"Whether we like it or not" - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15192434
Pants-of-dog wrote:from your source:


    Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Great Fire of 1919 in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.
    You cannot create this article. You may need to log in or create an account and be autoconfirmed to start this page. Alternatively, you can use the Article Wizard, or add a request for it.
    Search for "Great Fire of 1919" in existing articles.
    Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

Care to try again?

https://merlemassie.wordpress.com/2015/ ... e-of-1919/
http://parkscanadahistory.com/publicati ... t-2015.pdf

The fire is also listed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires_in_Canada

But I didn't notice it was in red.

Still earlier:

https://tourismfernie.com/history/the-g ... re-of-1908

Death toll numbers vary, but it was far more than the two killed in Lytton this year.
#15192439
late wrote:I've been countering kooks with science for about 30 years. I'm tired of it. This became settled science over 20 years ago. The only thing that makes this more prominent than the Flat Earth society is the millions of dollars Big Oil pumps in to create the appearance of controversy.

There is no controversy.

The ignorance of Liberals just beggars belief sometimes. How can anyone be so ignorant of science to think that scepticism about the level or even existence of man made global warming is equivalent to thinking the earth is flat. The geometry to model the Earth and the position of the sun in the sky is really quite basic. I've encoded the Earth's geometry as an oblate spheroid myself. Its been known that the earth is spheroidal for thousands of years. Climate science on the other hand is orders of magnitude more complex.
#15192485
Rich wrote:
The ignorance of Liberals just beggars belief sometimes. How can anyone be so ignorant of science to think that scepticism about the level or even existence of man made global warming is equivalent to thinking the earth is flat. The geometry to model the Earth and the position of the sun in the sky is really quite basic. I've encoded the Earth's geometry as an oblate spheroid myself. Its been known that the earth is spheroidal for thousands of years. Climate science on the other hand is orders of magnitude more complex.



That is babbling.

What a science says is determined by the relevant scientists, ie, the community working the problem.

They reached consensus over 20 years ago..

So sure, climate is complicated, but that is not exactly relevant, since kooks have F*** all to do with science. Same goes for paid trolls.

Not saying you are either, but this place has trolls, many of them paid to be here.
#15192570
late wrote:That is babbling.

What a science says is determined by the relevant scientists, ie, the community working the problem.

They reached consensus over 20 years ago.

:lol: That's what get me about Liberals. They don't even know there own propaganda. In its 2001 report the IPCC only rated anthropomorphic global warming at 66%, that's less than 1 sigma.
#15192612
Rich wrote:
That's what get me about Liberals. They don't even know there own propaganda. In its 2001 report the IPCC only rated anthropomorphic global warming at 66%, that's less than 1 sigma.





I used to chat with an IPCC scientist, he quit because there was too much politics, not enough science... politicians didn't want to scare people.

What has happened since adds more support to AGW...

So what do you think you are doing here, besides babbling and bad spelling?
#15192619
late wrote:So what do you think you are doing here, besides babbling and bad spelling?

What do you think you're doing here apart from engaging in childish, rude boorish insulting behaviour? Don't worry I know exactly what you're doing. A lot of you liberals know that your views can't stand up to critical examination, hence you're continual attempts to shut down opposition. one of your methods for this is to engage in insults, firstly to derail the debate away from the substantive arguments into a childish slanging match and even better if you can get the poster whose arguments you find challenging banned altogether.

I repeatedly challenge "The liberals intelligence and knowledge." That is because so many of them constantly demand the right to determine who can speak and who can't. I'm not decrying "The Liberal"s right to speak and express their views no matter how stupid or ignorant they may be. What I am denying is their right to decide who gets to speak and who doesn't.
#15192622
Rich wrote:
What do you think you're doing here apart from engaging in childish, rude boorish insulting behaviour? Don't worry I know exactly what you're doing. A lot of you liberals know that your views can't stand up to critical examination, hence you're continual attempts to shut down opposition. one of your methods for this is to engage in insults, firstly to derail the debate away from the substantive arguments into a childish slanging match and even better if you can get the poster whose arguments you find challenging banned altogether.

I repeatedly challenge "The liberals intelligence and knowledge." That is because so many of them constantly demand the right to determine who can speak and who can't. I'm not decrying "The Liberal"s right to speak and express their views no matter how stupid or ignorant they may be. What I am denying is their right to decide who gets to speak and who doesn't.



Hint: that wasn't denying you anything...

