Yet some will have you believe that there’s nothing to see here.

[TWGL1]

I will do it once you answer my question.

For the eighth time

What is the physical process scientists say is causing climate change? What about that process do you disagree with?

Beyond hilarious at this point.

I know the answer , but many scientists disagree , and those who do get their funding cut/reduced

Now , what’s your Carbon Score ?

[Doucas]

I know the answer , but many scientists disagree , and those who do get their funding cut/reduced

Now , what’s your Carbon Score ?

'I have a girlfriend, she goes to a different school'.

[TWGL1]

'I have a girlfriend, she goes to a different school'.

Huh ?

[Doucas]

Huh ?

You basically said 'I know the answer, but I'm not telling you' sounding like that kid in every school who said they had a girlfriend but they went to a different school.

For the ninth time

What is the physical process scientists say is causing climate change? What about that process do you disagree with?

[the other bob wilson]

Once the two I asked have been answered, happy to engage. I have command of my side of the debate. I expect debaters arguing their side to know their own. But I am not going to define what they should already know and present themselves, in response to two questions that they have chosen to blatantly ignore.

Show me yours, then I'll show you mine. In that order. In the order they were asked.

This article disputes the famous 97 per cent figure of scientists who are global warming “believers” from a few years back, concluding that the real figure is something like eighty per cent, but his implication is that the precise figure is not that important because there is still a very substantial majority in favour.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenerg...h=40ddba3b1157

So, my question to you and all of the gifted and talented types on here (none of whom are specialists in the relevant field I believe)know that the specialists don’t. I can’t answer your questions because I accept that my knowledge of the subject is not thorough enough, but four fifths of specialists (at least) disagree with you.

The problem you and others have is that the cartoon posted earlier in the thread captured your dilemma perfectly - you’re trying to pass yourselves off as knowing more than the experts, not just on this subject but so many others as well.

[TWGL1]

You basically said 'I know the answer, but I'm not telling you' sounding like that kid in every school who said they had a girlfriend but they went to a different school.

For the ninth time

What is the physical process scientists say is causing climate change? What about that process do you disagree with?

I don’t have the time at the moment but for expediency shall I do the same as you and Google it ?

So far you have avoided my questions and failed to check back in respect of the climate change questionnaire.

In respect of your Geology mate , what’s his view of the dinosaurs as there is much discussion on that as well especially the time stamp.

[Wales-Bales]

Would anybody accept depopulation as a solution to global warming, and by that I mean eliminating yourself?

[Doucas]

I don’t have the time at the moment but for expediency shall I do the same as you and Google it ?

So far you have avoided my questions and failed to check back in respect of the climate change questionnaire.

In respect of your Geology mate , what’s his view of the dinosaurs as there is much discussion on that as well especially the time stamp.

DIVERT DIVERT DIVERT.

Answer the question or piss off.

For the tenth time

What is the physical process scientists say is causing climate change? What about that process do you disagree with?

[TWGL1]

DIVERT DIVERT DIVERT.

Answer the question or piss off.

For the tenth time

What is the physical process scientists say is causing climate change? What about that process do you disagree with?

Are you feeling ok mate …. I’ve googled it, you can do the same if you like

[Wales-Bales]

DIVERT DIVERT DIVERT.

Answer the question or piss off.

For the tenth time

What is the physical process scientists say is causing climate change? What about that process do you disagree with?

Bro, having a meltdown on an internet football forum is not a good look, especially at 4 o'clock in the afternoon!

[Doucas]

Are you feeling ok mate …. I’ve googled it, you can do the same if you like

and the answer is....?

[Doucas]

Bro, having a meltdown on an internet football forum is not a good look, especially at 4 o'clock in the afternoon!

Think you're the last person on this forum to accuse anyone of having a meltdown.

[Wales-Bales]

Think you're the last person on this forum to accuse anyone of having a meltdown.

Who are you referring to? There are 6 people who operate this account over 3 shifts!

[Keyser Soze]

This article disputes the famous 97 per cent figure of scientists who are global warming “believers” from a few years back, concluding that the real figure is something like eighty per cent, but his implication is that the precise figure is not that important because there is still a very substantial majority in favour.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenerg...h=40ddba3b1157

So, my question to you and all of the gifted and talented types on here (none of whom are specialists in the relevant field I believe)know that the specialists don’t. I can’t answer your questions because I accept that my knowledge of the subject is not thorough enough, but four fifths of specialists (at least) disagree with you.

