Oh I'm so sorry I didn't realise, here I am thinking you were being sarcastic and passive aggressive.
Never mate
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Stonehenge
- Thread starter RalphDring
- Start date
- Status
Never mate
NeilMorepies
Player Valuation: £20m
Can’t understand what all the outrage is about.
A desperate headline-grabbing cry bemoaning Big Oil making a profit out of it ending the world, against the temporary defacement of a bit of rock-nationalism.
No competition..
A desperate headline-grabbing cry bemoaning Big Oil making a profit out of it ending the world, against the temporary defacement of a bit of rock-nationalism.
No competition..
It's faux outrage, mate. Majority of those shouting about it couldn't give a flying bean about Stonehenge. If someone had went up and sprayed an England flag over it for the Euros they'd all be buzzing.
If your funding is reliant upon man made climate change, then you'll find proof of it to keep your funding... it's easy for you to say big oil paid for that research of course it's going to come to that conclusion and then dismiss it as snake oil science, how come you are so unwilling to say the same about government funded research? Governments are making stacks of money, there's now millions of jobs world wide depending on climate changes being man made, I guess these are legit scientists they'd have to be to get funded by government not like those charlatans who get their funding from big oil.
Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records
science.house.gov
A scientist manipulated climate data. Conservative media celebrated.
The journal Nature rebuked researcher Patrick Brown for claiming that prestigious publications only accept articles that exaggerate the effects of climatewww.eenews.net
World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data
The Mail on Sunday today reveals evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming.www.dailymail.co.uk
These articles are misleading and wrong, and you continue to be duped by a massive well-funded misinformation machine that likes to cast doubt on climate science:
As to the Karl study, see here:
No Data Manipulation at NOAA - FactCheck.org
Top Republicans on the House science committee claim a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist “confirmed” that his NOAA colleagues “manipulated” climate data for a 2015 study. But that scientist denies that he accused NOAA of manipulating data.
www.factcheck.org
Those house.gov articles are press-releases by right-wing politicians and are based on a blog post by Patrick Bates, and even Bates had this to say once the story became manipulated by right-wing press:
Bates told the AP on Feb. 6 that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious” involved with his colleagues’ study. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form,” he said.
As to the Patrick Brown case...
Patrick Brown works for an anti-climate science organization and he decided to strategically write a mea culpa about his own research, saying he deliberately left out details (in his own study!) claiming that this omission would get his study published--an assertion he made with no evidence. But this is simply wrong and was a ploy by him to media attention (again) to cast doubt on climate change. Peer reviewers urged him to consider other causes and he (deliberately) argued against including them so he could then write his misinformation piece that would be picked-up by right-wing outlets and eventually be picked-up by lazy youtube skeptics who are easily manipulated by anti-climate science information click-bait.
Did you even read the article you posted; it says:
But the editor-in-chief of Nature, Magdalena Skipper, said Brown’s assertions were demonstrably false.
Before the paper was published, peer reviewers of Brown’s research pointed out that he excluded important variables other than climate change that also affect wildfires, Skipper said. Brown argued against including those other variables, she said.
“The only thing in Patrick Brown’s statements about the editorial processes in scholarly journals that we agree on is that science should not work through the efforts by which he published this article,” Skipper said in a statement to E&E News. “We are now carefully considering the implications of his stated actions; certainly, they reflect poor research practices and are not in line with the standards we set for our journal.”
Skipper cited three pieces published in Nature in the last month that she said disprove Brown’s claims, because they questioned or downplayed the role of climate change in ecological disasters. They include research on marine heat waves, increased carbon emissions in the Amazon and the role of human activity in driving wildfires.
Also see here:
Patrick Brown's recycled hallucination of climate science
skepticalscience.com
Last edited:
AsiaAsia82
Player Valuation: £35m
No they’re called Kopites
Love to spray paint all of that lot in permanent orange
Bunch of weirdos that live on the fringes of society and join a group like that in order to fit in with a crowd
These articles are misleading and wrong, and you continue to be duped by a massive well-funded misinformation machine that likes to cast doubt on climate science:
As to the Karl study, see here:
No Data Manipulation at NOAA - FactCheck.org
Top Republicans on the House science committee claim a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist “confirmed” that his NOAA colleagues “manipulated” climate data for a 2015 study. But that scientist denies that he accused NOAA of manipulating data.
