Forum Replies Created
Gurny, do you seriously believe that I’d take any notice of a sophomaniac?
Completely wrong, Deerey and Heath, what a surprise. I complained to the moderator because of repeated accusations about lying, which were completely ignored. I raised the same point from a legal perspective because false accusations of lying are libellous.
If you doubt me just try accusing Peter Swann of being a liar. He would, quite rightly, be very likely to go after you.
Gurny, I’m getting quite concerned about your obsessive behaviour. You should try cognitive behavioural therapy.
I’m not so sure. I can’t believe Swann would want another season like this one if he can avoid it.
I’m not in denial about anything, Gurny. I could point at hundreds of comments on this board, not least from you aimed at me, and say exactly the same thing about gaslighting. Everyone on here says things that can very easily be construed in exactly the same way. You can never see irony, of course, but what you’re doing at the moment is gaslighting.
Do you seriously think I care? The sad thing is that I think you do. It really matters to you, doesn’t it. You really want to get at me. Well, keep trying. It’s very entertaining.
Exactly, MK, an on-field “general” to marshal and rally the troops. For me this should be a priority signing for the club — the type of player we’re talking about will typically have a lot of experience and therefore be likely to be approaching the end of his career.
For us at the moment that wouldn’t be an issue. We desperately need a couple of good seasons to get hope back into the club and at least some fans back on board, so if that’s all the player could give so be it.
How can anyone take you seriously, Gurny? The simple truth is that you’ve been found out. You trot out the ‘gaslighting’ routine and then make gross generalisations as though they’re some sort of fact. It’s actually entertaining and very funny to read your “analysis”. The sad thing is that you really believe it, don’t you. I’m surprised you don’t report me to the authorities as a dangerous murderer or something. Then again, maybe you have. Nothing would surprise me.
“What I’m saying is that socialists are more likely to be atheist.”
I’ve no idea what the actual numbers are but I’m an atheist and know a whole load of people with similar political views to mine who are also atheists. As for the politics of such arguments I heard a piece on Radio 4 the other day when someone claimed it was impossible to be a socialist unless you are an atheist. It was one of the daftest pieces I’ve heard in a long time.
Good point, NI, re women and children. Quite how anyone can justify these things at all, let alone in the name of religion is beyond me.
Not only that, Mick, but also the type of player that nearly every successful team has in its squad. We’ve missed the likes of Bish and Dawson badly, I’m afraid.
1 user thanked author for this post.
You really are hilarious, Gurny. For someone who claims to be a psychologist you’re so far off the mark as to be funny. You come out with all this stuff so seriously. You just lap it all up. One day you might wake up, though I doubt it.
Anyway, I’m not referring to Bill. As I’ve said on numerous occasions I don’t agree with him. That, however, is not the point. NI’s observations — thanked by you and the usual mates — are targeted at all people with religious faith.
So how should a devout Muslim take such views? I’d say they’d be more than a little offended and I’d also say they’d have every right to feel that way. What gives NI or you or anyone else the right to judge a Muslim’s views and beliefs in the Koran? Yet that is exactly what you’re doing.
In response to Heath’s point about left vs right, I wasn’t referring to the religious aspects of the argument but to this increasing view held by those on the left that “they know best”. NI’s comment smacks of this and doesn’t surprise me in the least.
Even bigger yawn.
No NI, I don’t for one minute believe your opinion makes you anti-Semitic. It does without question, however, reveal your lack of respect for other people’s religious views. I do find that offensive, as I know will many others; and I say that as an atheist.
Your comment is every bit as bad as Gurnelista’s OP. A pompous, self-righteous, “I know best”, “you’re all a bunch of idiots” diatribe. Quite why you believe you have the right to pronounce judgement on other people’s views and opinions is beyond me, though it fits the increasingly apparent narrative of the left’s “I’m better than you” rubbish. The usual suspects, of course, all line up to thank you for it
As for your comment, Gurnelista, you are a man so full of hate and spite. I seriously pity you.
Come off it, Heath, Gurnelista for one has made it very clear on numerous occasions that voting for Brexit was racist and I’d be very surprised if you haven’t thanked him for doing so in the past Whether he used the exact words is irrelevant, it was very clear that’s what he was getting at.
I might be as thick as two short planks — according to BRI, though I’m sure you agree with him — but you’re insulting even my low intelligence to claim that isn’t the case.
