The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > 'Man-made' climate change: the world's multi-trillion dollar moral panic > Comments

'Man-made' climate change: the world's multi-trillion dollar moral panic : Comments

By Brendan O'Reilly, published 22/2/2019

The Y2K scare was nevertheless a boon for consultants and IT specialists. It is estimated that US$300 billion was spent worldwide to audit and upgrade computers.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 25
  7. 26
  8. 27
  9. Page 28
  10. 29
  11. 30
  12. 31
  13. All
mhaze, exactly what quote are you accusing ant of doctoring?

Original and doctored version please.

BTW the real problem with glyphosate is not that it's toxic but that it's carcinogenic - see https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/the-monsanto-papers/10352384

(still much safer than most other herbicides though)
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 15 March 2019 11:20:51 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"exactly what quote are you accusing ant of doctoring?"

Not accusing...proving. He's not even trying to deny it now.

"Original and doctored version please."

Read the thread.

"BTW the real problem with glyphosate is not that it's toxic but that it's carcinogenic"

Well it is if you're prepared to ignore the established science...

http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roundup-lawsuit/
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 15 March 2019 1:07:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The anti-GMO crowd made as big a kerfuffle as they could of glyphosate because it doesn't hurt broad-acre GM crop strains engineered for it. If they can get everyone weeding mechanically or using other spot approaches it levels the playing-field for non-GM crops and hits Monsanto.

Used safely and sparingly on food crops there's nothing wrong with the stuff. Biodegradable detergent is needed to disperse it, which is hardly calamitous to human health. GM allows us to adequately feed the world but the Malthusians are happier if that doesn't happen.

Banning stuff that might be injurious to human health if we bathed in it is ridiculous. mhaze's link tells some of the story. Glyphosate in breast-milk is another debunked furphy, along with other confections.

My Green local council stopped using glyphosate on roads and footpaths, as well as more selective herbicides in parks. Now we spend an absolute monza on steam weed control.
Posted by Luciferase, Friday, 15 March 2019 4:14:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze

You state:
"Not accusing...proving. He's not even trying to deny it now."

You have a comprehension problem, you do not understand the meaning of:

Moore stated himself something like ... "do you think I'm stupid", when challenged to drink glyphosate, and stormed off muttering as film clip shows. The later words did not match his reaction. He had been saying that he would drink glyphosate, and would not when challenged, the sensible thing to do. Nobody can say that glyphosate has no impact on a persons health over a lifetime.

You use the tried old trick of attacking the person rather than the issue.
I'm yet to see any evidence based material from deniers. Deniers responding here do so from the comfort of their homes, they do not go out into the field to observe or collect data.

There has been nothing of substance has come from deniers.
Posted by ant, Saturday, 16 March 2019 7:52:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"You use the tried old trick of attacking the person rather than the issue."

Not at all. The issue is that you acted dishonestly in doctoring a quote to try to make a point. From the full article you quoted only the part that suited your aims - that Moore refused the drink - while deceptively hiding the part which explained why he would and should have done that. Even you realised this was wrong when you initially tried to claim that you hadn't quoted from that article.

Might I offer a tip. You, for the most part, try, in your own inept way, to support your claims with links. Often the link doesn't say what you think it says (eg Table 4) but at least there's a link. So when you make a claim that isn't supported by a link (such as your initial claim about Moore), its a dead give-away that you're trying to hide something. Maybe you should try to rectify that problem.
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 16 March 2019 11:25:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Ant

Anti HIGW scientists do not need to do any research to prove that CO2 does not cause global warming. As the proponents of the hypothesis, the onus is entirely upon the pro HIGW "scientists" to prove that it does. In any case, which government gives money to sceptics to prove what the governments do not want to hear? All of the massive amounts of research funds goes entirely to the Alarmists. And who vets the "peer reviews"? The Alarmists. I can give you youtube sites where sceptics have told that they can not even get into peer reviewed journals for that very reason.

Proof of this was the climategate email from Phil Jones to Michael Manne.

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Michael (Trenberth) and I will keep them out somehow- even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is."

Got that, Ant? If scientific papers contradict HIGW, the Alarmists will cook the books to keep them out of public scrutiny. And you trust these people? Whatever they are, they are not scientists.

Last quote from Conservative MP and physicist Peter Lilley.

"The day that the British parliament passed the British Climate Change Act, which is the most expensive piece of legislation we have ever passed, committing us to cut our emissions of CO2 by 80%, at the cost of some $400 billion pounds, it snowed in London in October, for the first time in 74 years."

The HIGW ship is sinking, and it is time for the rats and the ants to leave. In the usual course of events, where the younger generation always blames the older generation for leaving the world a complete mess, future generations will curse Ant and say to him "How could you have been so stupid as to believe that rubbish which bankrupted our economy"?


ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT CO2 DOES CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICE6l-5qTYE
Posted by LEGO, Saturday, 16 March 2019 1:36:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 25
  7. 26
  8. 27
  9. Page 28
  10. 29
  11. 30
  12. 31
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy