Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, sexton said:

Factcheck? A couple of paragraphs of conjecture.

By all means actually read the article, written by someone with masters degrees in environmental science from Yale University and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. And then click on the links within that article to the individual papers, such as Holocene Thinning of the Greenland Ice Sheet by Vinther et al of the Centre for Ice and Climate at the University of Copenhagen - and then perhaps click on the 30 studies referenced by that one paper, such as Rasmussen's A New Greenland Ice Core Chronology for the Last Glacial Termination and Marcott et al A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years. You were the one who brought up the Greenland Ice Sheet Project. The project is funded by Denmark, Switzerland and the US, so you could at least read their own findings.

All these professional scientists, from all these institutions, drilling cores in the Greenland ice cap, collecting data, analyzing the results, publishing their findings, challenging each other's conclusions, all this combined scientific knowledge - versus some random posters on the House Price Crash website forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Orsino said:

All these professional scientists, from all these institutions, drilling cores in the Greenland ice cap, collecting data, analyzing the results, publishing their findings, challenging each other's conclusions, all this combined scientific knowledge - versus some random posters on the House Price Crash website forum.

Your ability to just ignore things that don't fit your facts is breath taking

1558012995097.jpg.86f9227782167d826a93bf537618aa56.jpg

 

 

https://www.cfact.org/2019/10/01/mann-hayhoe-caught-falsifyine-temperature-history-to-erase-medieval-warm-period/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, chronyx said:

Your ability to just ignore things that don't fit your facts is breath taking

1558012995097.jpg.86f9227782167d826a93bf537618aa56.jpg

 

Your ability to fit facts to the ignorance you believe is breath taking. 

 

 

20191009_230745.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony Heller (or Steven Goddard if you prefer) has received some ad hominem attacks on this thread but I must say that usually I find the factual data presented in his YouTube videos rather convincing.

A typical example is his latest:

Or am I missing something in Katharine Hayhoe's methodology? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, byron78 said:

Your ability to fit facts to the ignorance you believe is breath taking. 

20191009_230745.jpg

I like this game!

Your total lack of awareness of 'spin' is breathtaking.

Count those words and plot them on a graph if it helps. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chronyx said:

Your ability to just ignore things that don't fit your facts is breath taking

Oh yes, your 'fact' of tens of thousands of scientists at thousands of academic institutions around the world conspiring secretly together to falsify the data on man made climate change and obscure the truth, which only self-declared 'idiot trolls' like yourself know? 

Politifake.org - which sounds exactly the kind of place I'd expect you to get your swivel-eyed theories - doesn't even seem to exist. And the cFact.org article you cite is written by a lawyer and professional poker player. Face it, you're a busted flush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Record early snow back in September, ten below zero this morning, another 'historic' snowstorm on the way. But it's totally 'the warmest year EVER!'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Orsino said:

By all means actually read the article, written by someone with masters degrees in environmental science from Yale University and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. And then click on the links within that article to the individual papers, such as Holocene Thinning of the Greenland Ice Sheet by Vinther et al of the Centre for Ice and Climate at the University of Copenhagen - and then perhaps click on the 30 studies referenced by that one paper, such as Rasmussen's A New Greenland Ice Core Chronology for the Last Glacial Termination and Marcott et al A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years. You were the one who brought up the Greenland Ice Sheet Project. The project is funded by Denmark, Switzerland and the US, so you could at least read their own findings.

All these professional scientists, from all these institutions, drilling cores in the Greenland ice cap, collecting data, analyzing the results, publishing their findings, challenging each other's conclusions, all this combined scientific knowledge - versus some random posters on the House Price Crash website forum.

Interesting to see that the temperature can drop 3 degrees in a couple of hundred years. What is to stop that happening again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, chronyx said:

I like this game!

Your total lack of awareness of 'spin' is breathtaking.

Count those words and plot them on a graph if it helps. :)

 

20191009_231205.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like others have mentioned on here, if we are all serious about "saving the planet", then the current system of continuous growth and consumption has to end.

Being resourceful is the way we all need to go imo.  Fixing things and not replacing working items because we all fancy a change.

It really depends if anyone actually cares enough to change, as the current system is set up to waste resources, not conserve them.

 

Edited by Social Justice League
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, byron78 said:

 

20191009_231205.jpg

OK. What if I said I just plain don't believe them?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, chronyx said:

OK. What if I said I just plain don't believe them?  

Why? 

Based on what? James Delingpole (Heart Institute again) and Russian climate skeptic propaganda websites? 

Forgive me if they don't exactly look like a better source than thousands of highly educated (and very competitive) experts. 

You are of course entitled to believe what you want. My mum was what they'd call a Creationist these days. Belief is a powerful thing but rarely logical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, byron78 said:

Why? 

Based on what? James Delingpole (Heart Institute again) and Russian climate skeptic propaganda websites? 

Forgive me if they don't exactly look like a better source than thousands of highly educated (and very competitive) experts. 

You are of course entitled to believe what you want. My mum was what they'd call a Creationist these days. Belief is a powerful thing but rarely logical. 

What's the point in me detailing why? I pointed out carbonfact was part funded by Rockefeller oil money and yet that's OK because it's the right kind of science? 

Believing everything government and Big Science tells you is hardly logical.  Low fat diets and heart disease anyone? High house prices being good? Plenty of "independent economists" happy to back that one up! (Cue Orsino now using that in the big list of copy paste replies, as thought climate science - Which ever side you fall on - is independent of and cannot be associated with reality)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, chronyx said:

What's the point in me detailing why? I pointed out carbonfact was part funded by Rockefeller oil money and yet that's OK because it's the right kind of science? 

Believing everything government and Big Science tells you is hardly logical.  Low fat diets and heart disease anyone? High house prices being good? Plenty of "independent economists" happy to back that one up! (Cue Orsino now using that in the big list of copy paste replies, as thought climate science - Which ever side you fall on - is independent of and cannot be associated with reality)

There's so much mad here but... 

The Rockefeller oil money was at least spent on science. My point about oil and gas funding the Heartland Institute and all the other skeptics and their sites was that this MONEY ISN'T spent on science. It's used on propaganda and to fund amateurs with a clear agenda and very little (if any) scientific knowledge to spin OTHER PEOPLE'S facts and research. Not one climate skeptic of note has produced or researched their own work in the field. They simply reinterpret other people's. That's incredible really. 

You also seem to fall to grasp that governments predominantly own the oil and gas industry. It's the Russian government and the Saudi government (who are responsible for over half of all our oil and gas) that benefit most from climate skepticism. In fact 90% of the oil and gas industry is owned by states (either directly or via their shares in private companies). If you want to rail against "government" you're on completely the wrong side of the argument here. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, chronyx said:

What's the point in me detailing why? I pointed out carbonfact was part funded by Rockefeller oil money and yet that's OK because it's the right kind of science? 

Believing everything government and Big Science tells you is hardly logical.  Low fat diets and heart disease anyone? High house prices being good? Plenty of "independent economists" happy to back that one up! (Cue Orsino now using that in the big list of copy paste replies, as thought climate science - Which ever side you fall on - is independent of and cannot be associated with reality)

There is no science on whichever 'side' of the debate you think you fall on, which is why you cite articles written by poker players, not scientists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Orsino said:

There is no science on whichever 'side' of the debate you think you fall on, which is why you cite articles written by poker players, not scientists. 

OK cool story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, byron78 said:

 

The Rockefeller oil money was at least spent on science.

My point about oil and gas funding the Heartland Institute and all the other skeptics and their sites was that this MONEY ISN'T spent on science. It's used on propaganda

 

:lol: OK mate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About money making - carbon credits and CO2 based vehicle excise duty? Let me guess. They don't count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, markyh said:

Ordinary people will travel by electric buses, until they can afford a 3rd hand Tesla.

How am I meant to get to work though?  It takes about 3 hours each way by public transport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, byron78 said:

Why? 

Based on what? James Delingpole (Heart Institute again) and Russian climate skeptic propaganda websites? 

Forgive me if they don't exactly look like a better source than thousands of highly educated (and very competitive) experts. 

You are of course entitled to believe what you want. My mum was what they'd call a Creationist these days. Belief is a powerful thing but rarely logical. 

Here is an example of what "science" is like these days.  It is not about climate change it is about statins.  This paper shows how the statins mainstream have obfuscated the picture with statistical manipulations.  

My prole brain found this fascinating, especially if you read it alongside the JUPITER study, which was absolutely glowing with how great statins were:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272189007_How_statistical_deception_created_the_appearance_that_statins_are_safe_and_effective_in_primary_and_secondary_prevention_of_cardiovascular_disease

The JUPITER study:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0807646

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Social Justice League said:

Like others have mentioned on here, if we are all serious about "saving the planet", then the current system of continuous growth and consumption has to end.

Being resourceful is the way we all need to go imo.  Fixing things and not replacing working items because we all fancy a change.

It really depends if anyone actually cares enough to change, as the current system is set up to waste resources, not conserve them.

 

Tinkering not enough.

I am still waiting for answers to my questions:

(1) How much does it cost to decarbonise the UK?

(2) Over what time period are we going to spread this cost?

I'll add another one:

(3) What percentage of your standard of living are you willing to forego to decarbonise the UK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kzb said:

Here is an example of what "science" is like these days.  It is not about climate change it is about statins.  This paper shows how the statins mainstream have obfuscated the picture with statistical manipulations.  

My prole brain found this fascinating, especially if you read it alongside the JUPITER study, which was absolutely glowing with how great statins were:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272189007_How_statistical_deception_created_the_appearance_that_statins_are_safe_and_effective_in_primary_and_secondary_prevention_of_cardiovascular_disease

The JUPITER study:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0807646

 

 

Doesn't count I'm afraid. In this bubble of a thread, there is science and there is Science. Like schrodinger's cat you don't know whether what you post will be taken as science or Science, and then of course if it isn't Science it will just be discarded as science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Social Justice League said:

Like others have mentioned on here, if we are all serious about "saving the planet", then the current system of continuous growth and consumption has to end.

Being resourceful is the way we all need to go imo.  Fixing things and not replacing working items because we all fancy a change.

It really depends if anyone actually cares enough to change, as the current system is set up to waste resources, not conserve them.

 

Indeed but not only do they want you to replace rather than repair, they want you in debt doing so.

Funny watching a load of knobs arguing among themselves over nothing they have the power to change.😆

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chronyx said:

Doesn't count I'm afraid. In this bubble of a thread, there is science and there is Science. Like schrodinger's cat you don't know whether what you post will be taken as science or Science, and then of course if it isn't Science it will just be discarded as science.

Science is that which is published in peer-reviewed journals, which I think is the case for both papers here.

Actually, I am waiting for someone to ban statistics in science.  Statistics were invented by the evil eugenicists, and used by the Nazis as justification for their actions.

Anything that relies on statistics must now be rejected because of its background.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kzb said:

Science is that which is published in peer-reviewed journals, which I think is the case for both papers here.

Actually, I am waiting for someone to ban statistics in science.  Statistics were invented by the evil eugenicists, and used by the Nazis as justification for their actions.

Anything that relies on statistics must now be rejected because of its background.

Statistics? STAZItistics more like. Nazi! Climate denier! (Whatever that means)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.