Discussion:
Breath of fresh air
Add Reply
Tony
2021-03-30 20:12:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and that we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it to be
wrong.
John Bowes
2021-03-30 21:48:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and that we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it to be
wrong.
Standby for abuse from both Keith and Rich Both to stupid to accept the unvarnished truth about their religion:)
Mutlley
2021-03-31 01:03:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and that we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it to be
wrong.
Standby for abuse from both Keith and Rich Both to stupid to accept the unvarnished truth about their religion:)
Good read. The IPCC seem to be like the doom sayers who say it's
the end of the world every few years and are genuinely surprized when
it doesn't end.
James Christophers
2021-03-30 22:41:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and that we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it to be
wrong.
In global terms, one cannot separate today's greenhouse gases controversy from the combination of generalities concerning the remorseless depletion of critical finite natural resources through pollution and over-exploitation. The ugly face of the commercial "more is never enough" profit motive. This commercially-driven demand depletes global stocks of self-sustaining life-forms. For global species to survive and thrive, ocean algae tops the list of the most critical by a country mile. But ocean algae is the least mentioned. Why? Because it's not cuddly.

Ocean algae generates an estimated 50%-80% of the world's oxygen. OK, global warming may well be a concern, unjustified or no, but let today's "more is never enough" commercial imperative continue to kill off the algae and then see how you and the rest of the world get on.
Tony
2021-03-31 01:41:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and that we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it to be
wrong.
In global terms, one cannot separate today's greenhouse gases controversy from
the combination of generalities concerning the remorseless depletion of
critical finite natural resources through pollution and over-exploitation. The
ugly face of the commercial "more is never enough" profit motive. This
commercially-driven demand depletes global stocks of self-sustaining
life-forms. For global species to survive and thrive, ocean algae tops the list
of the most critical by a country mile. But ocean algae is the least
mentioned. Why? Because it's not cuddly.
Ocean algae generates an estimated 50%-80% of the world's oxygen. OK, global
warming may well be a concern, unjustified or no, but let today's "more is
never enough" commercial imperative continue to kill off the algae and then see
how you and the rest of the world get on.
Non sequitur, as anticipated.
Your very last sentence shows how far off topic you have gone, and for what
reason other than to argue against an intelligent article from an obviously
intelligent author and just for fun.
James Christophers
2021-03-31 04:14:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and that we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it to be
wrong.
In global terms, one cannot separate today's greenhouse gases controversy from
the combination of generalities concerning the remorseless depletion of
critical finite natural resources through pollution and over-exploitation. The
ugly face of the commercial "more is never enough" profit motive. This
commercially-driven demand depletes global stocks of self-sustaining
life-forms. For global species to survive and thrive, ocean algae tops the list
of the most critical by a country mile. But ocean algae is the least
mentioned. Why? Because it's not cuddly.
Ocean algae generates an estimated 50%-80% of the world's oxygen. OK, global
warming may well be a concern, unjustified or no, but let today's "more is
never enough" commercial imperative continue to kill off the algae and then see
how you and the rest of the world get on.
Non sequitur, as anticipated.
Climate stability is critical to the overall health of the biosphere. Fact is, the CO2 controversy is but a tiny fraction of that total criticality, man-made terrestrial pollution being by far the greater and decidedly more tangible part of it. I am neutral on CO2 as a debating issue, whatever its merits or demerits since climate itself patently behaves with such random variability that it has so far defied any hope of its behaviour being finally resolved as what some call a "settled science". My own impression is that, science or no, in the endless and inconclusive tit-for-tat brawling over real/alleged climate change, the significance of CO2's arguable contribution has been exaggerated virtually to the point of side-lining the overall atmospheric/terrestial pollution debate from its originally intended path and purpose.

Unlike with CO2, am by no means neutral on the issue of pollution, an in-yer-face "settled" reality that kills and/or disables, or even causes mutations, of virtually every species including human. No person or body has yet addressed or implemented sufficient effective measures to ensure pollution's reduction towards elimination, nor will they ever for the foreseeable future since much of what is already out there has half-lives extending over decades and centuries - and beyond. For example, man-made plastics and their residual compounds are now being found in placentas, no to mention gross amounts of it already in the guts of river and oceanic animal species that we are not only destroying but with which we also share the same environment, a shared environment, mark you, "where (otherwise) every prospect pleases, and only man is vile". (Reginald Heber (1783-1826)

So strain at your elusive, intangible "unsettled" gnat and argue over it by all means; but as you do so, be certain that the decidedly earthbound, tangible, "settled" elephant that is global pollution-as-species-killer will continue to dog your every "unsettled" utterance.

Hint. A healthy sense of proportion is more often than not the way with cooler heads...
Tony
2021-03-31 06:06:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong.
In global terms, one cannot separate today's greenhouse gases controversy from
the combination of generalities concerning the remorseless depletion of
critical finite natural resources through pollution and over-exploitation. The
ugly face of the commercial "more is never enough" profit motive. This
commercially-driven demand depletes global stocks of self-sustaining
life-forms. For global species to survive and thrive, ocean algae tops the list
of the most critical by a country mile. But ocean algae is the least
mentioned. Why? Because it's not cuddly.
Ocean algae generates an estimated 50%-80% of the world's oxygen. OK, global
warming may well be a concern, unjustified or no, but let today's "more is
never enough" commercial imperative continue to kill off the algae and then see
how you and the rest of the world get on.
Non sequitur, as anticipated.
Climate stability is critical to the overall health of the biosphere. Fact
is, the CO2 controversy is but a tiny fraction of that total criticality,
man-made terrestrial pollution being by far the greater and decidedly more
tangible part of it. I am neutral on CO2 as a debating issue, whatever its
merits or demerits since climate itself patently behaves with such random
variability that it has so far defied any hope of its behaviour being finally
resolved as what some call a "settled science". My own impression is that,
science or no, in the endless and inconclusive tit-for-tat brawling over
real/alleged climate change, the significance of CO2's arguable contribution
has been exaggerated virtually to the point of side-lining the overall
atmospheric/terrestial pollution debate from its originally intended path and
purpose.
Unlike with CO2, am by no means neutral on the issue of pollution, an
in-yer-face "settled" reality that kills and/or disables, or even causes
mutations, of virtually every species including human. No person or body has
yet addressed or implemented sufficient effective measures to ensure
pollution's reduction towards elimination, nor will they ever for the
foreseeable future since much of what is already out there has half-lives
extending over decades and centuries - and beyond. For example, man-made
plastics and their residual compounds are now being found in placentas, no to
mention gross amounts of it already in the guts of river and oceanic animal
species that we are not only destroying but with which we also share the same
environment, a shared environment, mark you, "where (otherwise) every prospect
pleases, and only man is vile". (Reginald Heber (1783-1826)
So strain at your elusive, intangible "unsettled" gnat and argue over it by
all means; but as you do so, be certain that the decidedly earthbound,
tangible, "settled" elephant that is global pollution-as-species-killer will
continue to dog your every "unsettled" utterance.
Hint. A healthy sense of proportion is more often than not the way with cooler heads...
You still cannot answer the question. What evidence, data, even sound opinion
do you have that contradicts the author of the original URL? All else is a
significant change in topic, as expected.
James Christophers
2021-03-31 21:25:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong.
In global terms, one cannot separate today's greenhouse gases controversy from
the combination of generalities concerning the remorseless depletion of
critical finite natural resources through pollution and over-exploitation. The
ugly face of the commercial "more is never enough" profit motive. This
commercially-driven demand depletes global stocks of self-sustaining
life-forms. For global species to survive and thrive, ocean algae tops the list
of the most critical by a country mile. But ocean algae is the least
mentioned. Why? Because it's not cuddly.
Ocean algae generates an estimated 50%-80% of the world's oxygen. OK, global
warming may well be a concern, unjustified or no, but let today's "more is
never enough" commercial imperative continue to kill off the algae and then see
how you and the rest of the world get on.
Non sequitur, as anticipated.
Climate stability is critical to the overall health of the biosphere. Fact
is, the CO2 controversy is but a tiny fraction of that total criticality,
man-made terrestrial pollution being by far the greater and decidedly more
tangible part of it. I am neutral on CO2 as a debating issue, whatever its
merits or demerits since climate itself patently behaves with such random
variability that it has so far defied any hope of its behaviour being finally
resolved as what some call a "settled science". My own impression is that,
science or no, in the endless and inconclusive tit-for-tat brawling over
real/alleged climate change, the significance of CO2's arguable contribution
has been exaggerated virtually to the point of side-lining the overall
atmospheric/terrestial pollution debate from its originally intended path and
purpose.
Unlike with CO2, am by no means neutral on the issue of pollution, an
in-yer-face "settled" reality that kills and/or disables, or even causes
mutations, of virtually every species including human. No person or body has
yet addressed or implemented sufficient effective measures to ensure
pollution's reduction towards elimination, nor will they ever for the
foreseeable future since much of what is already out there has half-lives
extending over decades and centuries - and beyond. For example, man-made
plastics and their residual compounds are now being found in placentas, no to
mention gross amounts of it already in the guts of river and oceanic animal
species that we are not only destroying but with which we also share the same
environment, a shared environment, mark you, "where (otherwise) every prospect
pleases, and only man is vile". (Reginald Heber (1783-1826)
So strain at your elusive, intangible "unsettled" gnat and argue over it by
all means; but as you do so, be certain that the decidedly earthbound,
tangible, "settled" elephant that is global pollution-as-species-killer will
continue to dog your every "unsettled" utterance.
Hint. A healthy sense of proportion is more often than not the way with cooler heads...
You still cannot answer the question.
The question is of no interest to me since, as I have previously said, I think depletion and despoiling of the natural world to indulge and further increase spurious excess is by far the bigger issue, CO2 concerns being but one tiny fraction of the whole. Hence my "unsettled" gnat/"settled" elephant analogy.

Even so, underlying the whole thing is the mistaken idea - the self-righteous, self-indulgent creed - "More can never be enough". Greed.

Now, who is this Ian Bradford whose writings you so cleave to? What and who are his sources and references, and how and in what significant way is he qualified to comment on issues involving climate science?
John Bowes
2021-03-31 23:10:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong.
In global terms, one cannot separate today's greenhouse gases controversy from
the combination of generalities concerning the remorseless depletion of
critical finite natural resources through pollution and over-exploitation. The
ugly face of the commercial "more is never enough" profit motive. This
commercially-driven demand depletes global stocks of self-sustaining
life-forms. For global species to survive and thrive, ocean algae tops the list
of the most critical by a country mile. But ocean algae is the least
mentioned. Why? Because it's not cuddly.
Ocean algae generates an estimated 50%-80% of the world's oxygen. OK, global
warming may well be a concern, unjustified or no, but let today's "more is
never enough" commercial imperative continue to kill off the algae and then see
how you and the rest of the world get on.
Non sequitur, as anticipated.
Climate stability is critical to the overall health of the biosphere. Fact
is, the CO2 controversy is but a tiny fraction of that total criticality,
man-made terrestrial pollution being by far the greater and decidedly more
tangible part of it. I am neutral on CO2 as a debating issue, whatever its
merits or demerits since climate itself patently behaves with such random
variability that it has so far defied any hope of its behaviour being finally
resolved as what some call a "settled science". My own impression is that,
science or no, in the endless and inconclusive tit-for-tat brawling over
real/alleged climate change, the significance of CO2's arguable contribution
has been exaggerated virtually to the point of side-lining the overall
atmospheric/terrestial pollution debate from its originally intended path and
purpose.
Unlike with CO2, am by no means neutral on the issue of pollution, an
in-yer-face "settled" reality that kills and/or disables, or even causes
mutations, of virtually every species including human. No person or body has
yet addressed or implemented sufficient effective measures to ensure
pollution's reduction towards elimination, nor will they ever for the
foreseeable future since much of what is already out there has half-lives
extending over decades and centuries - and beyond. For example, man-made
plastics and their residual compounds are now being found in placentas, no to
mention gross amounts of it already in the guts of river and oceanic animal
species that we are not only destroying but with which we also share the same
environment, a shared environment, mark you, "where (otherwise) every prospect
pleases, and only man is vile". (Reginald Heber (1783-1826)
So strain at your elusive, intangible "unsettled" gnat and argue over it by
all means; but as you do so, be certain that the decidedly earthbound,
tangible, "settled" elephant that is global pollution-as-species-killer will
continue to dog your every "unsettled" utterance.
Hint. A healthy sense of proportion is more often than not the way with cooler
heads...
You still cannot answer the question.
The question is of no interest to me since, as I have previously said, I think depletion and despoiling of the natural world to indulge and further increase spurious excess is by far the bigger issue, CO2 concerns being but one tiny fraction of the whole. Hence my "unsettled" gnat/"settled" elephant analogy.
Even so, underlying the whole thing is the mistaken idea - the self-righteous, self-indulgent creed - "More can never be enough". Greed.
Now, who is this Ian Bradford whose writings you so cleave to? What and who are his sources and references, and how and in what significant way is he qualified to comment on issues involving climate science?
A breath of fresh air from Tony followed by the usual stench of corruption from Keith!
Maybe if Keith wasn't so hell bent on dominating threads we might get a glimpse of his superior education rather than his propensity to act like a fucking jackbooted Nazi!
Yet again he's failed as only Keith can in answering Tony's question! Typical of the edjucated idiot Keith is :)
Tony
2021-04-01 00:47:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong.
In global terms, one cannot separate today's greenhouse gases
controversy
from
the combination of generalities concerning the remorseless depletion of
critical finite natural resources through pollution and
over-exploitation.
The
ugly face of the commercial "more is never enough" profit motive. This
commercially-driven demand depletes global stocks of self-sustaining
life-forms. For global species to survive and thrive, ocean algae tops
the
list
of the most critical by a country mile. But ocean algae is the least
mentioned. Why? Because it's not cuddly.
Ocean algae generates an estimated 50%-80% of the world's oxygen. OK, global
warming may well be a concern, unjustified or no, but let today's "more is
never enough" commercial imperative continue to kill off the algae and
then
see
how you and the rest of the world get on.
Non sequitur, as anticipated.
Climate stability is critical to the overall health of the biosphere. Fact
is, the CO2 controversy is but a tiny fraction of that total criticality,
man-made terrestrial pollution being by far the greater and decidedly more
tangible part of it. I am neutral on CO2 as a debating issue, whatever its
merits or demerits since climate itself patently behaves with such random
variability that it has so far defied any hope of its behaviour being finally
resolved as what some call a "settled science". My own impression is that,
science or no, in the endless and inconclusive tit-for-tat brawling over
real/alleged climate change, the significance of CO2's arguable contribution
has been exaggerated virtually to the point of side-lining the overall
atmospheric/terrestial pollution debate from its originally intended path and
purpose.
Unlike with CO2, am by no means neutral on the issue of pollution, an
in-yer-face "settled" reality that kills and/or disables, or even causes
mutations, of virtually every species including human. No person or body has
yet addressed or implemented sufficient effective measures to ensure
pollution's reduction towards elimination, nor will they ever for the
foreseeable future since much of what is already out there has half-lives
extending over decades and centuries - and beyond. For example, man-made
plastics and their residual compounds are now being found in placentas, no to
mention gross amounts of it already in the guts of river and oceanic animal
species that we are not only destroying but with which we also share the same
environment, a shared environment, mark you, "where (otherwise) every prospect
pleases, and only man is vile". (Reginald Heber (1783-1826)
So strain at your elusive, intangible "unsettled" gnat and argue over it by
all means; but as you do so, be certain that the decidedly earthbound,
tangible, "settled" elephant that is global pollution-as-species-killer will
continue to dog your every "unsettled" utterance.
Hint. A healthy sense of proportion is more often than not the way with cooler
heads...
You still cannot answer the question.
The question is of no interest to me since, as I have previously said, I
think depletion and despoiling of the natural world to indulge and further
increase spurious excess is by far the bigger issue, CO2 concerns being but one
tiny fraction of the whole. Hence my "unsettled" gnat/"settled" elephant
analogy.
Even so, underlying the whole thing is the mistaken idea - the
self-righteous, self-indulgent creed - "More can never be enough". Greed.
Now, who is this Ian Bradford whose writings you so cleave to? What and who
are his sources and references, and how and in what significant way is he
qualified to comment on issues involving climate science?
A breath of fresh air from Tony followed by the usual stench of corruption from Keith!
Maybe if Keith wasn't so hell bent on dominating threads we might get a
glimpse of his superior education rather than his propensity to act like a
fucking jackbooted Nazi!
Yet again he's failed as only Keith can in answering Tony's question! Typical
of the edjucated idiot Keith is :)
He has decided that mankind is predominantly responsible for climate change,
because that is what he wants to be true and despite cleverer people than him
saying otherwise. Truth matters not one whit to him, only showing off.
James Christophers
2021-04-01 02:28:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show
it
to
be
wrong.
In global terms, one cannot separate today's greenhouse gases
controversy
from
the combination of generalities concerning the remorseless depletion of
critical finite natural resources through pollution and
over-exploitation.
The
ugly face of the commercial "more is never enough" profit motive. This
commercially-driven demand depletes global stocks of self-sustaining
life-forms. For global species to survive and thrive, ocean algae tops
the
list
of the most critical by a country mile. But ocean algae is the least
mentioned. Why? Because it's not cuddly.
Ocean algae generates an estimated 50%-80% of the world's oxygen. OK,
global
warming may well be a concern, unjustified or no, but let today's
"more is
never enough" commercial imperative continue to kill off the algae and
then
see
how you and the rest of the world get on.
Non sequitur, as anticipated.
Climate stability is critical to the overall health of the biosphere. Fact
is, the CO2 controversy is but a tiny fraction of that total criticality,
man-made terrestrial pollution being by far the greater and decidedly more
tangible part of it. I am neutral on CO2 as a debating issue, whatever its
merits or demerits since climate itself patently behaves with such random
variability that it has so far defied any hope of its behaviour being finally
resolved as what some call a "settled science". My own impression is that,
science or no, in the endless and inconclusive tit-for-tat brawling over
real/alleged climate change, the significance of CO2's arguable contribution
has been exaggerated virtually to the point of side-lining the overall
atmospheric/terrestial pollution debate from its originally intended path and
purpose.
Unlike with CO2, am by no means neutral on the issue of pollution, an
in-yer-face "settled" reality that kills and/or disables, or even causes
mutations, of virtually every species including human. No person or body has
yet addressed or implemented sufficient effective measures to ensure
pollution's reduction towards elimination, nor will they ever for the
foreseeable future since much of what is already out there has half-lives
extending over decades and centuries - and beyond. For example, man-made
plastics and their residual compounds are now being found in placentas, no to
mention gross amounts of it already in the guts of river and oceanic animal
species that we are not only destroying but with which we also share the same
environment, a shared environment, mark you, "where (otherwise) every prospect
pleases, and only man is vile". (Reginald Heber (1783-1826)
So strain at your elusive, intangible "unsettled" gnat and argue over it by
all means; but as you do so, be certain that the decidedly earthbound,
tangible, "settled" elephant that is global pollution-as-species-killer will
continue to dog your every "unsettled" utterance.
Hint. A healthy sense of proportion is more often than not the way with cooler
heads...
You still cannot answer the question.
The question is of no interest to me since, as I have previously said, I
think depletion and despoiling of the natural world to indulge and further
increase spurious excess is by far the bigger issue, CO2 concerns being but one
tiny fraction of the whole. Hence my "unsettled" gnat/"settled" elephant
analogy.
Even so, underlying the whole thing is the mistaken idea - the
self-righteous, self-indulgent creed - "More can never be enough". Greed.
Now, who is this Ian Bradford whose writings you so cleave to? What and who
are his sources and references, and how and in what significant way is he
qualified to comment on issues involving climate science?
A breath of fresh air from Tony followed by the usual stench of corruption from Keith!
Maybe if Keith wasn't so hell bent on dominating threads we might get a
glimpse of his superior education rather than his propensity to act like a
fucking jackbooted Nazi!
Yet again he's failed as only Keith can in answering Tony's question! Typical
of the edjucated idiot Keith is :)
He has decided that mankind is predominantly responsible for climate change...
Oh is that so?

I have stated my acknowledgement and concern that man is primarily responsible for global pollution, depletion and degradation of species and environment. Whether or not these man-made depredations have also had any effect on atmospheric CO2 **per se** I acknowledge is open to question, hence the still "unsettled science" frequently referred to.

That said, nowhere in this thread have I said that mankind is predominantly responsible for climate change, assuming such a condition actually exists. You would therefore be well advised not to commit yourself to categoric falsehoods you cannot possibly sustain. It only serves to destroy your own casual piggy-backing of others on a component topic that you know full well is already beset with doubts and uncertainties.

(snip)
Truth matters not one whit to him..
The irony being that, as you have now more than amply demonstrated, truth self-evidently matters even less to you in the context of the very thread you have introduced but to which you have so far contributed no recognisable added value whatever.
Tony
2021-04-01 03:04:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show
it
to
be
wrong.
In global terms, one cannot separate today's greenhouse gases
controversy
from
the combination of generalities concerning the remorseless
depletion
of
critical finite natural resources through pollution and
over-exploitation.
The
ugly face of the commercial "more is never enough" profit motive. This
commercially-driven demand depletes global stocks of
self-sustaining
life-forms. For global species to survive and thrive, ocean algae tops
the
list
of the most critical by a country mile. But ocean algae is the least
mentioned. Why? Because it's not cuddly.
Ocean algae generates an estimated 50%-80% of the world's oxygen. OK,
global
warming may well be a concern, unjustified or no, but let today's
"more is
never enough" commercial imperative continue to kill off the algae and
then
see
how you and the rest of the world get on.
Non sequitur, as anticipated.
Climate stability is critical to the overall health of the biosphere. Fact
is, the CO2 controversy is but a tiny fraction of that total criticality,
man-made terrestrial pollution being by far the greater and decidedly more
tangible part of it. I am neutral on CO2 as a debating issue, whatever its
merits or demerits since climate itself patently behaves with such random
variability that it has so far defied any hope of its behaviour being finally
resolved as what some call a "settled science". My own impression is that,
science or no, in the endless and inconclusive tit-for-tat brawling over
real/alleged climate change, the significance of CO2's arguable contribution
has been exaggerated virtually to the point of side-lining the overall
atmospheric/terrestial pollution debate from its originally intended
path
and
purpose.
Unlike with CO2, am by no means neutral on the issue of pollution, an
in-yer-face "settled" reality that kills and/or disables, or even causes
mutations, of virtually every species including human. No person or
body
has
yet addressed or implemented sufficient effective measures to ensure
pollution's reduction towards elimination, nor will they ever for the
foreseeable future since much of what is already out there has half-lives
extending over decades and centuries - and beyond. For example, man-made
plastics and their residual compounds are now being found in
placentas,
no to
mention gross amounts of it already in the guts of river and oceanic animal
species that we are not only destroying but with which we also share
the
same
environment, a shared environment, mark you, "where (otherwise) every
prospect
pleases, and only man is vile". (Reginald Heber (1783-1826)
So strain at your elusive, intangible "unsettled" gnat and argue over
it
by
all means; but as you do so, be certain that the decidedly earthbound,
tangible, "settled" elephant that is global
pollution-as-species-killer
will
continue to dog your every "unsettled" utterance.
Hint. A healthy sense of proportion is more often than not the way
with
cooler
heads...
You still cannot answer the question.
The question is of no interest to me since, as I have previously said, I
think depletion and despoiling of the natural world to indulge and further
increase spurious excess is by far the bigger issue, CO2 concerns being but one
tiny fraction of the whole. Hence my "unsettled" gnat/"settled" elephant
analogy.
Even so, underlying the whole thing is the mistaken idea - the
self-righteous, self-indulgent creed - "More can never be enough". Greed.
Now, who is this Ian Bradford whose writings you so cleave to? What and who
are his sources and references, and how and in what significant way is he
qualified to comment on issues involving climate science?
A breath of fresh air from Tony followed by the usual stench of corruption from Keith!
Maybe if Keith wasn't so hell bent on dominating threads we might get a
glimpse of his superior education rather than his propensity to act like a
fucking jackbooted Nazi!
Yet again he's failed as only Keith can in answering Tony's question! Typical
of the edjucated idiot Keith is :)
He has decided that mankind is predominantly responsible for climate change...
Oh is that so?
Indeed it is so.
Post by James Christophers
I have stated my acknowledgement and concern that man is primarily responsible
for global pollution, depletion and degradation of species and environment.
Whether or not these man-made depredations have also had any effect on
atmospheric CO2 **per se** I acknowledge is open to question, hence the still
"unsettled science" frequently referred to.
Atmospheric CO2 is not a problem as well explained in the article by someone
with infinitely more knowledge and qualifications than you.
Post by James Christophers
That said, nowhere in this thread have I said that mankind is predominantly
responsible for climate change, assuming such a condition actually exists. You
would therefore be well advised not to commit yourself to categoric falsehoods
you cannot possibly sustain. It only serves to destroy your own casual
piggy-backing of others on a component topic that you know full well is already
beset with doubts and uncertainties.
Off topic.
Post by James Christophers
(snip)
Truth matters not one whit to him..
The irony being that, as you have now more than amply demonstrated, truth
self-evidently matters even less to you in the context of the very thread you
have introduced but to which you have so far contributed no recognisable added
value whatever.
And you are an abusive man with nothing better to do than amuse yourself with
nonsense rhetoric and thinly veiled contempt for the opinions of others. All
opinions and all others.
You are unworthy and irrelevant.
James Christophers
2021-04-01 03:29:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our
climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and
show
it
to
be
wrong.
In global terms, one cannot separate today's greenhouse gases
controversy
from
the combination of generalities concerning the remorseless
depletion
of
critical finite natural resources through pollution and
over-exploitation.
The
ugly face of the commercial "more is never enough" profit motive.
This
commercially-driven demand depletes global stocks of
self-sustaining
life-forms. For global species to survive and thrive, ocean algae
tops
the
list
of the most critical by a country mile. But ocean algae is the
least
mentioned. Why? Because it's not cuddly.
Ocean algae generates an estimated 50%-80% of the world's oxygen.
OK,
global
warming may well be a concern, unjustified or no, but let today's
"more is
never enough" commercial imperative continue to kill off the algae
and
then
see
how you and the rest of the world get on.
Non sequitur, as anticipated.
Climate stability is critical to the overall health of the biosphere.
Fact
is, the CO2 controversy is but a tiny fraction of that total criticality,
man-made terrestrial pollution being by far the greater and decidedly
more
tangible part of it. I am neutral on CO2 as a debating issue, whatever
its
merits or demerits since climate itself patently behaves with such random
variability that it has so far defied any hope of its behaviour being
finally
resolved as what some call a "settled science". My own impression is
that,
science or no, in the endless and inconclusive tit-for-tat brawling over
real/alleged climate change, the significance of CO2's arguable
contribution
has been exaggerated virtually to the point of side-lining the overall
atmospheric/terrestial pollution debate from its originally intended
path
and
purpose.
Unlike with CO2, am by no means neutral on the issue of pollution, an
in-yer-face "settled" reality that kills and/or disables, or even causes
mutations, of virtually every species including human. No person or
body
has
yet addressed or implemented sufficient effective measures to ensure
pollution's reduction towards elimination, nor will they ever for the
foreseeable future since much of what is already out there has half-lives
extending over decades and centuries - and beyond. For example, man-made
plastics and their residual compounds are now being found in
placentas,
no to
mention gross amounts of it already in the guts of river and oceanic
animal
species that we are not only destroying but with which we also share
the
same
environment, a shared environment, mark you, "where (otherwise) every
prospect
pleases, and only man is vile". (Reginald Heber (1783-1826)
So strain at your elusive, intangible "unsettled" gnat and argue over
it
by
all means; but as you do so, be certain that the decidedly earthbound,
tangible, "settled" elephant that is global
pollution-as-species-killer
will
continue to dog your every "unsettled" utterance.
Hint. A healthy sense of proportion is more often than not the way
with
cooler
heads...
You still cannot answer the question.
The question is of no interest to me since, as I have previously said, I
think depletion and despoiling of the natural world to indulge and further
increase spurious excess is by far the bigger issue, CO2 concerns being but one
tiny fraction of the whole. Hence my "unsettled" gnat/"settled" elephant
analogy.
Even so, underlying the whole thing is the mistaken idea - the
self-righteous, self-indulgent creed - "More can never be enough". Greed.
Now, who is this Ian Bradford whose writings you so cleave to? What and who
are his sources and references, and how and in what significant way is he
qualified to comment on issues involving climate science?
A breath of fresh air from Tony followed by the usual stench of corruption
from Keith!
Maybe if Keith wasn't so hell bent on dominating threads we might get a
glimpse of his superior education rather than his propensity to act like a
fucking jackbooted Nazi!
Yet again he's failed as only Keith can in answering Tony's question! Typical
of the edjucated idiot Keith is :)
He has decided that mankind is predominantly responsible for climate change...
Oh is that so?
Indeed it is so.
Post by James Christophers
I have stated my acknowledgement and concern that man is primarily responsible
for global pollution, depletion and degradation of species and environment.
Whether or not these man-made depredations have also had any effect on
atmospheric CO2 **per se** I acknowledge is open to question, hence the still
"unsettled science" frequently referred to.
Atmospheric CO2 is not a problem as well explained in the article by someone
with infinitely more knowledge and qualifications than you.
So, under the authority and imprimatur of some obscure Kapiti Coast hobby blogger, the science surrounding atmospheric CO2 is officially settled once and for all.

Wow - the next Noble prize for Science already done and dusted!
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
That said, nowhere in this thread have I said that mankind is predominantly
responsible for climate change, assuming such a condition actually exists. You
would therefore be well advised not to commit yourself to categoric falsehoods
you cannot possibly sustain. It only serves to destroy your own casual
piggy-backing of others on a component topic that you know full well is already
beset with doubts and uncertainties.
Off topic.
You have added your patent falsehood to the very topic you own. I am, ergo, on and within your topic. Thus, your careless attitude to discourse rewarded.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
(snip)
Truth matters not one whit to him..
The irony being that, as you have now more than amply demonstrated, truth
self-evidently matters even less to you in the context of the very thread you
have introduced but to which you have so far contributed no recognisable added
value whatever.
And you are an abusive man.
Mmmmm...no added value there, either. 10/10 for effortless consistency!.

Indeed, know that conflating irrefutable truth with abuse is the evasive the weaselling dissembler brought to light by his own ineptitude.

