Dinesh D'Souza (US author/twat) scrapes the barrel with Greta Thunberg/Nazi children comparison

[StoneRoad]

Exactly. All of this from someone who doesn’t know the difference between climate and weather.

Don’t we have a rule that those 12 years and younger aren’t really meant to be on here?

Mind you, at one point when I was studying climate at uni, the lecturer was talking about this very difference.
Some joker pointer out that on the definition just described the UK didn't have a climate, just very changeable weather.

 

[krtek a houby]

Attenborough? Absolutely love his nature programmes but his employer (dear Auntie) has been scrutinised for its climate agenda:


In the very years when the global warming issue was becoming more controversial than at any time since the scare was first launched on its way in the 1980s, the BBC continued to promote the received orthodoxy on climate change and the political response to it without ever exposing either to serious questioning.

The BBC’s journalists went out of their way to publicise almost every alarmist claim the promoters of the scare could come up with, even after these had been shown to be without scientific foundation. Almost the only occasions on which they have paid attention to the views of dissenters from the orthodoxy has been when they have produced programmes designed to trivialise and caricature those views, portraying them as being held by only a tiny and disreputable minority of ‘deniers’. They have lent enthusiastic support to every political measure proposed to ‘fight climate change’, while consistently failing to explain the immense financial cost of those proposals and their enormous economic implications.

In their relentless promotion of the benefits of ‘renewable energy’, such as wind power, they have consistently endorsed the often absurdly exaggerated claims of the commercial interests involved in ‘renewables’, while failing to explain their practical shortcomings. In doing this, as this report will try to show, the BBC has not only failed in its professional duty to report fully and accurately on one of the biggest scientific and political stories of our time: it has betrayed its own principles, in three respects.

First, it has betrayed its statutory obligation to be impartial, using the excuse that any dissent from the official orthodoxy was so insignificant that it should just be ignored or made to look ridiculous.

Second, it has betrayed the principles of responsible journalism, by allowing its coverage to become so one-sided that it has too often amounted to no more than propaganda.

Third, it has betrayed the fundamental principles of science, which relies on unrelenting scepticism towards any theory until it can be shown to provide a comprehensive explanation for the observed evidence.

https://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/booker-bbc.pdf

Right, that's the beeb fucked. How about NASA?

 

[belboid]

Attenborough? Absolutely love his nature programmes but his employer (dear Auntie) has been scrutinised for its climate agenda:


In the very years when the global warming issue was becoming more controversial than at any time since the scare was first launched on its way in the 1980s, the BBC continued to promote the received orthodoxy on climate change and the political response to it without ever exposing either to serious questioning.

The BBC’s journalists went out of their way to publicise almost every alarmist claim the promoters of the scare could come up with, even after these had been shown to be without scientific foundation. Almost the only occasions on which they have paid attention to the views of dissenters from the orthodoxy has been when they have produced programmes designed to trivialise and caricature those views, portraying them as being held by only a tiny and disreputable minority of ‘deniers’. They have lent enthusiastic support to every political measure proposed to ‘fight climate change’, while consistently failing to explain the immense financial cost of those proposals and their enormous economic implications.

In their relentless promotion of the benefits of ‘renewable energy’, such as wind power, they have consistently endorsed the often absurdly exaggerated claims of the commercial interests involved in ‘renewables’, while failing to explain their practical shortcomings. In doing this, as this report will try to show, the BBC has not only failed in its professional duty to report fully and accurately on one of the biggest scientific and political stories of our time: it has betrayed its own principles, in three respects.

First, it has betrayed its statutory obligation to be impartial, using the excuse that any dissent from the official orthodoxy was so insignificant that it should just be ignored or made to look ridiculous.

Second, it has betrayed the principles of responsible journalism, by allowing its coverage to become so one-sided that it has too often amounted to no more than propaganda.

Third, it has betrayed the fundamental principles of science, which relies on unrelenting scepticism towards any theory until it can be shown to provide a comprehensive explanation for the observed evidence.

https://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/booker-bbc.pdf

considering the thoroughness with which uyou carry out your research, no doubt you'll be aware exactly who GWPF founder Lord Lawson is, and of his vast depth of knowledge in this area.

You'll also be aware of how the BBC has been slated repeatedly for broadcasting Lawson and his fellow CC deniers despite their complete lack of climate knowledge. And of how wind now requires no public subsidy.

 

[Nylock]

Attacks source, ignores content then quotes the fountain of all knowledge - Wikipedia

A politically biased source is not a valid academic source. I read the content and found it wanting (especially as the comments attributed to the academic in question are buried among the general dissembling and bullshit that constitutes the rest of the article). Cite and link to her exact paper and I'll treat your so-called source with less contempt. When you link to an obviously biased far right political rag as some sort of academic journal, you leave yourself open to attack because you make it so easy to do so.

