Since the MET office are supposedly releasing temperature data to dampen the effect of the leaked CRU emails, one thing I can't stop thinking about:
The MET office has VAST amounts of computing power. Far more than most other companies or organisations in the UK. I expect they have some of the best Meteorologists working for them. They've been solely in the business of predicting the weather for over 150 years.
And yet, they can barely fucking tell me - accurately - what the weather is going to be like next week. Given this, can somebody tell me why the fuck should I trust their climate change alarmism?
And if I can't trust supposedly the experts, why on EARTH do the great unwashed and politicians - politicians, for fucks sake - think I'm going to believe what they say?
I don't understand the first thing about climate science - christ, it seems from the leaked emails that the CRU barely did - so how come these fucking Trustafarians are now self-declared fucking experts on the case? Not only can they tell me what's happening with the climate, they can tell me what's going to happen in the future, and more importantly, they can tell me - conclusively - what's causing it. How? I guarantee you that not a single fucking person on that "climate wave" march had even the first clue about actual climate science.
And another thing, why the fuck is everybody now falling over themselves to "Stop Climate Change". Why are we trying to stop the climate changing? That's what climate does, you fucking morons. It's done it, unaffected by man's actions, for 30 million years.
Get a fucking grip.
NHS Fail Wail
-
I think that we can all agree that the UK's response to coronavirus has
been somewhat lacking. In fact, many people asserted that our death rate
was unique...
4 years ago
21 comments:
"Stop Climate Change".
Coming next week: Campaign Against Plate Tectonics!
I'm going to campaign against the constant changing of the tides. I am going to demand the government tax the fuck out of everyone to raise money to stop the tides changing.
Dave you are an arse! But funny I guess! Oh and why the fuck should anyone listen to you either?
Dave, you give us climate change sceptics a bad name..please stop.
Anonymong: I'm not saying anyone has to listen to me. Probably best they don't.
Paul: So you disagree with what I've written, but yet claim to be a sceptic? OK then *rolls eyes*
Hi Dave,
That was a different Paul to the one (me) who was posting on Chris's blog the other day about the same subject.
Probably should get my own logon!
Dave,
Just try and be a bit more academic about your arguments. That is all I ask. Roll your eyes all you want.
Plenty of people put forward academic arguments far better than I can.
I'm just pointing out how I'm not prepared to have some shouty Marxist telling me I'm killing the planet when they understand less about the science behind it than I do (which isn't much).
Besides, arguments, academic or not, don't work with the warmists, they don't want to hear it. They have the "truth", the science is "decided", so frankly whether the arguments put forward are academic or not matters little to them.
'Besides, arguments, academic or not, don't work with the warmists, they don't want to hear it. They have the "truth", the science is "decided", so frankly whether the arguments put forward are academic or not matters little to them.'
They don't seem to work with the sceptics, either. Who have also made their decision, and seek the information which backs their argument, and ignore the body of evidence which does the opposite....
Anonymong:
Yes, there are people on both sides of the debate doing that - that much is clear.
But what is wrong with questioning what we're told from both sides, and demanding further proof or evidence, especially when things such as the CRU emails and data suggests previously presented evidence may be flawed? I have been led to believe my entire life that that is the most scientific way you could approach anything. Completely aside from the fact that it's only fair I should be able to question the basis of decisions that could be detrimental to my lifestyle or finances, especially if I find this basis dubious.
But yet I question a single point that the warmists make, or I question a single ridiculous Act On CO2 advert, and suddenly I'm "unscientific", "not living in the real world", "going against consensus", "the science is decided", blah fucking blah
Dave,
I think if you can put as much evidence against ACC as there is supoorting it then you are onto a winner.
PRICK glouscester mong
Bristol Dave said...
Anonymong: I'm not saying anyone has to listen to me. Probably best they don't.
Good point! Best you stop writing then Dave.
Best you stop reading if you don't like it - make sure the door doesn't smack you on the arse on your way out, you arrogant fuck.
Dave, that was the best rant that I have read in ages; it read almost as a verbatim chat down the pub and I would like your permission to copy it.
I met some of the blue wavers on their way to London and it was quite clear that they knew fuck all about the subject or even the significance of their State Sponsored demo starting in Grosvenor Square.
Banned: of course :-)
Also regarding Anonymong @ 18:08
Drugs: Just say no, kids.
Bristol Dave said...
Best you stop reading if you don't like it - make sure the door doesn't smack you on the arse on your way out, you arrogant fuck.
If you could slap it, I'd like that more! Who's the one spouting their opinions around the web, I'd say that makes you more of an arrogant fuck! xx
^ above deleted by me to correct error. BD, thanks
climate change, get a grip
Great Rant, Dave!
Post a Comment