"Currants Bw..."

[HCZ_Reborn]

Fucking hell

A lot of liberal finger wagging going on at the moment “don’t you feel bad for hounding a man about his private life”

Even If it wasn’t illegal (and let’s be fair the jury is out on that, there’s no evidence of illegality but absence of evidence not evidence of absence) one of these lads was still in school. This was clearly exploitative, and because he’s taken refuge in the overburdened mental health sector….it’s him I’m meant to feel sorry for?

Is he now likely to be suicidally depressed/anxious….Im sure he is, but that’s knowledge that his own behaviour has bitten him on the arse.

Don’t get me wrong, whilst he can’t keep his job at the Beeb….I think he should be left alone now, maybe in a couple of years when it’s all blown over he can return to tv in some form….but maybe he should reflect on why he’s a wrong un. Spend some time working with charities that deal with the fall out of sexual abuse/substance abuse of young sex workers.

[Letters]

And don't change the argument to one that requires a lower threshold to make. The claim was the science is settled beyond all doubt. It isn't.

Well hang on a minute. That was Mac's claim, not mine. He said it was "scientifically proven beyond doubt".
I later said "There is pretty much consensus that we are a cause [of climate change]",
Those two claims are not equivalent.

You then said "consensus is irrelevant in science". I said that of course it isn't irrelevant, but I also said
"It's not proof of course, nothing should ever be said to be proven in science."

Their science is based on modelling.

Well of course. What else can it be based on? This is a "softer" science than, say, physics. In the latter you can hypothesise that, say, heavier cannonballs accelerate as they fall at the same rate as lighter ones and then you can go and directly test that. Climate science can only do modelling and make predictions. They can of course, over time, check those predictions against observations. I posted a video some time ago where someone went through old models and showed how actually they hadn't done a bad job of predicting the rise which has been observed.

Opposition voices aren't even allowed to speak. The debate is outlawed and the "consensus" holds sway.

You are going to have to evidence that. Opposition voices in science are why we no longer believe the earth is the centre of the universe or that the Newtonian model of gravity is correct.
New ideas may take time to find acceptance but there is always debate in science. If there wasn't then it would stop.

Countless examples of data being faked, taken out of context, viewed in simple isolation rather than as part of a complex whole, the vested interests, the non-sensical "solutions" that don't survive even cursory scrutiny.

Can you provide examples of those things? I have provided examples of some of those things being done by the people who deny man-made climate change - cherry picking data or only looking at a short term trend, ignoring the longer term one. In the video I mentioned above the bloke gave an example where some people had dishonestly claimed that an old model had massively overestimated the warming. In fact the old model had made 3 predictions, each making different assumptions. The model which made the assumptions which most closely reflected what happened (the 3 models were based on different assumptions of how CO2 emissions would change over time) made a prediction more or less in line with what has happened.

Even if we all just say sure, human activity is increasing global temperatures (a massive, unsubstantiated beyond spaghetti code assumption) there are far better, cheaper, humane and socially just policies that could be deployed.

Well, I think this part is where we are aligned.
I don't think it's an existential threat, it's not going to wipe us out as a species. But it's going to affect a lot of people, it already is.
But I don't think the powers that be have the ability or desire to deal with it.
To deal with it effectively would mean such radical changes to our lifestyles that no-one would vote for it. So sure, they come up with flim-flam about solar panels and EVs.

And I don't dismiss evidence.

Dude, come on. When I've posted videos like the one I mentioned above you've dismissed them as "propaganda" with no real effort to discuss the contents.

[Niall_Quinn]

Well hang on a minute. That was Mac's claim, not mine. He said it was "scientifically proven beyond doubt".
I later said "There is pretty much consensus that we are a cause [of climate change]",
Those two claims are not equivalent.

You then said "consensus is irrelevant in science". I said that of course it isn't irrelevant, but I also said
"It's not proof of course, nothing should ever be said to be proven in science."


Well of course. What else can it be based on? This is a "softer" science than, say, physics. In the latter you can hypothesise that, say, heavier cannonballs accelerate as they fall at the same rate as lighter ones and then you can go and directly test that. Climate science can only do modelling and make predictions. They can of course, over time, check those predictions against observations. I posted a video some time ago where someone went through old models and showed how actually they hadn't done a bad job of predicting the rise which has been observed.


You are going to have to evidence that. Opposition voices in science are why we no longer believe the earth is the centre of the universe or that the Newtonian model of gravity is correct.
New ideas may take time to find acceptance but there is always debate in science. If there wasn't then it would stop.


Can you provide examples of those things? I have provided examples of some of those things being done by the people who deny man-made climate change - cherry picking data or only looking at a short term trend, ignoring the longer term one. In the video I mentioned above the bloke gave an example where some people had dishonestly claimed that an old model had massively overestimated the warming. In fact the old model had made 3 predictions, each making different assumptions. The model which made the assumptions which most closely reflected what happened (the 3 models were based on different assumptions of how CO2 emissions would change over time) made a prediction more or less in line with what has happened.