I mentioned earlier that if NI believes Bill is one very sad individual for needing a book to tell him how to live his life then his view must be the same for the millions with other religious beliefs, such as Muslims.
I’d say that’s pretty offensive, frankly.
Oooooh, BRI, we have hit a raw nerve. That’s a very constructive argument you’ve put forward there. I’m just thick. I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.
I wish it were cynical propaganda, Deerey, but saying I’m using this as a ‘threat’ is a ridiculous comment.
When I say I couldn’t care less what people think on here, do you think I’d take the stick that I do if it bothered me? None of that means I can’t offer an opinion, nor that someone looking on this board might actually agree with me on some issues at least. If they do or they don’t is up to them, not you or me.
As for it “not stacking up”, you’re entitled to your opinion but just because you say it doesn’t mean you’re right.
I have to say, BRI, that you have very little understanding of climate science and/or statistics. If you think that one degree of warming could be put down to being man-made then you’re the one who is dumb. Similarly, this idea of sea rise being down to man-made climate change is little more than guesswork — the supposed ‘acceleration’ of sea level rise is, again, within natural limits while acidification of oceans varies enormously and naturally.
All you’re doing here is peddling the entirely predictable and typical “man-made global warming/ climate change” catastrophe mantra. If you actually look “under the hood” you’ll find the data does not support these claims — yet again so much is down to computer models. The problem is that climate ‘scientists’ now claim anything and everything is down to man-made climate change. I’m sure that a link could be made between it and the perilous position of SUFC right now.
As for people suffering, don’t be ridiculous. Millions of young kids are being scarred mentally by fears of catastrophe because of these grossly exaggerated claims while millions of people in poorer nations are being denied access to cheap energy and the improvements in life expectancy and health this would bring.
But, hey, just accuse me of gaslighting and I’ve no doubt all your mates will come riding to the rescue as they always do on here. In response to that let me ask just what you, Heath, Deerey and NI — along with a few others — are doing yourselves to address this impending doom? Presumably none of you heat your homes or use fossil fuels to cook while none of you have cars or use anything made from oil-based products to live your lives? Yeah, right.
Getting back to the OP, I’m sure the use of that pic was nothing more than human error. However, you’ll find examples of grossly exaggerated propaganda from the man-made climate change mob everywhere, from polar bears on bits of ice and sea lions stranded on rocks to graphs made to look 100 times worse than reality.
I think Bill’s comment might just have been a little tongue-in-cheek…
I loved it — cup finals are rarely classics but this had loads of drama, fantastic goals, fantastic saves and great managers showing respect to each other.
Also, yes, Swann could learn a great deal from how Leicester are run.
Talk about patronising, NI. I don’t agree with Bill but I’m not going to mock him for his beliefs. So please retract that comment.
Frankly, NI, your comment is an insult to people of many faiths, not least Muslims. Whether I agree with them or not I fully respect their right to hold the beliefs they do. You appear to be saying the exact opposite. That is what I find sad.
And no, BRI, I don’t expect anything. It doesn’t bother me one jot whether you or anyone else respects me on here. People can think whatever they like — it’s their prerogative to do so. If it’s something you need that’s your business, not mine.
Come off it, BRI, I’m well aware that small quantities of cyanide and arsenic are OK — my dad was a chemistry grad and he used to tell me how they “cheated” in practical exams by tasting a tiny amount of what they were testing to see if their answers were correct.
But any comparison between cyanide and CO2 is absurd. You can complain all you like but to make such a comparison in any shape or form is just laughable. There is no other word for it.
As for propaganda, well, that really is hilarious. You’re the one throwing doubt around, with absurd claims about CO2. Then we get the entirely predictable “why you shouldn’t believe this” stuff, which is what we always get from anyone who doesn’t like the man-made climate change mantra being challenged. Forget the rational arguments just rubbish the people behind them; and, NI, I know you’ve only posted the comment about the CO2 coalition so I’m not saying you necessarily agree with it, though I suspect you do.
It’s the same as the utterly pathetic ‘comparison’ between cigarette companies who tried to claim lung cancer wasn’t caused by smoking and anyone who doesn’t agree man-made made climate change is as bad as being claimed. The simple truth is that there is no comparison but people on here still come out with it.
The plain truth is that CO2 in the atmosphere is not dangerous to humans, animals or plant life and never will be. Claiming otherwise is taking this into the realms of fantasy.