The problem you and others have is that the cartoon posted earlier in the thread captured your dilemma perfectly - you’re trying to pass yourselves off as knowing more than the experts, not just on this subject but so many others as well.

The cartoon is a classic wheeze used by people trying to shut down an argument. It may be funny (if you find political jokes funny) but it does little to address the debate. Now here is the rub - I think your last line is mistaken. I do not claim to know more about climate science than scientists. But I do know these things:

1. As the Brian Durrant article states, experts in their own field are claiming perfect knowledge, when they cannot explain the questions posed in the article re: solar weather patterns and historic weather patterns that show that climate change is caused by human beings. Until that counter-argument is answered, they cannot claim perfect knowledge. What they have is a theory that is highly questionable. And if they are expert with perfect knowledge they should be able to answer those questions. They can't. Therefore it is not conclusive, and therefore not a scientific argument. Science does not only use data to support an argument. It should also answer all challenged questions with evidence, without resorting to name-calling such as "deniers". That isn't scientific.

2. Politics requires "majority or consensus". Religion uses faith-based arguments such as "I believe" or "denier". Neither of those religion nor political arguments win a scientific debate. But climate is supposed to be scientific. Therefore, if you follow Karl Popper's theory on science, it is based on "Falsification" via conducting tests. In all fields of science Karl Popper's "Falsification" and testing of logic is accepted as the correct approach - except in the field of climate change it seems. So when counter arguments or counterfactuals are presented the arguments have to be falsified. So for example, the argument presented by climate change scientists is:

"Rising temperatures correlate with man-made industrialisation, therefore man-made industrialisation caused rising temperatures, and here is the temperature charts data to prove it" is the logical presentation of the argument.

Alternatively we see:

"Ice caps melting and rising sea levels correlate with man-made industrialisation, therefore man-made industrialisation caused Ice caps melting and rising sea levels, and here is the sea level data to prove it"


I see this in poorly presented research papers & economics a lot: "A rises with B, therefore B caused A". What you have is a correlation, but no proof of cause.

But if we know that solar cycles on other planets are in play where humans do not exist, and we know that there has been global warming of the Sahara and flooding 4000 years ago, in a time of non-industrialisation, we have a "falsification" argument. A hole in the hypothesis. The logical argument is therefore failing the test on causation, and the logic is falsified by example of heating and global flooding which falls outside the test data set of industrialisation by humans, then it has to be explained. By the very experts they claim to be. And as it stands, as it cannot be explained, then as Karl Popper said - it should be treated as an "open question", not a "concluded argument".

Karl Popper - Falsification of Scientific Argument
https://www.simplypsychology.org/kar...proven%20false.

These climate scientists are therefore making a rod for their own back. Because the fact that climate scientists are not dealing with the counterfactuals in a scientific way, and not treating it with the "open question" status that it merits, and responding with political phraseology such as "We have a consensus", or faith-based language such as "believer / denier", creates the cynicism amongst sceptical scientists and the persistent questioning around the subject that we now see.

So Bob, as you can see, I do not claim to be a scientific expert. But I do know the difference between how religious, politics, and science works. I can see that the scientists are not addressing legitimate questions in a scientific way. I also see the grifters that are pushing climate change agenda are making a fortune out of it. I do not need to be a scientist to know that much, and it is sufficient for me to adopt a sceptical stance not to be hoodwinked unless I can be convinced otherwise. Nor does anyone else. But I would expect scientists to be behave like scientists, and give scientific answers to legitimate and sceptical scientific questions, presented by other scientists in their field - whether in the minority or not. That is their job.

[Doucas]

The cartoon is a classic wheeze used by people trying to shut down an argument. It may be funny (if you find political jokes funny) but it does little to address the debate. Now here is the rub - I think your last line is mistaken. I do not claim to know more about climate science than scientists. But I do know these things:

1. As the Brian Durrant article states, experts in their own field are claiming perfect knowledge, when they cannot explain the questions posed in the article re: solar weather patterns and historic weather patterns that show that climate change is caused by human beings. Until that counter-argument is answered, they cannot claim perfect knowledge. What they have is a theory that is highly questionable. And if they are expert with perfect knowledge they should be able to answer those questions. They can't. Therefore it is not conclusive, and therefore not a scientific argument. Science does not only use data to support an argument. It should also answer all challenged questions with evidence, without resorting to name-calling such as "deniers". That isn't scientific.

