transcript) which he has provided to date.

 

Witnesses like WH staff, Jared, Ivanka, Pompeo, Barr, Pence, Rudy (reliable witness?) and even the president via a video deposition will by jimmies on top.

I'm not so sure, to be fair.

There's a political issue that comes into play as well. The Democrats will have to take into account the high possibility that the President is never convicted of anything, and that is unlikely given what I have seen so far and that a two thirds majority vote in the Senate is required.

17 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

He will be impeached - unless he resigns first - as this only requires a simple majority in the House.

Yes, he COULD be impeached in case there is evidence. I don't think we're there yet.

So, he WILL be impeached if there's enough evidence, yes. But it's not there yet.  

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Another Illiberal dream.

I wouldn't call it Liberal, I'd simply call it correct. Trump is not impeached yet. He COULD be impeached.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Erm..... Biden isn’t being impeached.

 

Trump is.

He COULD be.

11 minutes ago, bannork said:

I would accept it, but the question on the referendum sheet would have to give clear cut choices, i.e leave with a deal passed by Parliament or remain.

If Parliament cannot agree then we remain.

Let's say two questions are asked:

1. Remain

2. Leave

In case you voted 2, do you want

A. May's deal

B. A new deal

C. No deal

The problem with this, if you ask me, is what happens if 52% vote for Leave, but only 16% on each of the Leave options. 

I for one think the referendum and the law should stand. I think the only working option is to hold a second referendum with the following question:

Do you want to:

1. Leave on No Deal

2. Leave on May's deal