As the old saying goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Tony
2021-04-01 04:03:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people
who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our
climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and
similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart
and
show
it
to
be
wrong.
In global terms, one cannot separate today's greenhouse gases
controversy
from
the combination of generalities concerning the remorseless
depletion
of
critical finite natural resources through pollution and
over-exploitation.
The
ugly face of the commercial "more is never enough" profit motive.
This
commercially-driven demand depletes global stocks of
self-sustaining
life-forms. For global species to survive and thrive, ocean algae
tops
the
list
of the most critical by a country mile. But ocean algae is the
least
mentioned. Why? Because it's not cuddly.
Ocean algae generates an estimated 50%-80% of the world's oxygen.
OK,
global
warming may well be a concern, unjustified or no, but let today's
"more is
never enough" commercial imperative continue to kill off the
algae
and
then
see
how you and the rest of the world get on.
Non sequitur, as anticipated.
Climate stability is critical to the overall health of the biosphere.
Fact
is, the CO2 controversy is but a tiny fraction of that total
criticality,
man-made terrestrial pollution being by far the greater and decidedly
more
tangible part of it. I am neutral on CO2 as a debating issue, whatever
its
merits or demerits since climate itself patently behaves with such
random
variability that it has so far defied any hope of its behaviour being
finally
resolved as what some call a "settled science". My own impression is
that,
science or no, in the endless and inconclusive tit-for-tat brawling
over
real/alleged climate change, the significance of CO2's arguable
contribution
has been exaggerated virtually to the point of side-lining the overall
atmospheric/terrestial pollution debate from its originally intended
path
and
purpose.
Unlike with CO2, am by no means neutral on the issue of pollution, an
in-yer-face "settled" reality that kills and/or disables, or even
causes
mutations, of virtually every species including human. No person or
body
has
yet addressed or implemented sufficient effective measures to ensure
pollution's reduction towards elimination, nor will they ever for the
foreseeable future since much of what is already out there has
half-lives
extending over decades and centuries - and beyond. For example,
man-made
plastics and their residual compounds are now being found in
placentas,
no to
mention gross amounts of it already in the guts of river and oceanic
animal
species that we are not only destroying but with which we also share
the
same
environment, a shared environment, mark you, "where (otherwise) every
prospect
pleases, and only man is vile". (Reginald Heber (1783-1826)
So strain at your elusive, intangible "unsettled" gnat and argue over
it
by
all means; but as you do so, be certain that the decidedly earthbound,
tangible, "settled" elephant that is global
pollution-as-species-killer
will
continue to dog your every "unsettled" utterance.
Hint. A healthy sense of proportion is more often than not the way
with
cooler
heads...
You still cannot answer the question.
The question is of no interest to me since, as I have previously said, I
think depletion and despoiling of the natural world to indulge and further
increase spurious excess is by far the bigger issue, CO2 concerns being but one
tiny fraction of the whole. Hence my "unsettled" gnat/"settled" elephant
analogy.
Even so, underlying the whole thing is the mistaken idea - the
self-righteous, self-indulgent creed - "More can never be enough". Greed.
Now, who is this Ian Bradford whose writings you so cleave to? What
and
who
are his sources and references, and how and in what significant way is he
qualified to comment on issues involving climate science?
A breath of fresh air from Tony followed by the usual stench of corruption
from Keith!
Maybe if Keith wasn't so hell bent on dominating threads we might get a
glimpse of his superior education rather than his propensity to act like a
fucking jackbooted Nazi!
Yet again he's failed as only Keith can in answering Tony's question! Typical
of the edjucated idiot Keith is :)
He has decided that mankind is predominantly responsible for climate change...
Oh is that so?
Indeed it is so.
Post by James Christophers
I have stated my acknowledgement and concern that man is primarily responsible
for global pollution, depletion and degradation of species and environment.
Whether or not these man-made depredations have also had any effect on
atmospheric CO2 **per se** I acknowledge is open to question, hence the still
"unsettled science" frequently referred to.
Atmospheric CO2 is not a problem as well explained in the article by someone
with infinitely more knowledge and qualifications than you.
So, under the authority and imprimatur of some obscure Kapiti Coast hobby
blogger, the science surrounding atmospheric CO2 is officially settled once and
for all.
How do you know he is a Kapiti Coaster? And why is that of any relevance to
anybody with more brain cells than you (and there are lots of them)?
Why would you think the science is settled? Ian Bradford did not suggest that
and neither did I. Ah I see you have better experience, knowledge,
qualifications than his Geophysical degree. Perhaps you could enlighten us with
your brilliance, it's about time.
Post by James Christophers
Wow - the next Noble prize for Science already done and dusted!
As predicted you are true to type, you attack the man, and refuse to address
the content. Beyond pathetic.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
That said, nowhere in this thread have I said that mankind is predominantly
responsible for climate change, assuming such a condition actually exists. You
would therefore be well advised not to commit yourself to categoric falsehoods
you cannot possibly sustain. It only serves to destroy your own casual
piggy-backing of others on a component topic that you know full well is already
beset with doubts and uncertainties.
Off topic.
You have added your patent falsehood to the very topic you own. I am, ergo,
on and within your topic. Thus, your careless attitude to discourse rewarded.
Silly man. You have not once in this thread addressed the topic. I have.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
(snip)
Truth matters not one whit to him..
The irony being that, as you have now more than amply demonstrated, truth
self-evidently matters even less to you in the context of the very thread you
have introduced but to which you have so far contributed no recognisable added
value whatever.
And you are an abusive man.
Mmmmm...no added value there, either. 10/10 for effortless consistency!.
Indeed, I am consistenmtly aware of your abusive nature.
Post by James Christophers
Indeed, know that conflating irrefutable truth with abuse is the evasive the
weaselling dissembler brought to light by his own ineptitude.
Quite right and you should be applauded for recognising that truth about
yourself. As I and many others have said , thank you for your self affirmation
again and ad nauseam.
Post by James Christophers
As the old saying goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Time you used some then.
James Christophers
2021-04-01 05:19:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people
who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our
climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and
similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart
and
show
it
to
be
wrong.
In global terms, one cannot separate today's greenhouse gases
controversy
from
the combination of generalities concerning the remorseless
depletion
of
critical finite natural resources through pollution and
over-exploitation.
The
ugly face of the commercial "more is never enough" profit
motive.
This
commercially-driven demand depletes global stocks of
self-sustaining
life-forms. For global species to survive and thrive, ocean
algae
tops
the
list
of the most critical by a country mile. But ocean algae is the
least
mentioned. Why? Because it's not cuddly.
Ocean algae generates an estimated 50%-80% of the world's
oxygen.
OK,
global
warming may well be a concern, unjustified or no, but let
today's
"more is
never enough" commercial imperative continue to kill off the
algae
and
then
see
how you and the rest of the world get on.
Non sequitur, as anticipated.
Climate stability is critical to the overall health of the
biosphere.
Fact
is, the CO2 controversy is but a tiny fraction of that total
criticality,
man-made terrestrial pollution being by far the greater and
decidedly
more
tangible part of it. I am neutral on CO2 as a debating issue,
whatever
its
merits or demerits since climate itself patently behaves with such
random
variability that it has so far defied any hope of its behaviour
being
finally
resolved as what some call a "settled science". My own impression
is
that,
science or no, in the endless and inconclusive tit-for-tat brawling
over
real/alleged climate change, the significance of CO2's arguable
contribution
has been exaggerated virtually to the point of side-lining the
overall
atmospheric/terrestial pollution debate from its originally
intended
path
and
purpose.
Unlike with CO2, am by no means neutral on the issue of pollution,
an
in-yer-face "settled" reality that kills and/or disables, or even
causes
mutations, of virtually every species including human. No person or
body
has
yet addressed or implemented sufficient effective measures to
ensure
pollution's reduction towards elimination, nor will they ever for
the
foreseeable future since much of what is already out there has
half-lives
extending over decades and centuries - and beyond. For example,
man-made
plastics and their residual compounds are now being found in
placentas,
no to
mention gross amounts of it already in the guts of river and
oceanic
animal
species that we are not only destroying but with which we also
share
the
same
environment, a shared environment, mark you, "where (otherwise)
every
prospect
pleases, and only man is vile". (Reginald Heber (1783-1826)
So strain at your elusive, intangible "unsettled" gnat and argue
over
it
by
all means; but as you do so, be certain that the decidedly
earthbound,
tangible, "settled" elephant that is global
pollution-as-species-killer
will
continue to dog your every "unsettled" utterance.
Hint. A healthy sense of proportion is more often than not the way
with
cooler
heads...
You still cannot answer the question.
The question is of no interest to me since, as I have previously said, I
think depletion and despoiling of the natural world to indulge and further
increase spurious excess is by far the bigger issue, CO2 concerns being
but one
tiny fraction of the whole. Hence my "unsettled" gnat/"settled" elephant
analogy.
Even so, underlying the whole thing is the mistaken idea - the
self-righteous, self-indulgent creed - "More can never be enough". Greed.
Now, who is this Ian Bradford whose writings you so cleave to? What
and
who
are his sources and references, and how and in what significant way is he
qualified to comment on issues involving climate science?
A breath of fresh air from Tony followed by the usual stench of corruption
from Keith!
Maybe if Keith wasn't so hell bent on dominating threads we might get a
glimpse of his superior education rather than his propensity to act like a
fucking jackbooted Nazi!
Yet again he's failed as only Keith can in answering Tony's question! Typical
of the edjucated idiot Keith is :)
He has decided that mankind is predominantly responsible for climate change...
Oh is that so?
Indeed it is so.
Post by James Christophers
I have stated my acknowledgement and concern that man is primarily responsible
for global pollution, depletion and degradation of species and environment.
Whether or not these man-made depredations have also had any effect on
atmospheric CO2 **per se** I acknowledge is open to question, hence the still
"unsettled science" frequently referred to.
Atmospheric CO2 is not a problem as well explained in the article by someone
with infinitely more knowledge and qualifications than you.
So, under the authority and imprimatur of some obscure Kapiti Coast hobby
blogger, the science surrounding atmospheric CO2 is officially settled once and
for all.
How do you know he is a Kapiti Coaster? And why is that of any relevance to
anybody with more brain cells than you (and there are lots of them)?
Why would you think the science is settled? Ian Bradford did not suggest that
and neither did I. Ah I see you have better experience, knowledge,
qualifications than his Geophysical degree. Perhaps you could enlighten us with
your brilliance, it's about time.
Post by James Christophers
Wow - the next Noble prize for Science already done and dusted!
As predicted you are true to type, you attack the man, and refuse to address
the content. Beyond pathetic.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
That said, nowhere in this thread have I said that mankind is predominantly
responsible for climate change, assuming such a condition actually exists. You
would therefore be well advised not to commit yourself to categoric falsehoods
you cannot possibly sustain. It only serves to destroy your own casual
piggy-backing of others on a component topic that you know full well is already
beset with doubts and uncertainties.
Off topic.
You have added your patent falsehood to the very topic you own. I am, ergo,
on and within your topic. Thus, your careless attitude to discourse rewarded.
Silly man. You have not once in this thread addressed the topic. I have.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
(snip)
Truth matters not one whit to him..
The irony being that, as you have now more than amply demonstrated, truth
self-evidently matters even less to you in the context of the very thread you
have introduced but to which you have so far contributed no recognisable added
value whatever.
And you are an abusive man.
Mmmmm...no added value there, either. 10/10 for effortless consistency!.
Indeed, I am consistenmtly aware of your abusive nature.
But evidently not aware of your self-demeaning playschool habit of traducing others in order to retrieve a position you have previously forfeited for the same reason.

"Nothing dishonours a man more than that his traducing of another, for he is weak, both in spirit and self-esteem."

End of.
John Bowes
2021-04-01 05:49:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people
who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our
climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and
similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart
and
show
it
to
be
wrong.
In global terms, one cannot separate today's greenhouse gases
controversy
from
the combination of generalities concerning the remorseless
depletion
of
critical finite natural resources through pollution and
over-exploitation.
The
ugly face of the commercial "more is never enough" profit
motive.
This
commercially-driven demand depletes global stocks of
self-sustaining
life-forms. For global species to survive and thrive, ocean
algae
tops
the
list
of the most critical by a country mile. But ocean algae is the
least
mentioned. Why? Because it's not cuddly.
Ocean algae generates an estimated 50%-80% of the world's
oxygen.
OK,
global
warming may well be a concern, unjustified or no, but let
today's
"more is
never enough" commercial imperative continue to kill off the
algae
and
then
see
how you and the rest of the world get on.
Non sequitur, as anticipated.
Climate stability is critical to the overall health of the
biosphere.
Fact
is, the CO2 controversy is but a tiny fraction of that total
criticality,
man-made terrestrial pollution being by far the greater and
decidedly
more
tangible part of it. I am neutral on CO2 as a debating issue,
whatever
its
merits or demerits since climate itself patently behaves with such
random
variability that it has so far defied any hope of its behaviour
being
finally
resolved as what some call a "settled science". My own impression
is
that,
science or no, in the endless and inconclusive tit-for-tat brawling
over
real/alleged climate change, the significance of CO2's arguable
contribution
has been exaggerated virtually to the point of side-lining the
overall
atmospheric/terrestial pollution debate from its originally
intended
path
and
purpose.
Unlike with CO2, am by no means neutral on the issue of pollution,
an
in-yer-face "settled" reality that kills and/or disables, or even
causes
mutations, of virtually every species including human. No person or
body
has
yet addressed or implemented sufficient effective measures to
ensure
pollution's reduction towards elimination, nor will they ever for
the
foreseeable future since much of what is already out there has
half-lives
extending over decades and centuries - and beyond. For example,
man-made
plastics and their residual compounds are now being found in
placentas,
no to
mention gross amounts of it already in the guts of river and
oceanic
animal
species that we are not only destroying but with which we also
share
the
same
environment, a shared environment, mark you, "where (otherwise)
every
prospect
pleases, and only man is vile". (Reginald Heber (1783-1826)
So strain at your elusive, intangible "unsettled" gnat and argue
over
it
by
all means; but as you do so, be certain that the decidedly
earthbound,
tangible, "settled" elephant that is global
pollution-as-species-killer
will
continue to dog your every "unsettled" utterance.
Hint. A healthy sense of proportion is more often than not the way
with
cooler
heads...
You still cannot answer the question.
The question is of no interest to me since, as I have previously said,
I
think depletion and despoiling of the natural world to indulge and
further
increase spurious excess is by far the bigger issue, CO2 concerns being
but one
tiny fraction of the whole. Hence my "unsettled" gnat/"settled"
elephant
analogy.
Even so, underlying the whole thing is the mistaken idea - the
self-righteous, self-indulgent creed - "More can never be enough".
Greed.
Now, who is this Ian Bradford whose writings you so cleave to? What
and
who
are his sources and references, and how and in what significant way is
he
qualified to comment on issues involving climate science?
A breath of fresh air from Tony followed by the usual stench of
corruption
from Keith!
Maybe if Keith wasn't so hell bent on dominating threads we might get a
glimpse of his superior education rather than his propensity to act like
a
fucking jackbooted Nazi!
Yet again he's failed as only Keith can in answering Tony's question!
Typical
of the edjucated idiot Keith is :)
He has decided that mankind is predominantly responsible for climate
change...
Oh is that so?
Indeed it is so.
Post by James Christophers
I have stated my acknowledgement and concern that man is primarily responsible
for global pollution, depletion and degradation of species and environment.
Whether or not these man-made depredations have also had any effect on
atmospheric CO2 **per se** I acknowledge is open to question, hence the still
"unsettled science" frequently referred to.
Atmospheric CO2 is not a problem as well explained in the article by someone
with infinitely more knowledge and qualifications than you.
So, under the authority and imprimatur of some obscure Kapiti Coast hobby
blogger, the science surrounding atmospheric CO2 is officially settled once and
for all.
How do you know he is a Kapiti Coaster? And why is that of any relevance to
anybody with more brain cells than you (and there are lots of them)?
Why would you think the science is settled? Ian Bradford did not suggest that
and neither did I. Ah I see you have better experience, knowledge,
qualifications than his Geophysical degree. Perhaps you could enlighten us with
your brilliance, it's about time.
Post by James Christophers
Wow - the next Noble prize for Science already done and dusted!
As predicted you are true to type, you attack the man, and refuse to address
the content. Beyond pathetic.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
That said, nowhere in this thread have I said that mankind is predominantly
responsible for climate change, assuming such a condition actually exists. You
would therefore be well advised not to commit yourself to categoric falsehoods
you cannot possibly sustain. It only serves to destroy your own casual
piggy-backing of others on a component topic that you know full well is already
beset with doubts and uncertainties.
Off topic.
You have added your patent falsehood to the very topic you own. I am, ergo,
on and within your topic. Thus, your careless attitude to discourse rewarded.
Silly man. You have not once in this thread addressed the topic. I have.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
(snip)
Post by Tony
Truth matters not one whit to him..
The irony being that, as you have now more than amply demonstrated, truth
self-evidently matters even less to you in the context of the very thread you
have introduced but to which you have so far contributed no recognisable added
value whatever.
And you are an abusive man.
Mmmmm...no added value there, either. 10/10 for effortless consistency!.
Indeed, I am consistenmtly aware of your abusive nature.
But evidently not aware of your self-demeaning playschool habit of traducing others in order to retrieve a position you have previously forfeited for the same reason.
"Nothing dishonours a man more than that his traducing of another, for he is weak, both in spirit and self-esteem."
End of.
You Keith as usual are just being a stupid ass! And you know it!!!
Nice ending btw. Describes you to a T once again and you know it :)
Tony
2021-04-01 06:04:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
On Wednesday, 31 March 2021 at 09:12:23 UTC+13, undefined
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be
wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people
who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our
climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and
similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart
and
show
it
to
be
wrong.
In global terms, one cannot separate today's greenhouse gases
controversy
from
the combination of generalities concerning the remorseless
depletion
of
critical finite natural resources through pollution and
over-exploitation.
The
ugly face of the commercial "more is never enough" profit
motive.
This
commercially-driven demand depletes global stocks of
self-sustaining
life-forms. For global species to survive and thrive, ocean
algae
tops
the
list
of the most critical by a country mile. But ocean algae is
the
least
mentioned. Why? Because it's not cuddly.
Ocean algae generates an estimated 50%-80% of the world's
oxygen.
OK,
global
warming may well be a concern, unjustified or no, but let
today's
"more is
never enough" commercial imperative continue to kill off the
algae
and
then
see
how you and the rest of the world get on.
Non sequitur, as anticipated.
Climate stability is critical to the overall health of the
biosphere.
Fact
is, the CO2 controversy is but a tiny fraction of that total
criticality,
man-made terrestrial pollution being by far the greater and
decidedly
more
tangible part of it. I am neutral on CO2 as a debating issue,
whatever
its
merits or demerits since climate itself patently behaves with
such
random
variability that it has so far defied any hope of its behaviour
being
finally
resolved as what some call a "settled science". My own impression
is
that,
science or no, in the endless and inconclusive tit-for-tat
brawling
over
real/alleged climate change, the significance of CO2's arguable
contribution
has been exaggerated virtually to the point of side-lining the
overall
atmospheric/terrestial pollution debate from its originally
intended
path
and
purpose.
Unlike with CO2, am by no means neutral on the issue of
pollution,
an
in-yer-face "settled" reality that kills and/or disables, or even
causes
mutations, of virtually every species including human. No person
or
body
has
yet addressed or implemented sufficient effective measures to
ensure
pollution's reduction towards elimination, nor will they ever for
the
foreseeable future since much of what is already out there has
half-lives
extending over decades and centuries - and beyond. For example,
man-made
plastics and their residual compounds are now being found in
placentas,
no to
mention gross amounts of it already in the guts of river and
oceanic
animal
species that we are not only destroying but with which we also
share
the
same
environment, a shared environment, mark you, "where (otherwise)
every
prospect
pleases, and only man is vile". (Reginald Heber (1783-1826)
So strain at your elusive, intangible "unsettled" gnat and argue
over
it
by
all means; but as you do so, be certain that the decidedly
earthbound,
tangible, "settled" elephant that is global
pollution-as-species-killer
will
continue to dog your every "unsettled" utterance.
Hint. A healthy sense of proportion is more often than not the
way
with
cooler
heads...
You still cannot answer the question.
The question is of no interest to me since, as I have previously
said,
I
think depletion and despoiling of the natural world to indulge and
further
increase spurious excess is by far the bigger issue, CO2 concerns being
but one
tiny fraction of the whole. Hence my "unsettled" gnat/"settled" elephant
analogy.
Even so, underlying the whole thing is the mistaken idea - the
self-righteous, self-indulgent creed - "More can never be enough". Greed.
Now, who is this Ian Bradford whose writings you so cleave to? What
and
who
are his sources and references, and how and in what significant way
is
he
qualified to comment on issues involving climate science?
A breath of fresh air from Tony followed by the usual stench of corruption
from Keith!
Maybe if Keith wasn't so hell bent on dominating threads we might get a
glimpse of his superior education rather than his propensity to act
like
a
fucking jackbooted Nazi!
Yet again he's failed as only Keith can in answering Tony's question!
Typical
of the edjucated idiot Keith is :)
He has decided that mankind is predominantly responsible for climate change...
Oh is that so?
Indeed it is so.
Post by James Christophers
I have stated my acknowledgement and concern that man is primarily responsible
for global pollution, depletion and degradation of species and environment.
Whether or not these man-made depredations have also had any effect on
atmospheric CO2 **per se** I acknowledge is open to question, hence the still
"unsettled science" frequently referred to.
Atmospheric CO2 is not a problem as well explained in the article by someone
with infinitely more knowledge and qualifications than you.
So, under the authority and imprimatur of some obscure Kapiti Coast hobby
blogger, the science surrounding atmospheric CO2 is officially settled once and
for all.
How do you know he is a Kapiti Coaster? And why is that of any relevance to
anybody with more brain cells than you (and there are lots of them)?
Why would you think the science is settled? Ian Bradford did not suggest that
and neither did I. Ah I see you have better experience, knowledge,
qualifications than his Geophysical degree. Perhaps you could enlighten us with
your brilliance, it's about time.
Post by James Christophers
Wow - the next Noble prize for Science already done and dusted!
As predicted you are true to type, you attack the man, and refuse to address
the content. Beyond pathetic.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
That said, nowhere in this thread have I said that mankind is predominantly
responsible for climate change, assuming such a condition actually
exists.
You
would therefore be well advised not to commit yourself to categoric falsehoods
you cannot possibly sustain. It only serves to destroy your own casual
piggy-backing of others on a component topic that you know full well is already
beset with doubts and uncertainties.
Off topic.
You have added your patent falsehood to the very topic you own. I am, ergo,
on and within your topic. Thus, your careless attitude to discourse rewarded.
Silly man. You have not once in this thread addressed the topic. I have.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
(snip)
Truth matters not one whit to him..
The irony being that, as you have now more than amply demonstrated, truth
self-evidently matters even less to you in the context of the very
thread
you
have introduced but to which you have so far contributed no recognisable added
value whatever.
And you are an abusive man.
Mmmmm...no added value there, either. 10/10 for effortless consistency!.
Indeed, I am consistenmtly aware of your abusive nature.
But evidently not aware of your self-demeaning playschool habit of traducing
others in order to retrieve a position you have previously forfeited for the
same reason.
"Nothing dishonours a man more than that his traducing of another, for he is
weak, both in spirit and self-esteem."
I agree so why do you do it, again, and again, and again monotonously
Post by James Christophers
End of.
End of what? You are a poseur, a bully and an inverted snob.
However, you have still not addressed the content of the article authored by
someone infinitely smarter than you. But you still attack the author and the
messenger to the point of queasiness.
James Christophers
2021-04-02 00:54:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
On Wednesday, 31 March 2021 at 09:12:23 UTC+13, undefined
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be
wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people
who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our
climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and
similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart
and
show
it
to
be
wrong.
In global terms, one cannot separate today's greenhouse gases
controversy
from
the combination of generalities concerning the remorseless
depletion
of
critical finite natural resources through pollution and
over-exploitation.
The
ugly face of the commercial "more is never enough" profit
motive.
This
commercially-driven demand depletes global stocks of
self-sustaining
life-forms. For global species to survive and thrive, ocean
algae
tops
the
list
of the most critical by a country mile. But ocean algae is
the
least
mentioned. Why? Because it's not cuddly.
Ocean algae generates an estimated 50%-80% of the world's
oxygen.
OK,
global
warming may well be a concern, unjustified or no, but let
today's
"more is
never enough" commercial imperative continue to kill off the
algae
and
then
see
how you and the rest of the world get on.
Non sequitur, as anticipated.
Climate stability is critical to the overall health of the
biosphere.
Fact
is, the CO2 controversy is but a tiny fraction of that total
criticality,
man-made terrestrial pollution being by far the greater and
decidedly
more
tangible part of it. I am neutral on CO2 as a debating issue,
whatever
its
merits or demerits since climate itself patently behaves with
such
random
variability that it has so far defied any hope of its behaviour
being
finally
resolved as what some call a "settled science". My own
impression
is
that,
science or no, in the endless and inconclusive tit-for-tat
brawling
over
real/alleged climate change, the significance of CO2's arguable
contribution
has been exaggerated virtually to the point of side-lining the
overall
atmospheric/terrestial pollution debate from its originally
intended
path
and
purpose.
Unlike with CO2, am by no means neutral on the issue of
pollution,
an
in-yer-face "settled" reality that kills and/or disables, or
even
causes
mutations, of virtually every species including human. No person
or
body
has
yet addressed or implemented sufficient effective measures to
ensure
pollution's reduction towards elimination, nor will they ever
for
the
foreseeable future since much of what is already out there has
half-lives
extending over decades and centuries - and beyond. For example,
man-made
plastics and their residual compounds are now being found in
placentas,
no to
mention gross amounts of it already in the guts of river and
oceanic
animal
species that we are not only destroying but with which we also
share
the
same
environment, a shared environment, mark you, "where (otherwise)
every
prospect
pleases, and only man is vile". (Reginald Heber (1783-1826)
So strain at your elusive, intangible "unsettled" gnat and argue
over
it
by
all means; but as you do so, be certain that the decidedly
earthbound,
tangible, "settled" elephant that is global
pollution-as-species-killer
will
continue to dog your every "unsettled" utterance.
Hint. A healthy sense of proportion is more often than not the
way
with
cooler
heads...
You still cannot answer the question.
The question is of no interest to me since, as I have previously
said,
I
think depletion and despoiling of the natural world to indulge and
further
increase spurious excess is by far the bigger issue, CO2 concerns
being
but one
tiny fraction of the whole. Hence my "unsettled" gnat/"settled"
elephant
analogy.
Even so, underlying the whole thing is the mistaken idea - the
self-righteous, self-indulgent creed - "More can never be enough".
Greed.
Now, who is this Ian Bradford whose writings you so cleave to? What
and
who
are his sources and references, and how and in what significant way
is
he
qualified to comment on issues involving climate science?
A breath of fresh air from Tony followed by the usual stench of
corruption
from Keith!
Maybe if Keith wasn't so hell bent on dominating threads we might get a
glimpse of his superior education rather than his propensity to act
like
a
fucking jackbooted Nazi!
Yet again he's failed as only Keith can in answering Tony's question!
Typical
of the edjucated idiot Keith is :)
He has decided that mankind is predominantly responsible for climate
change...
Oh is that so?
Indeed it is so.
Post by James Christophers
I have stated my acknowledgement and concern that man is primarily
responsible
for global pollution, depletion and degradation of species and environment.
Whether or not these man-made depredations have also had any effect on
atmospheric CO2 **per se** I acknowledge is open to question, hence the still
"unsettled science" frequently referred to.
Atmospheric CO2 is not a problem as well explained in the article by someone
with infinitely more knowledge and qualifications than you.
So, under the authority and imprimatur of some obscure Kapiti Coast hobby
blogger, the science surrounding atmospheric CO2 is officially settled once and
for all.
How do you know he is a Kapiti Coaster? And why is that of any relevance to
anybody with more brain cells than you (and there are lots of them)?
Why would you think the science is settled? Ian Bradford did not suggest that
and neither did I. Ah I see you have better experience, knowledge,
qualifications than his Geophysical degree. Perhaps you could enlighten us with
your brilliance, it's about time.
Post by James Christophers
Wow - the next Noble prize for Science already done and dusted!
As predicted you are true to type, you attack the man, and refuse to address
the content. Beyond pathetic.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
That said, nowhere in this thread have I said that mankind is predominantly
responsible for climate change, assuming such a condition actually
exists.
You
would therefore be well advised not to commit yourself to categoric
falsehoods
you cannot possibly sustain. It only serves to destroy your own casual
piggy-backing of others on a component topic that you know full well is
already
beset with doubts and uncertainties.
Off topic.
You have added your patent falsehood to the very topic you own. I am, ergo,
on and within your topic. Thus, your careless attitude to discourse rewarded.
Silly man. You have not once in this thread addressed the topic. I have.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
(snip)
Post by Tony
Truth matters not one whit to him..
The irony being that, as you have now more than amply demonstrated, truth
self-evidently matters even less to you in the context of the very
thread
you
have introduced but to which you have so far contributed no recognisable
added
value whatever.
And you are an abusive man.
Mmmmm...no added value there, either. 10/10 for effortless consistency!.
Indeed, I am consistenmtly aware of your abusive nature.
But evidently not aware of your self-demeaning playschool habit of traducing
others in order to retrieve a position you have previously forfeited for the
same reason.
"Nothing dishonours a man more than that his traducing of another, for he is
weak, both in spirit and self-esteem."
End of.
End of what? You are a poseur, a bully and an inverted snob.
However, you have still not addressed the content of the article
I have, by saying that, while never once denying that the climate concerns addressed by Bradford are a worthy issue, it's always a good idea for any minor author to simultaneously substantiate his thinking by giving references to authenticated stats, plus the naming those of higher learning and authority who inform him - IOW, the routine footnote declaration that should accompany every article he writes when not writing under the authority of a higher institution or body. All this even if only to confirm and consolidate his own presumed credentials,
Post by Tony
authored by someone infinitely smarter than you.
Certainly smart enough to go as far as cloaking himself in the mantle of the infinitely-smarter-than-he Gallileo (see his replies section), but even then not sufficiently smart, it seems, to know that Copernicus, having already done all the heavy lifting, had not only got there first but had also suffered the same backlash from the Church as had Gallileo!
Post by Tony
But you still attack the author and the messenger to the point of queasiness.
"Attack"? I merely address and notify the unadorned facts of the matter as they appear to me, while never automatically taking for granted the presumed authority of a minor blog-writer who happens to pop up from time to time.

Seems wise and reasonable to me.
Tony
2021-04-02 02:03:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and that we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it to be
wrong."

The above was the first post in this thread and clearly I was prophetic.
Keith Warren, using one of his several pseudonyms, has done precisely what I
hoped nobody would do (a naive hope it would seem).
He has not at any time addressed the content, he has attacked the credibility
of the author and has deliberately tried to move the focus onto extraneous
matters.

The author holds a degree in the subject matter he has addressed (geophysics)
and also has a law degree.

If anybody would like to address the actual subject matter with either facts or
reasonable opinion that would be a very welcome change.

I look forward to the next article from this far from minor author and hope
that we can keep an open mind instead of driving down the "mankind is
predominantly responsible for climate change" road with blinkers on. The fact
that he has chosen the Waikanae Watch blog to publish is irrelevant to anybody
who is open minded.

Meanwhile I have removed the silliness from this subthread.
Rich80105
2021-04-02 09:27:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 21:03:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and that we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it to be
wrong."
I have been away, so have not seen much of the previous discussion, so
I did look at the article. Thye first paragraph says "In 1989 The UN
predicted disaster if global warming was not checked. Nations would
be wiped off the face of the earth, coastal regions flooded, about 23
million people displaced, a fifth of Egypt’s arable land flooded and
many ecological refugees. Here we are 32 years on and has any of this
happened? NO!"

Then from https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/
I read: "The establishment of the IPCC was endorsed by UN General
Assembly in 1988. Its initial task, as outlined in UN General Assembly
Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988, was to prepare a comprehensive
review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of
the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of
climate change, and potential response strategies and elements for
inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.
Since 1988, the IPCC has had five assessment cycles and delivered five
Assessment Reports, the most comprehensive scientific reports about
climate change produced worldwide. It has also produced a range of
Methodology Reports, Special Reports and Technical Papers, in response
to requests for information on specific scientific and technical
matters from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), governments and international organizations."

and "In 1990, the First IPCC Assessment Report (FAR) underlined the
importance of climate change as a challenge with global consequences
and requiring international cooperation. "

So where is the reference to the prediction? It was apparently in
1989, before the IPCC had given any report. That we cannot verify
from refrences that the IPCC made any such statement, perhaps we
should be a bit wary of the article. But let us suppose someone did
make those statements way back in 1989 - does it surprise you that
they were wrong? Does a statement by an unknown person outweigh 32
years of subsequent research?

The article does seem to go on to quote all sorts of fantastic
assertions. For example " I have read reports that stated that CO2 is
a poisonous gas and a pollutant. Neither is true. It is a very
important gas essential for the survival of humans. It is essentially
plant food. If CO2 falls below a certain level all plants die and so
do we. Of course plants give us oxygen as a result of taking in CO2
and through the process of photosynthesis."

Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your response.
Post by Tony
The above was the first post in this thread and clearly I was prophetic.
Keith Warren, using one of his several pseudonyms, has done precisely what I
hoped nobody would do (a naive hope it would seem).
He has not at any time addressed the content, he has attacked the credibility
of the author and has deliberately tried to move the focus onto extraneous
matters.
The author holds a degree in the subject matter he has addressed (geophysics)
and also has a law degree.
If anybody would like to address the actual subject matter with either facts or
reasonable opinion that would be a very welcome change.
I look forward to the next article from this far from minor author and hope
that we can keep an open mind instead of driving down the "mankind is
predominantly responsible for climate change" road with blinkers on. The fact
that he has chosen the Waikanae Watch blog to publish is irrelevant to anybody
who is open minded.
Meanwhile I have removed the silliness from this subthread.
Tony
2021-04-03 01:26:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 21:03:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and that we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it to be
wrong."
I have been away, so have not seen much of the previous discussion, so
I did look at the article. Thye first paragraph says "In 1989 The UN
predicted disaster if global warming was not checked. Nations would
be wiped off the face of the earth, coastal regions flooded, about 23
million people displaced, a fifth of Egypt’s arable land flooded and
many ecological refugees. Here we are 32 years on and has any of this
happened? NO!"
Then from https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/
I read: "The establishment of the IPCC was endorsed by UN General
Assembly in 1988. Its initial task, as outlined in UN General Assembly
Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988, was to prepare a comprehensive
review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of
the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of
climate change, and potential response strategies and elements for
inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.
Since 1988, the IPCC has had five assessment cycles and delivered five
Assessment Reports, the most comprehensive scientific reports about
climate change produced worldwide. It has also produced a range of
Methodology Reports, Special Reports and Technical Papers, in response
to requests for information on specific scientific and technical
matters from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), governments and international organizations."
and "In 1990, the First IPCC Assessment Report (FAR) underlined the
importance of climate change as a challenge with global consequences
and requiring international cooperation. "
So where is the reference to the prediction? It was apparently in
1989, before the IPCC had given any report. That we cannot verify
from refrences that the IPCC made any such statement, perhaps we
should be a bit wary of the article. But let us suppose someone did
make those statements way back in 1989 - does it surprise you that
they were wrong? Does a statement by an unknown person outweigh 32
years of subsequent research?
The article does seem to go on to quote all sorts of fantastic
assertions. For example " I have read reports that stated that CO2 is
a poisonous gas and a pollutant. Neither is true. It is a very
important gas essential for the survival of humans. It is essentially
plant food. If CO2 falls below a certain level all plants die and so
do we. Of course plants give us oxygen as a result of taking in CO2
and through the process of photosynthesis."
Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your response.
I agree that what you have raised are indeed small matters. Perhaps even
trivial.
I note that you have not refuted any of the most important parts of the article.
And that is healthy, perhaps you and others can uncloud your minds and accept
there is serious doubt about the main causes of climate change or at least a
fair and scientifically based question.
You seem to suggest that the author is "Unknown" why would you say that if not
to belittle his article?
Which nz general poster has made proud unfounded scientific expertise boasts.
Do tell us.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The above was the first post in this thread and clearly I was prophetic.
Keith Warren, using one of his several pseudonyms, has done precisely what I
hoped nobody would do (a naive hope it would seem).
He has not at any time addressed the content, he has attacked the credibility
of the author and has deliberately tried to move the focus onto extraneous
matters.
The author holds a degree in the subject matter he has addressed (geophysics)
and also has a law degree.
If anybody would like to address the actual subject matter with either facts or
reasonable opinion that would be a very welcome change.
I look forward to the next article from this far from minor author and hope
that we can keep an open mind instead of driving down the "mankind is
predominantly responsible for climate change" road with blinkers on. The fact
that he has chosen the Waikanae Watch blog to publish is irrelevant to anybody
who is open minded.
Meanwhile I have removed the silliness from this subthread.
John Bowes
2021-04-03 02:46:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 21:03:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and that we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it to be
wrong."
I have been away, so have not seen much of the previous discussion, so
I did look at the article. Thye first paragraph says "In 1989 The UN
predicted disaster if global warming was not checked. Nations would
be wiped off the face of the earth, coastal regions flooded, about 23
million people displaced, a fifth of Egypt’s arable land flooded and
many ecological refugees. Here we are 32 years on and has any of this
happened? NO!"
Then from https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/
I read: "The establishment of the IPCC was endorsed by UN General
Assembly in 1988. Its initial task, as outlined in UN General Assembly
Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988, was to prepare a comprehensive
review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of
the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of
climate change, and potential response strategies and elements for
inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.
Since 1988, the IPCC has had five assessment cycles and delivered five
Assessment Reports, the most comprehensive scientific reports about
climate change produced worldwide. It has also produced a range of
Methodology Reports, Special Reports and Technical Papers, in response
to requests for information on specific scientific and technical
matters from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), governments and international organizations."
and "In 1990, the First IPCC Assessment Report (FAR) underlined the
importance of climate change as a challenge with global consequences
and requiring international cooperation. "
So where is the reference to the prediction? It was apparently in
1989, before the IPCC had given any report. That we cannot verify
from refrences that the IPCC made any such statement, perhaps we
should be a bit wary of the article. But let us suppose someone did
make those statements way back in 1989 - does it surprise you that
they were wrong? Does a statement by an unknown person outweigh 32
years of subsequent research?
The article does seem to go on to quote all sorts of fantastic
assertions. For example " I have read reports that stated that CO2 is
a poisonous gas and a pollutant. Neither is true. It is a very
important gas essential for the survival of humans. It is essentially
plant food. If CO2 falls below a certain level all plants die and so
do we. Of course plants give us oxygen as a result of taking in CO2
and through the process of photosynthesis."
Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your response.
I agree that what you have raised are indeed small matters. Perhaps even
trivial.
I note that you have not refuted any of the most important parts of the article.
And that is healthy, perhaps you and others can uncloud your minds and accept
there is serious doubt about the main causes of climate change or at least a
fair and scientifically based question.
You seem to suggest that the author is "Unknown" why would you say that if not
to belittle his article?
Which nz general poster has made proud unfounded scientific expertise boasts.
Do tell us.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The above was the first post in this thread and clearly I was prophetic.
Keith Warren, using one of his several pseudonyms, has done precisely what I
hoped nobody would do (a naive hope it would seem).
He has not at any time addressed the content, he has attacked the credibility
of the author and has deliberately tried to move the focus onto extraneous
matters.
The author holds a degree in the subject matter he has addressed (geophysics)
and also has a law degree.
If anybody would like to address the actual subject matter with either facts or
reasonable opinion that would be a very welcome change.
I look forward to the next article from this far from minor author and hope
that we can keep an open mind instead of driving down the "mankind is
predominantly responsible for climate change" road with blinkers on. The fact
that he has chosen the Waikanae Watch blog to publish is irrelevant to anybody
who is open minded.
Meanwhile I have removed the silliness from this subthread.
Funny how the UN started getting their tits in a tangle 20,000 years after the end of the last ice age and 400 years after the little ice age which dropped temperatures to what they claim are normal levels today. Temperatures which let Britain grow grapes and produce better wine than France :)
Rich80105
2021-04-03 08:02:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:26:17 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 21:03:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and that we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it to be
wrong."
I have been away, so have not seen much of the previous discussion, so
I did look at the article. Thye first paragraph says "In 1989 The UN
predicted disaster if global warming was not checked. Nations would
be wiped off the face of the earth, coastal regions flooded, about 23
million people displaced, a fifth of Egypt’s arable land flooded and
many ecological refugees. Here we are 32 years on and has any of this
happened? NO!"
Then from https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/
I read: "The establishment of the IPCC was endorsed by UN General
Assembly in 1988. Its initial task, as outlined in UN General Assembly
Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988, was to prepare a comprehensive
review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of
the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of
climate change, and potential response strategies and elements for
inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.
Since 1988, the IPCC has had five assessment cycles and delivered five
Assessment Reports, the most comprehensive scientific reports about
climate change produced worldwide. It has also produced a range of
Methodology Reports, Special Reports and Technical Papers, in response
to requests for information on specific scientific and technical
matters from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), governments and international organizations."
and "In 1990, the First IPCC Assessment Report (FAR) underlined the
importance of climate change as a challenge with global consequences
and requiring international cooperation. "
So where is the reference to the prediction? It was apparently in
1989, before the IPCC had given any report. That we cannot verify
from refrences that the IPCC made any such statement, perhaps we
should be a bit wary of the article. But let us suppose someone did
make those statements way back in 1989 - does it surprise you that
they were wrong? Does a statement by an unknown person outweigh 32
years of subsequent research?
The article does seem to go on to quote all sorts of fantastic
assertions. For example " I have read reports that stated that CO2 is
a poisonous gas and a pollutant. Neither is true. It is a very
important gas essential for the survival of humans. It is essentially
plant food. If CO2 falls below a certain level all plants die and so
do we. Of course plants give us oxygen as a result of taking in CO2
and through the process of photosynthesis."
Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your response.
I agree that what you have raised are indeed small matters. Perhaps even
trivial.
I referred to small difficulties - easily resolved by an adequate
reference - but as that seems to not be forthcoming it becomes then
somewhat more of a major difficulty. Certainly they lead to a doubt as
to the credibility of the statements made by Ian Bradford.
Post by Tony
I note that you have not refuted any of the most important parts of the article.
I did not see any more important; hearsay is ultimately not vry
credible; especially if you are relying on an opinion given over 30
years ago . . . science has advanced a bit since then, Tony.
Post by Tony
And that is healthy, perhaps you and others can uncloud your minds and accept
there is serious doubt about the main causes of climate change or at least a
fair and scientifically based question.
You seem to suggest that the author is "Unknown" why would you say that if not
to belittle his article?
I suggested that the reference to a statement by the IPCC does not
apper to be an official statement of the IPCC - the author of the
statement reported by Ian Bradford remains unknown.
Post by Tony
Which nz general poster has made proud unfounded scientific expertise boasts.
Do tell us.
Yourself, Tony, in making the claims above.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The above was the first post in this thread and clearly I was prophetic.
Keith Warren, using one of his several pseudonyms, has done precisely what I
hoped nobody would do (a naive hope it would seem).
He has not at any time addressed the content, he has attacked the credibility
of the author and has deliberately tried to move the focus onto extraneous
matters.
I have addressed an issue that goes to the credibility of the article,
but you appear to not be prepared to accept those concerns.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The author holds a degree in the subject matter he has addressed (geophysics)
and also has a law degree.
Holding a degree does not a world expert make. Can you point to any
peer reviewed material relating to cliamte science from I an Bradford?
Note that Geophysics can be defined as Geophysics can be defined :
"Geophysics is a subject of natural science concerned with the
physical processes and physical properties of the Earth and its
surrounding space environment, and the use of quantitative methods for
their analysis." This may but does not necessarily indicate
expertise in issues relating to climate change.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
If anybody would like to address the actual subject matter with either facts or
reasonable opinion that would be a very welcome change.
I look forward to the next article from this far from minor author and hope
that we can keep an open mind instead of driving down the "mankind is
predominantly responsible for climate change" road with blinkers on. The fact
that he has chosen the Waikanae Watch blog to publish is irrelevant to anybody
who is open minded.
Meanwhile I have removed the silliness from this subthread.
Tony
2021-04-03 20:13:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:26:17 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 21:03:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it to be
wrong."
I have been away, so have not seen much of the previous discussion, so
I did look at the article. Thye first paragraph says "In 1989 The UN
predicted disaster if global warming was not checked. Nations would
be wiped off the face of the earth, coastal regions flooded, about 23
million people displaced, a fifth of Egypt’s arable land flooded and
many ecological refugees. Here we are 32 years on and has any of this
happened? NO!"
Then from https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/
I read: "The establishment of the IPCC was endorsed by UN General
Assembly in 1988. Its initial task, as outlined in UN General Assembly
Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988, was to prepare a comprehensive
review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of
the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of
climate change, and potential response strategies and elements for
inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.
Since 1988, the IPCC has had five assessment cycles and delivered five
Assessment Reports, the most comprehensive scientific reports about
climate change produced worldwide. It has also produced a range of
Methodology Reports, Special Reports and Technical Papers, in response
to requests for information on specific scientific and technical
matters from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), governments and international organizations."
and "In 1990, the First IPCC Assessment Report (FAR) underlined the
importance of climate change as a challenge with global consequences
and requiring international cooperation. "
So where is the reference to the prediction? It was apparently in
1989, before the IPCC had given any report. That we cannot verify
from refrences that the IPCC made any such statement, perhaps we
should be a bit wary of the article. But let us suppose someone did
make those statements way back in 1989 - does it surprise you that
they were wrong? Does a statement by an unknown person outweigh 32
years of subsequent research?
The article does seem to go on to quote all sorts of fantastic
assertions. For example " I have read reports that stated that CO2 is
a poisonous gas and a pollutant. Neither is true. It is a very
important gas essential for the survival of humans. It is essentially
plant food. If CO2 falls below a certain level all plants die and so
do we. Of course plants give us oxygen as a result of taking in CO2
and through the process of photosynthesis."
Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your response.
I agree that what you have raised are indeed small matters. Perhaps even
trivial.
I referred to small difficulties - easily resolved by an adequate
reference - but as that seems to not be forthcoming it becomes then
somewhat more of a major difficulty. Certainly they lead to a doubt as
to the credibility of the statements made by Ian Bradford.
Certainly it does not.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
I note that you have not refuted any of the most important parts of the article.
I did not see any more important; hearsay is ultimately not vry
credible; especially if you are relying on an opinion given over 30
years ago . . . science has advanced a bit since then, Tony.
There was little or no hearsay, just scientific fact and opinion.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
And that is healthy, perhaps you and others can uncloud your minds and accept
there is serious doubt about the main causes of climate change or at least a
fair and scientifically based question.
You seem to suggest that the author is "Unknown" why would you say that if not
to belittle his article?
I suggested that the reference to a statement by the IPCC does not
apper to be an official statement of the IPCC - the author of the
statement reported by Ian Bradford remains unknown.
Yeah right, that is not what you meant and we all know it.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Which nz general poster has made proud unfounded scientific expertise boasts.
Do tell us.
Yourself, Tony, in making the claims above.
I have never made a claim that I have expert scientific knowledge. You area
liar.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The above was the first post in this thread and clearly I was prophetic.
Keith Warren, using one of his several pseudonyms, has done precisely what I
hoped nobody would do (a naive hope it would seem).
He has not at any time addressed the content, he has attacked the credibility
of the author and has deliberately tried to move the focus onto extraneous
matters.
I have addressed an issue that goes to the credibility of the article,
but you appear to not be prepared to accept those concerns.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The author holds a degree in the subject matter he has addressed (geophysics)
and also has a law degree.
Holding a degree does not a world expert make. Can you point to any
peer reviewed material relating to cliamte science from I an Bradford?
"Geophysics is a subject of natural science concerned with the
physical processes and physical properties of the Earth and its
surrounding space environment, and the use of quantitative methods for
their analysis." This may but does not necessarily indicate
expertise in issues relating to climate change.
More so than you have however and yet you are happy to indicate he is wrong
based on nothing but your own inexpert opinion. OK?
Fact - you have not managed to refute any of the opinions and facts he has
provided. Not one!
So your selective opinion remains what you have been given by the "flat
earthers".
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
If anybody would like to address the actual subject matter with either
facts
or
reasonable opinion that would be a very welcome change.
I look forward to the next article from this far from minor author and hope
that we can keep an open mind instead of driving down the "mankind is
predominantly responsible for climate change" road with blinkers on. The fact
that he has chosen the Waikanae Watch blog to publish is irrelevant to anybody
who is open minded.
Meanwhile I have removed the silliness from this subthread.
Rich80105
2021-04-03 21:19:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 15:13:52 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:26:17 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 21:03:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it to be
wrong."
I have been away, so have not seen much of the previous discussion, so
I did look at the article. Thye first paragraph says "In 1989 The UN
predicted disaster if global warming was not checked. Nations would
be wiped off the face of the earth, coastal regions flooded, about 23
million people displaced, a fifth of Egypt’s arable land flooded and
many ecological refugees. Here we are 32 years on and has any of this
happened? NO!"
Then from https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/
I read: "The establishment of the IPCC was endorsed by UN General
Assembly in 1988. Its initial task, as outlined in UN General Assembly
Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988, was to prepare a comprehensive
review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of
the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of
climate change, and potential response strategies and elements for
inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.
Since 1988, the IPCC has had five assessment cycles and delivered five
Assessment Reports, the most comprehensive scientific reports about
climate change produced worldwide. It has also produced a range of
Methodology Reports, Special Reports and Technical Papers, in response
to requests for information on specific scientific and technical
matters from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), governments and international organizations."
and "In 1990, the First IPCC Assessment Report (FAR) underlined the
importance of climate change as a challenge with global consequences
and requiring international cooperation. "
So where is the reference to the prediction? It was apparently in
1989, before the IPCC had given any report. That we cannot verify
from refrences that the IPCC made any such statement, perhaps we
should be a bit wary of the article. But let us suppose someone did
make those statements way back in 1989 - does it surprise you that
they were wrong? Does a statement by an unknown person outweigh 32
years of subsequent research?
The article does seem to go on to quote all sorts of fantastic
assertions. For example " I have read reports that stated that CO2 is
a poisonous gas and a pollutant. Neither is true. It is a very
important gas essential for the survival of humans. It is essentially
plant food. If CO2 falls below a certain level all plants die and so
do we. Of course plants give us oxygen as a result of taking in CO2
and through the process of photosynthesis."
Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your response.
I agree that what you have raised are indeed small matters. Perhaps even
trivial.
I referred to small difficulties - easily resolved by an adequate
reference - but as that seems to not be forthcoming it becomes then
somewhat more of a major difficulty. Certainly they lead to a doubt as
to the credibility of the statements made by Ian Bradford.
Certainly it does not.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
I note that you have not refuted any of the most important parts of the article.
I did not see any more important; hearsay is ultimately not vry
credible; especially if you are relying on an opinion given over 30
years ago . . . science has advanced a bit since then, Tony.
There was little or no hearsay, just scientific fact and opinion.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
And that is healthy, perhaps you and others can uncloud your minds and accept
there is serious doubt about the main causes of climate change or at least a
fair and scientifically based question.
You seem to suggest that the author is "Unknown" why would you say that if not
to belittle his article?
I suggested that the reference to a statement by the IPCC does not
apper to be an official statement of the IPCC - the author of the
statement reported by Ian Bradford remains unknown.
Yeah right, that is not what you meant and we all know it.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Which nz general poster has made proud unfounded scientific expertise boasts.
Do tell us.
Yourself, Tony, in making the claims above.
I have never made a claim that I have expert scientific knowledge. You area
liar.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The above was the first post in this thread and clearly I was prophetic.
Keith Warren, using one of his several pseudonyms, has done precisely what I
hoped nobody would do (a naive hope it would seem).
He has not at any time addressed the content, he has attacked the credibility
of the author and has deliberately tried to move the focus onto extraneous
matters.
I have addressed an issue that goes to the credibility of the article,
but you appear to not be prepared to accept those concerns.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The author holds a degree in the subject matter he has addressed (geophysics)
and also has a law degree.
Holding a degree does not a world expert make. Can you point to any
peer reviewed material relating to cliamte science from I an Bradford?
"Geophysics is a subject of natural science concerned with the
physical processes and physical properties of the Earth and its
surrounding space environment, and the use of quantitative methods for
their analysis." This may but does not necessarily indicate
expertise in issues relating to climate change.
More so than you have however and yet you are happy to indicate he is wrong
based on nothing but your own inexpert opinion. OK?
I have not indicated that he is wrong, but I have not seen anything to
indicate that he is correct either. The assertion about an unknown
person making a statement 32 years ago does not inspire confidence in
the argument - it is more scaremongering.
Post by Tony
Fact - you have not managed to refute any of the opinions and facts he has
provided. Not one!
I have not been showen anything credible to support any of the
assertions
Post by Tony
So your selective opinion remains what you have been given by the "flat
earthers".
If you wish to see Ian Bradford that way then so be it. I have made no
claims about his article, but the lack of evidence, cites to actual
scientific knowledge, and the reliance on a statement from 32 years
ago do not give confidence that his opinion is any more likely to be
true than others that provide opinion and unverifiable statements
instead of peer reviewed scientific evidence.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
If anybody would like to address the actual subject matter with either
facts
or
reasonable opinion that would be a very welcome change.
I look forward to the next article from this far from minor author and hope
that we can keep an open mind instead of driving down the "mankind is
predominantly responsible for climate change" road with blinkers on. The fact
that he has chosen the Waikanae Watch blog to publish is irrelevant to anybody
who is open minded.
Meanwhile I have removed the silliness from this subthread.
Your latest post fits that category - when it was pointed out to you
that some of the assertions dp not appear to be based on any evidence
you have doubled down on believing then - perhaps you expect them to
be provided by the Easter bunny . . .
John Bowes
2021-04-03 22:39:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 15:13:52 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:26:17 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 21:03:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it to be
wrong."
I have been away, so have not seen much of the previous discussion, so
I did look at the article. Thye first paragraph says "In 1989 The UN
predicted disaster if global warming was not checked. Nations would
be wiped off the face of the earth, coastal regions flooded, about 23
million people displaced, a fifth of Egypt’s arable land flooded and
many ecological refugees. Here we are 32 years on and has any of this
happened? NO!"
Then from https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/
I read: "The establishment of the IPCC was endorsed by UN General
Assembly in 1988. Its initial task, as outlined in UN General Assembly
Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988, was to prepare a comprehensive
review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of
the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of
climate change, and potential response strategies and elements for
inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.
Since 1988, the IPCC has had five assessment cycles and delivered five
Assessment Reports, the most comprehensive scientific reports about
climate change produced worldwide. It has also produced a range of
Methodology Reports, Special Reports and Technical Papers, in response
to requests for information on specific scientific and technical
matters from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), governments and international organizations."
and "In 1990, the First IPCC Assessment Report (FAR) underlined the
importance of climate change as a challenge with global consequences
and requiring international cooperation. "
So where is the reference to the prediction? It was apparently in
1989, before the IPCC had given any report. That we cannot verify
from refrences that the IPCC made any such statement, perhaps we
should be a bit wary of the article. But let us suppose someone did
make those statements way back in 1989 - does it surprise you that
they were wrong? Does a statement by an unknown person outweigh 32
years of subsequent research?
The article does seem to go on to quote all sorts of fantastic
assertions. For example " I have read reports that stated that CO2 is
a poisonous gas and a pollutant. Neither is true. It is a very
important gas essential for the survival of humans. It is essentially
plant food. If CO2 falls below a certain level all plants die and so
do we. Of course plants give us oxygen as a result of taking in CO2
and through the process of photosynthesis."
Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your response.
I agree that what you have raised are indeed small matters. Perhaps even
trivial.
I referred to small difficulties - easily resolved by an adequate
reference - but as that seems to not be forthcoming it becomes then
somewhat more of a major difficulty. Certainly they lead to a doubt as
to the credibility of the statements made by Ian Bradford.
Certainly it does not.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
I note that you have not refuted any of the most important parts of the article.
I did not see any more important; hearsay is ultimately not vry
credible; especially if you are relying on an opinion given over 30
years ago . . . science has advanced a bit since then, Tony.
There was little or no hearsay, just scientific fact and opinion.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
And that is healthy, perhaps you and others can uncloud your minds and accept
there is serious doubt about the main causes of climate change or at least a
fair and scientifically based question.
You seem to suggest that the author is "Unknown" why would you say that if not
to belittle his article?
I suggested that the reference to a statement by the IPCC does not
apper to be an official statement of the IPCC - the author of the
statement reported by Ian Bradford remains unknown.
Yeah right, that is not what you meant and we all know it.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Which nz general poster has made proud unfounded scientific expertise boasts.
Do tell us.
Yourself, Tony, in making the claims above.
I have never made a claim that I have expert scientific knowledge. You area
liar.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The above was the first post in this thread and clearly I was prophetic.
Keith Warren, using one of his several pseudonyms, has done precisely what
I
hoped nobody would do (a naive hope it would seem).
He has not at any time addressed the content, he has attacked the credibility
of the author and has deliberately tried to move the focus onto extraneous
matters.
I have addressed an issue that goes to the credibility of the article,
but you appear to not be prepared to accept those concerns.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The author holds a degree in the subject matter he has addressed (geophysics)
and also has a law degree.
Holding a degree does not a world expert make. Can you point to any
peer reviewed material relating to cliamte science from I an Bradford?
"Geophysics is a subject of natural science concerned with the
physical processes and physical properties of the Earth and its
surrounding space environment, and the use of quantitative methods for
their analysis." This may but does not necessarily indicate
expertise in issues relating to climate change.
More so than you have however and yet you are happy to indicate he is wrong
based on nothing but your own inexpert opinion. OK?
I have not indicated that he is wrong, but I have not seen anything to
indicate that he is correct either. The assertion about an unknown
person making a statement 32 years ago does not inspire confidence in
the argument - it is more scaremongering.
BULLSHIT! Scaremongering? Is that Marxist newspeak for pointing out the truth about bullshit from the world government?
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Fact - you have not managed to refute any of the opinions and facts he has
provided. Not one!
I have not been showen anything credible to support any of the
assertions
Look at history, look at how many of the IPCC predictions have actually been right? The facts show you they're like most Marxist predictions just pipe fucking dreams of half arsed scientists ffs! People a lot like you and Keith Rich. STUPID!
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
So your selective opinion remains what you have been given by the "flat
earthers".
If you wish to see Ian Bradford that way then so be it. I have made no
claims about his article, but the lack of evidence, cites to actual
scientific knowledge, and the reliance on a statement from 32 years
ago do not give confidence that his opinion is any more likely to be
true than others that provide opinion and unverifiable statements
instead of peer reviewed scientific evidence.
NO EVIDENCE! You truly are a fucking imbecile Rich! If you had ANY comprehension skills you'd have seen all the evidence needed in the article !
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
If anybody would like to address the actual subject matter with either
facts
or
reasonable opinion that would be a very welcome change.
I look forward to the next article from this far from minor author and hope
that we can keep an open mind instead of driving down the "mankind is
predominantly responsible for climate change" road with blinkers on. The fact
that he has chosen the Waikanae Watch blog to publish is irrelevant to anybody
who is open minded.
Meanwhile I have removed the silliness from this subthread.
Your latest post fits that category - when it was pointed out to you
that some of the assertions dp not appear to be based on any evidence
you have doubled down on believing then - perhaps you expect them to
be provided by the Easter bunny . . .
No Rich! That is your attitude. Tony questions and more and more are questioning the IPCC claims every day. When you have a theory and it is only a theory, you quell debate you encourage it and all scientific theory's aren't worth the a cent without debate. Something we haven't seen when it comes to climate change (global warming) and you and Keith are typical of the stupid fanatics who blindly support the stupidity of the UN!
Tony
2021-04-04 03:32:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 15:13:52 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:26:17 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 21:03:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong."
I have been away, so have not seen much of the previous discussion, so
I did look at the article. Thye first paragraph says "In 1989 The UN
predicted disaster if global warming was not checked. Nations would
be wiped off the face of the earth, coastal regions flooded, about 23
million people displaced, a fifth of Egypt’s arable land flooded and
many ecological refugees. Here we are 32 years on and has any of this
happened? NO!"
Then from https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/
I read: "The establishment of the IPCC was endorsed by UN General
Assembly in 1988. Its initial task, as outlined in UN General Assembly
Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988, was to prepare a comprehensive
review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of
the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of
climate change, and potential response strategies and elements for
inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.
Since 1988, the IPCC has had five assessment cycles and delivered five
Assessment Reports, the most comprehensive scientific reports about
climate change produced worldwide. It has also produced a range of
Methodology Reports, Special Reports and Technical Papers, in response
to requests for information on specific scientific and technical
matters from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), governments and international organizations."
and "In 1990, the First IPCC Assessment Report (FAR) underlined the
importance of climate change as a challenge with global consequences
and requiring international cooperation. "
So where is the reference to the prediction? It was apparently in
1989, before the IPCC had given any report. That we cannot verify
from refrences that the IPCC made any such statement, perhaps we
should be a bit wary of the article. But let us suppose someone did
make those statements way back in 1989 - does it surprise you that
they were wrong? Does a statement by an unknown person outweigh 32
years of subsequent research?
The article does seem to go on to quote all sorts of fantastic
assertions. For example " I have read reports that stated that CO2 is
a poisonous gas and a pollutant. Neither is true. It is a very
important gas essential for the survival of humans. It is essentially
plant food. If CO2 falls below a certain level all plants die and so
do we. Of course plants give us oxygen as a result of taking in CO2
and through the process of photosynthesis."
Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your response.
I agree that what you have raised are indeed small matters. Perhaps even
trivial.
I referred to small difficulties - easily resolved by an adequate
reference - but as that seems to not be forthcoming it becomes then
somewhat more of a major difficulty. Certainly they lead to a doubt as
to the credibility of the statements made by Ian Bradford.
Certainly it does not.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
I note that you have not refuted any of the most important parts of the article.
I did not see any more important; hearsay is ultimately not vry
credible; especially if you are relying on an opinion given over 30
years ago . . . science has advanced a bit since then, Tony.
There was little or no hearsay, just scientific fact and opinion.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
And that is healthy, perhaps you and others can uncloud your minds and accept
there is serious doubt about the main causes of climate change or at least a
fair and scientifically based question.
You seem to suggest that the author is "Unknown" why would you say that if not
to belittle his article?
I suggested that the reference to a statement by the IPCC does not
apper to be an official statement of the IPCC - the author of the
statement reported by Ian Bradford remains unknown.
Yeah right, that is not what you meant and we all know it.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Which nz general poster has made proud unfounded scientific expertise boasts.
Do tell us.
Yourself, Tony, in making the claims above.
I have never made a claim that I have expert scientific knowledge. You area
liar.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The above was the first post in this thread and clearly I was prophetic.
Keith Warren, using one of his several pseudonyms, has done precisely
what
I
hoped nobody would do (a naive hope it would seem).
He has not at any time addressed the content, he has attacked the credibility
of the author and has deliberately tried to move the focus onto extraneous
matters.
I have addressed an issue that goes to the credibility of the article,
but you appear to not be prepared to accept those concerns.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The author holds a degree in the subject matter he has addressed (geophysics)
and also has a law degree.
Holding a degree does not a world expert make. Can you point to any
peer reviewed material relating to cliamte science from I an Bradford?
"Geophysics is a subject of natural science concerned with the
physical processes and physical properties of the Earth and its
surrounding space environment, and the use of quantitative methods for
their analysis." This may but does not necessarily indicate
expertise in issues relating to climate change.
More so than you have however and yet you are happy to indicate he is wrong
based on nothing but your own inexpert opinion. OK?
I have not indicated that he is wrong, but I have not seen anything to
indicate that he is correct either. The assertion about an unknown
person making a statement 32 years ago does not inspire confidence in
the argument - it is more scaremongering.
So that means his opinion is at least as valid as yours and those who believe
mankind is the main cause of climate change. Well done, a tinyh bit of balance
at last.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Fact - you have not managed to refute any of the opinions and facts he has
provided. Not one!
I have not been showen anything credible to support any of the
assertions
And you have not provided anything to dispute them. Another win for balance I
guess.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
So your selective opinion remains what you have been given by the "flat
earthers".
If you wish to see Ian Bradford that way then so be it.
More sarcasm - I was of course referring to you.
I have made no
Post by Rich80105
claims about his article, but the lack of evidence
There is stacks of evidence in the article, just read it - Ah you won't of
course.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
If anybody would like to address the actual subject matter with either
facts
or
reasonable opinion that would be a very welcome change.
I look forward to the next article from this far from minor author and hope
that we can keep an open mind instead of driving down the "mankind is
predominantly responsible for climate change" road with blinkers on. The fact
that he has chosen the Waikanae Watch blog to publish is irrelevant to anybody
who is open minded.
Meanwhile I have removed the silliness from this subthread.
Your latest post fits that category - when it was pointed out to you
that some of the assertions dp not appear to be based on any evidence
you have doubled down on believing
A lie by you. I have not said that I believe them.
Do get some balance and read the English he uses.
Rich80105
2021-04-04 03:45:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 22:32:58 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 15:13:52 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:26:17 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 21:03:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong."
I have been away, so have not seen much of the previous discussion, so
I did look at the article. Thye first paragraph says "In 1989 The UN
predicted disaster if global warming was not checked. Nations would
be wiped off the face of the earth, coastal regions flooded, about 23
million people displaced, a fifth of Egypt’s arable land flooded and
many ecological refugees. Here we are 32 years on and has any of this
happened? NO!"
Then from https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/
I read: "The establishment of the IPCC was endorsed by UN General
Assembly in 1988. Its initial task, as outlined in UN General Assembly
Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988, was to prepare a comprehensive
review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of
the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of
climate change, and potential response strategies and elements for
inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.
Since 1988, the IPCC has had five assessment cycles and delivered five
Assessment Reports, the most comprehensive scientific reports about
climate change produced worldwide. It has also produced a range of
Methodology Reports, Special Reports and Technical Papers, in response
to requests for information on specific scientific and technical
matters from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), governments and international organizations."
and "In 1990, the First IPCC Assessment Report (FAR) underlined the
importance of climate change as a challenge with global consequences
and requiring international cooperation. "
So where is the reference to the prediction? It was apparently in
1989, before the IPCC had given any report. That we cannot verify
from refrences that the IPCC made any such statement, perhaps we
should be a bit wary of the article. But let us suppose someone did
make those statements way back in 1989 - does it surprise you that
they were wrong? Does a statement by an unknown person outweigh 32
years of subsequent research?
The article does seem to go on to quote all sorts of fantastic
assertions. For example " I have read reports that stated that CO2 is
a poisonous gas and a pollutant. Neither is true. It is a very
important gas essential for the survival of humans. It is essentially
plant food. If CO2 falls below a certain level all plants die and so
do we. Of course plants give us oxygen as a result of taking in CO2
and through the process of photosynthesis."
Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your response.
I agree that what you have raised are indeed small matters. Perhaps even
trivial.
I referred to small difficulties - easily resolved by an adequate
reference - but as that seems to not be forthcoming it becomes then
somewhat more of a major difficulty. Certainly they lead to a doubt as
to the credibility of the statements made by Ian Bradford.
Certainly it does not.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
I note that you have not refuted any of the most important parts of the article.
I did not see any more important; hearsay is ultimately not vry
credible; especially if you are relying on an opinion given over 30
years ago . . . science has advanced a bit since then, Tony.
There was little or no hearsay, just scientific fact and opinion.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
And that is healthy, perhaps you and others can uncloud your minds and accept
there is serious doubt about the main causes of climate change or at least a
fair and scientifically based question.
You seem to suggest that the author is "Unknown" why would you say that if not
to belittle his article?
I suggested that the reference to a statement by the IPCC does not
apper to be an official statement of the IPCC - the author of the
statement reported by Ian Bradford remains unknown.
Yeah right, that is not what you meant and we all know it.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Which nz general poster has made proud unfounded scientific expertise boasts.
Do tell us.
Yourself, Tony, in making the claims above.
I have never made a claim that I have expert scientific knowledge. You area
liar.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The above was the first post in this thread and clearly I was prophetic.
Keith Warren, using one of his several pseudonyms, has done precisely
what
I
hoped nobody would do (a naive hope it would seem).
He has not at any time addressed the content, he has attacked the credibility
of the author and has deliberately tried to move the focus onto extraneous
matters.
I have addressed an issue that goes to the credibility of the article,
but you appear to not be prepared to accept those concerns.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The author holds a degree in the subject matter he has addressed (geophysics)
and also has a law degree.
Holding a degree does not a world expert make. Can you point to any
peer reviewed material relating to cliamte science from I an Bradford?
"Geophysics is a subject of natural science concerned with the
physical processes and physical properties of the Earth and its
surrounding space environment, and the use of quantitative methods for
their analysis." This may but does not necessarily indicate
expertise in issues relating to climate change.
More so than you have however and yet you are happy to indicate he is wrong
based on nothing but your own inexpert opinion. OK?
I have not indicated that he is wrong, but I have not seen anything to
indicate that he is correct either. The assertion about an unknown
person making a statement 32 years ago does not inspire confidence in
the argument - it is more scaremongering.
So that means his opinion is at least as valid as yours and those who believe
mankind is the main cause of climate change. Well done, a tinyh bit of balance
at last.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Fact - you have not managed to refute any of the opinions and facts he has
provided. Not one!
I have not been showen anything credible to support any of the
assertions
And you have not provided anything to dispute them. Another win for balance I
guess.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
So your selective opinion remains what you have been given by the "flat
earthers".
If you wish to see Ian Bradford that way then so be it.
More sarcasm - I was of course referring to you.
I have made no
Post by Rich80105
claims about his article, but the lack of evidence
There is stacks of evidence in the article, just read it - Ah you won't of
course.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
If anybody would like to address the actual subject matter with either
facts
or
reasonable opinion that would be a very welcome change.
I look forward to the next article from this far from minor author and hope
that we can keep an open mind instead of driving down the "mankind is
predominantly responsible for climate change" road with blinkers on. The fact
that he has chosen the Waikanae Watch blog to publish is irrelevant to anybody
who is open minded.
Meanwhile I have removed the silliness from this subthread.
Your latest post fits that category - when it was pointed out to you
that some of the assertions dp not appear to be based on any evidence
you have doubled down on believing
A lie by you. I have not said that I believe them.
So even you do not believe the link that you posted.
Post by Tony
Do get some balance and read the English he uses.
I would prefer some facts - but like most of your posts, you and the
article are filled with unsupported opinion - but your opinion is all
that you appear to need to convince yourself . . .
Tony
2021-04-04 04:40:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 22:32:58 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 15:13:52 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:26:17 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 21:03:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong."
I have been away, so have not seen much of the previous discussion, so
I did look at the article. Thye first paragraph says "In 1989 The UN
predicted disaster if global warming was not checked. Nations would
be wiped off the face of the earth, coastal regions flooded, about 23
million people displaced, a fifth of Egypt’s arable land flooded and
many ecological refugees. Here we are 32 years on and has any of this
happened? NO!"
Then from https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/
I read: "The establishment of the IPCC was endorsed by UN General
Assembly in 1988. Its initial task, as outlined in UN General Assembly
Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988, was to prepare a comprehensive
review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of
the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of
climate change, and potential response strategies and elements for
inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.
Since 1988, the IPCC has had five assessment cycles and delivered five
Assessment Reports, the most comprehensive scientific reports about
climate change produced worldwide. It has also produced a range of
Methodology Reports, Special Reports and Technical Papers, in response
to requests for information on specific scientific and technical
matters from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), governments and international organizations."
and "In 1990, the First IPCC Assessment Report (FAR) underlined the
importance of climate change as a challenge with global consequences
and requiring international cooperation. "
So where is the reference to the prediction? It was apparently in
1989, before the IPCC had given any report. That we cannot verify
from refrences that the IPCC made any such statement, perhaps we
should be a bit wary of the article. But let us suppose someone did
make those statements way back in 1989 - does it surprise you that
they were wrong? Does a statement by an unknown person outweigh 32
years of subsequent research?
The article does seem to go on to quote all sorts of fantastic
assertions. For example " I have read reports that stated that CO2 is
a poisonous gas and a pollutant. Neither is true. It is a very
important gas essential for the survival of humans. It is essentially
plant food. If CO2 falls below a certain level all plants die and so
do we. Of course plants give us oxygen as a result of taking in CO2
and through the process of photosynthesis."
Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your response.
I agree that what you have raised are indeed small matters. Perhaps even
trivial.
I referred to small difficulties - easily resolved by an adequate
reference - but as that seems to not be forthcoming it becomes then
somewhat more of a major difficulty. Certainly they lead to a doubt as
to the credibility of the statements made by Ian Bradford.
Certainly it does not.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
I note that you have not refuted any of the most important parts of the article.
I did not see any more important; hearsay is ultimately not vry
credible; especially if you are relying on an opinion given over 30
years ago . . . science has advanced a bit since then, Tony.
There was little or no hearsay, just scientific fact and opinion.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
And that is healthy, perhaps you and others can uncloud your minds and accept
there is serious doubt about the main causes of climate change or at
least
a
fair and scientifically based question.
You seem to suggest that the author is "Unknown" why would you say that
if
not
to belittle his article?
I suggested that the reference to a statement by the IPCC does not
apper to be an official statement of the IPCC - the author of the
statement reported by Ian Bradford remains unknown.
Yeah right, that is not what you meant and we all know it.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Which nz general poster has made proud unfounded scientific expertise boasts.
Do tell us.
Yourself, Tony, in making the claims above.
I have never made a claim that I have expert scientific knowledge. You area
liar.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The above was the first post in this thread and clearly I was prophetic.
Keith Warren, using one of his several pseudonyms, has done precisely
what
I
hoped nobody would do (a naive hope it would seem).
He has not at any time addressed the content, he has attacked the credibility
of the author and has deliberately tried to move the focus onto extraneous
matters.
I have addressed an issue that goes to the credibility of the article,
but you appear to not be prepared to accept those concerns.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The author holds a degree in the subject matter he has addressed (geophysics)
and also has a law degree.
Holding a degree does not a world expert make. Can you point to any
peer reviewed material relating to cliamte science from I an Bradford?
"Geophysics is a subject of natural science concerned with the
physical processes and physical properties of the Earth and its
surrounding space environment, and the use of quantitative methods for
their analysis." This may but does not necessarily indicate
expertise in issues relating to climate change.
More so than you have however and yet you are happy to indicate he is wrong
based on nothing but your own inexpert opinion. OK?
I have not indicated that he is wrong, but I have not seen anything to
indicate that he is correct either. The assertion about an unknown
person making a statement 32 years ago does not inspire confidence in
the argument - it is more scaremongering.
So that means his opinion is at least as valid as yours and those who believe
mankind is the main cause of climate change. Well done, a tinyh bit of balance
at last.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Fact - you have not managed to refute any of the opinions and facts he has
provided. Not one!
I have not been showen anything credible to support any of the
assertions
And you have not provided anything to dispute them. Another win for balance I
guess.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
So your selective opinion remains what you have been given by the "flat
earthers".
If you wish to see Ian Bradford that way then so be it.
More sarcasm - I was of course referring to you.
I have made no
Post by Rich80105
claims about his article, but the lack of evidence
There is stacks of evidence in the article, just read it - Ah you won't of
course.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
If anybody would like to address the actual subject matter with either
facts
or
reasonable opinion that would be a very welcome change.
I look forward to the next article from this far from minor author and hope
that we can keep an open mind instead of driving down the "mankind is
predominantly responsible for climate change" road with blinkers on.
The
fact
that he has chosen the Waikanae Watch blog to publish is irrelevant to anybody
who is open minded.
Meanwhile I have removed the silliness from this subthread.
Your latest post fits that category - when it was pointed out to you
that some of the assertions dp not appear to be based on any evidence
you have doubled down on believing
A lie by you. I have not said that I believe them.
So even you do not believe the link that you posted.
I believe only that the link asks valid questions. Questions that you cannot
answer and dismiss without any intelligent reason why.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Do get some balance and read the English he uses.
I would prefer some facts - but like most of your posts, you and the
article are filled with unsupported opinion - but your opinion is all
that you appear to need to convince yourself .
II you had actually read the original post you would understand that I have not
expressed an opinion here, merely asked some questions, questions that you
refuse to address. So why do you even post?
John Bowes
2021-04-04 04:46:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 22:32:58 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 15:13:52 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:26:17 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 21:03:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong."
I have been away, so have not seen much of the previous discussion, so
I did look at the article. Thye first paragraph says "In 1989 The UN
predicted disaster if global warming was not checked. Nations would
be wiped off the face of the earth, coastal regions flooded, about 23
million people displaced, a fifth of Egypt’s arable land flooded and
many ecological refugees. Here we are 32 years on and has any of this
happened? NO!"
Then from https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/
I read: "The establishment of the IPCC was endorsed by UN General
Assembly in 1988. Its initial task, as outlined in UN General Assembly
Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988, was to prepare a comprehensive
review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of
the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of
climate change, and potential response strategies and elements for
inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.
Since 1988, the IPCC has had five assessment cycles and delivered five
Assessment Reports, the most comprehensive scientific reports about
climate change produced worldwide. It has also produced a range of
Methodology Reports, Special Reports and Technical Papers, in response
to requests for information on specific scientific and technical
matters from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), governments and international organizations."
and "In 1990, the First IPCC Assessment Report (FAR) underlined the
importance of climate change as a challenge with global consequences
and requiring international cooperation. "
So where is the reference to the prediction? It was apparently in
1989, before the IPCC had given any report. That we cannot verify
from refrences that the IPCC made any such statement, perhaps we
should be a bit wary of the article. But let us suppose someone did
make those statements way back in 1989 - does it surprise you that
they were wrong? Does a statement by an unknown person outweigh 32
years of subsequent research?
The article does seem to go on to quote all sorts of fantastic
assertions. For example " I have read reports that stated that CO2 is
a poisonous gas and a pollutant. Neither is true. It is a very
important gas essential for the survival of humans. It is essentially
plant food. If CO2 falls below a certain level all plants die and so
do we. Of course plants give us oxygen as a result of taking in CO2
and through the process of photosynthesis."
Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your response.
I agree that what you have raised are indeed small matters. Perhaps even
trivial.
I referred to small difficulties - easily resolved by an adequate
reference - but as that seems to not be forthcoming it becomes then
somewhat more of a major difficulty. Certainly they lead to a doubt as
to the credibility of the statements made by Ian Bradford.
Certainly it does not.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
I note that you have not refuted any of the most important parts of the
article.
I did not see any more important; hearsay is ultimately not vry
credible; especially if you are relying on an opinion given over 30
years ago . . . science has advanced a bit since then, Tony.
There was little or no hearsay, just scientific fact and opinion.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
And that is healthy, perhaps you and others can uncloud your minds and accept
there is serious doubt about the main causes of climate change or at
least
a
fair and scientifically based question.
You seem to suggest that the author is "Unknown" why would you say that
if
not
to belittle his article?
I suggested that the reference to a statement by the IPCC does not
apper to be an official statement of the IPCC - the author of the
statement reported by Ian Bradford remains unknown.
Yeah right, that is not what you meant and we all know it.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Which nz general poster has made proud unfounded scientific expertise boasts.
Do tell us.
Yourself, Tony, in making the claims above.
I have never made a claim that I have expert scientific knowledge. You area
liar.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The above was the first post in this thread and clearly I was prophetic.
Keith Warren, using one of his several pseudonyms, has done precisely
what
I
hoped nobody would do (a naive hope it would seem).
He has not at any time addressed the content, he has attacked the
credibility
of the author and has deliberately tried to move the focus onto extraneous
matters.
I have addressed an issue that goes to the credibility of the article,
but you appear to not be prepared to accept those concerns.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The author holds a degree in the subject matter he has addressed
(geophysics)
and also has a law degree.
Holding a degree does not a world expert make. Can you point to any
peer reviewed material relating to cliamte science from I an Bradford?
"Geophysics is a subject of natural science concerned with the
physical processes and physical properties of the Earth and its
surrounding space environment, and the use of quantitative methods for
their analysis." This may but does not necessarily indicate
expertise in issues relating to climate change.
More so than you have however and yet you are happy to indicate he is wrong
based on nothing but your own inexpert opinion. OK?
I have not indicated that he is wrong, but I have not seen anything to
indicate that he is correct either. The assertion about an unknown
person making a statement 32 years ago does not inspire confidence in
the argument - it is more scaremongering.
So that means his opinion is at least as valid as yours and those who believe
mankind is the main cause of climate change. Well done, a tinyh bit of balance
at last.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Fact - you have not managed to refute any of the opinions and facts he has
provided. Not one!
I have not been showen anything credible to support any of the
assertions
And you have not provided anything to dispute them. Another win for balance I
guess.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
So your selective opinion remains what you have been given by the "flat
earthers".
If you wish to see Ian Bradford that way then so be it.
More sarcasm - I was of course referring to you.
I have made no
Post by Rich80105
claims about his article, but the lack of evidence
There is stacks of evidence in the article, just read it - Ah you won't of
course.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
If anybody would like to address the actual subject matter with either
facts
or
reasonable opinion that would be a very welcome change.
I look forward to the next article from this far from minor author and
hope
that we can keep an open mind instead of driving down the "mankind is
predominantly responsible for climate change" road with blinkers on.
The
fact
that he has chosen the Waikanae Watch blog to publish is irrelevant to
anybody
who is open minded.
Meanwhile I have removed the silliness from this subthread.
Your latest post fits that category - when it was pointed out to you
that some of the assertions dp not appear to be based on any evidence
you have doubled down on believing
A lie by you. I have not said that I believe them.
So even you do not believe the link that you posted.
I believe only that the link asks valid questions. Questions that you cannot
answer and dismiss without any intelligent reason why.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Do get some balance and read the English he uses.
I would prefer some facts - but like most of your posts, you and the
article are filled with unsupported opinion - but your opinion is all
that you appear to need to convince yourself .
II you had actually read the original post you would understand that I have not
expressed an opinion here, merely asked some questions, questions that you
refuse to address. So why do you even post?
Remember it's Rich you "debate"with Tony. Comprehension and Rich barely have a nodding acquaintance on a good day ;)
Rich80105
2021-04-04 06:05:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 23:40:59 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 22:32:58 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 15:13:52 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:26:17 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 21:03:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong."
I have been away, so have not seen much of the previous discussion, so
I did look at the article. Thye first paragraph says "In 1989 The UN
predicted disaster if global warming was not checked. Nations would
be wiped off the face of the earth, coastal regions flooded, about 23
million people displaced, a fifth of Egypt’s arable land flooded and
many ecological refugees. Here we are 32 years on and has any of this
happened? NO!"
Then from https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/
I read: "The establishment of the IPCC was endorsed by UN General
Assembly in 1988. Its initial task, as outlined in UN General Assembly
Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988, was to prepare a comprehensive
review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of
the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of
climate change, and potential response strategies and elements for
inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.
Since 1988, the IPCC has had five assessment cycles and delivered five
Assessment Reports, the most comprehensive scientific reports about
climate change produced worldwide. It has also produced a range of
Methodology Reports, Special Reports and Technical Papers, in response
to requests for information on specific scientific and technical
matters from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), governments and international organizations."
and "In 1990, the First IPCC Assessment Report (FAR) underlined the
importance of climate change as a challenge with global consequences
and requiring international cooperation. "
So where is the reference to the prediction? It was apparently in
1989, before the IPCC had given any report. That we cannot verify
from refrences that the IPCC made any such statement, perhaps we
should be a bit wary of the article. But let us suppose someone did
make those statements way back in 1989 - does it surprise you that
they were wrong? Does a statement by an unknown person outweigh 32
years of subsequent research?
The article does seem to go on to quote all sorts of fantastic
assertions. For example " I have read reports that stated that CO2 is
a poisonous gas and a pollutant. Neither is true. It is a very
important gas essential for the survival of humans. It is essentially
plant food. If CO2 falls below a certain level all plants die and so
do we. Of course plants give us oxygen as a result of taking in CO2
and through the process of photosynthesis."
Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your response.
I agree that what you have raised are indeed small matters. Perhaps even
trivial.
I referred to small difficulties - easily resolved by an adequate
reference - but as that seems to not be forthcoming it becomes then
somewhat more of a major difficulty. Certainly they lead to a doubt as
to the credibility of the statements made by Ian Bradford.
Certainly it does not.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
I note that you have not refuted any of the most important parts of the article.
I did not see any more important; hearsay is ultimately not vry
credible; especially if you are relying on an opinion given over 30
years ago . . . science has advanced a bit since then, Tony.
There was little or no hearsay, just scientific fact and opinion.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
And that is healthy, perhaps you and others can uncloud your minds and accept
there is serious doubt about the main causes of climate change or at
least
a
fair and scientifically based question.
You seem to suggest that the author is "Unknown" why would you say that
if
not
to belittle his article?
I suggested that the reference to a statement by the IPCC does not
apper to be an official statement of the IPCC - the author of the
statement reported by Ian Bradford remains unknown.
Yeah right, that is not what you meant and we all know it.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Which nz general poster has made proud unfounded scientific expertise boasts.
Do tell us.
Yourself, Tony, in making the claims above.
I have never made a claim that I have expert scientific knowledge. You area
liar.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The above was the first post in this thread and clearly I was prophetic.
Keith Warren, using one of his several pseudonyms, has done precisely
what
I
hoped nobody would do (a naive hope it would seem).
He has not at any time addressed the content, he has attacked the credibility
of the author and has deliberately tried to move the focus onto extraneous
matters.
I have addressed an issue that goes to the credibility of the article,
but you appear to not be prepared to accept those concerns.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The author holds a degree in the subject matter he has addressed (geophysics)
and also has a law degree.
Holding a degree does not a world expert make. Can you point to any
peer reviewed material relating to cliamte science from I an Bradford?
"Geophysics is a subject of natural science concerned with the
physical processes and physical properties of the Earth and its
surrounding space environment, and the use of quantitative methods for
their analysis." This may but does not necessarily indicate
expertise in issues relating to climate change.
More so than you have however and yet you are happy to indicate he is wrong
based on nothing but your own inexpert opinion. OK?
I have not indicated that he is wrong, but I have not seen anything to
indicate that he is correct either. The assertion about an unknown
person making a statement 32 years ago does not inspire confidence in
the argument - it is more scaremongering.
So that means his opinion is at least as valid as yours and those who believe
mankind is the main cause of climate change. Well done, a tinyh bit of balance
at last.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Fact - you have not managed to refute any of the opinions and facts he has
provided. Not one!
I have not been showen anything credible to support any of the
assertions
And you have not provided anything to dispute them. Another win for balance I
guess.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
So your selective opinion remains what you have been given by the "flat
earthers".
If you wish to see Ian Bradford that way then so be it.
More sarcasm - I was of course referring to you.
I have made no
Post by Rich80105
claims about his article, but the lack of evidence
There is stacks of evidence in the article, just read it - Ah you won't of
course.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
If anybody would like to address the actual subject matter with either
facts
or
reasonable opinion that would be a very welcome change.
I look forward to the next article from this far from minor author and hope
that we can keep an open mind instead of driving down the "mankind is
predominantly responsible for climate change" road with blinkers on.
The
fact
that he has chosen the Waikanae Watch blog to publish is irrelevant to
anybody
who is open minded.
Meanwhile I have removed the silliness from this subthread.
Your latest post fits that category - when it was pointed out to you
that some of the assertions dp not appear to be based on any evidence
you have doubled down on believing
A lie by you. I have not said that I believe them.
So even you do not believe the link that you posted.
I believe only that the link asks valid questions. Questions that you cannot
answer and dismiss without any intelligent reason why.
That is not how you originally introduced the Subject: "It would be
nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually addresses
the data and opinions stated. However most people
who believe that man made climate change is a significant contributor
to our climate and that we can actually make a real difference with
fart taxes and similar usually attack the messenger and rarely if ever
address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show
it to be wrong."