2. Politics requires "majority or consensus". Religion uses faith-based arguments such as "I believe" or "denier". Neither of those religion nor political arguments win a scientific debate. But climate is supposed to be scientific. Therefore, if you follow Karl Popper's theory on science, it is based on "Falsification" via conducting tests. In all fields of science Karl Popper's "Falsification" and testing of logic is accepted as the correct approach - except in the field of climate change it seems. So when counter arguments or counterfactuals are presented the arguments have to be falsified. So for example, the argument presented by climate change scientists is:

"Rising temperatures correlate with man-made industrialisation, therefore man-made industrialisation caused rising temperatures, and here is the temperature charts data to prove it" is the logical presentation of the argument.

Alternatively we see:

"Ice caps melting and rising sea levels correlate with man-made industrialisation, therefore man-made industrialisation caused Ice caps melting and rising sea levels, and here is the sea level data to prove it"


I see this in poorly presented research papers & economics a lot: "A rises with B, therefore B caused A". What you have is a correlation, but no proof of cause.

But if we know that solar cycles on other planets are in play where humans do not exist, and we know that there has been global warming of the Sahara and flooding 4000 years ago, in a time of non-industrialisation, we have a "falsification" argument. A hole in the hypothesis. The logical argument is therefore failing the test on causation, and the logic is falsified by example of heating and global flooding which falls outside the test data set of industrialisation by humans, then it has to be explained. By the very experts they claim to be. And as it stands, as it cannot be explained, then as Karl Popper said - it should be treated as an "open question", not a "concluded argument".

https://www.simplypsychology.org/kar...proven%20false.

These climate scientists are therefore making a rod for their own back. Because the fact that climate scientists are not dealing with the counterfactuals in a scientific way, and not treating it with the "open question" status that it merits, and responding with political phraseology such as "We have a consensus", or faith-based language such as "believer / denier", creates the cynicism amongst sceptical scientists and the persistent questioning around the subject that we now see.

So Bob, as you can see, I do not claim to be a scientific expert. But I do know the difference between how religious, politics, and science works. I can see that the scientists are not addressing legitimate questions in a scientific way. I also see the grifters that are pushing are making a fortune out of it. I do not need to be a scientist to know that much. Nor does anyone else. But I would expect scientists to be behave like scientists, and give scientific answers to legitimate and skeptical scientific questions, presented by other scientists in their field - whether in the minority or not. That is their job.

You sound like the time cube guy

His archived website - http://web.archive.org/web/201601120....timecube.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7lWCqbgQnU

[Keyser Soze]

You sound like the time cube guy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7lWCqbgQnU

You sound like a person who calls names as an opening gambit and can't handle the very discussion you attempt to fan flames on. I can see it is too much. TLDR. Post a youtube link. Post a cartoon. Anything but sound reasoning.

But you can't be helped so what can I do? Just keep believin' and praise the lord for your sins. Just keep believin', Joseph.

[TWGL1]

You sound like the time cube guy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7lWCqbgQnU

Ultimately the people who are advocating Climate Change don’t appear to follow the rules themselves , ( where have we heard that before). The same people have invested money in this project which also makes people sceptical.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...ivate-21364381

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...opter-21411763

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-ga...imate%20change

Even Rishi is in on it

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...ossil-28361452

[Wales-Bales]

Ultimately the people who are advocating Climate Change don’t appear to follow the rules themselves , ( where have we heard that before). The same people have invested money in this project which also makes people sceptical.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...ivate-21364381

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...opter-21411763

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-ga...imate%20change

Even Rishi is in on it

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...ossil-28361452

Not another shakedown? I can't understand why people are so desperate to give up their freedoms for this BS!

[Rjk]

The cartoon is a classic wheeze used by people trying to shut down an argument. It may be funny (if you find political jokes funny) but it does little to address the debate. Now here is the rub - I think your last line is mistaken. I do not claim to know more about climate science than scientists. But I do know these things:

1. As the Brian Durrant article states, experts in their own field are claiming perfect knowledge, when they cannot explain the questions posed in the article re: solar weather patterns and historic weather patterns that show that climate change is caused by human beings. Until that counter-argument is answered, they cannot claim perfect knowledge. What they have is a theory that is highly questionable. And if they are expert with perfect knowledge they should be able to answer those questions. They can't. Therefore it is not conclusive, and therefore not a scientific argument. Science does not only use data to support an argument. It should also answer all challenged questions with evidence, without resorting to name-calling such as "deniers". That isn't scientific.

