Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

A consensus on Global warming?









looney

looney

Banned
Jul 7, 2003
15,652
Hungry Joe said:
suck my dick you poluting shitstabber.
Click to expand...

wow that was a quick response, it took me a while to read both and I'm a fast reader. Not bothered by evidence or rational arguements then blowhard?:tosser:
 










looney

looney

Banned
Jul 7, 2003
15,652
I dont have a beard, I think you'll find thats bhaexpress who took that money shot.:)


Back on topic.

Is it wise to listen to greens? As most of em are Watermelons anyway, green on the outside red in the center.


I had one of those mindless dorks canvassing on my doorstep the other day. A real dumbass.:lolol: :lolol: :lolol:
 


Hungry Joe

Hungry Joe

SINNEN
Oct 22, 2004
7,636
Heading for shore
You had a WATERMELON canvassing on your doorstep? And you expect us to treat your second-hand arguments as CREDIBLE?

ps; you only shaved that beard off 'cos it was so spunk-encrusted you couldn't get your mouth wide enough to suck anymore black cock.
 
Last edited:






Questions

Questions

Habitual User
Oct 18, 2006
25,302
Worthing
I am all for this global warming. Its been lovely again today and we have to thank all those carbon emissions for that.


How come it was so hot here 2 thousand years ago when the Romans were walking around in those skimpy tunics planting alll their vines.

What did the Romans do for us......................... well they were obviously burning a lot of fossil fuels to crreate such a climate change.
 






Simster

Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,768
Surrey
looney said:
Not when approx 20,000 scientists sign a petition against Kyoto.
Click to expand...
Names for that petition were first collected nearly EIGHT years ago in early 1999. :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce:

There has been plenty of research done since then that has changed the argument significantly.

looney said:
Or that economists agree that the solutions arn't worth the effort.
Click to expand...
Erm no, these are UN ambassadors not economists. And they highlight sanitation and water, malnutrition, and education as the most pressing concerns - most of which will become serious problems if environmental change is not addressed.

looney said:
Really the scaremongering for war against Iraq was mor convincing.
Click to expand...
More bollocks. 65% of the electorate thought we shouldn't go to war with Iraq as the troops first rolled in. Bliar hoodwinked the nation. FACT.

You've out done yourself with the amount of horseshit you've posted there looney. Well done.
 








G

Gwylan

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
31,717
Uffern
Did you actually read that Wikipedia article, looney? The article goes on to point out that many of the leading lights behind the petition have dubious scientific credentials and are supported by anti-global warming organisations.

I believe that one of the 'eminent' scientists who signed the petition is Geri Halliwell. :lolol:
 


Simster

Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,768
Surrey
Just as a side issue, can anyone remember looney posting a link to a source that actually *supports* any of the insane points of view that he holds? ???
 


Buzzer

Buzzer

Languidly Clinical
Oct 1, 2006
26,121
There's a lovely quote on the wikipedia article:

"Signatories to the petition were requested to list an academic degree; 86% did list a degree; petitioners claimed that approximately two thirds held higher degrees, but never provided evidence confirming this claim. "

Sounds right up Looney's street!

I can explain the time lag claims made by other posters though. Anyone who's had the pleasure(?) of reading his drivel would know that he views a study as cast in stone as soon as it is finished and irrefutable thereon in.

A pity that he's got the attention span of a 2 year old though (either that or reading something that long that didn't have pictures wore the poor little fella out) or he would have seen also:

"The term "scientists" is often used in describing signatories, but the petition [7] did not require signatories to have a degree, or a degree in a scientific field, or to be working in the field in which the signatory had received a degree. The signatory was not asked to provide the name of his/her current or last employer or job. The distribution of petitions was relatively uncontrolled: those receiving the petition could check a line that said "send more petition cards for me to distribute".

In 2005, Scientific American reported: [8]

Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.
One newspaper reporter said, in 2005:[9]

In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?


Ho hum. About par for the course for our resident Baron Munchhausen.
 
Last edited:


Albion Dan

Albion Dan

Banned
Jul 8, 2003
11,125
Peckham
As the chief NSC supporter of the Iraq war your views are not worth the shit on my little boys shoes, you are a discredited retard Looney, owned by all and on display with a cone shaped hat on your head.
 




Questions

Questions

Habitual User
Oct 18, 2006
25,302
Worthing
Re: Re: A consensus on Global warming?

Simster said:
Names for that petition were first collected nearly EIGHT years ago in early 1999. :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce:

There has been plenty of research done since then that has changed the argument significantly.

Erm no, these are UN ambassadors not economists. And they highlight sanitation and water, malnutrition, and education as the most pressing concerns - most of which will become serious problems if environmental change is not addressed.

More bollocks. 65% of the electorate thought we shouldn't go to war with Iraq as the troops first rolled in. Bliar hoodwinked the nation. FACT.

You've out done yourself with the amount of horseshit you've posted there looney. Well done.
Click to expand...


Oh are you back. Are you not the one who tries to riducule by pointing out common spelling mistakes in a childish pedantic fashion because they can not win an arguement using traditional interlectual methods.

By the way who is BLIAR

Is that another one of your errors or an attempt to ridicule the finest leader in modern times ?
 




You must log in or register to reply here.
Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Share this page


Top
Link Here