What was in the article that you thought people may believe to be
wrong, Tony?

What was the data that you wanted someone to take apart and show it to
be wrong?

I asked for the data supporting the initial paragraph - it appears to
not exist; it appears to express an opinion made before the IPCC gave
its first report 32 years ago - whether any such opinion still has
validity is an issue you appear not to want to address.

So apart from yet another "opinion" from you regarding people who
believe that man made climate change is a significant contributor to
our climate - hardly respectful of other posters, but otherwise
unhelpful.

Now you are changing tack and saying that the link asks valid
questions - what are those questions, Tony? And what is the data you
wanted analysed?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Do get some balance and read the English he uses.
I would prefer some facts - but like most of your posts, you and the
article are filled with unsupported opinion - but your opinion is all
that you appear to need to convince yourself .
II you had actually read the original post you would understand that I have not
expressed an opinion here, merely asked some questions, questions that you
refuse to address. So why do you even post?
Now you are claiming to have asked questions, Tony - what are those
questions?
Tony
2021-04-04 06:51:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Deleted for brevity
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
A lie by you. I have not said that I believe them.
So even you do not believe the link that you posted.
I believe only that the link asks valid questions. Questions that you cannot
answer and dismiss without any intelligent reason why.
That is not how you originally introduced the Subject: "It would be
nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually addresses
the data and opinions stated. However most people
who believe that man made climate change is a significant contributor
to our climate and that we can actually make a real difference with
fart taxes and similar usually attack the messenger and rarely if ever
address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show
it to be wrong."
What was in the article that you thought people may believe to be
wrong, Tony?
The entire article or any substantial part.
Post by Rich80105
What was the data that you wanted someone to take apart and show it to
be wrong?
Any substantial part.
Post by Rich80105
I asked for the data supporting the initial paragraph - it appears to
not exist; it appears to express an opinion made before the IPCC gave
its first report 32 years ago - whether any such opinion still has
validity is an issue you appear not to want to address.
So apart from yet another "opinion" from you regarding people who
believe that man made climate change is a significant contributor to
our climate - hardly respectful of other posters, but otherwise
unhelpful.
Now you are changing tack and saying that the link asks valid
questions - what are those questions, Tony? And what is the data you
wanted analysed?
I have not changed tack. Either you can argue against the article or you
cannot. If you cannot then perhaps you should leave it to smarter people.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Do get some balance and read the English he uses.
I would prefer some facts - but like most of your posts, you and the
article are filled with unsupported opinion - but your opinion is all
that you appear to need to convince yourself .
II you had actually read the original post you would understand that I have not
expressed an opinion here, merely asked some questions, questions that you
refuse to address. So why do you even post?
Now you are claiming to have asked questions, Tony - what are those
questions?
Simple. Read the original post. They are there. In English no less.
Tony
2021-04-04 06:55:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:26:17 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 21:03:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it to be
wrong."
I have been away, so have not seen much of the previous discussion, so
I did look at the article. Thye first paragraph says "In 1989 The UN
predicted disaster if global warming was not checked. Nations would
be wiped off the face of the earth, coastal regions flooded, about 23
million people displaced, a fifth of Egypt’s arable land flooded and
many ecological refugees. Here we are 32 years on and has any of this
happened? NO!"
Then from https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/
I read: "The establishment of the IPCC was endorsed by UN General
Assembly in 1988. Its initial task, as outlined in UN General Assembly
Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988, was to prepare a comprehensive
review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of
the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of
climate change, and potential response strategies and elements for
inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.
Since 1988, the IPCC has had five assessment cycles and delivered five
Assessment Reports, the most comprehensive scientific reports about
climate change produced worldwide. It has also produced a range of
Methodology Reports, Special Reports and Technical Papers, in response
to requests for information on specific scientific and technical
matters from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), governments and international organizations."
and "In 1990, the First IPCC Assessment Report (FAR) underlined the
importance of climate change as a challenge with global consequences
and requiring international cooperation. "
So where is the reference to the prediction? It was apparently in
1989, before the IPCC had given any report. That we cannot verify
from refrences that the IPCC made any such statement, perhaps we
should be a bit wary of the article. But let us suppose someone did
make those statements way back in 1989 - does it surprise you that
they were wrong? Does a statement by an unknown person outweigh 32
years of subsequent research?
The article does seem to go on to quote all sorts of fantastic
assertions. For example " I have read reports that stated that CO2 is
a poisonous gas and a pollutant. Neither is true. It is a very
important gas essential for the survival of humans. It is essentially
plant food. If CO2 falls below a certain level all plants die and so
do we. Of course plants give us oxygen as a result of taking in CO2
and through the process of photosynthesis."
Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your response.
I agree that what you have raised are indeed small matters. Perhaps even
trivial.
I referred to small difficulties - easily resolved by an adequate
reference - but as that seems to not be forthcoming it becomes then
somewhat more of a major difficulty. Certainly they lead to a doubt as
to the credibility of the statements made by Ian Bradford.
Certainly it does not.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
I note that you have not refuted any of the most important parts of the article.
I did not see any more important; hearsay is ultimately not vry
credible; especially if you are relying on an opinion given over 30
years ago . . . science has advanced a bit since then, Tony.
There was little or no hearsay, just scientific fact and opinion.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
And that is healthy, perhaps you and others can uncloud your minds and accept
there is serious doubt about the main causes of climate change or at least a
fair and scientifically based question.
You seem to suggest that the author is "Unknown" why would you say that if not
to belittle his article?
I suggested that the reference to a statement by the IPCC does not
apper to be an official statement of the IPCC - the author of the
statement reported by Ian Bradford remains unknown.
Yeah right, that is not what you meant and we all know it.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Which nz general poster has made proud unfounded scientific expertise boasts.
Do tell us.
Yourself, Tony, in making the claims above.
I have never made a claim that I have expert scientific knowledge. You area
liar.
Will you answer this. No you cannot because you lied.
Waiting.
Rich80105
2021-04-04 11:10:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 04 Apr 2021 01:55:02 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:26:17 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 21:03:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it to be
wrong."
I have been away, so have not seen much of the previous discussion, so
I did look at the article. The first paragraph says "In 1989 The UN
predicted disaster if global warming was not checked. Nations would
be wiped off the face of the earth, coastal regions flooded, about 23
million people displaced, a fifth of Egypt’s arable land flooded and
many ecological refugees. Here we are 32 years on and has any of this
happened? NO!"
Then from https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/
I read: "The establishment of the IPCC was endorsed by UN General
Assembly in 1988. Its initial task, as outlined in UN General Assembly
Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988, was to prepare a comprehensive
review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of
the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of
climate change, and potential response strategies and elements for
inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.
Since 1988, the IPCC has had five assessment cycles and delivered five
Assessment Reports, the most comprehensive scientific reports about
climate change produced worldwide. It has also produced a range of
Methodology Reports, Special Reports and Technical Papers, in response
to requests for information on specific scientific and technical
matters from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), governments and international organizations."
and "In 1990, the First IPCC Assessment Report (FAR) underlined the
importance of climate change as a challenge with global consequences
and requiring international cooperation. "
So where is the reference to the prediction? It was apparently in
1989, before the IPCC had given any report. That we cannot verify
from references that the IPCC made any such statement, perhaps we
should be a bit wary of the article. But let us suppose someone did
make those statements way back in 1989 - does it surprise you that
they were wrong? Does a statement by an unknown person outweigh 32
years of subsequent research?
The article does seem to go on to quote all sorts of fantastic
assertions. For example " I have read reports that stated that CO2 is
a poisonous gas and a pollutant. Neither is true. It is a very
important gas essential for the survival of humans. It is essentially
plant food. If CO2 falls below a certain level all plants die and so
do we. Of course plants give us oxygen as a result of taking in CO2
and through the process of photosynthesis."
Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your response.
I agree that what you have raised are indeed small matters. Perhaps even
trivial.
I referred to small difficulties - easily resolved by an adequate
reference - but as that seems to not be forthcoming it becomes then
somewhat more of a major difficulty. Certainly they lead to a doubt as
to the credibility of the statements made by Ian Bradford.
Certainly it does not.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
I note that you have not refuted any of the most important parts of the article.
I did not see any more important; hearsay is ultimately not very
credible; especially if you are relying on an opinion given over 30
years ago . . . science has advanced a bit since then, Tony.
There was little or no hearsay, just scientific fact and opinion.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
And that is healthy, perhaps you and others can uncloud your minds and accept
there is serious doubt about the main causes of climate change or at least a
fair and scientifically based question.
You seem to suggest that the author is "Unknown" why would you say that if not
to belittle his article?
I suggested that the reference to a statement by the IPCC does not
apper to be an official statement of the IPCC - the author of the
statement reported by Ian Bradford remains unknown.
Yeah right, that is not what you meant and we all know it.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Which nz general poster has made proud unfounded scientific expertise boasts.
Do tell us.
Yourself, Tony, in making the claims above.
I have never made a claim that I have expert scientific knowledge. You area
liar.
It appears that the reference to ""proud unfounded scientific
expertise boasts."" has been deleted from the above - so without
trqawling back through previous posts it is now difficult to see the
original reference, but in the posts that have not been deleted by an
embarrassed poster, you have said: "There was little or no hearsay,
just scientific fact and opinion." and "There was little or no
hearsay, just scientific fact and opinion." - both of those
statements being at best of doubtful veracity . . .
Post by Tony
Will you answer this. No you cannot because you lied.
Waiting.
Tony
2021-04-04 20:26:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 04 Apr 2021 01:55:02 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:26:17 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 21:03:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong."
I have been away, so have not seen much of the previous discussion, so
I did look at the article. The first paragraph says "In 1989 The UN
predicted disaster if global warming was not checked. Nations would
be wiped off the face of the earth, coastal regions flooded, about 23
million people displaced, a fifth of Egypt’s arable land flooded and
many ecological refugees. Here we are 32 years on and has any of this
happened? NO!"
Then from https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/
I read: "The establishment of the IPCC was endorsed by UN General
Assembly in 1988. Its initial task, as outlined in UN General Assembly
Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988, was to prepare a comprehensive
review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of
the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of
climate change, and potential response strategies and elements for
inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.
Since 1988, the IPCC has had five assessment cycles and delivered five
Assessment Reports, the most comprehensive scientific reports about
climate change produced worldwide. It has also produced a range of
Methodology Reports, Special Reports and Technical Papers, in response
to requests for information on specific scientific and technical
matters from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), governments and international organizations."
and "In 1990, the First IPCC Assessment Report (FAR) underlined the
importance of climate change as a challenge with global consequences
and requiring international cooperation. "
So where is the reference to the prediction? It was apparently in
1989, before the IPCC had given any report. That we cannot verify
from references that the IPCC made any such statement, perhaps we
should be a bit wary of the article. But let us suppose someone did
make those statements way back in 1989 - does it surprise you that
they were wrong? Does a statement by an unknown person outweigh 32
years of subsequent research?
The article does seem to go on to quote all sorts of fantastic
assertions. For example " I have read reports that stated that CO2 is
a poisonous gas and a pollutant. Neither is true. It is a very
important gas essential for the survival of humans. It is essentially
plant food. If CO2 falls below a certain level all plants die and so
do we. Of course plants give us oxygen as a result of taking in CO2
and through the process of photosynthesis."
Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your response.
I agree that what you have raised are indeed small matters. Perhaps even
trivial.
I referred to small difficulties - easily resolved by an adequate
reference - but as that seems to not be forthcoming it becomes then
somewhat more of a major difficulty. Certainly they lead to a doubt as
to the credibility of the statements made by Ian Bradford.
Certainly it does not.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
I note that you have not refuted any of the most important parts of the article.
I did not see any more important; hearsay is ultimately not very
credible; especially if you are relying on an opinion given over 30
years ago . . . science has advanced a bit since then, Tony.
There was little or no hearsay, just scientific fact and opinion.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
And that is healthy, perhaps you and others can uncloud your minds and accept
there is serious doubt about the main causes of climate change or at least a
fair and scientifically based question.
You seem to suggest that the author is "Unknown" why would you say that if not
to belittle his article?
I suggested that the reference to a statement by the IPCC does not
apper to be an official statement of the IPCC - the author of the
statement reported by Ian Bradford remains unknown.
Yeah right, that is not what you meant and we all know it.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Which nz general poster has made proud unfounded scientific expertise boasts.
Do tell us.
Yourself, Tony, in making the claims above.
I have never made a claim that I have expert scientific knowledge. You area
liar.
It appears that the reference to ""proud unfounded scientific
expertise boasts."" has been deleted from the above - so without
trqawling back through previous posts it is now difficult to see the
original reference, but in the posts that have not been deleted by an
embarrassed poster, you have said: "There was little or no hearsay,
just scientific fact and opinion." and "There was little or no
hearsay, just scientific fact and opinion." - both of those
statements being at best of doubtful veracity . . .
You just squirm and squirm. Those quotes are unrelated and only you could try
to relate them to your lie.
You wrote that I had made proud unfounded scientific boasts. That is a lie and
changing the sunject does not absolve you of that lie. It is far from the first
time you have lied here.
You should be ashamed but you are not, after all you are the proud result of an
extreme and dangerous left wing upbriging.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Will you answer this. No you cannot because you lied.
Waiting.
Rich80105
2021-04-04 21:57:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 04 Apr 2021 15:26:56 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 04 Apr 2021 01:55:02 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:26:17 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 21:03:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong."
I have been away, so have not seen much of the previous discussion, so
I did look at the article. The first paragraph says "In 1989 The UN
predicted disaster if global warming was not checked. Nations would
be wiped off the face of the earth, coastal regions flooded, about 23
million people displaced, a fifth of Egypt’s arable land flooded and
many ecological refugees. Here we are 32 years on and has any of this
happened? NO!"
Then from https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/
I read: "The establishment of the IPCC was endorsed by UN General
Assembly in 1988. Its initial task, as outlined in UN General Assembly
Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988, was to prepare a comprehensive
review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of
the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of
climate change, and potential response strategies and elements for
inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.
Since 1988, the IPCC has had five assessment cycles and delivered five
Assessment Reports, the most comprehensive scientific reports about
climate change produced worldwide. It has also produced a range of
Methodology Reports, Special Reports and Technical Papers, in response
to requests for information on specific scientific and technical
matters from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), governments and international organizations."
and "In 1990, the First IPCC Assessment Report (FAR) underlined the
importance of climate change as a challenge with global consequences
and requiring international cooperation. "
So where is the reference to the prediction? It was apparently in
1989, before the IPCC had given any report. That we cannot verify
from references that the IPCC made any such statement, perhaps we
should be a bit wary of the article. But let us suppose someone did
make those statements way back in 1989 - does it surprise you that
they were wrong? Does a statement by an unknown person outweigh 32
years of subsequent research?
The article does seem to go on to quote all sorts of fantastic
assertions. For example " I have read reports that stated that CO2 is
a poisonous gas and a pollutant. Neither is true. It is a very
important gas essential for the survival of humans. It is essentially
plant food. If CO2 falls below a certain level all plants die and so
do we. Of course plants give us oxygen as a result of taking in CO2
and through the process of photosynthesis."
Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your response.
I agree that what you have raised are indeed small matters. Perhaps even
trivial.
I referred to small difficulties - easily resolved by an adequate
reference - but as that seems to not be forthcoming it becomes then
somewhat more of a major difficulty. Certainly they lead to a doubt as
to the credibility of the statements made by Ian Bradford.
Certainly it does not.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
I note that you have not refuted any of the most important parts of the article.
I did not see any more important; hearsay is ultimately not very
credible; especially if you are relying on an opinion given over 30
years ago . . . science has advanced a bit since then, Tony.
There was little or no hearsay, just scientific fact and opinion.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
And that is healthy, perhaps you and others can uncloud your minds and accept
there is serious doubt about the main causes of climate change or at least a
fair and scientifically based question.
You seem to suggest that the author is "Unknown" why would you say that if not
to belittle his article?
I suggested that the reference to a statement by the IPCC does not
apper to be an official statement of the IPCC - the author of the
statement reported by Ian Bradford remains unknown.
Yeah right, that is not what you meant and we all know it.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Which nz general poster has made proud unfounded scientific expertise boasts.
Do tell us.
Yourself, Tony, in making the claims above.
I have never made a claim that I have expert scientific knowledge. You area
liar.
It appears that the reference to ""proud unfounded scientific
expertise boasts."" has been deleted from the above - so without
trqawling back through previous posts it is now difficult to see the
original reference, but in the posts that have not been deleted by an
embarrassed poster, you have said: "There was little or no hearsay,
just scientific fact and opinion." and "There was little or no
hearsay, just scientific fact and opinion." - both of those
statements being at best of doubtful veracity . . .
You just squirm and squirm. Those quotes are unrelated and only you could try
to relate them to your lie.
You wrote that I had made proud unfounded scientific boasts.
I did not refer specifically to you; I referred to those who posted
such material to nz.general - perhaps you are now admitting htat this
does describe you. You will have to go back to previous posts however
as the posts you are referring to were deleted; possibly by you.
Post by Tony
That is a lie and
changing the sunject does not absolve you of that lie. It is far from the first
time you have lied here.
You are very quick to accuse others of lying without providing
evidence.
Post by Tony
You should be ashamed but you are not, after all you are the proud result of an
extreme and dangerous left wing upbriging.
Yet another unjustified assertion by you, Tony - are voices in your
head troubling you?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Will you answer this. No you cannot because you lied.
Waiting.
Rich80105
2021-04-05 01:25:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 04 Apr 2021 15:26:56 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 04 Apr 2021 01:55:02 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:26:17 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 21:03:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong."
I have been away, so have not seen much of the previous discussion, so
I did look at the article. The first paragraph says "In 1989 The UN
predicted disaster if global warming was not checked. Nations would
be wiped off the face of the earth, coastal regions flooded, about 23
million people displaced, a fifth of Egypt’s arable land flooded and
many ecological refugees. Here we are 32 years on and has any of this
happened? NO!"
Then from https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/
I read: "The establishment of the IPCC was endorsed by UN General
Assembly in 1988. Its initial task, as outlined in UN General Assembly
Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988, was to prepare a comprehensive
review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of
the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of
climate change, and potential response strategies and elements for
inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.
Since 1988, the IPCC has had five assessment cycles and delivered five
Assessment Reports, the most comprehensive scientific reports about
climate change produced worldwide. It has also produced a range of
Methodology Reports, Special Reports and Technical Papers, in response
to requests for information on specific scientific and technical
matters from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), governments and international organizations."
and "In 1990, the First IPCC Assessment Report (FAR) underlined the
importance of climate change as a challenge with global consequences
and requiring international cooperation. "
So where is the reference to the prediction? It was apparently in
1989, before the IPCC had given any report. That we cannot verify
from references that the IPCC made any such statement, perhaps we
should be a bit wary of the article. But let us suppose someone did
make those statements way back in 1989 - does it surprise you that
they were wrong? Does a statement by an unknown person outweigh 32
years of subsequent research?
The article does seem to go on to quote all sorts of fantastic
assertions. For example " I have read reports that stated that CO2 is
a poisonous gas and a pollutant. Neither is true. It is a very
important gas essential for the survival of humans. It is essentially
plant food. If CO2 falls below a certain level all plants die and so
do we. Of course plants give us oxygen as a result of taking in CO2
and through the process of photosynthesis."
Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your response.
I agree that what you have raised are indeed small matters. Perhaps even
trivial.
I referred to small difficulties - easily resolved by an adequate
reference - but as that seems to not be forthcoming it becomes then
somewhat more of a major difficulty. Certainly they lead to a doubt as
to the credibility of the statements made by Ian Bradford.
Certainly it does not.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
I note that you have not refuted any of the most important parts of the article.
I did not see any more important; hearsay is ultimately not very
credible; especially if you are relying on an opinion given over 30
years ago . . . science has advanced a bit since then, Tony.
There was little or no hearsay, just scientific fact and opinion.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
And that is healthy, perhaps you and others can uncloud your minds and accept
there is serious doubt about the main causes of climate change or at least a
fair and scientifically based question.
You seem to suggest that the author is "Unknown" why would you say that if not
to belittle his article?
I suggested that the reference to a statement by the IPCC does not
apper to be an official statement of the IPCC - the author of the
statement reported by Ian Bradford remains unknown.
Yeah right, that is not what you meant and we all know it.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Which nz general poster has made proud unfounded scientific expertise boasts.
Do tell us.
Yourself, Tony, in making the claims above.
I have never made a claim that I have expert scientific knowledge. You area
liar.
It appears that the reference to ""proud unfounded scientific
expertise boasts."" has been deleted from the above - so without
trqawling back through previous posts it is now difficult to see the
original reference, but in the posts that have not been deleted by an
embarrassed poster, you have said: "There was little or no hearsay,
just scientific fact and opinion." and "There was little or no
hearsay, just scientific fact and opinion." - both of those
statements being at best of doubtful veracity . . .
You just squirm and squirm. Those quotes are unrelated and only you could try
to relate them to your lie.
You wrote that I had made proud unfounded scientific boasts.
I did not refer specifically to you; I referred to those who posted
such material to nz.general - perhaps you are now admitting htat this
does describe you. You will have to go back to previous posts however
as the posts you are referring to were deleted; possibly by you.
I have just read through the thread above Tony and realised that in
this case, the words you are referring to have not been deleted from
this sub-thread - I said:
"Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your
response."