2. Politics requires "majority or consensus". Religion uses faith-based arguments such as "I believe" or "denier". Neither of those religion nor political arguments win a scientific debate. But climate is supposed to be scientific. Therefore, if you follow Karl Popper's theory on science, it is based on "Falsification" via conducting tests. In all fields of science Karl Popper's "Falsification" and testing of logic is accepted as the correct approach - except in the field of climate change it seems. So when counter arguments or counterfactuals are presented the arguments have to be falsified. So for example, the argument presented by climate change scientists is:

"Rising temperatures correlate with man-made industrialisation, therefore man-made industrialisation caused rising temperatures, and here is the temperature charts data to prove it" is the logical presentation of the argument.

Alternatively we see:

"Ice caps melting and rising sea levels correlate with man-made industrialisation, therefore man-made industrialisation caused Ice caps melting and rising sea levels, and here is the sea level data to prove it"


I see this in poorly presented research papers & economics a lot: "A rises with B, therefore B caused A". What you have is a correlation, but no proof of cause.

But if we know that solar cycles on other planets are in play where humans do not exist, and we know that there has been global warming of the Sahara and flooding 4000 years ago, in a time of non-industrialisation, we have a "falsification" argument. A hole in the hypothesis. The logical argument is therefore failing the test on causation, and the logic is falsified by example of heating and global flooding which falls outside the test data set of industrialisation by humans, then it has to be explained. By the very experts they claim to be. And as it stands, as it cannot be explained, then as Karl Popper said - it should be treated as an "open question", not a "concluded argument".

Karl Popper - Falsification of Scientific Argument
https://www.simplypsychology.org/kar...proven%20false.

These climate scientists are therefore making a rod for their own back. Because the fact that climate scientists are not dealing with the counterfactuals in a scientific way, and not treating it with the "open question" status that it merits, and responding with political phraseology such as "We have a consensus", or faith-based language such as "believer / denier", creates the cynicism amongst sceptical scientists and the persistent questioning around the subject that we now see.

So Bob, as you can see, I do not claim to be a scientific expert. But I do know the difference between how religious, politics, and science works. I can see that the scientists are not addressing legitimate questions in a scientific way. I also see the grifters that are pushing climate change agenda are making a fortune out of it. I do not need to be a scientist to know that much, and it is sufficient for me to adopt a sceptical stance not to be hoodwinked unless I can be convinced otherwise. Nor does anyone else. But I would expect scientists to be behave like scientists, and give scientific answers to legitimate and sceptical scientific questions, presented by other scientists in their field - whether in the minority or not. That is their job.

again you are showing your limited understanding of what the case for man made climate change actually is.

the phenomenon you described can be explained by climate scientists, and there is measurable evidence as to why this current warming is significantly different.

maybe you should research a bit more about it before you decide it isn't factual

[the other bob wilson]

The cartoon is a classic wheeze used by people trying to shut down an argument. It may be funny (if you find political jokes funny) but it does little to address the debate. Now here is the rub - I think your last line is mistaken. I do not claim to know more about climate science than scientists. But I do know these things:

1. As the Brian Durrant article states, experts in their own field are claiming perfect knowledge, when they cannot explain the questions posed in the article re: solar weather patterns and historic weather patterns that show that climate change is caused by human beings. Until that counter-argument is answered, they cannot claim perfect knowledge. What they have is a theory that is highly questionable. And if they are expert with perfect knowledge they should be able to answer those questions. They can't. Therefore it is not conclusive, and therefore not a scientific argument. Science does not only use data to support an argument. It should also answer all challenged questions with evidence, without resorting to name-calling such as "deniers". That isn't scientific.

2. Politics requires "majority or consensus". Religion uses faith-based arguments such as "I believe" or "denier". Neither of those religion nor political arguments win a scientific debate. But climate is supposed to be scientific. Therefore, if you follow Karl Popper's theory on science, it is based on "Falsification" via conducting tests. In all fields of science Karl Popper's "Falsification" and testing of logic is accepted as the correct approach - except in the field of climate change it seems. So when counter arguments or counterfactuals are presented the arguments have to be falsified. So for example, the argument presented by climate change scientists is:

"Rising temperatures correlate with man-made industrialisation, therefore man-made industrialisation caused rising temperatures, and here is the temperature charts data to prove it" is the logical presentation of the argument.