Those house.gov articles are press-releases by right-wing politicians and are based on a blog post by Patrick Bates, and even Bates had this to say once the story became manipulated by right-wing press:
Bates told the AP on Feb. 6 that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious” involved with his colleagues’ study. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form,” he said.
As to the Patrick Brown case...
Patrick Brown works for an anti-climate organization and he decided to strategically write a mea culpa about his own research, saying he deliberately left out details (in his own study!) claiming that this omission would get his study published--an assertion he made with no evidence. But this is simply wrong and was a ploy by him to media attention (again) to cast doubt on climate change. Peer reviewers urged him to consider other causes and he (deliberately) argued against including them so he could then write his misinformation piece that would be picked-up by right-wing outlets and eventually be picked-up by lazy youtube skeptics who are easily manipulated by anti-climate information click-bait.
Did you even read the article you posted; it says:
But the editor-in-chief of Nature, Magdalena Skipper, said Brown’s assertions were demonstrably false.
Before the paper was published, peer reviewers of Brown’s research pointed out that he excluded important variables other than climate change that also affect wildfires, Skipper said. Brown argued against including those other variables, she said.
“The only thing in Patrick Brown’s statements about the editorial processes in scholarly journals that we agree on is that science should not work through the efforts by which he published this article,” Skipper said in a statement to E&E News. “We are now carefully considering the implications of his stated actions; certainly, they reflect poor research practices and are not in line with the standards we set for our journal.”
Skipper cited three pieces published in Nature in the last month that she said disprove Brown’s claims, because they questioned or downplayed the role of climate change in ecological disasters. They include research on marine heat waves, increased carbon emissions in the Amazon and the role of human activity in driving wildfires.
Also see here:
Patrick Brown's recycled hallucination of climate science
skepticalscience.com
Yeah, but what about the Daily Mail article he posted? Can't disprove that, can you smartass??
Simon Buttle
Player Valuation: £50m
Silly little rich folk who never have to work and have enough money to hire Man City esq legal teams behind them means they get away with it time and time again. My worry is that like the Stonehenge thing, at some point they will do something somewhere and someone is going to properly snap with them and people will get hurt and worse.
Rita_Poon
Player Valuation: £90m
carlos21
KING OF REP
Heya buddy.I knew they were trouble when the broke in...
I'm fine with that, but by god if they touch Lorde's jet-ski or Rihanna's hot air balloon heads are gonna roll!
Is it possible to hate both sides?
chrismpw
Player Valuation: £70m
That CO2 could be captured at source though. From there it can be pumped into emptied oil Wells.
The holidays I have most enjoyed have all been in the British Isles. Ni need to restrict holidays to 1 a year, just the flights (return obviously). We live in a country with unusually diverse geology - as a result, a half hour car journey can often five you a big change of scene. It really is one of the most beautiful places on the planet- even if the people ruin it and the weather can make it a bit of a trial. There really is little need to travel - apart from succumbing to travel agents advertising or, frankly, going sonewhere affordable. I get that.
I shouldnt be saying this on the grounds that, when covid hit and people couldn't travel abroad, all my favourite spots were ruined by the great unwashed "getting out."
I still think the Thanos idea is the best.
If it came out that big oil companies were paying folks to infiltrate Just Stop Oil and behave as tossy as possible in order to make people less inclined to support the cause, it wouldn't shock me to be honest
It's a very valid cause and should be supported if we have any sense and care about the future of this planet (Climate Change deniers baffle me), but the Just Stop Oil lot really do come across as absolute berks most of the time and I've had a few people tell me that their antics put them off supporting green issues because they don't want to get grouped in with a bunch of wazzocks
It's a very valid cause and should be supported if we have any sense and care about the future of this planet (Climate Change deniers baffle me), but the Just Stop Oil lot really do come across as absolute berks most of the time and I've had a few people tell me that their antics put them off supporting green issues because they don't want to get grouped in with a bunch of wazzocks
- Status