To explain further since the above quote appears to have confused you:
You will appreciate that distinguishing between fact and opinion is
difficult for some posters to nz.general - you requently 'clarify'
some of your statements that appear as an assertion of fact and being
'just opinions', but other posters do not appear to have even that
abiloity - to John Bowes for example there appears to be little
difference in his mind. The article that you posted written by Ian
Bradford included a number of assertions of fact, but gave no
references - in attempting to verify one statement I came across the
reality that the statemetn appeared to be inconsistent with the
reality of when the IPCC was formed and first reported. Redeferences
to "some serious research" and asserted "facts" are never references
to source. There may in fact be some verifiable facts stated, but the
sensationalist tone does not inspire any confidence that these
assertions of fact are any more verifiable than one of your opinions
or most posts from some posters to nz.general - is Ian Bradford merely
a slightly more plausible (at least on the surface) writer than Ras
Mikaere?
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
That is a lie and
changing the sunject does not absolve you of that lie. It is far from the first
time you have lied here.
You are very quick to accuse others of lying without providing
evidence.
Post by Tony
You should be ashamed but you are not, after all you are the proud result of an
extreme and dangerous left wing upbriging.
Yet another unjustified assertion by you, Tony - are voices in your
head troubling you?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Will you answer this. No you cannot because you lied.
Waiting.
Tony
2021-04-05 02:57:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 04 Apr 2021 15:26:56 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 04 Apr 2021 01:55:02 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:26:17 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 21:03:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong."
I have been away, so have not seen much of the previous discussion, so
I did look at the article. The first paragraph says "In 1989 The UN
predicted disaster if global warming was not checked. Nations would
be wiped off the face of the earth, coastal regions flooded, about 23
million people displaced, a fifth of Egypt’s arable land flooded and
many ecological refugees. Here we are 32 years on and has any of this
happened? NO!"
Then from https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/
I read: "The establishment of the IPCC was endorsed by UN General
Assembly in 1988. Its initial task, as outlined in UN General Assembly
Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988, was to prepare a comprehensive
review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of
the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of
climate change, and potential response strategies and elements for
inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.
Since 1988, the IPCC has had five assessment cycles and delivered five
Assessment Reports, the most comprehensive scientific reports about
climate change produced worldwide. It has also produced a range of
Methodology Reports, Special Reports and Technical Papers, in response
to requests for information on specific scientific and technical
matters from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), governments and international organizations."
and "In 1990, the First IPCC Assessment Report (FAR) underlined the
importance of climate change as a challenge with global consequences
and requiring international cooperation. "
So where is the reference to the prediction? It was apparently in
1989, before the IPCC had given any report. That we cannot verify
from references that the IPCC made any such statement, perhaps we
should be a bit wary of the article. But let us suppose someone did
make those statements way back in 1989 - does it surprise you that
they were wrong? Does a statement by an unknown person outweigh 32
years of subsequent research?
The article does seem to go on to quote all sorts of fantastic
assertions. For example " I have read reports that stated that CO2 is
a poisonous gas and a pollutant. Neither is true. It is a very
important gas essential for the survival of humans. It is essentially
plant food. If CO2 falls below a certain level all plants die and so
do we. Of course plants give us oxygen as a result of taking in CO2
and through the process of photosynthesis."
Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your response.
I agree that what you have raised are indeed small matters. Perhaps even
trivial.
I referred to small difficulties - easily resolved by an adequate
reference - but as that seems to not be forthcoming it becomes then
somewhat more of a major difficulty. Certainly they lead to a doubt as
to the credibility of the statements made by Ian Bradford.
Certainly it does not.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
I note that you have not refuted any of the most important parts of the
article.
I did not see any more important; hearsay is ultimately not very
credible; especially if you are relying on an opinion given over 30
years ago . . . science has advanced a bit since then, Tony.
There was little or no hearsay, just scientific fact and opinion.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
And that is healthy, perhaps you and others can uncloud your minds and accept
there is serious doubt about the main causes of climate change or at
least
a
fair and scientifically based question.
You seem to suggest that the author is "Unknown" why would you say that
if
not
to belittle his article?
I suggested that the reference to a statement by the IPCC does not
apper to be an official statement of the IPCC - the author of the
statement reported by Ian Bradford remains unknown.
Yeah right, that is not what you meant and we all know it.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Which nz general poster has made proud unfounded scientific expertise boasts.
Do tell us.
Yourself, Tony, in making the claims above.
I have never made a claim that I have expert scientific knowledge. You area
liar.
It appears that the reference to ""proud unfounded scientific
expertise boasts."" has been deleted from the above - so without
trqawling back through previous posts it is now difficult to see the
original reference, but in the posts that have not been deleted by an
embarrassed poster, you have said: "There was little or no hearsay,
just scientific fact and opinion." and "There was little or no
hearsay, just scientific fact and opinion." - both of those
statements being at best of doubtful veracity . . .
You just squirm and squirm. Those quotes are unrelated and only you could try
to relate them to your lie.
You wrote that I had made proud unfounded scientific boasts.
I did not refer specifically to you; I referred to those who posted
such material to nz.general - perhaps you are now admitting htat this
does describe you. You will have to go back to previous posts however
as the posts you are referring to were deleted; possibly by you.
I have just read through the thread above Tony and realised that in
this case, the words you are referring to have not been deleted from
"Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your
response."
To which I asked you who you were referring to by the poster and you said it
was me. That is the truth.
You can squirtm even more but ut changes nothing.
Deleted rudeness.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
That is a lie and
changing the sunject does not absolve you of that lie. It is far from the first
time you have lied here.
You are very quick to accuse others of lying without providing
evidence.
Post by Tony
You should be ashamed but you are not, after all you are the proud result of an
extreme and dangerous left wing upbriging.
Yet another unjustified assertion by you, Tony - are voices in your
head troubling you?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Will you answer this. No you cannot because you lied.
Waiting.
Rich80105
2021-04-05 03:09:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 04 Apr 2021 21:57:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 04 Apr 2021 15:26:56 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 04 Apr 2021 01:55:02 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:26:17 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 21:03:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong."
I have been away, so have not seen much of the previous discussion, so
I did look at the article. The first paragraph says "In 1989 The UN
predicted disaster if global warming was not checked. Nations would
be wiped off the face of the earth, coastal regions flooded, about 23
million people displaced, a fifth of Egypt’s arable land flooded and
many ecological refugees. Here we are 32 years on and has any of this
happened? NO!"
Then from https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/
I read: "The establishment of the IPCC was endorsed by UN General
Assembly in 1988. Its initial task, as outlined in UN General Assembly
Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988, was to prepare a comprehensive
review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of
the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of
climate change, and potential response strategies and elements for
inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.
Since 1988, the IPCC has had five assessment cycles and delivered five
Assessment Reports, the most comprehensive scientific reports about
climate change produced worldwide. It has also produced a range of
Methodology Reports, Special Reports and Technical Papers, in response
to requests for information on specific scientific and technical
matters from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), governments and international organizations."
and "In 1990, the First IPCC Assessment Report (FAR) underlined the
importance of climate change as a challenge with global consequences
and requiring international cooperation. "
So where is the reference to the prediction? It was apparently in
1989, before the IPCC had given any report. That we cannot verify
from references that the IPCC made any such statement, perhaps we
should be a bit wary of the article. But let us suppose someone did
make those statements way back in 1989 - does it surprise you that
they were wrong? Does a statement by an unknown person outweigh 32
years of subsequent research?
The article does seem to go on to quote all sorts of fantastic
assertions. For example " I have read reports that stated that CO2 is
a poisonous gas and a pollutant. Neither is true. It is a very
important gas essential for the survival of humans. It is essentially
plant food. If CO2 falls below a certain level all plants die and so
do we. Of course plants give us oxygen as a result of taking in CO2
and through the process of photosynthesis."
Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your response.
I agree that what you have raised are indeed small matters. Perhaps even
trivial.
I referred to small difficulties - easily resolved by an adequate
reference - but as that seems to not be forthcoming it becomes then
somewhat more of a major difficulty. Certainly they lead to a doubt as
to the credibility of the statements made by Ian Bradford.
Certainly it does not.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
I note that you have not refuted any of the most important parts of the
article.
I did not see any more important; hearsay is ultimately not very
credible; especially if you are relying on an opinion given over 30
years ago . . . science has advanced a bit since then, Tony.
There was little or no hearsay, just scientific fact and opinion.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
And that is healthy, perhaps you and others can uncloud your minds and accept
there is serious doubt about the main causes of climate change or at
least
a
fair and scientifically based question.
You seem to suggest that the author is "Unknown" why would you say that
if
not
to belittle his article?
I suggested that the reference to a statement by the IPCC does not
apper to be an official statement of the IPCC - the author of the
statement reported by Ian Bradford remains unknown.
Yeah right, that is not what you meant and we all know it.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Which nz general poster has made proud unfounded scientific expertise boasts.
Do tell us.
Yourself, Tony, in making the claims above.
I have never made a claim that I have expert scientific knowledge. You area
liar.
It appears that the reference to ""proud unfounded scientific
expertise boasts."" has been deleted from the above - so without
trqawling back through previous posts it is now difficult to see the
original reference, but in the posts that have not been deleted by an
embarrassed poster, you have said: "There was little or no hearsay,
just scientific fact and opinion." and "There was little or no
hearsay, just scientific fact and opinion." - both of those
statements being at best of doubtful veracity . . .
You just squirm and squirm. Those quotes are unrelated and only you could try
to relate them to your lie.
You wrote that I had made proud unfounded scientific boasts.
I did not refer specifically to you; I referred to those who posted
such material to nz.general - perhaps you are now admitting htat this
does describe you. You will have to go back to previous posts however
as the posts you are referring to were deleted; possibly by you.
I have just read through the thread above Tony and realised that in
this case, the words you are referring to have not been deleted from
"Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your
response."
To which I asked you who you were referring to by the poster and you said it
was me. That is the truth.
Yes it was the truth - thank you for your recognition that I had
correctly identified you as one of many who have unjustifiably treated
opinions as if they were facts. You are not necessarily the worst
offender, and your recognition of your past errors is welcome as an
indication that you are capable of learning from feedback; would that
others could do likewise. I look foward to better clarity in your
future posts.
Post by Tony
You can squirtm even more but ut changes nothing.
Deleted rudeness.
Your deletion of material from posts is effectively a recognition that
you have no answer to whatever was deleted - it still exists in the
records of course, but if it makes you feel better to accept your
difficulties in understanding concepts from others we can be
understanding, Tony.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
That is a lie and
changing the sunject does not absolve you of that lie. It is far from the first
time you have lied here.
Your deletions leave it unclear what you are referring to, but no
matter; whatever it was referring to it is clear that accusing others
of lying is easier for you than addressing the Subject of the thread.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
You are very quick to accuse others of lying without providing
evidence.
Post by Tony
You should be ashamed but you are not, after all you are the proud result of an
extreme and dangerous left wing upbriging.
Yet another unjustified assertion by you, Tony - are voices in your
head troubling you?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Will you answer this. No you cannot because you lied.
Waiting.
Again your deletions leave this part of the thread hanging - but you
were not really expecting an answer anyway were you . . .
Tony
2021-04-05 04:21:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 04 Apr 2021 21:57:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 04 Apr 2021 15:26:56 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 04 Apr 2021 01:55:02 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:26:17 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 21:03:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most
people
who
believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show
it
to
be
wrong."
I have been away, so have not seen much of the previous discussion, so
I did look at the article. The first paragraph says "In 1989 The UN
predicted disaster if global warming was not checked. Nations would
be wiped off the face of the earth, coastal regions flooded, about 23
million people displaced, a fifth of Egypt’s arable land flooded and
many ecological refugees. Here we are 32 years on and has any of this
happened? NO!"
Then from https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/
I read: "The establishment of the IPCC was endorsed by UN General
Assembly in 1988. Its initial task, as outlined in UN General Assembly
Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988, was to prepare a comprehensive
review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of
the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of
climate change, and potential response strategies and elements for
inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.
Since 1988, the IPCC has had five assessment cycles and delivered five
Assessment Reports, the most comprehensive scientific reports about
climate change produced worldwide. It has also produced a range of
Methodology Reports, Special Reports and Technical Papers, in response
to requests for information on specific scientific and technical
matters from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), governments and international organizations."
and "In 1990, the First IPCC Assessment Report (FAR) underlined the
importance of climate change as a challenge with global consequences
and requiring international cooperation. "
So where is the reference to the prediction? It was apparently in
1989, before the IPCC had given any report. That we cannot verify
from references that the IPCC made any such statement, perhaps we
should be a bit wary of the article. But let us suppose someone did
make those statements way back in 1989 - does it surprise you that
they were wrong? Does a statement by an unknown person outweigh 32
years of subsequent research?
The article does seem to go on to quote all sorts of fantastic
assertions. For example " I have read reports that stated that CO2 is
a poisonous gas and a pollutant. Neither is true. It is a very
important gas essential for the survival of humans. It is essentially
plant food. If CO2 falls below a certain level all plants die and so
do we. Of course plants give us oxygen as a result of taking in CO2
and through the process of photosynthesis."
Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your response.
I agree that what you have raised are indeed small matters. Perhaps even
trivial.
I referred to small difficulties - easily resolved by an adequate
reference - but as that seems to not be forthcoming it becomes then
somewhat more of a major difficulty. Certainly they lead to a doubt as
to the credibility of the statements made by Ian Bradford.
Certainly it does not.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
I note that you have not refuted any of the most important parts of the
article.
I did not see any more important; hearsay is ultimately not very
credible; especially if you are relying on an opinion given over 30
years ago . . . science has advanced a bit since then, Tony.
There was little or no hearsay, just scientific fact and opinion.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
And that is healthy, perhaps you and others can uncloud your minds
and
accept
there is serious doubt about the main causes of climate change or at
least
a
fair and scientifically based question.
You seem to suggest that the author is "Unknown" why would you say that
if
not
to belittle his article?
I suggested that the reference to a statement by the IPCC does not
apper to be an official statement of the IPCC - the author of the
statement reported by Ian Bradford remains unknown.
Yeah right, that is not what you meant and we all know it.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Which nz general poster has made proud unfounded scientific expertise
boasts.
Do tell us.
Yourself, Tony, in making the claims above.
I have never made a claim that I have expert scientific knowledge. You area
liar.
It appears that the reference to ""proud unfounded scientific
expertise boasts."" has been deleted from the above - so without
trqawling back through previous posts it is now difficult to see the
original reference, but in the posts that have not been deleted by an
embarrassed poster, you have said: "There was little or no hearsay,
just scientific fact and opinion." and "There was little or no
hearsay, just scientific fact and opinion." - both of those
statements being at best of doubtful veracity . . .
You just squirm and squirm. Those quotes are unrelated and only you could try
to relate them to your lie.
You wrote that I had made proud unfounded scientific boasts.
I did not refer specifically to you; I referred to those who posted
such material to nz.general - perhaps you are now admitting htat this
does describe you. You will have to go back to previous posts however
as the posts you are referring to were deleted; possibly by you.
I have just read through the thread above Tony and realised that in
this case, the words you are referring to have not been deleted from
"Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your
response."
To which I asked you who you were referring to by the poster and you said it
was me. That is the truth.
Yes it was the truth - thank you for your recognition that I had
correctly identified you as one of many who have unjustifiably treated
opinions as if they were facts. You are not necessarily the worst
offender, and your recognition of your past errors is welcome as an
indication that you are capable of learning from feedback; would that
others could do likewise. I look foward to better clarity in your
future posts.
Post by Tony
You can squirtm even more but ut changes nothing.
Deleted rudeness.
Your deletion of material from posts is effectively a recognition that
you have no answer to whatever was deleted - it still exists in the
records of course, but if it makes you feel better to accept your
difficulties in understanding concepts from others we can be
understanding, Tony.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
That is a lie and
changing the sunject does not absolve you of that lie. It is far from the first
time you have lied here.
Your deletions leave it unclear what you are referring to, but no
matter; whatever it was referring to it is clear that accusing others
of lying is easier for you than addressing the Subject of the thread.
Again your deletions leave this part of the thread hanging - but you
were not really expecting an answer anyway were you . . .
You lied.
And you are scurrying away into your gutter.
You lied and lied and lied.
Now man up as you buddy might say.
Tony
2021-04-05 02:55:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 04 Apr 2021 15:26:56 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 04 Apr 2021 01:55:02 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:26:17 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 21:03:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong."
I have been away, so have not seen much of the previous discussion, so
I did look at the article. The first paragraph says "In 1989 The UN
predicted disaster if global warming was not checked. Nations would
be wiped off the face of the earth, coastal regions flooded, about 23
million people displaced, a fifth of Egypt’s arable land flooded and
many ecological refugees. Here we are 32 years on and has any of this
happened? NO!"
Then from https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/
I read: "The establishment of the IPCC was endorsed by UN General
Assembly in 1988. Its initial task, as outlined in UN General Assembly
Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988, was to prepare a comprehensive
review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of
the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of
climate change, and potential response strategies and elements for
inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.
Since 1988, the IPCC has had five assessment cycles and delivered five
Assessment Reports, the most comprehensive scientific reports about
climate change produced worldwide. It has also produced a range of
Methodology Reports, Special Reports and Technical Papers, in response
to requests for information on specific scientific and technical
matters from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), governments and international organizations."
and "In 1990, the First IPCC Assessment Report (FAR) underlined the
importance of climate change as a challenge with global consequences
and requiring international cooperation. "
So where is the reference to the prediction? It was apparently in
1989, before the IPCC had given any report. That we cannot verify
from references that the IPCC made any such statement, perhaps we
should be a bit wary of the article. But let us suppose someone did
make those statements way back in 1989 - does it surprise you that
they were wrong? Does a statement by an unknown person outweigh 32
years of subsequent research?
The article does seem to go on to quote all sorts of fantastic
assertions. For example " I have read reports that stated that CO2 is
a poisonous gas and a pollutant. Neither is true. It is a very
important gas essential for the survival of humans. It is essentially
plant food. If CO2 falls below a certain level all plants die and so
do we. Of course plants give us oxygen as a result of taking in CO2
and through the process of photosynthesis."
Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your response.
I agree that what you have raised are indeed small matters. Perhaps even
trivial.
I referred to small difficulties - easily resolved by an adequate
reference - but as that seems to not be forthcoming it becomes then
somewhat more of a major difficulty. Certainly they lead to a doubt as
to the credibility of the statements made by Ian Bradford.
Certainly it does not.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
I note that you have not refuted any of the most important parts of the article.
I did not see any more important; hearsay is ultimately not very
credible; especially if you are relying on an opinion given over 30
years ago . . . science has advanced a bit since then, Tony.
There was little or no hearsay, just scientific fact and opinion.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
And that is healthy, perhaps you and others can uncloud your minds and accept
there is serious doubt about the main causes of climate change or at
least
a
fair and scientifically based question.
You seem to suggest that the author is "Unknown" why would you say that
if
not
to belittle his article?
I suggested that the reference to a statement by the IPCC does not
apper to be an official statement of the IPCC - the author of the
statement reported by Ian Bradford remains unknown.
Yeah right, that is not what you meant and we all know it.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Which nz general poster has made proud unfounded scientific expertise boasts.
Do tell us.
Yourself, Tony, in making the claims above.
I have never made a claim that I have expert scientific knowledge. You area
liar.
It appears that the reference to ""proud unfounded scientific
expertise boasts."" has been deleted from the above - so without
trqawling back through previous posts it is now difficult to see the
original reference, but in the posts that have not been deleted by an
embarrassed poster, you have said: "There was little or no hearsay,
just scientific fact and opinion." and "There was little or no
hearsay, just scientific fact and opinion." - both of those
statements being at best of doubtful veracity . . .
You just squirm and squirm. Those quotes are unrelated and only you could try
to relate them to your lie.
You wrote that I had made proud unfounded scientific boasts.
I did not refer specifically to you;
Yes you did, you wrote "Yourself, Tony, in making the claims above."
Post by Rich80105
I referred to those who posted
such material to nz.general - perhaps you are now admitting htat this
does describe you. You will have to go back to previous posts however
as the posts you are referring to were deleted; possibly by you.
Nonsense.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
That is a lie and
changing the sunject does not absolve you of that lie. It is far from the first
time you have lied here.
You are very quick to accuse others of lying without providing
evidence.
But you lied again and are lying now.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
You should be ashamed but you are not, after all you are the proud result of an
extreme and dangerous left wing upbriging.
Yet another unjustified assertion by you, Tony - are voices in your
head troubling you?
You really are a simpleton.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Will you answer this. No you cannot because you lied.
Waiting.
John Bowes
2021-04-03 22:27:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:26:17 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 21:03:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and that we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it to be
wrong."
I have been away, so have not seen much of the previous discussion, so
I did look at the article. Thye first paragraph says "In 1989 The UN
predicted disaster if global warming was not checked. Nations would
be wiped off the face of the earth, coastal regions flooded, about 23
million people displaced, a fifth of Egypt’s arable land flooded and
many ecological refugees. Here we are 32 years on and has any of this
happened? NO!"
Then from https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/
I read: "The establishment of the IPCC was endorsed by UN General
Assembly in 1988. Its initial task, as outlined in UN General Assembly
Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988, was to prepare a comprehensive
review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of
the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of
climate change, and potential response strategies and elements for
inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.
Since 1988, the IPCC has had five assessment cycles and delivered five
Assessment Reports, the most comprehensive scientific reports about
climate change produced worldwide. It has also produced a range of
Methodology Reports, Special Reports and Technical Papers, in response
to requests for information on specific scientific and technical
matters from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), governments and international organizations."
and "In 1990, the First IPCC Assessment Report (FAR) underlined the
importance of climate change as a challenge with global consequences
and requiring international cooperation. "
So where is the reference to the prediction? It was apparently in
1989, before the IPCC had given any report. That we cannot verify
from refrences that the IPCC made any such statement, perhaps we
should be a bit wary of the article. But let us suppose someone did
make those statements way back in 1989 - does it surprise you that
they were wrong? Does a statement by an unknown person outweigh 32
years of subsequent research?
The article does seem to go on to quote all sorts of fantastic
assertions. For example " I have read reports that stated that CO2 is
a poisonous gas and a pollutant. Neither is true. It is a very
important gas essential for the survival of humans. It is essentially
plant food. If CO2 falls below a certain level all plants die and so
do we. Of course plants give us oxygen as a result of taking in CO2
and through the process of photosynthesis."
Now again we do not know where this was read - it sounds the sort of
scientific expertise proudly explained by a poster to nz.general - I
agree with your hope that the data and opinions stated be addressed -
I have endeavoured to do that but I presume that you have already
either done that or have knowledge that can resolve the small
difficulties I have identified above. I look forward to your response.
I agree that what you have raised are indeed small matters. Perhaps even
trivial.
I referred to small difficulties - easily resolved by an adequate
reference - but as that seems to not be forthcoming it becomes then
somewhat more of a major difficulty. Certainly they lead to a doubt as
to the credibility of the statements made by Ian Bradford.
Typical of comprehensionless fools like you Rich! The article leads to doubt as to the credibility of the Climate change religion!
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
I note that you have not refuted any of the most important parts of the article.
I did not see any more important; hearsay is ultimately not vry
credible; especially if you are relying on an opinion given over 30
years ago . . . science has advanced a bit since then, Tony.
Weasel words from one weasely confused and embarrassed by facts :)
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
And that is healthy, perhaps you and others can uncloud your minds and accept
there is serious doubt about the main causes of climate change or at least a
fair and scientifically based question.
You seem to suggest that the author is "Unknown" why would you say that if not
to belittle his article?
I suggested that the reference to a statement by the IPCC does not
apper to be an official statement of the IPCC - the author of the
statement reported by Ian Bradford remains unknown.
More weasel words helping bolster your sheep like devotion and support of the IPCC!
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Which nz general poster has made proud unfounded scientific expertise boasts.
Do tell us.
Yourself, Tony, in making the claims above.
Your desperation is showing Rich :)
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The above was the first post in this thread and clearly I was prophetic.
Keith Warren, using one of his several pseudonyms, has done precisely what I
hoped nobody would do (a naive hope it would seem).
He has not at any time addressed the content, he has attacked the credibility
of the author and has deliberately tried to move the focus onto extraneous
matters.
I have addressed an issue that goes to the credibility of the article,
but you appear to not be prepared to accept those concerns.
No you haven't Rich. You've supported the IPCC as spreading the word of the UN but nothing disproving anything in the article. Just like your tail gunner Keith! Neither of you can refute anything in the article because you don't want to appear stupider than usual by admitting the IPCC is talking shit and is incapable of predicting reality! Hell several climate scientists have questioned the worth and accuracy of the IPCC model!
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The author holds a degree in the subject matter he has addressed (geophysics)
and also has a law degree.
Holding a degree does not a world expert make. Can you point to any
peer reviewed material relating to cliamte science from I an Bradford?
"Geophysics is a subject of natural science concerned with the
physical processes and physical properties of the Earth and its
surrounding space environment, and the use of quantitative methods for
their analysis." This may but does not necessarily indicate
expertise in issues relating to climate change.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
If anybody would like to address the actual subject matter with either facts or
reasonable opinion that would be a very welcome change.
I look forward to the next article from this far from minor author and hope
that we can keep an open mind instead of driving down the "mankind is
predominantly responsible for climate change" road with blinkers on. The fact
that he has chosen the Waikanae Watch blog to publish is irrelevant to anybody
who is open minded.
Meanwhile I have removed the silliness from this subthread.
John Bowes
2021-04-02 03:52:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
On Wednesday, 31 March 2021 at 09:12:23 UTC+13, undefined
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be
wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people
who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our
climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and
similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart
and
show
it
to
be
wrong.
In global terms, one cannot separate today's greenhouse gases
controversy
from
the combination of generalities concerning the remorseless
depletion
of
critical finite natural resources through pollution and
over-exploitation.
The
ugly face of the commercial "more is never enough" profit
motive.
This
commercially-driven demand depletes global stocks of
self-sustaining
life-forms. For global species to survive and thrive, ocean
algae
tops
the
list
of the most critical by a country mile. But ocean algae is
the
least
mentioned. Why? Because it's not cuddly.
Ocean algae generates an estimated 50%-80% of the world's
oxygen.
OK,
global
warming may well be a concern, unjustified or no, but let
today's
"more is
never enough" commercial imperative continue to kill off the
algae
and
then
see
how you and the rest of the world get on.
Non sequitur, as anticipated.
Climate stability is critical to the overall health of the
biosphere.
Fact
is, the CO2 controversy is but a tiny fraction of that total
criticality,
man-made terrestrial pollution being by far the greater and
decidedly
more
tangible part of it. I am neutral on CO2 as a debating issue,
whatever
its
merits or demerits since climate itself patently behaves with
such
random
variability that it has so far defied any hope of its behaviour
being
finally
resolved as what some call a "settled science". My own
impression
is
that,
science or no, in the endless and inconclusive tit-for-tat
brawling
over
real/alleged climate change, the significance of CO2's arguable
contribution
has been exaggerated virtually to the point of side-lining the
overall
atmospheric/terrestial pollution debate from its originally
intended
path
and
purpose.
Unlike with CO2, am by no means neutral on the issue of
pollution,
an
in-yer-face "settled" reality that kills and/or disables, or
even
causes
mutations, of virtually every species including human. No person
or
body
has
yet addressed or implemented sufficient effective measures to
ensure
pollution's reduction towards elimination, nor will they ever
for
the
foreseeable future since much of what is already out there has
half-lives
extending over decades and centuries - and beyond. For example,
man-made
plastics and their residual compounds are now being found in
placentas,
no to
mention gross amounts of it already in the guts of river and
oceanic
animal
species that we are not only destroying but with which we also
share
the
same
environment, a shared environment, mark you, "where (otherwise)
every
prospect
pleases, and only man is vile". (Reginald Heber (1783-1826)
So strain at your elusive, intangible "unsettled" gnat and argue
over
it
by
all means; but as you do so, be certain that the decidedly
earthbound,
tangible, "settled" elephant that is global
pollution-as-species-killer
will
continue to dog your every "unsettled" utterance.
Hint. A healthy sense of proportion is more often than not the
way
with
cooler
heads...
You still cannot answer the question.
The question is of no interest to me since, as I have previously
said,
I
think depletion and despoiling of the natural world to indulge and
further
increase spurious excess is by far the bigger issue, CO2 concerns
being
but one
tiny fraction of the whole. Hence my "unsettled" gnat/"settled"
elephant
analogy.
Even so, underlying the whole thing is the mistaken idea - the
self-righteous, self-indulgent creed - "More can never be enough".
Greed.
Now, who is this Ian Bradford whose writings you so cleave to? What
and
who
are his sources and references, and how and in what significant way
is
he
qualified to comment on issues involving climate science?
A breath of fresh air from Tony followed by the usual stench of
corruption
from Keith!
Maybe if Keith wasn't so hell bent on dominating threads we might get
a
glimpse of his superior education rather than his propensity to act
like
a
fucking jackbooted Nazi!
Yet again he's failed as only Keith can in answering Tony's question!
Typical
of the edjucated idiot Keith is :)
He has decided that mankind is predominantly responsible for climate
change...
Oh is that so?
Indeed it is so.
Post by James Christophers
I have stated my acknowledgement and concern that man is primarily
responsible
for global pollution, depletion and degradation of species and
environment.
Whether or not these man-made depredations have also had any effect on
atmospheric CO2 **per se** I acknowledge is open to question, hence the
still
"unsettled science" frequently referred to.
Atmospheric CO2 is not a problem as well explained in the article by someone
with infinitely more knowledge and qualifications than you.
So, under the authority and imprimatur of some obscure Kapiti Coast hobby
blogger, the science surrounding atmospheric CO2 is officially settled once and
for all.
How do you know he is a Kapiti Coaster? And why is that of any relevance to
anybody with more brain cells than you (and there are lots of them)?
Why would you think the science is settled? Ian Bradford did not suggest that
and neither did I. Ah I see you have better experience, knowledge,
qualifications than his Geophysical degree. Perhaps you could enlighten us with
your brilliance, it's about time.
Post by James Christophers
Wow - the next Noble prize for Science already done and dusted!
As predicted you are true to type, you attack the man, and refuse to address
the content. Beyond pathetic.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
That said, nowhere in this thread have I said that mankind is
predominantly
responsible for climate change, assuming such a condition actually
exists.
You
would therefore be well advised not to commit yourself to categoric
falsehoods
you cannot possibly sustain. It only serves to destroy your own casual
piggy-backing of others on a component topic that you know full well is
already
beset with doubts and uncertainties.
Off topic.
You have added your patent falsehood to the very topic you own. I am, ergo,
on and within your topic. Thus, your careless attitude to discourse rewarded.
Silly man. You have not once in this thread addressed the topic. I have.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
(snip)
Post by Tony
Truth matters not one whit to him..
The irony being that, as you have now more than amply demonstrated, truth
self-evidently matters even less to you in the context of the very
thread
you
have introduced but to which you have so far contributed no recognisable
added
value whatever.
And you are an abusive man.
Mmmmm...no added value there, either. 10/10 for effortless consistency!.
Indeed, I am consistenmtly aware of your abusive nature.
But evidently not aware of your self-demeaning playschool habit of traducing
others in order to retrieve a position you have previously forfeited for the
same reason.
"Nothing dishonours a man more than that his traducing of another, for he is
weak, both in spirit and self-esteem."
End of.
End of what? You are a poseur, a bully and an inverted snob.
However, you have still not addressed the content of the article
I have, by saying that, while never once denying that the climate concerns addressed by Bradford are a worthy issue, it's always a good idea for any minor author to simultaneously substantiate his thinking by giving references to authenticated stats, plus the naming those of higher learning and authority who inform him - IOW, the routine footnote declaration that should accompany every article he writes when not writing under the authority of a higher institution or body. All this even if only to confirm and consolidate his own presumed credentials,
Post by Tony
authored by someone infinitely smarter than you.
Certainly smart enough to go as far as cloaking himself in the mantle of the infinitely-smarter-than-he Gallileo (see his replies section), but even then not sufficiently smart, it seems, to know that Copernicus, having already done all the heavy lifting, had not only got there first but had also suffered the same backlash from the Church as had Gallileo!
Post by Tony
But you still attack the author and the messenger to the point of queasiness.
"Attack"? I merely address and notify the unadorned facts of the matter as they appear to me, while never automatically taking for granted the presumed authority of a minor blog-writer who happens to pop up from time to time.
Seems wise and reasonable to me.
Wise and reasonable and me? You're lying again Keith! You don't do wise and reasonable. Just pig ignorant and obnoxious on a good day. :)
btw who the hell is Gallileo? I've only ever heard of a Galileo. Who was so much smarter than you imagine yourself to be :)
Nellie the Elephant
2021-04-01 06:47:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 22:19:39 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people
who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our
climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and
similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart
and
show
it
to
be
wrong.
In global terms, one cannot separate today's greenhouse gases
controversy
from
the combination of generalities concerning the remorseless
depletion
of
critical finite natural resources through pollution and
over-exploitation.
The
ugly face of the commercial "more is never enough" profit
motive.
This
commercially-driven demand depletes global stocks of
self-sustaining
life-forms. For global species to survive and thrive, ocean
algae
tops
the
list
of the most critical by a country mile. But ocean algae is the
least
mentioned. Why? Because it's not cuddly.
Ocean algae generates an estimated 50%-80% of the world's
oxygen.
OK,
global
warming may well be a concern, unjustified or no, but let
today's
"more is
never enough" commercial imperative continue to kill off the
algae
and
then
see
how you and the rest of the world get on.
Non sequitur, as anticipated.
Climate stability is critical to the overall health of the
biosphere.
Fact
is, the CO2 controversy is but a tiny fraction of that total
criticality,
man-made terrestrial pollution being by far the greater and
decidedly
more
tangible part of it. I am neutral on CO2 as a debating issue,
whatever
its
merits or demerits since climate itself patently behaves with such
random
variability that it has so far defied any hope of its behaviour
being
finally
resolved as what some call a "settled science". My own impression
is
that,
science or no, in the endless and inconclusive tit-for-tat brawling
over
real/alleged climate change, the significance of CO2's arguable
contribution
has been exaggerated virtually to the point of side-lining the
overall
atmospheric/terrestial pollution debate from its originally
intended
path
and
purpose.
Unlike with CO2, am by no means neutral on the issue of pollution,
an
in-yer-face "settled" reality that kills and/or disables, or even
causes
mutations, of virtually every species including human. No person or
body
has
yet addressed or implemented sufficient effective measures to
ensure
pollution's reduction towards elimination, nor will they ever for
the
foreseeable future since much of what is already out there has
half-lives
extending over decades and centuries - and beyond. For example,
man-made
plastics and their residual compounds are now being found in
placentas,
no to
mention gross amounts of it already in the guts of river and
oceanic
animal
species that we are not only destroying but with which we also
share
the
same
environment, a shared environment, mark you, "where (otherwise)
every
prospect
pleases, and only man is vile". (Reginald Heber (1783-1826)
So strain at your elusive, intangible "unsettled" gnat and argue
over
it
by
all means; but as you do so, be certain that the decidedly
earthbound,
tangible, "settled" elephant that is global
pollution-as-species-killer
will
continue to dog your every "unsettled" utterance.
Hint. A healthy sense of proportion is more often than not the way
with
cooler
heads...
You still cannot answer the question.
The question is of no interest to me since, as I have previously said, I
think depletion and despoiling of the natural world to indulge and
further
increase spurious excess is by far the bigger issue, CO2 concerns being
but one
tiny fraction of the whole. Hence my "unsettled" gnat/"settled" elephant
analogy.
Even so, underlying the whole thing is the mistaken idea - the
self-righteous, self-indulgent creed - "More can never be enough". Greed.
Now, who is this Ian Bradford whose writings you so cleave to? What
and
who
are his sources and references, and how and in what significant way is he
qualified to comment on issues involving climate science?
A breath of fresh air from Tony followed by the usual stench of corruption
from Keith!
Maybe if Keith wasn't so hell bent on dominating threads we might get a
glimpse of his superior education rather than his propensity to act like a
fucking jackbooted Nazi!
Yet again he's failed as only Keith can in answering Tony's question!
Typical
of the edjucated idiot Keith is :)
He has decided that mankind is predominantly responsible for climate change...
Oh is that so?
Indeed it is so.
Post by James Christophers
I have stated my acknowledgement and concern that man is primarily responsible
for global pollution, depletion and degradation of species and environment.
Whether or not these man-made depredations have also had any effect on
atmospheric CO2 **per se** I acknowledge is open to question, hence the still
"unsettled science" frequently referred to.
Atmospheric CO2 is not a problem as well explained in the article by someone
with infinitely more knowledge and qualifications than you.
So, under the authority and imprimatur of some obscure Kapiti Coast hobby
blogger, the science surrounding atmospheric CO2 is officially settled once and
for all.
How do you know he is a Kapiti Coaster? And why is that of any relevance to
anybody with more brain cells than you (and there are lots of them)?
Why would you think the science is settled? Ian Bradford did not suggest that
and neither did I. Ah I see you have better experience, knowledge,
qualifications than his Geophysical degree. Perhaps you could enlighten us with
your brilliance, it's about time.
Post by James Christophers
Wow - the next Noble prize for Science already done and dusted!
As predicted you are true to type, you attack the man, and refuse to address
the content. Beyond pathetic.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
That said, nowhere in this thread have I said that mankind is predominantly
responsible for climate change, assuming such a condition actually exists. You
would therefore be well advised not to commit yourself to categoric falsehoods
you cannot possibly sustain. It only serves to destroy your own casual
piggy-backing of others on a component topic that you know full well is already
beset with doubts and uncertainties.
Off topic.
You have added your patent falsehood to the very topic you own. I am, ergo,
on and within your topic. Thus, your careless attitude to discourse rewarded.
Silly man. You have not once in this thread addressed the topic. I have.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
(snip)
Truth matters not one whit to him..
The irony being that, as you have now more than amply demonstrated, truth
self-evidently matters even less to you in the context of the very thread you
have introduced but to which you have so far contributed no recognisable added
value whatever.
And you are an abusive man.
Mmmmm...no added value there, either. 10/10 for effortless consistency!.
Indeed, I am consistenmtly aware of your abusive nature.
But evidently not aware of your self-demeaning playschool habit of traducing others in order to retrieve a position you have previously forfeited for the same reason.
"Nothing dishonours a man more than that his traducing of another, for he is weak, both in spirit and self-esteem."
End of.
Why are you so bitter?
John Bowes
2021-04-01 22:21:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nellie the Elephant
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 22:19:39 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people
who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our
climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and
similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart
and
show
it
to
be
wrong.
In global terms, one cannot separate today's greenhouse gases
controversy
from
the combination of generalities concerning the remorseless
depletion
of
critical finite natural resources through pollution and
over-exploitation.
The
ugly face of the commercial "more is never enough" profit
motive.
This
commercially-driven demand depletes global stocks of
self-sustaining
life-forms. For global species to survive and thrive, ocean
algae
tops
the
list
of the most critical by a country mile. But ocean algae is the
least
mentioned. Why? Because it's not cuddly.
Ocean algae generates an estimated 50%-80% of the world's
oxygen.
OK,
global
warming may well be a concern, unjustified or no, but let
today's
"more is
never enough" commercial imperative continue to kill off the
algae
and
then
see
how you and the rest of the world get on.
Non sequitur, as anticipated.
Climate stability is critical to the overall health of the
biosphere.
Fact
is, the CO2 controversy is but a tiny fraction of that total
criticality,
man-made terrestrial pollution being by far the greater and
decidedly
more
tangible part of it. I am neutral on CO2 as a debating issue,
whatever
its
merits or demerits since climate itself patently behaves with such
random
variability that it has so far defied any hope of its behaviour
being
finally
resolved as what some call a "settled science". My own impression
is
that,
science or no, in the endless and inconclusive tit-for-tat brawling
over
real/alleged climate change, the significance of CO2's arguable
contribution
has been exaggerated virtually to the point of side-lining the
overall
atmospheric/terrestial pollution debate from its originally
intended
path
and
purpose.
Unlike with CO2, am by no means neutral on the issue of pollution,
an
in-yer-face "settled" reality that kills and/or disables, or even
causes
mutations, of virtually every species including human. No person or
body
has
yet addressed or implemented sufficient effective measures to
ensure
pollution's reduction towards elimination, nor will they ever for
the
foreseeable future since much of what is already out there has
half-lives
extending over decades and centuries - and beyond. For example,
man-made
plastics and their residual compounds are now being found in
placentas,
no to
mention gross amounts of it already in the guts of river and
oceanic
animal
species that we are not only destroying but with which we also
share
the
same
environment, a shared environment, mark you, "where (otherwise)
every
prospect
pleases, and only man is vile". (Reginald Heber (1783-1826)
So strain at your elusive, intangible "unsettled" gnat and argue
over
it
by
all means; but as you do so, be certain that the decidedly
earthbound,
tangible, "settled" elephant that is global
pollution-as-species-killer
will
continue to dog your every "unsettled" utterance.
Hint. A healthy sense of proportion is more often than not the way
with
cooler
heads...
You still cannot answer the question.
The question is of no interest to me since, as I have previously said,
I
think depletion and despoiling of the natural world to indulge and
further
increase spurious excess is by far the bigger issue, CO2 concerns being
but one
tiny fraction of the whole. Hence my "unsettled" gnat/"settled"
elephant
analogy.
Even so, underlying the whole thing is the mistaken idea - the
self-righteous, self-indulgent creed - "More can never be enough".
Greed.
Now, who is this Ian Bradford whose writings you so cleave to? What
and
who
are his sources and references, and how and in what significant way is
he
qualified to comment on issues involving climate science?
A breath of fresh air from Tony followed by the usual stench of
corruption
from Keith!
Maybe if Keith wasn't so hell bent on dominating threads we might get a
glimpse of his superior education rather than his propensity to act like
a
fucking jackbooted Nazi!
Yet again he's failed as only Keith can in answering Tony's question!
Typical
of the edjucated idiot Keith is :)
He has decided that mankind is predominantly responsible for climate
change...
Oh is that so?
Indeed it is so.
Post by James Christophers
I have stated my acknowledgement and concern that man is primarily
responsible
for global pollution, depletion and degradation of species and environment.
Whether or not these man-made depredations have also had any effect on
atmospheric CO2 **per se** I acknowledge is open to question, hence the still
"unsettled science" frequently referred to.
Atmospheric CO2 is not a problem as well explained in the article by someone
with infinitely more knowledge and qualifications than you.
So, under the authority and imprimatur of some obscure Kapiti Coast hobby
blogger, the science surrounding atmospheric CO2 is officially settled once and
for all.
How do you know he is a Kapiti Coaster? And why is that of any relevance to
anybody with more brain cells than you (and there are lots of them)?
Why would you think the science is settled? Ian Bradford did not suggest that
and neither did I. Ah I see you have better experience, knowledge,
qualifications than his Geophysical degree. Perhaps you could enlighten us with
your brilliance, it's about time.
Post by James Christophers
Wow - the next Noble prize for Science already done and dusted!
As predicted you are true to type, you attack the man, and refuse to address
the content. Beyond pathetic.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
That said, nowhere in this thread have I said that mankind is predominantly
responsible for climate change, assuming such a condition actually exists.
You
would therefore be well advised not to commit yourself to categoric
falsehoods
you cannot possibly sustain. It only serves to destroy your own casual
piggy-backing of others on a component topic that you know full well is
already
beset with doubts and uncertainties.
Off topic.
You have added your patent falsehood to the very topic you own. I am, ergo,
on and within your topic. Thus, your careless attitude to discourse rewarded.
Silly man. You have not once in this thread addressed the topic. I have.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
(snip)
Post by Tony
Truth matters not one whit to him..
The irony being that, as you have now more than amply demonstrated, truth
self-evidently matters even less to you in the context of the very thread you
have introduced but to which you have so far contributed no recognisable
added
value whatever.
And you are an abusive man.
Mmmmm...no added value there, either. 10/10 for effortless consistency!.
Indeed, I am consistenmtly aware of your abusive nature.
But evidently not aware of your self-demeaning playschool habit of traducing others in order to retrieve a position you have previously forfeited for the same reason.
"Nothing dishonours a man more than that his traducing of another, for he is weak, both in spirit and self-esteem."
End of.
Why are you so bitter?
Because he's a failure and National MPs have all been far more successful than this pommie bastard we know as Keith :)
Tony
2021-04-01 00:42:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong.
In global terms, one cannot separate today's greenhouse gases
controversy
from
the combination of generalities concerning the remorseless depletion of
critical finite natural resources through pollution and
over-exploitation.
The
ugly face of the commercial "more is never enough" profit motive. This
commercially-driven demand depletes global stocks of self-sustaining
life-forms. For global species to survive and thrive, ocean algae tops
the
list
of the most critical by a country mile. But ocean algae is the least
mentioned. Why? Because it's not cuddly.
Ocean algae generates an estimated 50%-80% of the world's oxygen. OK, global
warming may well be a concern, unjustified or no, but let today's "more is
never enough" commercial imperative continue to kill off the algae and
then
see
how you and the rest of the world get on.
Non sequitur, as anticipated.
Climate stability is critical to the overall health of the biosphere. Fact
is, the CO2 controversy is but a tiny fraction of that total criticality,
man-made terrestrial pollution being by far the greater and decidedly more
tangible part of it. I am neutral on CO2 as a debating issue, whatever its
merits or demerits since climate itself patently behaves with such random
variability that it has so far defied any hope of its behaviour being finally
resolved as what some call a "settled science". My own impression is that,
science or no, in the endless and inconclusive tit-for-tat brawling over
real/alleged climate change, the significance of CO2's arguable contribution
has been exaggerated virtually to the point of side-lining the overall
atmospheric/terrestial pollution debate from its originally intended path and
purpose.
Unlike with CO2, am by no means neutral on the issue of pollution, an
in-yer-face "settled" reality that kills and/or disables, or even causes
mutations, of virtually every species including human. No person or body has
yet addressed or implemented sufficient effective measures to ensure
pollution's reduction towards elimination, nor will they ever for the
foreseeable future since much of what is already out there has half-lives
extending over decades and centuries - and beyond. For example, man-made
plastics and their residual compounds are now being found in placentas, no to
mention gross amounts of it already in the guts of river and oceanic animal
species that we are not only destroying but with which we also share the same
environment, a shared environment, mark you, "where (otherwise) every prospect
pleases, and only man is vile". (Reginald Heber (1783-1826)
So strain at your elusive, intangible "unsettled" gnat and argue over it by
all means; but as you do so, be certain that the decidedly earthbound,
tangible, "settled" elephant that is global pollution-as-species-killer will
continue to dog your every "unsettled" utterance.
Hint. A healthy sense of proportion is more often than not the way with
cooler
heads...
You still cannot answer the question.
The question is of no interest to me
So why repond?
Post by James Christophers
since, as I have previously said, I think depletion and despoiling of the
natural world to indulge and further increase spurious excess is by far the
bigger issue, CO2 concerns being but one tiny fraction of the whole. Hence my
"unsettled" gnat/"settled" elephant analogy.
Even so, underlying the whole thing is the mistaken idea - the self-righteous,
self-indulgent creed - "More can never be enough". Greed.
Nonsense.
Post by James Christophers
Now, who is this Ian Bradford whose writings you so cleave to? What and who
are his sources and references, and how and in what significant way is he
qualified to comment on issues involving climate science?
I cleave to nothing of the sort and no-one (why the rudeness Keith?. Simply
allowing people the opportunity to read something of value, or not as they wish.
The author has degrees in geophysics and law. It is all in the URL comments.
Geophysics could not be more relevant to the subject matter.
Tony
2021-04-05 05:04:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and that we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it to be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
On the second occasion I posted this Rich picked up on two trivial parts of the
article and ignored the important parts, then followed up with abuse and lies.
My apologies to those who are not interested in the article and that is fine.
Democracy at work some of us might say.
I am not sure how accurate the article is and I have made that abundantly
clear, at least to those who bothered to read.
One of the things that has been said is that there are no peer reviews. So be
it, that does not mean it is worthless. All of us here post without peer
reviews, that is OK apparently but not for the author.
Those that do not believe the article is accurate have posted no articles that
disagree with the author. Interesting that!
Despite what has been written I have not agreed or disagreed with the content,
all I am interested in is a balanced set of opinions. A seeker after truth only.
Take it or ignore it, that's fine. Take care.
James Christophers
2021-04-06 05:15:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and that we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it to be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
And he was fully justified in doing so.