And of course, Gurny, anyone who doesn’t agree with your views is an evil monster. Talk about self-righteous, pompous “I’m a better human being than you are because I’m a socialist” and only people like me care about this stuff nonsense.
Is there any wonder that the left is in so much trouble at the moment. People are sick and tired of being preached to by the likes of those who claim anyone wanting to control immigration is racist, those who voted Brexit are racist and all Tories are evil.
Well, I have news for you. The people of Hartlepool are not racist and they’re not evil. They’re decent honest people who want to improve the world for their families. They care about this teenage girl every bit as much as anyone else and don’t need people like you telling them otherwise.
When that message finally gets home to the left maybe Labour won’t be trounced at the polls, but you know better than everyone else what’s best for them, don’t you. Let’s tear down a few statues and make ourselves feel good while forgetting slavery is still around and perhaps we’d be better doing something about that than worrying about something we can’t change.
You really are one very sad individual.
“The fact that CO2 has benefits for life (in sensible concentrations) doesn’t negate its harmful side effects.”
Sorry BRI, but that is total and utter nonsense. CO2 has NO harmful side effects and comparing it to cyanide is absolutely ridiculous. In fact I’m staggered you could even come out with such a comment. The only argument for such an absurd comment is the equally absurd man-made climate change will bring catastrophe nonsense.
Here is a link to an interesting document, which I’ve no doubt you will rubbish along with all the other man-made climate change lemmings because that’s the way climate science works. Forget rational arguments, just rubbish the ‘deniers’ who dare to challenge them.
Anyway, there are plenty of people on here who never comment but are interested in this and they can judge for themselves:
BRI, nobody is saying anomalies shouldn’t be used. The points you appear to have missed, deliberately or otherwise, is, first, that a great deal of caution needs to be used when analysing any process that averages data; and, second, that when you show anomalies on a graph they make the problem appear very much greater.
This is the oldest trick in the book used by politicians and scientists to distort people’s perceptions of what is happening. Just change the axes on the graph or the units used and voila, what at first appeared negligible suddenly appears massive. It’s the same as saying that risk has increased by 100% when you change a 1 in 1,000,000 probability to 2 in 1,000,000 while ignoring that the risk remains so small that in reality it remains negligible.
How many people realise that a chart of global warming using actual temperature plotted on a 100 degree scale would be horizontal to the naked eye? In other words you wouldn’t be able to see the change.
This is the problem with climate ‘science’ and how it’s reported. Climate ‘scientists’ and politicians have got away with this so far but as the realities of the costs and upheaval to how people live become reality the media will start to change how it’s reported. The first shoots of this are already appearing and they’ll grow as the impact of massively increasing costs of energy and infrastructure start to bite, with the biggest impact on the poorest in society.
You can accuse me of ‘gaslighting’ as much as you like but people need to understand what this all means in reality and when they find out they’re not going to be happy. The Tories are every bit as bad as Labour on this.
Good points, 50p, and very much reflects where we should should be targeting our environmental concerns, i.e. at reducing pollution and improving air quality. That will save lives and do so quickly.
Look at what happened with CO2 and it’s a very different story. Global lockdown had virtually no effect on CO2 levels, but then CO2 is vital for life and is not a pollutant. Why we and others are wasting trillions and trillions reducing CO2 on a timescale that isn’t required makes zero sense.
Crying, BRI? That’s the last thing I’m doing; and I’m not asking you to waste any more of your valuable time on this. Whether you comment or not is entirely up to you. I haven’t asked you to do so. As for my obsession, you bet it is. Trillions are being spent doing things that won’t make a scrap of difference when that money could be used for health, education and changing social needs.
Where am I claiming that climate change isn’t happening?
As for corrections, I’m perfectly aware of why they’re done. The point is that any correction adds further uncertainty. Uncertainty which the climate ‘scientists’ ignore by failing to disclose the true errors in their work. They just bring out terrifying temperature predictions without any comment at all about the massive uncertainties in what they’re claiming.
Re the point that climate ‘scientists’ don’t claim warming is consistent across the globe. Oh, I completely agree that they’ll talk about parts warming faster than others BUT I’ve never heard any climate scientist say that parts of the world haven’t warmed at all and that some are actually cooling. We hear all the time about record temperatures in the UK but there’s plenty of evidence that England hasn’t warmed at all this century.
As for having any kind of debate, yes, it is impossible. Climate change is like Brexit, it divides people, which I’m afraid reflects the fact that it’s now become more about politics than science.