Citing as an authority someone who has recently stated that

she would not “bother with” peer-reviewed journals, in favor of publishing her own papers so that she could editorialize and write what she wanted

breaks the credibility test. Citing 6 year-old information on a time-critical topic breaks the accuracy test. The fact that you are citing a politically biased magazine as opposed to an academic journal in support of your argument breaks the reasonableness test. The complete lack of corroboration in your post breaks the support test.

Wikipedia was cited by me more as a demonstration that your weak argument can be challenged by even a cursory exploration of the subject matter that you have provided as your 'authoritative source'. I am well aware of wiki's weaknesses but for 'blunt instrument' background checking before diving into detail it has it's uses.

Over to you, cptin fceplm...

 

[chilango]

A politically biased source is not a valid academic source.

I disagree here.

All research is political. And all researchers are biased.

Good research recognises this. Accounts for it and puts measures into place so that this does not distort the data.

The process of peer review is part of the checks and balances of this.

P.S. Can you tell I do qualitative research in the Social Sciences

 

[Treacle Toes]

 

[Nylock]

I disagree here.

All research is political. And all researchers are biased.

Good research recognises this. Accounts for it and puts measures into place so that this does not distort the data.

The process of peer review is part of the checks and balances of this.

P.S. Can you tell I do qualitative research in the Social Sciences

I am aware of this but, you know, baby steps eh? What I should have said instead was "That" politically biased source was not valid but in my defense I started writing that at 7:30 this morning before work took over and delayed publication

 

[editor]

 

[Marty1]

Since it hasn't been pointed out yet, I'd like to say that Al Gore is not a fucking climatologist, so it doesn't fucking matter what he said.

Hope he didn’t get his data from the IPCC.

Regardless, Gore has profited hugely from touting his now debunked snake oil.

 

[editor]

Hope he didn’t get his data from the IPCC.

Regardless, Gore has profited hugely from touting his now debunked snake oil.

Who gives a fuck about Gore. It's a complete sideshow. The fact is that the overwhelming global scientific consensus supports the argument that climate change is real.

Here, read (I know you prefer YouTube videos made by unqualified nutters, but if you want to learn, you have to read):

Climate change: evidence and causes | Royal Society
'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts

Now produce some credible, up to date, peer-reviewed science that refutes that. For your information, this is what a credible source looks like?

The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.

Three studies published in Nature and Nature Geoscience use extensive historical data to show there has never been a period in the last 2,000 years when temperature changes have been as fast and extensive as in recent decades.

 

[Marty1]

Who gives a fuck about Gore. It's a complete sideshow.

How convenient, so I guess Al’s out and Greta’s in.

Here, read (I know you prefer YouTube videos made by unqualified nutters, but if you want to learn, you have to read):

Climate change: evidence and causes | Royal Society
'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts

Ironically, your first link takes you to a page that starts with an embedded YouTube video titled; ‘An introduction to climate change in 60 seconds’ - superb.

Your second link was to..... The Guardian.

 

[8ball]

Your second link was to..... The Guardian.

Tbf, that's quite a neat bit of programming there. Now having some doubts over whether Marty21 is Python-based after all.
Maybe a human is stepping in for these bits. Would explain those funny gaps.

 

[editor]

How convenient, so I guess Al’s out and Greta’s in.

Maybe because over a fuckingf decade has passed and, you know, science moves on, not that Al Gore had any particular qualifications.

Ironically, your first link takes you to a page that starts with an embedded YouTube video titled; ‘An introduction to climate change in 60 seconds’ - superb.

It's by the Royal Society, Do you know who they are?

And seeing as you're unable to actually read anything, here's the links to the three studies contained in the article:

No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era
Last phase of the Little Ice Age forced by volcanic eruptions
Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era | Nature Geoscience

And for the fifth time: what are your sources. Name them. Now. Stop wriggling.

 

[belboid]

How convenient, so I guess Al’s out and Greta’s in.



Ironically, your first link takes you to a page that starts with an embedded YouTube video titled; ‘An introduction to climate change in 60 seconds’ - superb.

Your second link was to..... The Guardian.

C'mon, you are going to have to put a bit more effort in. You're barely scraping into the top ten Amusingly Idiotic Blowhards 2019 yet. We need more awful video's from conspiraloons, and right-wingers on the BBC talking about liberal BBC bias that excludes them.

No colloidal silver?

 

[editor]

How convenient, so I guess Al’s out and Greta’s in.



