OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Bandwagon]

You do realise that I openly admitted that I'm just trolling headline readers like you, right? I blatantly stated it.

For the record, just so you know that I know what I'm talking about (especially since I just replied to your "confidence" post in the Top8 thread)...I know (unlike you) that there actually is a Guidance Note document from AR5 that deals with these things:

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/08/AR5_Uncertainty_Guidance_Note.pdf

You see, I do my research, and I know what I'm talking about.

View attachment 35820

 

[Gary Gutful]

Don't feed the troll Portugeuse chicken.

 

[Bazal]

NandosWagon

 

[Gary Gutful]

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

"Openly trolling". By deliberately f**king things up and making a dick of yourself? Not sure that strategy is working for you.

I quoted the same words on the previous thread to highlight that you f**ked up again by stating that "very low" isn't actually part of the criteria.

Here it is again in the guidance note that you haven't read and don't understand. Page 3.

View attachment 35808

Haha, so after I post the link you post the screenshot? To make it look as if you've read it? And of the very part I quoted?

Nice.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

I particularly like the idea that someone who reads about something should automatically recognise everything associated with it.

The point is that they have a better chance than someone who has never read it at all.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Oooh......... except that the text accompanying the graph is from one of the original graphs before it was merged ( doctored ), and has nothing to do with your source of the merged graphs. Nor indeed were the merged graphs originate.

That's why I talked about whether you could find the source for the originals. One I had already posted, we just needed the other.

Aaand...you couldn't.

Whatever happened to not posting screenshots, Bandy?

Shocked, I am. Shocked.

And it still remains that I'm the only one posting real material.

Yet, on the other side, we have:
* People who haven't read any of the source material;
* People who can't find source material;
* People who think low confidence means "more likely than not", despite the source material clearly stating otherwise;
* People who think plants will die because they'll choke on too much CO2.

So, basically, a guy who has read the reports, knows where they are and can source them, against people who only read headlines and look to mince words to squirm their way into an internet argument position so they can win internet points.

The facts are still undisputed:
* We have shown that the bushfires aren't linked to climate change;
* We have shown that historical data is manipulated to hide anything that makes the present look natural.

So, the current claims made by leftoids for political purposes are fraudulent (mostly based on willful ignorance) and that's not a surprise because the general claims are based on (deliberate) fraud.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

I mean, you needed sources for these, for crying out loud:





Two of the most famous graphs in climate change.

That says it all.

 

[Gronk]

FFS natural disasters are free political penalty tries. How hard is it to be the guy whilst you hand out band aids and hugs ? Instead he comes across as an arrogant merkin. Albo preferred PM ? I don’t want either as PM to be fair.

 

[Bandwagon]

That's why I talked about whether you could find the source for the originals. One I had already posted, we just needed the other.

Aaand...you couldn't.

They're irrelevant beyond establishing they are genuine before being doctored into the graph you posted. You were trying to make a point with the doctored graph, not the originals.

By the way, your doctored graph compresses the second graph too much in it's attempt to align it to the bottom axis (time), and exaggerates the effect by around 100,000 square KM's on the left hand scale, that's pretty sloppy "science"

Whatever happened to not posting screenshots, Bandy?

Shocked, I am. Shocked.

Huh? who said anything about screenshots, let alone posted one.

And it still remains that I'm the only one posting real material.

Real sciency stuff from Facebook - awesome

Yet, on the other side, we have:
* People who haven't read any of the source material;
* People who can't find source material;
* People who think low confidence means "more likely than not", despite the source material clearly stating otherwise;
* People who think plants will die because they'll choke on too much CO2.

It's nice of you to go to such effort creating all these straw men for me to dismiss.

So, basically, a guy who has read the reports, knows where they are and can source them, against people who only read headlines and look to mince words to squirm their way into an internet argument position so they can win internet points.

As you keep saying, you do know repeating the same thing over and over makes it no more true yeah?

The facts are still undisputed:
* We have shown that the bushfires aren't linked to climate change;
* We have shown that historical data is manipulated to hide anything that makes the present look natural.

So you keep saying, it's little wonder you can't understand how an actual debate works, it kind of goes hand in hand with your lack of understanding of simple concepts like "low confidence", are you still claiming that to mean "no confidence"?

Because unless you can establish that ( which as we have seen you can't, on account of it being demonstrably wrong ) , your claim to have undisputed facts here is, well, kinda moronic. As that is at the heart of your claims

So, the current claims made by leftoids for political purposes are fraudulent (mostly based on willful ignorance) and that's not a surprise because the general claims are based on (deliberate) fraud.

This is actually pretty funny in context Facebook boy.

 

[Bandwagon]

FFS natural disasters are free political penalty tries. How hard is it to be the guy whilst you hand out band aids and hugs ? Instead he comes across as an arrogant merkin. Albo preferred PM ? I don’t want either as PM to be fair.

Scotty From Marketing's approach of simply dismissing harder questions, or evading them with lines like "I've already answered that" , along with his failures over the the last month or two is I think beginning to create the perception in the electorate that he is "too tricky", in the vein of Howard in his last term.

Howard never shook that, and we saw the result. Early days for this government, and he still has a couple of years to overcome it, but if it sticks, and Albo get's his shit together, they are in for a hammering next election.

Like I said though, early days, but perceptions are often harder to shake than they are to create.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Haha, so after I post the link you post the screenshot? To make it look as if you've read it? And of the very part I quoted?

Nice.

Sorry, I've got to clean dog scuzz of my windows...at least I hope its dog scuzz.

 

[Bazal]

The point is that they have a better chance than someone who has never read it at all.

Maybe.

But we all know why you're really not sourcing. Don't we?

 

[hindy111]

Maybe.

But we all know why you're really not sourcing. Don't we?

I don't even know what they are talking about.

I gather HJ things global warming is a scam and others don't.

That is fine you both could be right. We may never know so what is the point arguing.
Respect each other's opinion and move on.

 

[hindy111]

FFS natural disasters are free political penalty tries. How hard is it to be the guy whilst you hand out band aids and hugs ? Instead he comes across as an arrogant merkin. Albo preferred PM ? I don’t want either as PM to be fair.

Albanese looks smug

 

[Gronk]

Albanese looks smug

Albanese is your nice uncle. He helps with the washing up and is a member of his local Lions/Apex club.

I just don't see him as head of state leading round table discussions on world issues TBH.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Scotty From Marketing's approach of simply dismissing harder questions, or evading them with lines like "I've already answered that" , along with his failures over the the last month or two is I think beginning to create the perception in the electorate that he is "too tricky", in the vein of Howard in his last term.

Howard never shook that, and we saw the result. Early days for this government, and he still has a couple of years to overcome it, but if it sticks, and Albo get's his shit together, they are in for a hammering next election.

Like I said though, early days, but perceptions are often harder to shake than they are to create.

Agree. He needs to change his approach. He's f**king everything up at the moment.

 

[Gary Gutful]

I don't even know what they are talking about.

I gather HJ things global warming is a scam and others don't.

That is fine you both could be right. We may never know so what is the point arguing.
Respect each other's opinion and move on.

Smartest comment on the issue for some time. I decided to do that earlier this morning.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Albanese is your nice uncle. He helps with the washing up and is a member of his local Lions/Apex club.

I just don't see him as head of state leading round table discussions on world issues TBH.

I suspect many others share this view but ultimately it will come down to Scotty. Governments usually get voted out rather oppositions voted in.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Sorry, I've got to clean dog scuzz of my windows...at least I hope its dog scuzz.

*off