It was an attempt to get you to pay attention. You didn't actually say anything. An old IPCC report has no relevance. That was as much politics as it was science to begin with.
#15192711
Let me be clear, I can well accept there is a significant possibility that AGW might cause catastrophic effects, that might manifest themselves even over the next couple of decades. Effects that quite notably impact my quality of life here in Britain and have even more damaging effects on people in many other parts of the world. I'm certainly humble enough about my level of understanding of climatology, that it is impossible for me to rule out such a scenario. But even if I thought such a scenario was a near certainty that wouldn't even begin to make me capitulate to the Liberals.

I mean for starters if AGW is really so serious, shouldn't we get rid of all those carbon belching Hollywood award ceremonies like the Oscars and the Emmies? If its so serious shouldn't we get rid of the Royal family? You see that's the thing. Hypocritical vermin like Prince Charles and Prince William and all the Hollywood Liberal jet-setters are all very keen for others to make sacrifices, but seem to get a whole lot less keen when it comes to things that seriously impact their livelihoods, their vocations and their identities.

I'm actually interested in science. I have A levels in Maths, Further Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Biology. I didn't take psychology A level exams not because I lacked aptitude but because the practice of it was so horrendously unscientific. I was told by my teacher that I would have to tow the line at university for three years before I could actually get on with doing some original work. My criticisms of psychology experiments have now been accepted by some accredited psychologists years after I made them. So I'm not just going to bend the knee to liberals demands to "follow the science", a most unscientific phrase if ever there was one.
#15192714
Rich wrote:Let me be clear, I can well accept there is a significant possibility that AGW might cause catastrophic effects, that might manifest themselves even over the next couple of decades. Effects that quite notably impact my quality of life here in Britain and have even more damaging effects on people in many other parts of the world. I'm certainly humble enough about my level of understanding of climatology, that it is impossible for me to rule out such a scenario. But even if I thought such a scenario was a near certainty that wouldn't even begin to make me capitulate to the Liberals.

I mean for starters if AGW is really so serious, shouldn't we get rid of all those carbon belching Hollywood award ceremonies like the Oscars and the Emmies? If its so serious shouldn't we get rid of the Royal family? You see that's the thing. Hypocritical vermin like Prince Charles and Prince William and all the Hollywood Liberal jet-setters are all very keen for others to make sacrifices, but seem to get a whole lot less keen when it comes to things that seriously impact their livelihoods, their vocations and their identities.

I'm actually interested in science. I have A levels in Maths, Further Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Biology. I didn't take psychology A level exams not because I lacked aptitude but because the practice of it was so horrendously unscientific. I was told by my teacher that I would have to tow the line at university for three years before I could actually get on with doing some original work. My criticisms of psychology experiments have now been accepted by some accredited psychologists years after I made them. So I'm not just going to bend the knee to liberals demands to "follow the science", a most unscientific phrase if ever there was one.

It's a mistake to believe that we live in a 'scientific age'. We actually don't. Most people are just as credulous and superstitious as their medieval peasant ancestors ever were. It's just that the Holy Trinity has been replaced with Science as the deity du jour. Most people understand modern science as little as their ancestors understood theology. The local priest says so, so it must be true. Some scientist on the telly says so, so it must be true....
#15192717
@Potemkin

But not everybody has the time, money and luxury to study science to the highest level of professionalism. And those that do have the time, luxury and money to study science to this high level of degree, such as our scientists, we pretty much have to take their word on it because they are the only ones with that level of knowledge of science. Most people aren't born rich or lucky enough to study science to the degree of a professional scientist with a Ph. D in nuclear physics and that's not their fault. Also, not everybody wants to earn a Ph. D in science to have such in depth knowledge and be such an authority on science. The world needs many different people and not just simply only scientists.
#15192721
tomskunk wrote:@Potemkin

But not everybody has the time, money and luxury to study science to the highest level of professionalism. And those that do have the time, luxury and money to study science to this high level of degree, such as our scientists, we pretty much have to take their word on it because they are the only ones with that level of knowledge of science. Most people aren't born rich or lucky enough to study science to the degree of a professional scientist with a Ph. D in nuclear physics and that's not their fault. Also, not everybody wants to earn a Ph. D in science to have such in depth knowledge and be such an authority on science. The world needs many different people and not just simply only scientists.

I agree with every word of that. But this still leaves us with the reality that most people are just as credulous and superstitious as their ancestors were during the Middle Ages. The only difference is that instead of believing everything their local priest tells them, they believe everything some boffin on the telly tells them. In both cases, they were and are probably right to do so. But let's not pretend anything else is going on. "Follow the science" actually means "listen to your parish priest". Lol.
#15192744
Even many scientists make these faith based statements. Just ask an astronomer if they believe in Extra Terrestrial life and they say yes and justify that statement by counting the number of stars we've identified. Then they take a sample of one- The Earth and insist all life most follow the same pattern.