Ironically, your first link takes you to a page that starts with an embedded YouTube video titled; ‘An introduction to climate change in 60 seconds’ - superb.

Your second link was to..... The Guardian.

Unless you actually start listing your sources - you've been repeatedly asked by multiple posters - you'll be kicked off this site.

 

[editor]

Innit.

 

[StoneRoad]

How convenient, so I guess Al’s out and Greta’s in.



Ironically, your first link takes you to a page that starts with an embedded YouTube video titled; ‘An introduction to climate change in 60 seconds’ - superb.

Your second link was to..... The Guardian.

But Marty1 did you read that article ?

It was under 800 words, and rarely used difficult terminology ...
Well, did you ?

 

[NoXion]

Hope he didn’t get his data from the IPCC.

Regardless, Gore has profited hugely from touting his now debunked snake oil.

The IPCC data is widely supported by climate scientists.

Funny how you're concerned about Al Gore being wrong over ten years ago, but have expressed absolutely no worries about astroturfed organisations and public speakers denying the science, all while being funded by fossil fuel companies and their buddies. Which is going on right now as we write.

 

[8ball]

The IPCC data is widely supported by climate scientists.

Pfft! They're all in the payroll of Big Wind.

 

[Marty1]

I’ve been asked to provide sources (peer to peer review), here’s one:

On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?

The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation as a dominant external energy supplier to the Earth, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities generating and consuming atmospheric gases at the interface of lithosphere and atmosphere. The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate. Quantitative comparison of the scope and extent of the forces of nature and anthropogenic influences on the Earth’s climate is especially important at the time of broad-scale public debates on current global warming. The writers show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.

Subscription required for full article but full list of references are provided.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00254-006-0261-x

 

[editor]

I’ve been asked to provide sources (peer to peer review), here’s one:

On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?

The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation as a dominant external energy supplier to the Earth, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities generating and consuming atmospheric gases at the interface of lithosphere and atmosphere. The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate. Quantitative comparison of the scope and extent of the forces of nature and anthropogenic influences on the Earth’s climate is especially important at the time of broad-scale public debates on current global warming. The writers show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.

Subscription required for full article but full list of references are provided.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00254-006-0261-x

That's over THIRTEEN YEARS OLD FFS. I asked for up to date relevant reports. And as that one, out of date link you've provided is subscription-only it's impossible to read. But it's been discredited anyway: (PDF) Rebuttal of “On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved?” by L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar

 

[Signal 11]

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00254-006-0261-x

Well known garbage from unqualified cranks. Debunked in this rebuttal paper.
(PDF) Rebuttal of “On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved?” by L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar

Some related articles linked here:
L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar - RCwiki

 

[8ball]

I’ve been asked to provide sources (peer to peer review), here’s one:

On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?

The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation as a dominant external energy supplier to the Earth, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities generating and consuming atmospheric gases at the interface of lithosphere and atmosphere. The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate. Quantitative comparison of the scope and extent of the forces of nature and anthropogenic influences on the Earth’s climate is especially important at the time of broad-scale public debates on current global warming. The writers show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.

Subscription required for full article but full list of references are provided.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00254-006-0261-x

Sorokhtin and his underlings?
Weren't you asked for something credible?

 

[8ball]

Well known garbage from unqualified cranks. Debunked in this rebuttal paper.
(PDF) Rebuttal of “On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved?” by L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar

Amazing if you take a look in detail. They just come up with some big words and make up some sourceless diagrams, then publish them. Cargo cult 'science'.
Russian Government setup, I'd guess.

 

[existentialist]

Does Marty1 have a YouTube channel we could watch?

Now, now - let him work through his script. Don't skip pages.

 

[existentialist]

Tbf, that's quite a neat bit of programming there. Now having some doubts over whether Marty21 is Python-based after all.
Maybe a human is stepping in for these bits. Would explain those funny gaps.

I think he's Monty Python based

 

[keybored]

peer to peer review

What's this? Reviewed on some kind of file sharing/piracy forum?

 

[8ball]

Now, now - let him work through his script. Don't skip pages.

Any way of seeing where he lives - though I guess the IP is well masked.
I wonder how well this stuff pays, can't think of any other reason for doing this.

 

[8ball]

I think he's Monty Python based

Oh, very good, Centurion.

 

[existentialist]

Any way of seeing where he lives - though I guess the IP is well masked.
I wonder how well this stuff pays, can't think of any other reason for doing this.

Attention. When you're a lonely 23 stone 19 year old, posting on the Internet in your underpants, getting a reaction out of total strangers on the other side of the (flat) world starts to feel important.