Alternatively we see:

"Ice caps melting and rising sea levels correlate with man-made industrialisation, therefore man-made industrialisation caused Ice caps melting and rising sea levels, and here is the sea level data to prove it"


I see this in poorly presented research papers & economics a lot: "A rises with B, therefore B caused A". What you have is a correlation, but no proof of cause.

But if we know that solar cycles on other planets are in play where humans do not exist, and we know that there has been global warming of the Sahara and flooding 4000 years ago, in a time of non-industrialisation, we have a "falsification" argument. A hole in the hypothesis. The logical argument is therefore failing the test on causation, and the logic is falsified by example of heating and global flooding which falls outside the test data set of industrialisation by humans, then it has to be explained. By the very experts they claim to be. And as it stands, as it cannot be explained, then as Karl Popper said - it should be treated as an "open question", not a "concluded argument".

Karl Popper - Falsification of Scientific Argument
https://www.simplypsychology.org/kar...proven%20false.

These climate scientists are therefore making a rod for their own back. Because the fact that climate scientists are not dealing with the counterfactuals in a scientific way, and not treating it with the "open question" status that it merits, and responding with political phraseology such as "We have a consensus", or faith-based language such as "believer / denier", creates the cynicism amongst sceptical scientists and the persistent questioning around the subject that we now see.

So Bob, as you can see, I do not claim to be a scientific expert. But I do know the difference between how religious, politics, and science works. I can see that the scientists are not addressing legitimate questions in a scientific way. I also see the grifters that are pushing climate change agenda are making a fortune out of it. I do not need to be a scientist to know that much, and it is sufficient for me to adopt a sceptical stance not to be hoodwinked unless I can be convinced otherwise. Nor does anyone else. But I would expect scientists to be behave like scientists, and give scientific answers to legitimate and sceptical scientific questions, presented by other scientists in their field - whether in the minority or not. That is their job.

To summarise, I know better than the specialists.

Care to answer the two questions now?

[Doucas]

You sound like a person who calls names as an opening gambit and can't handle the very discussion you attempt to fan flames on. I can see it is too much. TLDR. Post a youtube link. Post a cartoon. Anything but sound reasoning.

But you can't be helped so what can I do? Just keep believin' and praise the lord for your sins. Just keep believin', Joseph.

I've asked a basic question which should be the very foundation of your denial if it had any attachment to reality, I've asked 10 times and no denier can give me an answer. Without that question answered which basically translates to, what about the science don't you believe then there's no point having a discussion.

What on earth has lead paint done to some of the boomers on here.

[jon1959]

Does propaganda work? Absolutely!

Clearly. As you demonstrate dozens of times a day!

[Keyser Soze]

again you are showing your limited understanding of what the case for man made climate change actually is.

the phenomenon you described can be explained by climate scientists, and there is measurable evidence as to why this current warming is significantly different.

maybe you should research a bit more about it before you decide it isn't factual

So you are the one arguing for the case. And you are the one saying there is tons of evidence, when I have not found anything conclusive in my research. So as you seem to claim to know the case, and presumably where this conclusive evidence sits, why not just share it via a link, instead of talking about it?

Show the case. Show the evidence. Because at the moment all I can assume is that you are very excited by this goldmine of information and hoarding it like some precious Christmas present. It is your job to convince me, not my job to persuade others to convince me. It might even act as "My First Colouring Book" in Climate Science for our reticent little Doucas here.

Why not just.... share it? Go on, be naughty, push the boat out, be a devil and show some confidence in your argument.

[TWGL1]

I've asked a basic question which should be the very foundation of your denial if it had any attachment to reality, I've asked 10 times and no denier can give me an answer. Without that question answered which basically translates to, what about the science don't you believe then there's no point having a discussion.

What on earth has lead paint done to some of the boomers on here.

I’ve also ask you to complete the questionnaire and to demonstrate what impact you are doing, personally , to meet the governments current carbon agenda , as far as I know you have failed to provide a clear and detailed response.

Therefore , how can anybody take what you say seriously?

Are you a member of JS0 as well

[Wales-Bales]

Clearly. As you demonstrate dozens of times a day!

A bloke named Bill: "If you give me all your money, live in an open prison and eat bugs, then I will save your life."

Some people on here: "Thank you Bill, you are the saviour of mankind, where do I sign up?"