Potemkin wrote:The only difference is that instead of believing everything their local priest tells them, they believe everything some boffin on the telly tells them

They did until the invasion of Iraq proved to be an obvious lie. Now everyone recognises that 'expert' is a synonym for bullshitter and understand they can pick and choose what they want to believe and who they want to listen to.
#15192753
late wrote:I used to chat with an IPCC scientist, he quit because there was too much politics, not enough science... politicians didn't want to scare people.

Politicians LOVE scaring people. The easiest way to control people is to scare them. That's what AGW nonscience is all about.
What has happened since adds more support to AGW...

No it doesn't. It refutes it. You are just gaslighting again: pretending that facts other people can plainly see with their own eyes are delusions.
#15192754
Potemkin wrote:It's a mistake to believe that we live in a 'scientific age'. We actually don't. Most people are just as credulous and superstitious as their medieval peasant ancestors ever were. It's just that the Holy Trinity has been replaced with Science as the deity du jour. Most people understand modern science as little as their ancestors understood theology. The local priest says so, so it must be true. Some scientist on the telly says so, so it must be true....

Science has the advantage that unlike religion, it actually works to predict the world. That's how we know AGW scaremongering is propaganda, not science.
#15192756
Rich wrote:Let me be clear, I can well accept there is a significant possibility that AGW might cause catastrophic effects, that might manifest themselves even over the next couple of decades.

Put your mind at ease. There is no significant possibility that any such thing will happen, certainly not because of CO2 emissions or fossil fuel use. Take it to the bank.
I'm certainly humble enough about my level of understanding of climatology, that it is impossible for me to rule out such a scenario.

I'm not that humble, so it is possible for me to rule it out.
So I'm not just going to bend the knee to liberals demands to "follow the science", a most unscientific phrase if ever there was one.

Right. The moment they said, "The science is settled," I knew they were lying. They have continued to lie. That's why you don't have to know any climatology to stand against them: if they were honest, they wouldn't lie, and if they were right, they wouldn't have to lie.
#15192800
The funniest thing about this whole global warming moralistic hysteria is that the Liberals don't actually take it seriously themselves. When they brought in mask mandates, they didn't hesitate for one second to consider the environmental impact of mass mask consumption. Its the same for all the other Covid measures. If Green house gas production was really a serious problem wouldn't you consider the environmental impact of the health care of very sick people. If you really believe that Covid had nothing to do with the biological warfare department of China's National Socialist government. If you really believe that its unthinkable that Covid could have come out of a lab, then isn't Covid, Gaia, "Mother Earth's" way of "fighting back and of restoring balance?

Whether its the massive expansion of the pharmaceutical - sickness industrial complex, the massive expansion of the Cultural Marxist - Education industrial complex, the health and safety industry or the burden of the diversity commissars and their demands for the employment of the inexperienced, the unskilled and the incompetent to fulflll their identity quotas, the Liberals never give a hoot about AGW or the environment when its something they want.

Now the good @Potemkin has complained that so many of my posts have a carping moralising quality these days. I can't remember his exact words. Now I won't say his criticism of me is totally without merit. What I would say in my defence though, is that what I write here is not just a response to the other forum members but also the numerous Guardian, independent and BBC articles and programmes I passively consume. The whole political culture these days is one of Manichean moralising. To some extent Manichean moralising has to be fought with Manichean moralising, in the same way that you can't fight a nuclear attack with conventional weapons. I don't see the highly respected Greta Thunberg engaging in unilateral moralistic disarmament anytime soon.
#15192817
Truth To Power wrote:
1) Politicians LOVE scaring people. The easiest way to control people is to scare them. That's what AGW nonscience is all about.

2) No it doesn't. It refutes it.




1) That's a classic, crooks love to try and blame someone else for what they (meaning you) are doing.

2) What science says is determined by scientists not by kooks living off money from Big Oil.
#15192826
late wrote:1) That's a classic, crooks love to try and blame someone else for what they (meaning you) are doing.

Your claim that climate realists are scaring people is objectively false.
2) What science says is determined by scientists not by kooks living off money from Big Oil.

Please provide your evidence that climate realists are kooks living off money from Big Oil.

Thought not.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 13

I can only assume from your comment that you think[…]

Even our shoes are racist.

Somehow, the shoes in the OP are the cause of the[…]

@Odiseizam ; again sorry for my interruption […]

You're as smart as a goat, @QatzelOk . How is t[…]