Well, I think this part is where we are aligned.
I don't think it's an existential threat, it's not going to wipe us out as a species. But it's going to affect a lot of people, it already is.
But I don't think the powers that be have the ability or desire to deal with it.
To deal with it effectively would mean such radical changes to our lifestyles that no-one would vote for it. So sure, they come up with flim-flam about solar panels and EVs.


Dude, come on. When I've posted videos like the one I mentioned above you've dismissed them as "propaganda" with no real effort to discuss the contents.

Yeah, and I already informed you that scientific consensus is irrelevant. So stop trying to change the context of the debate to make it easier to reach a point from which you can argue. Even your consensus, irrelevant as it is, holds no water because that claim was comprehensively debunked.

I thought you were an avid BBC viewer? Are you saying you haven't witnessed the overwhelming bias when it comes to who can speak and who can't on platforms that reach a wide target audience? On every media platform, in every international forum, everywhere where politics holds sway the debate STARTS from the assumption the science is settled. Laughably this arrangement also stems from yours and Macs supposition the debate is settled, whether by consensus or beyond all doubt (in terms of the science, presumably).

Yet studies (which I have little doubt are also biased in favour of the so-called, already debunked, consensus) suggest there is no significant bias in the volume of peer reviewed research once private funding is removed as a factor. Obviously the majority of scientific literature favours the climate agenda because operators of the agenda fund science to find specific outcomes. Science that questions the agenda tends to be independently financed. So you can say, it is lucrative to be pro-agenda, and expensive to question that agenda. Nevertheless there is a scientific discussion which you will never see reflected in parliaments or on wide audience media platforms.

The alarmists also have the great advantage of being able to point out the window and scream, "It's a Cerberus heatwave!" (not even a joke), and the average citizen will be able to feel it is hot. Whereas subjecting them to the science will cause them to flip the channel. Same scam as Covid. Nobody was dying in the streets but the fear of it was sufficient.

But if you COULD get people to pay even a little attention to the science the climate scam would collapse completely. That's what we need, somebody who hasn't been banished from our screens to be reinstated and to deliver the science in a palatable manner. Bellamy would have been a good choice but "everyone knows" he's a nutter, right? Unlike that stand-up guy Attenborough who hob-nobs with the WEF and our new cuckoo king.

Not even a little suspicious? Sounds to me like you're doing the Covid thing again. SOMETHING MUST BE DONE! It sounds like you are saying you believe nothing will be done (apart from the disintegration of our economies and civil liberties) but you would like to see MUCH MORE done? Like what?

Despite the bias media and the bullshit politics and the same grasping claws hungry for total profit, there is actual science operating beyond the rigged models and the doctored data.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XltFOh7Cg2U

Ignore the political bits. Focus on how the models are rigged and the data manipulated. Don't worry about the speaker and focus on the message. He mentions a fraction of the ongoing corruption in climate science (which is not a proper science).

[WMUG]

If you want me to organise an appointment for you, is it really such a difficult ask to keep your calendar up to date?

[Letters]

No it isn't. Well, it shouldn't be. But people are idiots, welcome to the world of work

[WMUG]

No it isn't. Well, it shouldn't be. But people are idiots, welcome to the world of work

Well they should just stop, obviously.

[HCZ_Reborn]

https://twitter.com/bestforbritain/s...k_DvSqUkaQFrjw

Redolent of the kind of idiocy on display from people who just don’t want to admit because they don’t like Farage (I don’t like him either) they were hoping that this was about dodgy money rather than Coutts taking an overtly political decision.

Farage is a tiresome, attention seeking self-styled fifth columnist. But this kind of thing just fuels his grievance mongering.

And the comparison to Asher’s bakery is a joke. If the Bakery were denying service to gay people that obviously would be discriminatory, but they didn’t want to make a cake promoting gay marriage because they were personally opposed to it. Now ask me I think that’s churlish, but that should be up to them…it’s not turning away someone’s custom in general.

[Niall_Quinn]

Fifth columnist? Was that serious are are you seriously that confused? Fifth columnist? That's hilarious. I'm putting it down to a brain blip. If you want a fifth column look at the people deliberately trashing our culture and economy in service of an alien agenda. No seriously. This isn't a political thing, it's societal.

The cake thing bears no comparison whatsoever of course.

What's up with you? That was a seriously unintelligent post.

[Niall_Quinn]

You might also want to remember that Coutts had its begging bowl out not that long ago and we, the people, were volunteered to rush to the rescue of this zero benefit, all downside institution. And now it is speaking of incongruent values? I would hope that every decent person has nothing whatsoever in common with Coutts bank and abides by none of it "standards."

[HCZ_Reborn]

So ULEZ turns out to be a policy about as popular as having a child sex offender living on your street. Who knew