Bereft of any authentic peer-group or higher-learning validation of his out-of-thin-air numbers and assertions, Bradford's largely unqualified little polemic is of little value as it stands. You do not request from him academic validation of his writings. Yet, like too many, you are among the very first to challenge unsupported material contributed by your peers on this forum. Again, you yourself routinely submit unsupported opinion as "my opinion only, ergo, no substantiation needed" - but for what purpose other than to gain attention you have yet to make clear. (Hint - it's what trolls do.)

An explantion for this anomaly of yours would now be both enlightening and entirely right and proper.
Post by Tony
On the second occasion I posted this Rich picked up on two trivial parts of the
article and ignored the important parts, then followed up with abuse and lies.
My apologies to those who are not interested in the article and that is fine.
Democracy at work some of us might say.
I am not sure how accurate the article is and I have made that abundantly
clear, at least to those who bothered to read.
And that's fine too, but it still doesn't absolve Bradford from his serious failure (reluctance?) to provide authentic independent references validating what he has to say (what's preventing him?). Again, I do not challenge Bradford's material as such; I only challenge the work of a presumed academic who fails to make known those peer-group and/or higher-learning experts, sources and assorted references whose own work lends authenticity to his blog. This extraordinary failure on the part of a degreed geophysicist is Bradford's singular and unforgivable lacuna, a lacuna that inevitably renders his piece unworthy of any serious, qualified consideration from the very outset. It wouldn't even pass first base with any scientific paper, journal or other professional publication worthy of the description. On these facts alone, there is no justification whatever for anyone to demand that others on this group should provide countervailing material that proves Bradford's thinking to be at fault, regardless of whether it might be, or not.
Post by Tony
One of the things that has been said is that there are no peer reviews. So be
it, that does not mean it is worthless. All of us here post without peer
reviews, that is OK apparently but not for the author.
The author is a geophysicist. In fact, you specifically intimate more than once this qualification is inherently all he needs in his academic armoury to authenticate his published material. No so, and you should know so. Academics routinely use peer-group reviewing to winkle out any deficiencies in fact or thinking behind their own acknowledged authenticity and authority in matters they already know more about than most. GP's do exactly the same and for manifestly obvious reasons - i.e., it maintains intellectual integrity while further consolidating and enhancing that which has preceded it.
Post by Tony
Those that do not believe the article is accurate have posted no articles that
disagree with the author. Interesting that!
Not really, now that you have the facts of the matter. In any case, it has never been about "accuracy" per se; it has been about a seriously inadequate methodology in both approach and execution.
Post by Tony
Despite what has been written I have not agreed or disagreed with the content,
all I am interested in is a balanced set of opinions. A seeker after truth only.
Take it or ignore it, that's fine. Take care.
Tony
2021-04-06 05:27:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it to be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Address the content or be shown for what you are Keith, A charlatan.
Totally off topic rubbish deleted.
Rich80105
2021-04-06 07:10:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 00:27:35 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it to be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Address the content or be shown for what you are Keith, A charlatan.
Totally off topic rubbish deleted.
You have sked others to address the content; and I started that
process, but you objected to my conclusion that in that paragraph at
least there did npt appear to be any verifiable facts. Perhaps you
could point to a "fact" (rather than an opinion) that you would like
"addressed". If you cannot identify such a "fact", there appears
little for anyone to be gained by continuing what you appear to now
consider a pointless thread.
Tony
2021-04-06 20:32:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 00:27:35 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Address the content or be shown for what you are Keith, A charlatan.
Totally off topic rubbish deleted.
Here is a further article that asks us all to consider whether climate change
is primarily caused by mankind.
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/04/07/the-myths-of-climate-change-2/

So far nobody in this group has managed to refute anything of significance in
the first article. Two however have followed the blindfold (flat earther) path
of refusing to believe that the scisnce is not yet settled.
The science is not settled and we should be prepared to question everything
about this possible scam.
John Bowes
2021-04-06 21:12:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 00:27:35 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Address the content or be shown for what you are Keith, A charlatan.
Totally off topic rubbish deleted.
Here is a further article that asks us all to consider whether climate change
is primarily caused by mankind.
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/04/07/the-myths-of-climate-change-2/
So far nobody in this group has managed to refute anything of significance in
the first article. Two however have followed the blindfold (flat earther) path
of refusing to believe that the scisnce is not yet settled.
The science is not settled and we should be prepared to question everything
about this possible scam.
Keith and Rich are incapable of refuting anything in these articles because they've been taken in by the "climate change"scam like so many other idiots in the world. Hell ain't nothing in either article that isn't truth and people like Keith and Rich HATE that :)
Hell only idiots like Keith and Rich believe any science can be "settled" and climate change as being pushed by the UN and it's useful fools. Climate change has been happening for millions of years due in many cases to events we and science know nothing about!
Rich80105
2021-04-07 02:10:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 15:32:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 00:27:35 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Address the content or be shown for what you are Keith, A charlatan.
Totally off topic rubbish deleted.
Here is a further article that asks us all to consider whether climate change
is primarily caused by mankind.
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/04/07/the-myths-of-climate-change-2/
So far nobody in this group has managed to refute anything of significance in
the first article. Two however have followed the blindfold (flat earther) path
of refusing to believe that the scisnce is not yet settled.
The science is not settled and we should be prepared to question everything
about this possible scam.
I agree that the science is not settled (there will continue to be new
research and vaiations from predictions), and I also agree that the
two articles need to be questioned on the basis that they may be a
possible scam.

Happy now, Tony? We Agree!
Tony
2021-04-07 02:54:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 15:32:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 00:27:35 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Address the content or be shown for what you are Keith, A charlatan.
Totally off topic rubbish deleted.
Here is a further article that asks us all to consider whether climate change
is primarily caused by mankind.
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/04/07/the-myths-of-climate-change-2/
So far nobody in this group has managed to refute anything of significance in
the first article. Two however have followed the blindfold (flat earther) path
of refusing to believe that the scisnce is not yet settled.
The science is not settled and we should be prepared to question everything
about this possible scam.
Rich shat all over this post.
Cleaned up now.
Rich80105
2021-04-07 04:12:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 21:54:00 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 15:32:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 00:27:35 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Address the content or be shown for what you are Keith, A charlatan.
Totally off topic rubbish deleted.
Here is a further article that asks us all to consider whether climate change
is primarily caused by mankind.
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/04/07/the-myths-of-climate-change-2/
So far nobody in this group has managed to refute anything of significance in
the first article. Two however have followed the blindfold (flat earther) path
of refusing to believe that the scisnce is not yet settled.
The science is not settled and we should be prepared to question everything
about this possible scam.
Rich shat all over this post.
Cleaned up now.
Your blankie does cover you shitting yourself, Tony - try again:

I agree that the science is not settled (there will continue to be new
research and vaiations from predictions), and I also agree that the
two articles need to be questioned on the basis that they may be a
possible scam.

Happy now, Tony? We Agree!
Tony
2021-04-07 04:23:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 21:54:00 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 15:32:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 00:27:35 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the
messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Address the content or be shown for what you are Keith, A charlatan.
Totally off topic rubbish deleted.
Here is a further article that asks us all to consider whether climate change
is primarily caused by mankind.
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/04/07/the-myths-of-climate-change-2/
So far nobody in this group has managed to refute anything of significance in
the first article. Two however have followed the blindfold (flat earther) path
of refusing to believe that the scisnce is not yet settled.
The science is not settled and we should be prepared to question everything
about this possible scam.
Rich shat all over this post.
Cleaned up now.
John Bowes
2021-04-07 05:22:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 21:54:00 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 15:32:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 00:27:35 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the
messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Address the content or be shown for what you are Keith, A charlatan.
Totally off topic rubbish deleted.
Here is a further article that asks us all to consider whether climate change
is primarily caused by mankind.
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/04/07/the-myths-of-climate-change-2/
So far nobody in this group has managed to refute anything of significance in
the first article. Two however have followed the blindfold (flat earther) path
of refusing to believe that the scisnce is not yet settled.
The science is not settled and we should be prepared to question everything
about this possible scam.
Rich shat all over this post.
Cleaned up now.
I agree that the science is not settled (there will continue to be new
research and vaiations from predictions), and I also agree that the
two articles need to be questioned on the basis that they may be a
possible scam.
Happy now, Tony? We Agree!
You need more than a blankie unless it covers about 10,000 square kilometres to cover your shit Rich!
John Bowes
2021-04-07 05:16:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 15:32:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 00:27:35 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Address the content or be shown for what you are Keith, A charlatan.
Totally off topic rubbish deleted.
Here is a further article that asks us all to consider whether climate change
is primarily caused by mankind.
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/04/07/the-myths-of-climate-change-2/
So far nobody in this group has managed to refute anything of significance in
the first article. Two however have followed the blindfold (flat earther) path
of refusing to believe that the scisnce is not yet settled.
The science is not settled and we should be prepared to question everything
about this possible scam.
I agree that the science is not settled (there will continue to be new
research and vaiations from predictions), and I also agree that the
two articles need to be questioned on the basis that they may be a
possible scam.
Yet you continue to accept the UNICPP who's predictions constantly fail to meet their predictions Rich! You and your mate Keith haven't got the nous to question a group who keep moving the goal posts!
Post by Rich80105
Happy now, Tony? We Agree!
Bullshit!
John Bowes
2021-04-06 21:02:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it to be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Address the content or be shown for what you are Keith, A charlatan.
Totally off topic rubbish deleted.
Typical Keith attempt to prove he's just another fucking idiot Tony. It's all the stupid bugger ever does! A sure sign of a massive inferiority complex....
James Christophers
2021-04-07 00:40:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it to be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
And you completely excluded my relevant context-giving material presumably because the inconvenient truths it lays out about the unprofessional way a provincial hobby-blogger has prosecuted his (polite cough) "argument" have you at a disadvantage.
Post by Tony
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Capable certainly, but you have been told exactly why I have not addressed it other than to point out its fundamental weaknesses, in my view too frequent and egregious for the author to be taken seriously; to which I would add, only the biddable susceptible kneels to some provincial hobby-blogger whose published verbiage lacks the essential support and validation that otherwise comes from peer-group verification and authentication.

(snip)
Tony
2021-04-07 01:32:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
And you completely excluded my relevant context-giving material presumably
because the inconvenient truths it lays out about the unprofessional way a
provincial hobby-blogger has prosecuted his (polite cough) "argument" have you
at a disadvantage.
That is a lie. You did no such thing.>
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Capable certainly, but you have been told exactly why I have not addressed it
other than to point out its fundamental weaknesses, in my view too frequent and
egregious for the author to be taken seriously; to which I would add, only the
biddable susceptible kneels to some provincial hobby-blogger whose published
verbiage lacks the essential support and validation that otherwise comes from
peer-group verification and authentication.
You did not on any occasion address the content, you are a liar.
Post by James Christophers
(snip)
James Christophers
2021-04-07 02:11:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
And you completely excluded my relevant context-giving material presumably
because the inconvenient truths it lays out about the unprofessional way a
provincial hobby-blogger has prosecuted his (polite cough) "argument" have you
at a disadvantage.
That is a lie. You did no such thing.>
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Capable certainly, but you have been told exactly why I have not addressed it
other than to point out its fundamental weaknesses, in my view too frequent and
egregious for the author to be taken seriously; to which I would add, only the
biddable susceptible kneels to some provincial hobby-blogger whose published
verbiage lacks the essential support and validation that otherwise comes from
peer-group verification and authentication.
You did not on any occasion address the content.
You have earlier been told, and in terms loud and clear, that I am (quote) **neutral** on issues of climate as such and therefore have (quote)** no interest** in addressing the content. The only concern I **have** addressed (but you haven't, to your abiding shame) is the inadequate way the author has gone about presenting his patently unsubstantiated polemic.

I repeat: Bradford's piece would not even pass first base were it to be submitted to the kind of intellectual rigour to which such material must always and rightfully be submitted for it to pass muster.

Furthermore, you have been repeatedly and strenuously demanding others - but not you, of course - to prove what is, essentially, a negative. If this isn't the congenital fake faking it writ large, then tell me what is.
Tony
2021-04-07 02:53:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the
messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
And you completely excluded my relevant context-giving material presumably
because the inconvenient truths it lays out about the unprofessional way a
provincial hobby-blogger has prosecuted his (polite cough) "argument" have you
at a disadvantage.
That is a lie. You did no such thing.>
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Capable certainly, but you have been told exactly why I have not addressed it
other than to point out its fundamental weaknesses, in my view too frequent and
egregious for the author to be taken seriously; to which I would add, only the
biddable susceptible kneels to some provincial hobby-blogger whose published
verbiage lacks the essential support and validation that otherwise comes from
peer-group verification and authentication.
You did not on any occasion address the content.
You have earlier been told, and in terms loud and clear, that I am (quote)
**neutral** on issues of climate as such and therefore have (quote)** no
interest** in addressing the content. The only concern I **have** addressed
(but you haven't, to your abiding shame) is the inadequate way the author has
gone about presenting his patently unsubstantiated polemic.
I repeat: Bradford's piece would not even pass first base were it to be
submitted to the kind of intellectual rigour to which such material must always
and rightfully be submitted for it to pass muster.
No it does not have to. He is just as free as you are to post an article. Why
do you want to suppress his ideas? Again!
Irrelevant. If it was not irrelevant every one of your posts should be ignored.
Post by James Christophers
Furthermore, you have been repeatedly and strenuously demanding others - but
not you, of course - to prove what is, essentially, a negative. If this isn't
the congenital fake faking it writ large, then tell me what is.
That is a bare faced lie. I have demanded nothing. It was an invitation which
you incorrectly and incompetently translated into something "you" wanted.
You have not addressed any of the conetent, not one bit. There are scientific
opinions in the article. Address them or not, as I initially offered.
Rich80105
2021-04-07 04:09:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 21:53:10 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the
messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
And you completely excluded my relevant context-giving material presumably
because the inconvenient truths it lays out about the unprofessional way a
provincial hobby-blogger has prosecuted his (polite cough) "argument" have you
at a disadvantage.
That is a lie. You did no such thing.>
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Capable certainly, but you have been told exactly why I have not addressed it
other than to point out its fundamental weaknesses, in my view too frequent and
egregious for the author to be taken seriously; to which I would add, only the
biddable susceptible kneels to some provincial hobby-blogger whose published
verbiage lacks the essential support and validation that otherwise comes from
peer-group verification and authentication.
You did not on any occasion address the content.
You have earlier been told, and in terms loud and clear, that I am (quote)
**neutral** on issues of climate as such and therefore have (quote)** no
interest** in addressing the content. The only concern I **have** addressed
(but you haven't, to your abiding shame) is the inadequate way the author has
gone about presenting his patently unsubstantiated polemic.
I repeat: Bradford's piece would not even pass first base were it to be
submitted to the kind of intellectual rigour to which such material must always
and rightfully be submitted for it to pass muster.
No it does not have to. He is just as free as you are to post an article. Why
do you want to suppress his ideas? Again!
Nobody is trying to suppress the article or the "ideas" you claim are
in it.
Way back in the thread you said: "It would be nice if anybody here who
believes this to be wrong actually addresses the data and opinions
stated. "

So you are no longer claiming htat there is data, and the opinions
have become "ideas" . . .the data no longer
Post by Tony
Irrelevant. If it was not irrelevant every one of your posts should be ignored.
So you don't want any intellectual rigour from those that wish to
discuss the article . . .
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Furthermore, you have been repeatedly and strenuously demanding others - but
not you, of course - to prove what is, essentially, a negative. If this isn't
the congenital fake faking it writ large, then tell me what is.
That is a bare faced lie. I have demanded nothing. It was an invitation which
you incorrectly and incompetently translated into something "you" wanted.
You have not addressed any of the conetent, not one bit. There are scientific
opinions in the article. Address them or not, as I initially offered.
Perhaps it would be nice if anybody here who believes any part of the
article to be correct "actually addresses the data and opinions
stated" . . .
Tony
2021-04-07 04:22:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 21:53:10 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and
show
it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the
messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
And you completely excluded my relevant context-giving material presumably
because the inconvenient truths it lays out about the unprofessional way a
provincial hobby-blogger has prosecuted his (polite cough) "argument"
have
you
at a disadvantage.
That is a lie. You did no such thing.>
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Capable certainly, but you have been told exactly why I have not
addressed
it
other than to point out its fundamental weaknesses, in my view too
frequent
and
egregious for the author to be taken seriously; to which I would add,
only
the
biddable susceptible kneels to some provincial hobby-blogger whose published
verbiage lacks the essential support and validation that otherwise comes from
peer-group verification and authentication.
You did not on any occasion address the content.
You have earlier been told, and in terms loud and clear, that I am (quote)
**neutral** on issues of climate as such and therefore have (quote)** no
interest** in addressing the content. The only concern I **have** addressed
(but you haven't, to your abiding shame) is the inadequate way the author has
gone about presenting his patently unsubstantiated polemic.
I repeat: Bradford's piece would not even pass first base were it to be
submitted to the kind of intellectual rigour to which such material must always
and rightfully be submitted for it to pass muster.
No it does not have to. He is just as free as you are to post an article. Why
do you want to suppress his ideas? Again!
Nobody is trying to suppress the article or the "ideas" you claim are
in it.
You are turning my words. You do that well, it is your only skill (sic).
You have not addressed any significant part of the article at any time. Not
even close.
All you have done is behaved as expected. Together with your buddy.
You are incapable of discussion, incapable of addressing the ideas of others
like the author who has qualifications you have only dreamed of.
You are without credibility/. And you are still tag teaming (something you
bitterely complained about others doing to you some time ago).
Rich80105
2021-04-07 05:16:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 23:22:56 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 21:53:10 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and
show
it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the
messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
And you completely excluded my relevant context-giving material presumably
because the inconvenient truths it lays out about the unprofessional way a
provincial hobby-blogger has prosecuted his (polite cough) "argument"
have
you
at a disadvantage.
That is a lie. You did no such thing.>
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Capable certainly, but you have been told exactly why I have not
addressed
it
other than to point out its fundamental weaknesses, in my view too
frequent
and
egregious for the author to be taken seriously; to which I would add,
only
the
biddable susceptible kneels to some provincial hobby-blogger whose published
verbiage lacks the essential support and validation that otherwise comes from
peer-group verification and authentication.
You did not on any occasion address the content.
You have earlier been told, and in terms loud and clear, that I am (quote)
**neutral** on issues of climate as such and therefore have (quote)** no
interest** in addressing the content. The only concern I **have** addressed
(but you haven't, to your abiding shame) is the inadequate way the author has
gone about presenting his patently unsubstantiated polemic.
I repeat: Bradford's piece would not even pass first base were it to be
submitted to the kind of intellectual rigour to which such material must always
and rightfully be submitted for it to pass muster.
No it does not have to. He is just as free as you are to post an article. Why
do you want to suppress his ideas? Again!
Nobody is trying to suppress the article or the "ideas" you claim are
in it.
You are turning my words.
Well what did you mean by "Why do you want to suppress his ideas?
Again!"

I am not supressing anyone's words - you attempt to do that by futile
deletion of posts that you do not like or agree with . . .
Post by Tony
You do that well, it is your only skill (sic).
You have not addressed any significant part of the article at any time. Not
even close.
All you have done is behaved as expected. Together with your buddy.
You are incapable of discussion, incapable of addressing the ideas of others
like the author who has qualifications you have only dreamed of.
You are without credibility/. And you are still tag teaming (something you
bitterely complained about others doing to you some time ago).
You have me confused with someone else. Quote the instance of my
complaining or withdraw and apologise.
Tony
2021-04-07 05:32:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Nobody is trying to suppress the article or the "ideas" you claim are
in it.
You are turning my words.
Well what did you mean by "Why do you want to suppress his ideas?
Again!"
I am not supressing anyone's words - you attempt to do that by futile
deletion of posts that you do not like or agree with . . .
Post by Tony
You do that well, it is your only skill (sic).
You have not addressed any significant part of the article at any time. Not
even close.
All you have done is behaved as expected. Together with your buddy.
You are incapable of discussion, incapable of addressing the ideas of others
like the author who has qualifications you have only dreamed of.
You are without credibility/. And you are still tag teaming (something you
bitterely complained about others doing to you some time ago).
You have me confused with someone else. Quote the instance of my
complaining or withdraw and apologise.
Go away you superfluous little man.
You did complain about that and you know that you did.
And now you are doing the same thin.
Typical.
John Bowes
2021-04-07 20:44:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Nobody is trying to suppress the article or the "ideas" you claim are
in it.
You are turning my words.
Well what did you mean by "Why do you want to suppress his ideas?
Again!"
I am not supressing anyone's words - you attempt to do that by futile
deletion of posts that you do not like or agree with . . .
Post by Tony
You do that well, it is your only skill (sic).
You have not addressed any significant part of the article at any time. Not
even close.
All you have done is behaved as expected. Together with your buddy.
You are incapable of discussion, incapable of addressing the ideas of others
like the author who has qualifications you have only dreamed of.
You are without credibility/. And you are still tag teaming (something you
bitterely complained about others doing to you some time ago).
You have me confused with someone else. Quote the instance of my
complaining or withdraw and apologise.
Go away you superfluous little man.
You did complain about that and you know that you did.
And now you are doing the same thin.
Typical.
You are trying to discuss truth with a religious fanatic Tony. It's impossible they're so blinded by the 'truth' of their religion they can't accept it may be wrong.....
John Bowes
2021-04-07 05:21:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 21:53:10 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show
it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the
messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
And you completely excluded my relevant context-giving material presumably
because the inconvenient truths it lays out about the unprofessional way a
provincial hobby-blogger has prosecuted his (polite cough) "argument" have you
at a disadvantage.
That is a lie. You did no such thing.>
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Capable certainly, but you have been told exactly why I have not addressed it
other than to point out its fundamental weaknesses, in my view too frequent and
egregious for the author to be taken seriously; to which I would add, only the
biddable susceptible kneels to some provincial hobby-blogger whose published
verbiage lacks the essential support and validation that otherwise comes from
peer-group verification and authentication.
You did not on any occasion address the content.
You have earlier been told, and in terms loud and clear, that I am (quote)
**neutral** on issues of climate as such and therefore have (quote)** no
interest** in addressing the content. The only concern I **have** addressed
(but you haven't, to your abiding shame) is the inadequate way the author has
gone about presenting his patently unsubstantiated polemic.
I repeat: Bradford's piece would not even pass first base were it to be
submitted to the kind of intellectual rigour to which such material must always
and rightfully be submitted for it to pass muster.
No it does not have to. He is just as free as you are to post an article. Why
do you want to suppress his ideas? Again!
Nobody is trying to suppress the article or the "ideas" you claim are
in it.
Way back in the thread you said: "It would be nice if anybody here who
believes this to be wrong actually addresses the data and opinions
stated. "
So you are no longer claiming htat there is data, and the opinions
have become "ideas" . . .the data no longer
Post by Tony
Irrelevant. If it was not irrelevant every one of your posts should be ignored.
So you don't want any intellectual rigour from those that wish to
discuss the article . . .
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Furthermore, you have been repeatedly and strenuously demanding others - but
not you, of course - to prove what is, essentially, a negative. If this isn't
the congenital fake faking it writ large, then tell me what is.
That is a bare faced lie. I have demanded nothing. It was an invitation which
you incorrectly and incompetently translated into something "you" wanted.
You have not addressed any of the conetent, not one bit. There are scientific
opinions in the article. Address them or not, as I initially offered.
Perhaps it would be nice if anybody here who believes any part of the
article to be correct "actually addresses the data and opinions
stated" . . .
Why should we Rich the evidence is in the article for except fucking idiots like you with no comprehension skills? YOU disagree with the article which is bloody obvious from the shit you've been posting. Yet you haven't provided any evidence disproving any of the articles claims!
James Christophers
2021-04-07 21:38:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the
messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
And you completely excluded my relevant context-giving material presumably
because the inconvenient truths it lays out about the unprofessional way a
provincial hobby-blogger has prosecuted his (polite cough) "argument" have you
at a disadvantage.
That is a lie. You did no such thing.>
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Capable certainly, but you have been told exactly why I have not addressed it
other than to point out its fundamental weaknesses, in my view too frequent and
egregious for the author to be taken seriously; to which I would add, only the
biddable susceptible kneels to some provincial hobby-blogger whose published
verbiage lacks the essential support and validation that otherwise comes from
peer-group verification and authentication.
You did not on any occasion address the content.
You have earlier been told, and in terms loud and clear, that I am (quote)
**neutral** on issues of climate as such and therefore have (quote)** no
interest** in addressing the content. The only concern I **have** addressed
(but you haven't, to your abiding shame) is the inadequate way the author has
gone about presenting his patently unsubstantiated polemic.
I repeat: Bradford's piece would not even pass first base were it to be
submitted to the kind of intellectual rigour to which such material must always
and rightfully be submitted for it to pass muster.
No it does not have to. He is just as free as you are to post an article. Why
do you want to suppress his ideas? Again!
Irrelevant. If it was not irrelevant every one of your posts should be ignored.
Post by James Christophers
Furthermore, you have been repeatedly and strenuously demanding others - but
not you, of course - to prove what is, essentially, a negative. If this isn't
the congenital fake faking it writ large, then tell me what is.
That is a bare faced lie. I have demanded nothing.
Your increasingly imperious, foot-stamping tone throughout **your** entire thread is that of one who demands rather than requests. You do rather a lot of it, too, don't you?
Post by Tony
It was an invitation which
you incorrectly and incompetently translated into something "you" wanted.
There was no "translation" of anything on my part, so quit making shit up.