Finally, I’m not saying anomalies shouldn’t be used. But how many people are aware of that? It’s the oldest trick in the book to use a graph where things look far more dramatic than they really are. As with so many things in climate ‘science’ it isn’t necessarily what is done but the way it’s presented that is the issue. But that’s what keeps the money rolling in.
Oh Lord, here we go again. You lot just can’t leave it alone can you. Then you have the nerve to criticise me?!
As for “Who’s attacking” me, NI, are you smoking something? Just look at Heath’s comment for starters.
BRI, you say: “The one problem for you, of course, is that recorded temperatures are more akin to what climatologists have said, not the downplayers and deniers.”
Are they really, BRI? For starters what most people don’t understand is that climate science doesn’t use raw temperatures, but anomalies. In simple terms this means a departure against a reference value or long-term average. This in itself leads to all sorts of issues from a statistical perspective. It also means that the actual temperature “increase” is miniscule.
Another problem is that there’s no such thing as a “global temperature”. What climate ‘scientists’ use is a construct, which grossly oversimplifies climate reality. Climate ‘scientists’ claim that warming is consistent across the globe but this is far from the case. Many regions have seen no warming at all.
Another problem is the dataset used. Different datasets give different results. Data is supposedly “corrected” to take account of all manner of things from changes in meteorological sites to the areas covered by sites in remote regions, some of which are vast.
I could go on listing problems — there are a huge number. The fact is that for every graph you show me claiming the models are “accurate” I could show you one claiming they’re not; and, no, these are not from bloggers but from scientists, including climate scientists.
However, one of the biggest issues — and this brings us back to the fundamental problem that I’ve explained over computer models predicting the future — is the accuracy and errors involved with the models and actual temperature records themselves. Results shown by models are often smaller than the errors involved in the original measurements. That isn’t science. It’s nonsense.
A massive issue here is that when it comes to publishing papers, academic journals don’t want to publish papers that reveal “nothing happening here”, despite the fact that “nothing happening” is every bit as important.
As with everything to do with climate ‘science’, problems and issues are swept under the carpet. The simple fact is that climate is incredibly complex and very messy. None of that would matter if all climate scientists admitted this, but they don’t. People want plain and simple answers, which in reality don’t exist.
One of the reasons why Boris is so popular — and whether you like it or not he is — is because people recognise he’s fallible, like them. If it turns out that he deliberately and deviously plotted to gain financial benefit, OK, but as far as I’m aware he’s paid for everything himself and it’s far more likely that he just didn’t check the details of what he should or should not have done.
Should he have checked. Yes. Is it a serious offence. Hardly. Do people care? The left is so desperate that it will try anything to topple Boris but the recent elections were the very best place for voters to express their views and we all know how they turned out.
Heavens Deerey, it’s a football message board. No doubt you get a nice warm feeling with you and your mates thanking and congratulating each other all the time but I can think of rather more important places for all of that.
Life would incredibly dull and boring if we all agreed with each other all the time. That’s never going to happen with football fans.
1 user thanked author for this post.
This thread has had over 7,000 views. It doesn’t bother me if everyone disagrees with me — that is their prerogative. However, if just one person looks and thinks “OK, maybe I should look a bit more deeply into this” then it’s worth it.
People shouldn’t just accept what the media, politicians and scientists throw at them as “fact”. Conflicting reports on what people should and shouldn’t eat come out every week, with scientists disagreeing all the time. With climate science, however, anyone who disagrees is labelled a ‘denier’. This is absurd and flies in the face of what good science is all about.
I would urge anyone who doesn’t believe that the evidence I’ve provided is indisputable to talk to someone who understands computer modelling and statistics and get their views. I can assure you that any statistician would agree a computer model predicting the future must show levels of potential errors if its results are to have any credibility. Yet with climate models this never happens.
So Gurny, BRI, NI, Deerey, instead of attacking me why don’t you just ask yourselves why this might be. It hardly needs a genius, scientist or anyone with an ounce of brain to understand why. If these models had strong levels of confidence associated with them the climate ‘scientists’ would be shouting it from the rooftops. The silence reveals everything you need to know.
Again, completely agree with BRI; and, Deerey, I haven’t said nor am I suggesting that you support Hamas. That doesn’t mean plenty of people won’t be doing, however.
As for the argument about civilians, any death is awful. The problem is that schools and civilians are very likely used as cover by Hamas.