I have several times given my reasons for addressing not the content Bradford's total lack of intellectual rigour **only**; an unforgivable lacuna for a scientist pushing his own (polite cough) "discipline". This is why his piece as it stands is nothing but polemic. Most of the early responses to it have reflected this polemical aspect, except for one which simply, appropriately asks, "Who is this man (Bradford)"?
Post by Tony
You have not addressed any of the conetent, not one bit.
You really do have something seriously the matter with you. More than once I have given my valid reasons for not addressing Bradford's opinions as put: rather, I identify his near-total lack of intellectual rigour so serious as to turn it into a polemic for polemic's sake. Whither academic integrity? Well?
Post by Tony
There are scientific opinions in the article.
Yes. 100% academically unsubstatiated and unauthenticated opinions. So you will be well advised to get that into your thick skull once and for all and quit trolling this group.
Post by Tony
Address them or not, as I initially offered.
No matter how persistently your push your can-only-ever-fail approach to a baiting polemic, you can expect only an "or not" from me and for the 100% watertight reasons previously put to you loud and clear more than once.

It has been not you but I who has immediately spotted the near-total lack of intellectual rigour in Bradford's piece. You failed to do likewise because Bradford suits your own (polite cough) "thinking", i.e. your characteristically uncritical "done-and-dusted" lack of rigour that pervades so many of your Usenet contributions. Hasty. Shallow. Superficial. I, on the other hand, have approached the piece with the skepticism any hobby blog merits.

I recommend you do likewise if you wish to be taken seriously.
James Christophers
2021-04-07 21:43:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show
it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the
messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
And you completely excluded my relevant context-giving material presumably
because the inconvenient truths it lays out about the unprofessional way a
provincial hobby-blogger has prosecuted his (polite cough) "argument" have you
at a disadvantage.
That is a lie. You did no such thing.>
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Capable certainly, but you have been told exactly why I have not addressed it
other than to point out its fundamental weaknesses, in my view too frequent and
egregious for the author to be taken seriously; to which I would add, only the
biddable susceptible kneels to some provincial hobby-blogger whose published
verbiage lacks the essential support and validation that otherwise comes from
peer-group verification and authentication.
You did not on any occasion address the content.
You have earlier been told, and in terms loud and clear, that I am (quote)
**neutral** on issues of climate as such and therefore have (quote)** no
interest** in addressing the content. The only concern I **have** addressed
(but you haven't, to your abiding shame) is the inadequate way the author has
gone about presenting his patently unsubstantiated polemic.
I repeat: Bradford's piece would not even pass first base were it to be
submitted to the kind of intellectual rigour to which such material must always
and rightfully be submitted for it to pass muster.
No it does not have to. He is just as free as you are to post an article. Why
do you want to suppress his ideas? Again!
Irrelevant. If it was not irrelevant every one of your posts should be ignored.
Post by James Christophers
Furthermore, you have been repeatedly and strenuously demanding others - but
not you, of course - to prove what is, essentially, a negative. If this isn't
the congenital fake faking it writ large, then tell me what is.
That is a bare faced lie. I have demanded nothing.
Your increasingly imperious, foot-stamping tone throughout **your** entire thread is that of one who demands rather than requests. You do rather a lot of it, too, don't you?
Post by Tony
It was an invitation which
you incorrectly and incompetently translated into something "you" wanted.
There was no "translation" of anything on my part, so quit making shit up.
===============================
Post by James Christophers
I have several times given my reasons for addressing not the content of the article, but **only** Bradford's total lack of intellectual rigour; an unforgivable lacuna for a scientist pushing his own (polite cough) "discipline". This is why his piece as it stands is nothing but polemic. Most of the early responses to it have reflected this polemical aspect, except for one which simply, appropriately asks, "Who is this man (Bradford)"?
===============================
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
You have not addressed any of the conetent, not one bit.
You really do have something seriously the matter with you. More than once I have given my valid reasons for not addressing Bradford's opinions as put: rather, I identify his near-total lack of intellectual rigour so serious as to turn it into a polemic for polemic's sake. Whither academic integrity? Well?
Post by Tony
There are scientific opinions in the article.
Yes. 100% academically unsubstatiated and unauthenticated opinions. So you will be well advised to get that into your thick skull once and for all and quit trolling this group.
Post by Tony
Address them or not, as I initially offered.
No matter how persistently your push your can-only-ever-fail approach to a baiting polemic, you can expect only an "or not" from me and for the 100% watertight reasons previously put to you loud and clear more than once.
It has been not you but I who has immediately spotted the near-total lack of intellectual rigour in Bradford's piece. You failed to do likewise because Bradford suits your own (polite cough) "thinking", i.e. your characteristically uncritical "done-and-dusted" lack of rigour that pervades so many of your Usenet contributions. Hasty. Shallow. Superficial. I, on the other hand, have approached the piece with the skepticism any hobby blog merits.
I recommend you do likewise if you truly wish to be taken seriously.
John Bowes
2021-04-07 22:21:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show
it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the
messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
And you completely excluded my relevant context-giving material presumably
because the inconvenient truths it lays out about the unprofessional way a
provincial hobby-blogger has prosecuted his (polite cough) "argument" have
you
at a disadvantage.
That is a lie. You did no such thing.>
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have
been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense
about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Capable certainly, but you have been told exactly why I have not addressed
it
other than to point out its fundamental weaknesses, in my view too frequent
and
egregious for the author to be taken seriously; to which I would add, only
the
biddable susceptible kneels to some provincial hobby-blogger whose
published
verbiage lacks the essential support and validation that otherwise comes
from
peer-group verification and authentication.
You did not on any occasion address the content.
You have earlier been told, and in terms loud and clear, that I am (quote)
**neutral** on issues of climate as such and therefore have (quote)** no
interest** in addressing the content. The only concern I **have** addressed
(but you haven't, to your abiding shame) is the inadequate way the author has
gone about presenting his patently unsubstantiated polemic.
I repeat: Bradford's piece would not even pass first base were it to be
submitted to the kind of intellectual rigour to which such material must always
and rightfully be submitted for it to pass muster.
No it does not have to. He is just as free as you are to post an article. Why
do you want to suppress his ideas? Again!
Irrelevant. If it was not irrelevant every one of your posts should be ignored.
Post by James Christophers
Furthermore, you have been repeatedly and strenuously demanding others - but
not you, of course - to prove what is, essentially, a negative. If this isn't
the congenital fake faking it writ large, then tell me what is.
That is a bare faced lie. I have demanded nothing.
Your increasingly imperious, foot-stamping tone throughout **your** entire thread is that of one who demands rather than requests. You do rather a lot of it, too, don't you?
Post by Tony
It was an invitation which
you incorrectly and incompetently translated into something "you" wanted.
There was no "translation" of anything on my part, so quit making shit up.
===============================
Post by James Christophers
I have several times given my reasons for addressing not the content of the article, but **only** Bradford's total lack of intellectual rigour; an unforgivable lacuna for a scientist pushing his own (polite cough) "discipline". This is why his piece as it stands is nothing but polemic. Most of the early responses to it have reflected this polemical aspect, except for one which simply, appropriately asks, "Who is this man (Bradford)"?
===============================
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
You have not addressed any of the conetent, not one bit.
You really do have something seriously the matter with you. More than once I have given my valid reasons for not addressing Bradford's opinions as put: rather, I identify his near-total lack of intellectual rigour so serious as to turn it into a polemic for polemic's sake. Whither academic integrity? Well?
Post by Tony
There are scientific opinions in the article.
Yes. 100% academically unsubstatiated and unauthenticated opinions. So you will be well advised to get that into your thick skull once and for all and quit trolling this group.
Post by Tony
Address them or not, as I initially offered.
No matter how persistently your push your can-only-ever-fail approach to a baiting polemic, you can expect only an "or not" from me and for the 100% watertight reasons previously put to you loud and clear more than once.
It has been not you but I who has immediately spotted the near-total lack of intellectual rigour in Bradford's piece. You failed to do likewise because Bradford suits your own (polite cough) "thinking", i.e. your characteristically uncritical "done-and-dusted" lack of rigour that pervades so many of your Usenet contributions. Hasty. Shallow. Superficial. I, on the other hand, have approached the piece with the skepticism any hobby blog merits.
I recommend you do likewise if you truly wish to be taken seriously.
Give up Keith. We can all see through your ever more long winded rhetoric and see the filthy face of Capitalism that you are :)
Tony
2021-04-08 03:06:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our
climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and
show
it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and
the
messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
And you completely excluded my relevant context-giving material presumably
because the inconvenient truths it lays out about the unprofessional way a
provincial hobby-blogger has prosecuted his (polite cough) "argument"
have
you
at a disadvantage.
That is a lie. You did no such thing.>
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could
have
been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of
nonsense
about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Capable certainly, but you have been told exactly why I have not
addressed
it
other than to point out its fundamental weaknesses, in my view too
frequent
and
egregious for the author to be taken seriously; to which I would add,
only
the
biddable susceptible kneels to some provincial hobby-blogger whose published
verbiage lacks the essential support and validation that otherwise
comes
from
peer-group verification and authentication.
You did not on any occasion address the content.
You have earlier been told, and in terms loud and clear, that I am (quote)
**neutral** on issues of climate as such and therefore have (quote)** no
interest** in addressing the content. The only concern I **have** addressed
(but you haven't, to your abiding shame) is the inadequate way the author has
gone about presenting his patently unsubstantiated polemic.
I repeat: Bradford's piece would not even pass first base were it to be
submitted to the kind of intellectual rigour to which such material must always
and rightfully be submitted for it to pass muster.
No it does not have to. He is just as free as you are to post an article. Why
do you want to suppress his ideas? Again!
Irrelevant. If it was not irrelevant every one of your posts should be ignored.
Post by James Christophers
Furthermore, you have been repeatedly and strenuously demanding others - but
not you, of course - to prove what is, essentially, a negative. If this isn't
the congenital fake faking it writ large, then tell me what is.
That is a bare faced lie. I have demanded nothing.
Your increasingly imperious, foot-stamping tone throughout **your** entire
thread is that of one who demands rather than requests. You do rather a lot of
it, too, don't you?
Post by Tony
It was an invitation which
you incorrectly and incompetently translated into something "you" wanted.
There was no "translation" of anything on my part, so quit making shit up.
===============================
Post by James Christophers
I have several times given my reasons for addressing not the content of the
article, but **only** Bradford's total lack of intellectual rigour; an
unforgivable lacuna for a scientist pushing his own (polite cough)
"discipline". This is why his piece as it stands is nothing but polemic. Most
of the early responses to it have reflected this polemical aspect, except for
one which simply, appropriately asks, "Who is this man (Bradford)"?
Off topic but addressed in my previous reply..
Post by James Christophers
===============================
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
You have not addressed any of the conetent, not one bit.
You really do have something seriously the matter with you. More than once I
rather, I identify his near-total lack of intellectual rigour so serious as to
turn it into a polemic for polemic's sake. Whither academic integrity? Well?
Post by Tony
There are scientific opinions in the article.
Yes. 100% academically unsubstatiated and unauthenticated opinions. So you
will be well advised to get that into your thick skull once and for all and
quit trolling this group.
Post by Tony
Address them or not, as I initially offered.
No matter how persistently your push your can-only-ever-fail approach to a
baiting polemic, you can expect only an "or not" from me and for the 100%
watertight reasons previously put to you loud and clear more than once.
It has been not you but I who has immediately spotted the near-total lack of
intellectual rigour in Bradford's piece. You failed to do likewise because
Bradford suits your own (polite cough) "thinking", i.e. your characteristically
uncritical "done-and-dusted" lack of rigour that pervades so many of your
Usenet contributions. Hasty. Shallow. Superficial. I, on the other hand, have
approached the piece with the skepticism any hobby blog merits.
I recommend you do likewise if you truly wish to be taken seriously.
Tony
2021-04-08 03:05:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our
climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and
show
it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the
messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
And you completely excluded my relevant context-giving material presumably
because the inconvenient truths it lays out about the unprofessional way a
provincial hobby-blogger has prosecuted his (polite cough) "argument"
have
you
at a disadvantage.
That is a lie. You did no such thing.>
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could
have
been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Capable certainly, but you have been told exactly why I have not
addressed
it
other than to point out its fundamental weaknesses, in my view too
frequent
and
egregious for the author to be taken seriously; to which I would add,
only
the
biddable susceptible kneels to some provincial hobby-blogger whose published
verbiage lacks the essential support and validation that otherwise comes from
peer-group verification and authentication.
You did not on any occasion address the content.
You have earlier been told, and in terms loud and clear, that I am (quote)
**neutral** on issues of climate as such and therefore have (quote)** no
interest** in addressing the content. The only concern I **have** addressed
(but you haven't, to your abiding shame) is the inadequate way the author has
gone about presenting his patently unsubstantiated polemic.
I repeat: Bradford's piece would not even pass first base were it to be
submitted to the kind of intellectual rigour to which such material must always
and rightfully be submitted for it to pass muster.
No it does not have to. He is just as free as you are to post an article. Why
do you want to suppress his ideas? Again!
Irrelevant. If it was not irrelevant every one of your posts should be ignored.
Post by James Christophers
Furthermore, you have been repeatedly and strenuously demanding others - but
not you, of course - to prove what is, essentially, a negative. If this isn't
the congenital fake faking it writ large, then tell me what is.
That is a bare faced lie. I have demanded nothing.
Your increasingly imperious, foot-stamping tone throughout **your** entire
thread is that of one who demands rather than requests. You do rather a lot of
it, too, don't you?
No I don't. You do as we all recognise.
No demands have been made by me - ever in this newsgroup.
Show when and how or fuck off.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
It was an invitation which
you incorrectly and incompetently translated into something "you" wanted.
There was no "translation" of anything on my part, so quit making shit up.
No nothing made up. You have assumed the word demand when it was never implied
let alone used. That is you making shit up.
Post by James Christophers
I have several times given my reasons for addressing not the content
Bradford's total lack of intellectual rigour **only**; an unforgivable lacuna
for a scientist pushing his own (polite cough) "discipline". This is why his
piece as it stands is nothing but polemic. Most of the early responses to it
have reflected this polemical aspect, except for one which simply,
appropriately asks, "Who is this man (Bradford)"?
Talk about imperious. You have not addressed any of his stated scientific
opinions. Not a single one.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
You have not addressed any of the conetent, not one bit.
You really do have something seriously the matter with you. More than once I
rather, I identify his near-total lack of intellectual rigour so serious as to
turn it into a polemic for polemic's sake. Whither academic integrity? Well?
Post by Tony
There are scientific opinions in the article.
Yes. 100% academically unsubstatiated and unauthenticated opinions. So you
will be well advised to get that into your thick skull once and for all and
quit trolling this group.
Post by Tony
Address them or not, as I initially offered.
No matter how persistently your push your can-only-ever-fail approach to a
baiting polemic, you can expect only an "or not" from me and for the 100%
watertight reasons previously put to you loud and clear more than once.
Rubbish.
Lies deleted.
Post by James Christophers
I recommend you do likewise if you wish to be taken seriously.
You believe, apparently, that he needs peer review(s) before he can be taken
seriously.
Therefore the simple logic leads to this conclusion. You (Keith Warren) and
everybody else that posts here need peer reviews before any posts can be taken
seriously.
You see, the thing you have deliberately ignored is that he posetd an article
but without in any way claiming it was an authoritative scientific articel.
Only when asked by a commentator did he state his qualifications.
Rich80105
2021-04-08 03:20:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 07 Apr 2021 22:05:23 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our
climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and
show
it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the
messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
And you completely excluded my relevant context-giving material presumably
because the inconvenient truths it lays out about the unprofessional way a
provincial hobby-blogger has prosecuted his (polite cough) "argument"
have
you
at a disadvantage.
That is a lie. You did no such thing.>
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could
have
been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Capable certainly, but you have been told exactly why I have not
addressed
it
other than to point out its fundamental weaknesses, in my view too
frequent
and
egregious for the author to be taken seriously; to which I would add,
only
the
biddable susceptible kneels to some provincial hobby-blogger whose published
verbiage lacks the essential support and validation that otherwise comes from
peer-group verification and authentication.
You did not on any occasion address the content.
You have earlier been told, and in terms loud and clear, that I am (quote)
**neutral** on issues of climate as such and therefore have (quote)** no
interest** in addressing the content. The only concern I **have** addressed
(but you haven't, to your abiding shame) is the inadequate way the author has
gone about presenting his patently unsubstantiated polemic.
I repeat: Bradford's piece would not even pass first base were it to be
submitted to the kind of intellectual rigour to which such material must always
and rightfully be submitted for it to pass muster.
No it does not have to. He is just as free as you are to post an article. Why
do you want to suppress his ideas? Again!
Irrelevant. If it was not irrelevant every one of your posts should be ignored.
Post by James Christophers
Furthermore, you have been repeatedly and strenuously demanding others - but
not you, of course - to prove what is, essentially, a negative. If this isn't
the congenital fake faking it writ large, then tell me what is.
That is a bare faced lie. I have demanded nothing.
Your increasingly imperious, foot-stamping tone throughout **your** entire
thread is that of one who demands rather than requests. You do rather a lot of
it, too, don't you?
No I don't. You do as we all recognise.
No demands have been made by me - ever in this newsgroup.
Show when and how or fuck off.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
It was an invitation which
you incorrectly and incompetently translated into something "you" wanted.
There was no "translation" of anything on my part, so quit making shit up.
No nothing made up. You have assumed the word demand when it was never implied
let alone used. That is you making shit up.
Post by James Christophers
I have several times given my reasons for addressing not the content
Bradford's total lack of intellectual rigour **only**; an unforgivable lacuna
for a scientist pushing his own (polite cough) "discipline". This is why his
piece as it stands is nothing but polemic. Most of the early responses to it
have reflected this polemical aspect, except for one which simply,
appropriately asks, "Who is this man (Bradford)"?
Talk about imperious. You have not addressed any of his stated scientific
opinions. Not a single one.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
You have not addressed any of the conetent, not one bit.
You really do have something seriously the matter with you. More than once I
rather, I identify his near-total lack of intellectual rigour so serious as to
turn it into a polemic for polemic's sake. Whither academic integrity? Well?
Post by Tony
There are scientific opinions in the article.
Yes. 100% academically unsubstatiated and unauthenticated opinions. So you
will be well advised to get that into your thick skull once and for all and
quit trolling this group.
Post by Tony
Address them or not, as I initially offered.
No matter how persistently your push your can-only-ever-fail approach to a
baiting polemic, you can expect only an "or not" from me and for the 100%
watertight reasons previously put to you loud and clear more than once.
Rubbish.
Lies deleted.
Post by James Christophers
I recommend you do likewise if you wish to be taken seriously.
You believe, apparently, that he needs peer review(s) before he can be taken
seriously.
Therefore the simple logic leads to this conclusion. You (Keith Warren) and
everybody else that posts here need peer reviews before any posts can be taken
seriously.
You see, the thing you have deliberately ignored is that he posetd an article
but without in any way claiming it was an authoritative scientific articel.
In your first post in this thread you referred to data, and now you
claim there are scientific opinions in the article you posted. Your
words, Tony. I ask you now to identify the data or scientific opinions
you are asserting exist in the article . . .
Post by Tony
Only when asked by a commentator did he state his qualifications.
Tony
2021-04-08 03:37:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 07 Apr 2021 22:05:23 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our
climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and
show
it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and
the
messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
And you completely excluded my relevant context-giving material presumably
because the inconvenient truths it lays out about the unprofessional
way
a
provincial hobby-blogger has prosecuted his (polite cough) "argument"
have
you
at a disadvantage.
That is a lie. You did no such thing.>
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could
have
been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of
nonsense
about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Capable certainly, but you have been told exactly why I have not
addressed
it
other than to point out its fundamental weaknesses, in my view too
frequent
and
egregious for the author to be taken seriously; to which I would add,
only
the
biddable susceptible kneels to some provincial hobby-blogger whose published
verbiage lacks the essential support and validation that otherwise
comes
from
peer-group verification and authentication.
You did not on any occasion address the content.
You have earlier been told, and in terms loud and clear, that I am (quote)
**neutral** on issues of climate as such and therefore have (quote)** no
interest** in addressing the content. The only concern I **have** addressed
(but you haven't, to your abiding shame) is the inadequate way the author has
gone about presenting his patently unsubstantiated polemic.
I repeat: Bradford's piece would not even pass first base were it to be
submitted to the kind of intellectual rigour to which such material must always
and rightfully be submitted for it to pass muster.
No it does not have to. He is just as free as you are to post an article. Why
do you want to suppress his ideas? Again!
Irrelevant. If it was not irrelevant every one of your posts should be ignored.
Post by James Christophers
Furthermore, you have been repeatedly and strenuously demanding others - but
not you, of course - to prove what is, essentially, a negative. If this isn't
the congenital fake faking it writ large, then tell me what is.
That is a bare faced lie. I have demanded nothing.
Your increasingly imperious, foot-stamping tone throughout **your** entire
thread is that of one who demands rather than requests. You do rather a lot of
it, too, don't you?
No I don't. You do as we all recognise.
No demands have been made by me - ever in this newsgroup.
Show when and how or fuck off.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
It was an invitation which
you incorrectly and incompetently translated into something "you" wanted.
There was no "translation" of anything on my part, so quit making shit up.
No nothing made up. You have assumed the word demand when it was never implied
let alone used. That is you making shit up.
Post by James Christophers
I have several times given my reasons for addressing not the content
Bradford's total lack of intellectual rigour **only**; an unforgivable lacuna
for a scientist pushing his own (polite cough) "discipline". This is why his
piece as it stands is nothing but polemic. Most of the early responses to it
have reflected this polemical aspect, except for one which simply,
appropriately asks, "Who is this man (Bradford)"?
Talk about imperious. You have not addressed any of his stated scientific
opinions. Not a single one.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
You have not addressed any of the conetent, not one bit.
You really do have something seriously the matter with you. More than once I
rather, I identify his near-total lack of intellectual rigour so serious as to
turn it into a polemic for polemic's sake. Whither academic integrity? Well?
Post by Tony
There are scientific opinions in the article.
Yes. 100% academically unsubstatiated and unauthenticated opinions. So you
will be well advised to get that into your thick skull once and for all and
quit trolling this group.
Post by Tony
Address them or not, as I initially offered.
No matter how persistently your push your can-only-ever-fail approach to a
baiting polemic, you can expect only an "or not" from me and for the 100%
watertight reasons previously put to you loud and clear more than once.
Rubbish.
Lies deleted.
Post by James Christophers
I recommend you do likewise if you wish to be taken seriously.
You believe, apparently, that he needs peer review(s) before he can be taken
seriously.
Therefore the simple logic leads to this conclusion. You (Keith Warren) and
everybody else that posts here need peer reviews before any posts can be taken
seriously.
You see, the thing you have deliberately ignored is that he posetd an article
but without in any way claiming it was an authoritative scientific articel.
In your first post in this thread you referred to data, and now you
claim there are scientific opinions in the article you posted. Your
words, Tony. I ask you now to identify the data or scientific opinions
you are asserting exist in the article . . .
Why don't you break the habit of a lifetime and actually read the article.
There is a large number of opinions which include data.
If you don't believe the data then you are free, as I invited all here to do,
to refute them. You have not done so and neither has Keith Warren. For that
matter nobody else has either but that is OK, those that have not done so have
also not behaved like you two have. They have simply not commented on the data.
Are you and Keith enjoying your tag team childishness?
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Only when asked by a commentator did he state his qualifications.
John Bowes
2021-04-08 07:38:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 07 Apr 2021 22:05:23 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our
climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and
show
it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and
the
messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
And you completely excluded my relevant context-giving material presumably
because the inconvenient truths it lays out about the unprofessional way a
provincial hobby-blogger has prosecuted his (polite cough) "argument"
have
you
at a disadvantage.
That is a lie. You did no such thing.>
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could
have
been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense
about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Capable certainly, but you have been told exactly why I have not
addressed
it
other than to point out its fundamental weaknesses, in my view too
frequent
and
egregious for the author to be taken seriously; to which I would add,
only
the
biddable susceptible kneels to some provincial hobby-blogger whose
published
verbiage lacks the essential support and validation that otherwise comes
from
peer-group verification and authentication.
You did not on any occasion address the content.
You have earlier been told, and in terms loud and clear, that I am (quote)
**neutral** on issues of climate as such and therefore have (quote)** no
interest** in addressing the content. The only concern I **have** addressed
(but you haven't, to your abiding shame) is the inadequate way the author has
gone about presenting his patently unsubstantiated polemic.
I repeat: Bradford's piece would not even pass first base were it to be
submitted to the kind of intellectual rigour to which such material must always
and rightfully be submitted for it to pass muster.
No it does not have to. He is just as free as you are to post an article. Why
do you want to suppress his ideas? Again!
Irrelevant. If it was not irrelevant every one of your posts should be ignored.
Post by James Christophers
Furthermore, you have been repeatedly and strenuously demanding others - but
not you, of course - to prove what is, essentially, a negative. If this isn't
the congenital fake faking it writ large, then tell me what is.
That is a bare faced lie. I have demanded nothing.
Your increasingly imperious, foot-stamping tone throughout **your** entire
thread is that of one who demands rather than requests. You do rather a lot of
it, too, don't you?
No I don't. You do as we all recognise.
No demands have been made by me - ever in this newsgroup.
Show when and how or fuck off.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
It was an invitation which
you incorrectly and incompetently translated into something "you" wanted.
There was no "translation" of anything on my part, so quit making shit up.
No nothing made up. You have assumed the word demand when it was never implied
let alone used. That is you making shit up.
Post by James Christophers
I have several times given my reasons for addressing not the content
Bradford's total lack of intellectual rigour **only**; an unforgivable lacuna
for a scientist pushing his own (polite cough) "discipline". This is why his
piece as it stands is nothing but polemic. Most of the early responses to it
have reflected this polemical aspect, except for one which simply,
appropriately asks, "Who is this man (Bradford)"?
Talk about imperious. You have not addressed any of his stated scientific
opinions. Not a single one.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
You have not addressed any of the conetent, not one bit.
You really do have something seriously the matter with you. More than once I
rather, I identify his near-total lack of intellectual rigour so serious as to
turn it into a polemic for polemic's sake. Whither academic integrity? Well?
Post by Tony
There are scientific opinions in the article.
Yes. 100% academically unsubstatiated and unauthenticated opinions. So you
will be well advised to get that into your thick skull once and for all and
quit trolling this group.
Post by Tony
Address them or not, as I initially offered.
No matter how persistently your push your can-only-ever-fail approach to a
baiting polemic, you can expect only an "or not" from me and for the 100%
watertight reasons previously put to you loud and clear more than once.
Rubbish.
Lies deleted.
Post by James Christophers
I recommend you do likewise if you wish to be taken seriously.
You believe, apparently, that he needs peer review(s) before he can be taken
seriously.
Therefore the simple logic leads to this conclusion. You (Keith Warren) and
everybody else that posts here need peer reviews before any posts can be taken
seriously.
You see, the thing you have deliberately ignored is that he posetd an article
but without in any way claiming it was an authoritative scientific articel.
In your first post in this thread you referred to data, and now you
claim there are scientific opinions in the article you posted. Your
words, Tony. I ask you now to identify the data or scientific opinions
you are asserting exist in the article . . .
Post by Tony
Only when asked by a commentator did he state his qualifications.
Tell me something Rich. IF climate change is settled why do those pushing the UN agenda use the word could rather than the word will in their announcements?
George Black
2021-04-08 19:58:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Only when asked by a commentator did he state his qualifications.
Tell me something Rich. IF climate change is settled why do those pushing the UN agenda use the word could rather than the word will in their announcements?
And all those dire forecasts about the end of the world because global
warming...
We're still here in spite of the BS.
Tide levels are about the same as when the Tide Gauges were put in in
the major harbours.
Weather continues to be weather.
Flooded towns happen because people build cities on flat land or river
deltas without realising that the land is flat because of it being flood
plain and constantly flooding
Nellie the Elephant
2021-04-08 05:50:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 14:38:17 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show
it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the
messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
And you completely excluded my relevant context-giving material presumably
because the inconvenient truths it lays out about the unprofessional way a
provincial hobby-blogger has prosecuted his (polite cough) "argument" have you
at a disadvantage.
That is a lie. You did no such thing.>
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Capable certainly, but you have been told exactly why I have not addressed it
other than to point out its fundamental weaknesses, in my view too frequent and
egregious for the author to be taken seriously; to which I would add, only the
biddable susceptible kneels to some provincial hobby-blogger whose published
verbiage lacks the essential support and validation that otherwise comes from
peer-group verification and authentication.
You did not on any occasion address the content.
You have earlier been told, and in terms loud and clear, that I am (quote)
**neutral** on issues of climate as such and therefore have (quote)** no
interest** in addressing the content. The only concern I **have** addressed
(but you haven't, to your abiding shame) is the inadequate way the author has
gone about presenting his patently unsubstantiated polemic.
I repeat: Bradford's piece would not even pass first base were it to be
submitted to the kind of intellectual rigour to which such material must always
and rightfully be submitted for it to pass muster.
No it does not have to. He is just as free as you are to post an article. Why
do you want to suppress his ideas? Again!
Irrelevant. If it was not irrelevant every one of your posts should be ignored.
Post by James Christophers
Furthermore, you have been repeatedly and strenuously demanding others - but
not you, of course - to prove what is, essentially, a negative. If this isn't
the congenital fake faking it writ large, then tell me what is.
That is a bare faced lie. I have demanded nothing.
Your increasingly imperious, foot-stamping tone throughout **your** entire thread is that of one who demands rather than requests. You do rather a lot of it, too, don't you?
Post by Tony
It was an invitation which
you incorrectly and incompetently translated into something "you" wanted.
There was no "translation" of anything on my part, so quit making shit up.
I have several times given my reasons for addressing not the content Bradford's total lack of intellectual rigour **only**; an unforgivable lacuna for a scientist pushing his own (polite cough) "discipline". This is why his piece as it stands is nothing but polemic. Most of the early responses to it have reflected this polemical aspect, except for one which simply, appropriately asks, "Who is this man (Bradford)"?
Post by Tony
You have not addressed any of the conetent, not one bit.
You really do have something seriously the matter with you. More than once I have given my valid reasons for not addressing Bradford's opinions as put: rather, I identify his near-total lack of intellectual rigour so serious as to turn it into a polemic for polemic's sake. Whither academic integrity? Well?
Post by Tony
There are scientific opinions in the article.
Yes. 100% academically unsubstatiated and unauthenticated opinions. So you will be well advised to get that into your thick skull once and for all and quit trolling this group.
Post by Tony
Address them or not, as I initially offered.
No matter how persistently your push your can-only-ever-fail approach to a baiting polemic, you can expect only an "or not" from me and for the 100% watertight reasons previously put to you loud and clear more than once.
It has been not you but I who has immediately spotted the near-total lack of intellectual rigour in Bradford's piece. You failed to do likewise because Bradford suits your own (polite cough) "thinking", i.e. your characteristically uncritical "done-and-dusted" lack of rigour that pervades so many of your Usenet contributions. Hasty. Shallow. Superficial. I, on the other hand, have approached the piece with the skepticism any hobby blog merits.
I recommend you do likewise if you wish to be taken seriously.
I have watched this "conversation" with much interest. It seems to me
that anybody can express an opinion provided they do so without
hurting other people. The man who wrote the article seems to be
sincere and has not suggested that his opinions are in any way better
than anybody elses.
Why you would expect him to provide reviews of his opinions by others
is way beyond my understanding. Do you do that before you post here?.
Do I do that before I post here? Should we?
And as for Rich 80105, what exactly is his problem?
These and many other questions come to mind but for the moment,
enough.
Perhaps you and Rich 80105 should carefully consider your real
motivations before condemning those that care enough to put "pen to
paper" (so to speak).
Rich80105
2021-04-08 09:49:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 08 Apr 2021 17:50:41 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 14:38:17 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show
it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the
messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
And you completely excluded my relevant context-giving material presumably
because the inconvenient truths it lays out about the unprofessional way a
provincial hobby-blogger has prosecuted his (polite cough) "argument" have you
at a disadvantage.
That is a lie. You did no such thing.>
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Capable certainly, but you have been told exactly why I have not addressed it
other than to point out its fundamental weaknesses, in my view too frequent and
egregious for the author to be taken seriously; to which I would add, only the
biddable susceptible kneels to some provincial hobby-blogger whose published
verbiage lacks the essential support and validation that otherwise comes from
peer-group verification and authentication.
You did not on any occasion address the content.
You have earlier been told, and in terms loud and clear, that I am (quote)
**neutral** on issues of climate as such and therefore have (quote)** no
interest** in addressing the content. The only concern I **have** addressed
(but you haven't, to your abiding shame) is the inadequate way the author has
gone about presenting his patently unsubstantiated polemic.
I repeat: Bradford's piece would not even pass first base were it to be
submitted to the kind of intellectual rigour to which such material must always
and rightfully be submitted for it to pass muster.
No it does not have to. He is just as free as you are to post an article. Why
do you want to suppress his ideas? Again!
Irrelevant. If it was not irrelevant every one of your posts should be ignored.
Post by James Christophers
Furthermore, you have been repeatedly and strenuously demanding others - but
not you, of course - to prove what is, essentially, a negative. If this isn't
the congenital fake faking it writ large, then tell me what is.
That is a bare faced lie. I have demanded nothing.
Your increasingly imperious, foot-stamping tone throughout **your** entire thread is that of one who demands rather than requests. You do rather a lot of it, too, don't you?
Post by Tony
It was an invitation which
you incorrectly and incompetently translated into something "you" wanted.
There was no "translation" of anything on my part, so quit making shit up.
I have several times given my reasons for addressing not the content Bradford's total lack of intellectual rigour **only**; an unforgivable lacuna for a scientist pushing his own (polite cough) "discipline". This is why his piece as it stands is nothing but polemic. Most of the early responses to it have reflected this polemical aspect, except for one which simply, appropriately asks, "Who is this man (Bradford)"?
Post by Tony
You have not addressed any of the conetent, not one bit.
You really do have something seriously the matter with you. More than once I have given my valid reasons for not addressing Bradford's opinions as put: rather, I identify his near-total lack of intellectual rigour so serious as to turn it into a polemic for polemic's sake. Whither academic integrity? Well?
Post by Tony
There are scientific opinions in the article.
Yes. 100% academically unsubstatiated and unauthenticated opinions. So you will be well advised to get that into your thick skull once and for all and quit trolling this group.
Post by Tony
Address them or not, as I initially offered.
No matter how persistently your push your can-only-ever-fail approach to a baiting polemic, you can expect only an "or not" from me and for the 100% watertight reasons previously put to you loud and clear more than once.
It has been not you but I who has immediately spotted the near-total lack of intellectual rigour in Bradford's piece. You failed to do likewise because Bradford suits your own (polite cough) "thinking", i.e. your characteristically uncritical "done-and-dusted" lack of rigour that pervades so many of your Usenet contributions. Hasty. Shallow. Superficial. I, on the other hand, have approached the piece with the skepticism any hobby blog merits.
I recommend you do likewise if you wish to be taken seriously.
I have watched this "conversation" with much interest. It seems to me
that anybody can express an opinion provided they do so without
hurting other people. The man who wrote the article seems to be
sincere and has not suggested that his opinions are in any way better
than anybody elses.
I agree. It is an opinion; he does not pretend it is a scietific
treatise; I suggest to you however that clearly he thought that it was
good enough to go to the effort of putting on his website; clearly he
thought it worthy of others reading it.
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Why you would expect him to provide reviews of his opinions by others
is way beyond my understanding.
No one has asked that of Ian Bradford, but in this thread Tony said:
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people
who believe that man made climate change is a significant contributor
to our climate and that we can actually make a real difference with
fart taxes and similar usually attack the messenger and rarely if ever
address the data. I would genuinely like to see somebody take this
data apart and show it to be wrong. "

Apart from a gratuitous slur against "most people who believe that man
made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate," Tony
has not been prepared to identify the data which he claims can be
"taken apart."
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Do you do that before you post here?.
No, and I suggest Tony has not either. I have not suggested that the
author should, but Tony has implied that the opinions in the Bradford
article should be able top be taken by others as scientifically
convincing - that normally does require a review of the science
backing the expressed opinions, but Tony does not appear to have
understaood that.
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Do I do that before I post here? Should we?
No, nobody has asked you to, and no, opinions should be able to be
treated as opinions without the sort of slurs which Tony has tried to
use to slur those who he thinks do not agree with him.
Post by Nellie the Elephant
And as for Rich 80105, what exactly is his problem?
That Tony is not acting honourable, or politicly, or showing any
common sense.
Post by Nellie the Elephant
These and many other questions come to mind but for the moment,
enough.
Perhaps you and Rich 80105 should carefully consider your real
motivations before condemning those that care enough to put "pen to
paper" (so to speak).
I do not condemn Ian Bradford - he is entitled to his opinions.
Whether others find them convincing is up to those others - for Tony
to imply that opinions are beyond criticism is a fault that he sadly
often demonstrates.
Tony
2021-04-08 21:15:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 08 Apr 2021 17:50:41 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 14:38:17 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our
climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and
show
it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and
the
messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
And you completely excluded my relevant context-giving material presumably
because the inconvenient truths it lays out about the unprofessional way a
provincial hobby-blogger has prosecuted his (polite cough) "argument"
have
you
at a disadvantage.
That is a lie. You did no such thing.>
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could
have
been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of
nonsense
about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Capable certainly, but you have been told exactly why I have not
addressed
it
other than to point out its fundamental weaknesses, in my view too
frequent
and
egregious for the author to be taken seriously; to which I would add,
only
the
biddable susceptible kneels to some provincial hobby-blogger whose published
verbiage lacks the essential support and validation that otherwise
comes
from
peer-group verification and authentication.
You did not on any occasion address the content.
You have earlier been told, and in terms loud and clear, that I am (quote)
**neutral** on issues of climate as such and therefore have (quote)** no
interest** in addressing the content. The only concern I **have** addressed
(but you haven't, to your abiding shame) is the inadequate way the author has
gone about presenting his patently unsubstantiated polemic.
I repeat: Bradford's piece would not even pass first base were it to be
submitted to the kind of intellectual rigour to which such material must always
and rightfully be submitted for it to pass muster.
No it does not have to. He is just as free as you are to post an article. Why
do you want to suppress his ideas? Again!
Irrelevant. If it was not irrelevant every one of your posts should be ignored.
Post by James Christophers
Furthermore, you have been repeatedly and strenuously demanding others - but
not you, of course - to prove what is, essentially, a negative. If this isn't
the congenital fake faking it writ large, then tell me what is.
That is a bare faced lie. I have demanded nothing.
Your increasingly imperious, foot-stamping tone throughout **your** entire
thread is that of one who demands rather than requests. You do rather a lot of
it, too, don't you?
Post by Tony
It was an invitation which
you incorrectly and incompetently translated into something "you" wanted.
There was no "translation" of anything on my part, so quit making shit up.
I have several times given my reasons for addressing not the content
Bradford's total lack of intellectual rigour **only**; an unforgivable lacuna
for a scientist pushing his own (polite cough) "discipline". This is why his
piece as it stands is nothing but polemic. Most of the early responses to it
have reflected this polemical aspect, except for one which simply,
appropriately asks, "Who is this man (Bradford)"?
Post by Tony
You have not addressed any of the conetent, not one bit.
You really do have something seriously the matter with you. More than once
rather, I identify his near-total lack of intellectual rigour so serious as to
turn it into a polemic for polemic's sake. Whither academic integrity? Well?
Post by Tony
There are scientific opinions in the article.
Yes. 100% academically unsubstatiated and unauthenticated opinions. So you
will be well advised to get that into your thick skull once and for all and
quit trolling this group.
Post by Tony
Address them or not, as I initially offered.
No matter how persistently your push your can-only-ever-fail approach to a
baiting polemic, you can expect only an "or not" from me and for the 100%
watertight reasons previously put to you loud and clear more than once.
It has been not you but I who has immediately spotted the near-total lack of
intellectual rigour in Bradford's piece. You failed to do likewise because
Bradford suits your own (polite cough) "thinking", i.e. your characteristically
uncritical "done-and-dusted" lack of rigour that pervades so many of your
Usenet contributions. Hasty. Shallow. Superficial. I, on the other hand, have
approached the piece with the skepticism any hobby blog merits.
I recommend you do likewise if you wish to be taken seriously.
I have watched this "conversation" with much interest. It seems to me
that anybody can express an opinion provided they do so without
hurting other people. The man who wrote the article seems to be
sincere and has not suggested that his opinions are in any way better
than anybody elses.
I agree. It is an opinion; he does not pretend it is a scietific
treatise; I suggest to you however that clearly he thought that it was
good enough to go to the effort of putting on his website; clearly he
thought it worthy of others reading it.
Then why do you want it peer reviewed?
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Why you would expect him to provide reviews of his opinions by others
is way beyond my understanding.
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people
who believe that man made climate change is a significant contributor
to our climate and that we can actually make a real difference with
fart taxes and similar usually attack the messenger and rarely if ever
address the data. I would genuinely like to see somebody take this
data apart and show it to be wrong. "
Apart from a gratuitous slur against "most people who believe that man
made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate," Tony
has not been prepared to identify the data which he claims can be
"taken apart."
There was no gratuitous slur. I have identified the data - it is the entire
article which I made perfectly clear in the first post.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Do you do that before you post here?.
No, and I suggest Tony has not either. I have not suggested that the
author should, but Tony has implied that the opinions in the Bradford
article should be able top be taken by others as scientifically
convincing - that normally does require a review of the science
backing the expressed opinions, but Tony does not appear to have
understaood that.
Absolute rubbish - the article was not, repeat, not posted as a scientific
paper and I have stated that here several times. It therefore does not need
peer review.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Do I do that before I post here? Should we?
No, nobody has asked you to, and no, opinions should be able to be
treated as opinions without the sort of slurs which Tony has tried to
use to slur those who he thinks do not agree with him.
That is a lie, I have not, repeat, not in this thread provided an opinion as to
whether the Ian Bradford article is correct or not.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
And as for Rich 80105, what exactly is his problem?
That Tony is not acting honourable, or politicly, or showing any
common sense.
It is you that is dishomourable in lying repeatedly.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
These and many other questions come to mind but for the moment,
enough.
Perhaps you and Rich 80105 should carefully consider your real
motivations before condemning those that care enough to put "pen to
paper" (so to speak).
I do not condemn Ian Bradford - he is entitled to his opinions.
Whether others find them convincing is up to those others - for Tony
to imply that opinions are beyond criticism is a fault that he sadly
often demonstrates.
Liar. I have never implied that. Your problem is that I once called you out for
a serious defamation and have many times caught you in childish lies. And you
are are now behaving in your natural spiteful and childish way.
Nellie the Elephant
2021-04-09 00:39:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 08 Apr 2021 17:50:41 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 14:38:17 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show
it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the
messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
And you completely excluded my relevant context-giving material presumably
because the inconvenient truths it lays out about the unprofessional way a
provincial hobby-blogger has prosecuted his (polite cough) "argument" have
you
at a disadvantage.
That is a lie. You did no such thing.>
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have
been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense
about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Capable certainly, but you have been told exactly why I have not addressed it
other than to point out its fundamental weaknesses, in my view too frequent
and
egregious for the author to be taken seriously; to which I would add, only
the
biddable susceptible kneels to some provincial hobby-blogger whose published
verbiage lacks the essential support and validation that otherwise comes from
peer-group verification and authentication.
You did not on any occasion address the content.
You have earlier been told, and in terms loud and clear, that I am (quote)
**neutral** on issues of climate as such and therefore have (quote)** no
interest** in addressing the content. The only concern I **have** addressed
(but you haven't, to your abiding shame) is the inadequate way the author has
gone about presenting his patently unsubstantiated polemic.
I repeat: Bradford's piece would not even pass first base were it to be
submitted to the kind of intellectual rigour to which such material must always
and rightfully be submitted for it to pass muster.
No it does not have to. He is just as free as you are to post an article. Why
do you want to suppress his ideas? Again!
Irrelevant. If it was not irrelevant every one of your posts should be ignored.
Post by James Christophers
Furthermore, you have been repeatedly and strenuously demanding others - but
not you, of course - to prove what is, essentially, a negative. If this isn't
the congenital fake faking it writ large, then tell me what is.
That is a bare faced lie. I have demanded nothing.
Your increasingly imperious, foot-stamping tone throughout **your** entire thread is that of one who demands rather than requests. You do rather a lot of it, too, don't you?
Post by Tony
It was an invitation which
you incorrectly and incompetently translated into something "you" wanted.
There was no "translation" of anything on my part, so quit making shit up.
I have several times given my reasons for addressing not the content Bradford's total lack of intellectual rigour **only**; an unforgivable lacuna for a scientist pushing his own (polite cough) "discipline". This is why his piece as it stands is nothing but polemic. Most of the early responses to it have reflected this polemical aspect, except for one which simply, appropriately asks, "Who is this man (Bradford)"?
Post by Tony
You have not addressed any of the conetent, not one bit.
You really do have something seriously the matter with you. More than once I have given my valid reasons for not addressing Bradford's opinions as put: rather, I identify his near-total lack of intellectual rigour so serious as to turn it into a polemic for polemic's sake. Whither academic integrity? Well?
Post by Tony
There are scientific opinions in the article.
Yes. 100% academically unsubstatiated and unauthenticated opinions. So you will be well advised to get that into your thick skull once and for all and quit trolling this group.
Post by Tony
Address them or not, as I initially offered.
No matter how persistently your push your can-only-ever-fail approach to a baiting polemic, you can expect only an "or not" from me and for the 100% watertight reasons previously put to you loud and clear more than once.
It has been not you but I who has immediately spotted the near-total lack of intellectual rigour in Bradford's piece. You failed to do likewise because Bradford suits your own (polite cough) "thinking", i.e. your characteristically uncritical "done-and-dusted" lack of rigour that pervades so many of your Usenet contributions. Hasty. Shallow. Superficial. I, on the other hand, have approached the piece with the skepticism any hobby blog merits.
I recommend you do likewise if you wish to be taken seriously.
I have watched this "conversation" with much interest. It seems to me
that anybody can express an opinion provided they do so without
hurting other people. The man who wrote the article seems to be
sincere and has not suggested that his opinions are in any way better
than anybody elses.
I agree. It is an opinion; he does not pretend it is a scietific
treatise; I suggest to you however that clearly he thought that it was
good enough to go to the effort of putting on his website; clearly he
thought it worthy of others reading it.
Not actuallly his website, I have carefully followed up and the blog
is managed by someone else.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Why you would expect him to provide reviews of his opinions by others
is way beyond my understanding.
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people
who believe that man made climate change is a significant contributor
to our climate and that we can actually make a real difference with
fart taxes and similar usually attack the messenger and rarely if ever
address the data. I would genuinely like to see somebody take this
data apart and show it to be wrong. "
That is a reasonable request is it not? His comment about most of
those that believe in the "an-made" theory actually do tend to
disrespect those that do not subscribe to that theory. This I know to
be true.
Post by Rich80105
Apart from a gratuitous slur against "most people who believe that man
made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate," Tony
has not been prepared to identify the data which he claims can be
"taken apart."
He has said many times, and it is implicit in your quote above, that
he is asking for commentary on any part of the article. Don't you
think you are being a bit picky?
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Do you do that before you post here?.
No, and I suggest Tony has not either. I have not suggested that the
author should, but Tony has implied that the opinions in the Bradford
article should be able top be taken by others as scientifically
convincing
I do not believe he has implied that, I cannot find that reference,
Can you?
Post by Rich80105
- that normally does require a review of the science
backing the expressed opinions, but Tony does not appear to have
understaood that.
Once more, picky?
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Do I do that before I post here? Should we?
No, nobody has asked you to, and no, opinions should be able to be
treated as opinions without the sort of slurs which Tony has tried to
use to slur those who he thinks do not agree with him.
Like what?
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
And as for Rich 80105, what exactly is his problem?
That Tony is not acting honourable, or politicly, or showing any
common sense.
In what way? And what is the poltical angle you mjention?
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
These and many other questions come to mind but for the moment,
enough.
Perhaps you and Rich 80105 should carefully consider your real
motivations before condemning those that care enough to put "pen to
paper" (so to speak).
I do not condemn Ian Bradford - he is entitled to his opinions.
Whether others find them convincing is up to those others - for Tony
to imply that opinions are beyond criticism is a fault that he sadly
often demonstrates.
I cannot find a reference to that either, Can you?

As a comment it seems to me that your sole intent in this particular
discussion is to find fault with this Tony. And it also seems to me
that your real focus is not on this discussion but with past
interractions. Is that correct?
My profession requires me to be disciplined so that I focus on the
'now' and not on petty past grievances. I have to ignore extraneous
distractions. I think we should all do that if we wish to discover any
truths.
Rich80105
2021-04-09 03:33:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 09 Apr 2021 12:39:22 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 08 Apr 2021 17:50:41 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 14:38:17 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show
it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the
messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
And you completely excluded my relevant context-giving material presumably
because the inconvenient truths it lays out about the unprofessional way a
provincial hobby-blogger has prosecuted his (polite cough) "argument" have
you
at a disadvantage.
That is a lie. You did no such thing.>
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have
been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense
about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Capable certainly, but you have been told exactly why I have not addressed
it
other than to point out its fundamental weaknesses, in my view too frequent
and
egregious for the author to be taken seriously; to which I would add, only
the
biddable susceptible kneels to some provincial hobby-blogger whose
published
verbiage lacks the essential support and validation that otherwise comes
from
peer-group verification and authentication.
You did not on any occasion address the content.
You have earlier been told, and in terms loud and clear, that I am (quote)
**neutral** on issues of climate as such and therefore have (quote)** no
interest** in addressing the content. The only concern I **have** addressed
(but you haven't, to your abiding shame) is the inadequate way the author has
gone about presenting his patently unsubstantiated polemic.
I repeat: Bradford's piece would not even pass first base were it to be
submitted to the kind of intellectual rigour to which such material must always
and rightfully be submitted for it to pass muster.
No it does not have to. He is just as free as you are to post an article. Why
do you want to suppress his ideas? Again!
Irrelevant. If it was not irrelevant every one of your posts should be ignored.
Post by James Christophers
Furthermore, you have been repeatedly and strenuously demanding others - but
not you, of course - to prove what is, essentially, a negative. If this isn't
the congenital fake faking it writ large, then tell me what is.
That is a bare faced lie. I have demanded nothing.
Your increasingly imperious, foot-stamping tone throughout **your** entire thread is that of one who demands rather than requests. You do rather a lot of it, too, don't you?
Post by Tony
It was an invitation which
you incorrectly and incompetently translated into something "you" wanted.
There was no "translation" of anything on my part, so quit making shit up.
I have several times given my reasons for addressing not the content Bradford's total lack of intellectual rigour **only**; an unforgivable lacuna for a scientist pushing his own (polite cough) "discipline". This is why his piece as it stands is nothing but polemic. Most of the early responses to it have reflected this polemical aspect, except for one which simply, appropriately asks, "Who is this man (Bradford)"?
Post by Tony
You have not addressed any of the conetent, not one bit.
You really do have something seriously the matter with you. More than once I have given my valid reasons for not addressing Bradford's opinions as put: rather, I identify his near-total lack of intellectual rigour so serious as to turn it into a polemic for polemic's sake. Whither academic integrity? Well?
Post by Tony
There are scientific opinions in the article.
Yes. 100% academically unsubstatiated and unauthenticated opinions. So you will be well advised to get that into your thick skull once and for all and quit trolling this group.
Post by Tony
Address them or not, as I initially offered.
No matter how persistently your push your can-only-ever-fail approach to a baiting polemic, you can expect only an "or not" from me and for the 100% watertight reasons previously put to you loud and clear more than once.
It has been not you but I who has immediately spotted the near-total lack of intellectual rigour in Bradford's piece. You failed to do likewise because Bradford suits your own (polite cough) "thinking", i.e. your characteristically uncritical "done-and-dusted" lack of rigour that pervades so many of your Usenet contributions. Hasty. Shallow. Superficial. I, on the other hand, have approached the piece with the skepticism any hobby blog merits.
I recommend you do likewise if you wish to be taken seriously.
I have watched this "conversation" with much interest. It seems to me
that anybody can express an opinion provided they do so without
hurting other people. The man who wrote the article seems to be
sincere and has not suggested that his opinions are in any way better
than anybody elses.
I agree. It is an opinion; he does not pretend it is a scietific
treatise; I suggest to you however that clearly he thought that it was
good enough to go to the effort of putting on his website; clearly he
thought it worthy of others reading it.
Not actuallly his website, I have carefully followed up and the blog
is managed by someone else.
Yes you are correct. from https://waikanaewatch.org/about/ : "This
blog was begun at the time Geoffrey Churchman stood for the council
by-election in the Waikanae Ward in January 2015 to express policy
stances and has been continued by him, Eva Churchman and others as a
forum for news, views and ideas about things which have a relevance in
some way to Waikanae people.
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Why you would expect him to provide reviews of his opinions by others
is way beyond my understanding.
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people
who believe that man made climate change is a significant contributor
to our climate and that we can actually make a real difference with
fart taxes and similar usually attack the messenger and rarely if ever
address the data. I would genuinely like to see somebody take this
data apart and show it to be wrong. "
That is a reasonable request is it not? His comment about most of
those that believe in the "an-made" theory actually do tend to
disrespect those that do not subscribe to that theory. This I know to
be true.
The comments are however unhelpful for reasoned discourse. I attempted
to analyse the article but it lacks references - I was not able to
find various reported statements by the UN, or any reason to suppose
that an opinion given in 1989 remains relevant today. Trying to meet
the request of Tony only results in more personal abuse - why wouuld
anyone want to bother?
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
Apart from a gratuitous slur against "most people who believe that man
made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate," Tony
has not been prepared to identify the data which he claims can be
"taken apart."
He has said many times, and it is implicit in your quote above, that
he is asking for commentary on any part of the article. Don't you
think you are being a bit picky?
No - the article appears now to be a personal opinion without readily
verifiable sources for quotations. Arguments on these issues are rife
with such statements (and to be fair they are made by supporters of us
taking action as well as those not wanting action to be taken).
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Do you do that before you post here?.
No, and I suggest Tony has not either. I have not suggested that the
author should, but Tony has implied that the opinions in the Bradford
article should be able top be taken by others as scientifically
convincing
I do not believe he has implied that, I cannot find that reference,
Can you?
He said:"" I would genuinely like to see somebody take this
data apart and show it to be wrong."". It is difficult to prove that
an opinion, without by references to support statements, and without
data, to be ''taken apart and shown to be wrong". Tony has implied
that lack of convincing argument against the opinions expressed is
effectively an endoresement of them - I think that is in another
sub-thread.
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
- that normally does require a review of the science
backing the expressed opinions, but Tony does not appear to have
understaood that.
Once more, picky?
No.
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Do I do that before I post here? Should we?
No, nobody has asked you to, and no, opinions should be able to be
treated as opinions without the sort of slurs which Tony has tried to
use to slur those who he thinks do not agree with him.
Like what?
" most people who believe that man made climate change is a
significant contributor to our climate and that we can actually make a
real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack the
messenger and rarely if ever address the data. "
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
And as for Rich 80105, what exactly is his problem?
That Tony is not acting honourable, or politicly, or showing any
common sense.
In what way? And what is the poltical angle you mjention?
Tony consistently takes a partisan political view of many things. The
term "fart tax" was coined by National Party politicians - it always
overstated a problem, which was actually with belches rather than
farts, and which science has partically reduced anyway. Not even
National politicians use the term any more. He sees party politics in
threads where such considerations are irrelevant.
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
These and many other questions come to mind but for the moment,
enough.
Perhaps you and Rich 80105 should carefully consider your real
motivations before condemning those that care enough to put "pen to
paper" (so to speak).
I do not condemn Ian Bradford - he is entitled to his opinions.
Whether others find them convincing is up to those others - for Tony
to imply that opinions are beyond criticism is a fault that he sadly
often demonstrates.
I cannot find a reference to that either, Can you?
As a comment it seems to me that your sole intent in this particular
discussion is to find fault with this Tony. And it also seems to me
that your real focus is not on this discussion but with past
interractions. Is that correct?
My profession requires me to be disciplined so that I focus on the
'now' and not on petty past grievances. I have to ignore extraneous
distractions. I think we should all do that if we wish to discover any
truths.
That is a fair comment. We should all perhaps try to take each new
thread as a stand-alone discussion - but you will appreciate that this
is not always easy to do.
Nellie the Elephant
2021-04-09 04:05:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 09 Apr 2021 12:39:22 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 08 Apr 2021 17:50:41 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 14:38:17 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who
believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate
and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar
usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show
it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the
messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
And you completely excluded my relevant context-giving material presumably
because the inconvenient truths it lays out about the unprofessional way a
provincial hobby-blogger has prosecuted his (polite cough) "argument" have
you
at a disadvantage.
That is a lie. You did no such thing.>
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have
been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense
about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Capable certainly, but you have been told exactly why I have not addressed
it
other than to point out its fundamental weaknesses, in my view too frequent
and
egregious for the author to be taken seriously; to which I would add, only
the
biddable susceptible kneels to some provincial hobby-blogger whose
published
verbiage lacks the essential support and validation that otherwise comes
from
peer-group verification and authentication.
You did not on any occasion address the content.
You have earlier been told, and in terms loud and clear, that I am (quote)
**neutral** on issues of climate as such and therefore have (quote)** no
interest** in addressing the content. The only concern I **have** addressed
(but you haven't, to your abiding shame) is the inadequate way the author has
gone about presenting his patently unsubstantiated polemic.
I repeat: Bradford's piece would not even pass first base were it to be
submitted to the kind of intellectual rigour to which such material must always
and rightfully be submitted for it to pass muster.
No it does not have to. He is just as free as you are to post an article. Why
do you want to suppress his ideas? Again!
Irrelevant. If it was not irrelevant every one of your posts should be ignored.
Post by James Christophers
Furthermore, you have been repeatedly and strenuously demanding others - but
not you, of course - to prove what is, essentially, a negative. If this isn't
the congenital fake faking it writ large, then tell me what is.
That is a bare faced lie. I have demanded nothing.
Your increasingly imperious, foot-stamping tone throughout **your** entire thread is that of one who demands rather than requests. You do rather a lot of it, too, don't you?
Post by Tony
It was an invitation which
you incorrectly and incompetently translated into something "you" wanted.
There was no "translation" of anything on my part, so quit making shit up.
I have several times given my reasons for addressing not the content Bradford's total lack of intellectual rigour **only**; an unforgivable lacuna for a scientist pushing his own (polite cough) "discipline". This is why his piece as it stands is nothing but polemic. Most of the early responses to it have reflected this polemical aspect, except for one which simply, appropriately asks, "Who is this man (Bradford)"?
Post by Tony
You have not addressed any of the conetent, not one bit.
You really do have something seriously the matter with you. More than once I have given my valid reasons for not addressing Bradford's opinions as put: rather, I identify his near-total lack of intellectual rigour so serious as to turn it into a polemic for polemic's sake. Whither academic integrity? Well?
Post by Tony
There are scientific opinions in the article.
Yes. 100% academically unsubstatiated and unauthenticated opinions. So you will be well advised to get that into your thick skull once and for all and quit trolling this group.
Post by Tony
Address them or not, as I initially offered.
No matter how persistently your push your can-only-ever-fail approach to a baiting polemic, you can expect only an "or not" from me and for the 100% watertight reasons previously put to you loud and clear more than once.
It has been not you but I who has immediately spotted the near-total lack of intellectual rigour in Bradford's piece. You failed to do likewise because Bradford suits your own (polite cough) "thinking", i.e. your characteristically uncritical "done-and-dusted" lack of rigour that pervades so many of your Usenet contributions. Hasty. Shallow. Superficial. I, on the other hand, have approached the piece with the skepticism any hobby blog merits.
I recommend you do likewise if you wish to be taken seriously.
I have watched this "conversation" with much interest. It seems to me
that anybody can express an opinion provided they do so without
hurting other people. The man who wrote the article seems to be
sincere and has not suggested that his opinions are in any way better
than anybody elses.
I agree. It is an opinion; he does not pretend it is a scietific
treatise; I suggest to you however that clearly he thought that it was
good enough to go to the effort of putting on his website; clearly he
thought it worthy of others reading it.
Not actuallly his website, I have carefully followed up and the blog
is managed by someone else.
Yes you are correct. from https://waikanaewatch.org/about/ : "This
blog was begun at the time Geoffrey Churchman stood for the council
by-election in the Waikanae Ward in January 2015 to express policy
stances and has been continued by him, Eva Churchman and others as a
forum for news, views and ideas about things which have a relevance in
some way to Waikanae people.
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Why you would expect him to provide reviews of his opinions by others
is way beyond my understanding.
"It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong
actually addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people
who believe that man made climate change is a significant contributor
to our climate and that we can actually make a real difference with
fart taxes and similar usually attack the messenger and rarely if ever
address the data. I would genuinely like to see somebody take this
data apart and show it to be wrong. "
That is a reasonable request is it not? His comment about most of
those that believe in the "an-made" theory actually do tend to
disrespect those that do not subscribe to that theory. This I know to
be true.
The comments are however unhelpful for reasoned discourse. I attempted
to analyse the article but it lacks references - I was not able to
find various reported statements by the UN, or any reason to suppose
that an opinion given in 1989 remains relevant today. Trying to meet
the request of Tony only results in more personal abuse - why wouuld
anyone want to bother?
I saw no personal abuse. Can you provide that information?
BTW you are not without sin in that regard.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
Apart from a gratuitous slur against "most people who believe that man
made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate," Tony
has not been prepared to identify the data which he claims can be
"taken apart."
He has said many times, and it is implicit in your quote above, that
he is asking for commentary on any part of the article. Don't you
think you are being a bit picky?
No - the article appears now to be a personal opinion without readily
verifiable sources for quotations. Arguments on these issues are rife
with such statements (and to be fair they are made by supporters of us
taking action as well as those not wanting action to be taken).
That is not the fault of the Tony poster is it?
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Do you do that before you post here?.
No, and I suggest Tony has not either. I have not suggested that the
author should, but Tony has implied that the opinions in the Bradford
article should be able top be taken by others as scientifically
convincing
I do not believe he has implied that, I cannot find that reference,
Can you?
He said:"" I would genuinely like to see somebody take this
data apart and show it to be wrong."". It is difficult to prove that
an opinion, without by references to support statements, and without
data, to be ''taken apart and shown to be wrong". Tony has implied
that lack of convincing argument against the opinions expressed is
effectively an endoresement of them - I think that is in another
sub-thread.
No that is not correct, your logic is faulty.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
- that normally does require a review of the science
backing the expressed opinions, but Tony does not appear to have
understaood that.
Once more, picky?
No.
Really?
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Do I do that before I post here? Should we?
No, nobody has asked you to, and no, opinions should be able to be
treated as opinions without the sort of slurs which Tony has tried to
use to slur those who he thinks do not agree with him.
Like what?
" most people who believe that man made climate change is a
significant contributor to our climate and that we can actually make a
real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack the
messenger and rarely if ever address the data. "
Oh come now, that is almost precious.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
And as for Rich 80105, what exactly is his problem?
That Tony is not acting honourable, or politicly, or showing any
common sense.
In what way? And what is the poltical angle you mjention?
Tony consistently takes a partisan political view of many things. The
term "fart tax" was coined by National Party politicians - it always
overstated a problem, which was actually with belches rather than
farts, and which science has partically reduced anyway. Not even
National politicians use the term any more. He sees party politics in
threads where such considerations are irrelevant.
More partisan than you? Really?
He claims to be apolitical, can you do the same?
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
These and many other questions come to mind but for the moment,
enough.
Perhaps you and Rich 80105 should carefully consider your real
motivations before condemning those that care enough to put "pen to
paper" (so to speak).
I do not condemn Ian Bradford - he is entitled to his opinions.
Whether others find them convincing is up to those others - for Tony
to imply that opinions are beyond criticism is a fault that he sadly
often demonstrates.
I cannot find a reference to that either, Can you?
As a comment it seems to me that your sole intent in this particular
discussion is to find fault with this Tony. And it also seems to me
that your real focus is not on this discussion but with past
interractions. Is that correct?
My profession requires me to be disciplined so that I focus on the
'now' and not on petty past grievances. I have to ignore extraneous
distractions. I think we should all do that if we wish to discover any
truths.
That is a fair comment. We should all perhaps try to take each new
thread as a stand-alone discussion - but you will appreciate that this
is not always easy to do.
It is easy for me, why not for others is a constant question for me.
John Bowes
2021-04-07 05:18:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe
that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and
that
we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually
attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it
to
be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the
messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
And you completely excluded my relevant context-giving material presumably
because the inconvenient truths it lays out about the unprofessional way a
provincial hobby-blogger has prosecuted his (polite cough) "argument" have you
at a disadvantage.
That is a lie. You did no such thing.>
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I posted an article, it happened to be by a geophysicist. It could have been
by anybody.
But Keith Warren can only bluster his way through a tirade of nonsense about
the author. He is incapable of addressing the content.
Capable certainly, but you have been told exactly why I have not addressed it
other than to point out its fundamental weaknesses, in my view too frequent and
egregious for the author to be taken seriously; to which I would add, only the
biddable susceptible kneels to some provincial hobby-blogger whose published
verbiage lacks the essential support and validation that otherwise comes from
peer-group verification and authentication.
You did not on any occasion address the content.
You have earlier been told, and in terms loud and clear, that I am (quote) **neutral** on issues of climate as such and therefore have (quote)** no interest** in addressing the content. The only concern I **have** addressed (but you haven't, to your abiding shame) is the inadequate way the author has gone about presenting his patently unsubstantiated polemic.
I repeat: Bradford's piece would not even pass first base were it to be submitted to the kind of intellectual rigour to which such material must always and rightfully be submitted for it to pass muster.
Furthermore, you have been repeatedly and strenuously demanding others - but not you, of course - to prove what is, essentially, a negative. If this isn't the congenital fake faking it writ large, then tell me what is.
Then why the hell are you continuing to burble out of context bullshit day after day? You're talking shit here Keith and you fucking know it!
Crash
2021-04-08 20:31:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 05 Apr 2021 00:04:52 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and that we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it to be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
On the second occasion I posted this Rich picked up on two trivial parts of the
article and ignored the important parts, then followed up with abuse and lies.
My apologies to those who are not interested in the article and that is fine.
Democracy at work some of us might say.
I am not sure how accurate the article is and I have made that abundantly
clear, at least to those who bothered to read.
One of the things that has been said is that there are no peer reviews. So be
it, that does not mean it is worthless. All of us here post without peer
reviews, that is OK apparently but not for the author.
Those that do not believe the article is accurate have posted no articles that
disagree with the author. Interesting that!
Despite what has been written I have not agreed or disagreed with the content,
all I am interested in is a balanced set of opinions. A seeker after truth only.
Take it or ignore it, that's fine. Take care.
Like you, I am interested in Ian Bradford's post as in your cite. It
is hard to separate the argument that we currently have 'global
warming' from the argument that it is man-made and will lead to a
threat to human survival. Ian Bradford does just this and advances
his evidence that current trends in increased CO2 emissions are far
from toxic to humans.

In a follow-up comment on the article Bradford says: "CO2 is not
poisonous in itself. It becomes a problem because it displaces oxygen
and that leads to breathing difficulties. Concentration has to be
400,000 ppm. We are at 400ppm at present. We have never gone over
7000ppm way back in geologicql time.". I would be interested if
anyone can substantively prove this wrong because if so all the claims
that Bradford makes fail.


--
Crash McBash
Tony
2021-04-08 21:05:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Mon, 05 Apr 2021 00:04:52 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/03/31/the-myths-of-climate-change-1/
It would be nice if anybody here who believes this to be wrong actually
addresses the data and opinions stated. However most people who believe that
man made climate change is a significant contributor to our climate and that we
can actually make a real difference with fart taxes and similar usually attack
the messenger and rarely if ever address the data.
I would genuinely like to see somebody take this data apart and show it to be
wrong.
The first time I posted this Keith Warren attacked the author and the messenger
and made no attempt to address the content.
On the second occasion I posted this Rich picked up on two trivial parts of the
article and ignored the important parts, then followed up with abuse and lies.
My apologies to those who are not interested in the article and that is fine.
Democracy at work some of us might say.
I am not sure how accurate the article is and I have made that abundantly
clear, at least to those who bothered to read.
One of the things that has been said is that there are no peer reviews. So be
it, that does not mean it is worthless. All of us here post without peer
reviews, that is OK apparently but not for the author.
Those that do not believe the article is accurate have posted no articles that
disagree with the author. Interesting that!
Despite what has been written I have not agreed or disagreed with the content,
all I am interested in is a balanced set of opinions. A seeker after truth only.
Take it or ignore it, that's fine. Take care.
Like you, I am interested in Ian Bradford's post as in your cite. It
is hard to separate the argument that we currently have 'global
warming' from the argument that it is man-made and will lead to a
threat to human survival. Ian Bradford does just this and advances
his evidence that current trends in increased CO2 emissions are far
from toxic to humans.
In a follow-up comment on the article Bradford says: "CO2 is not
poisonous in itself. It becomes a problem because it displaces oxygen
and that leads to breathing difficulties. Concentration has to be
400,000 ppm. We are at 400ppm at present. We have never gone over
7000ppm way back in geologicql time.". I would be interested if
anyone can substantively prove this wrong because if so all the claims
that Bradford makes fail.
--
Crash McBash
Crash thank you. Your post is indeed a breath of fresh air. I do not know
whether Ian Bradford's article is valid or not and all I asked was whether
anybody could address the article's content. Until your post there was no
attempt to do so. Hopefully we will get some knowledge.
Loading...