How much longer can Priddis be debated?

[Eagle87]

There is not a more accurate description for this thread than this

Groundhog Day is 7 years of Matt as your key mid leading to zero success ... and rolling him out again in the same role ....

 

[Keys]

Groundhog Day is 7 years of Matt as your key mid leading to zero success ... and rolling him out again in the same role ....

Well someone has to root Andie McDowell then to break the cycle

Any volunteers?

 

[Smotie]

Well someone has to root Andie McDowell then to break the cycle

Any volunteers?

Priddis? Since he is the star.

 

[Eagle87]

Well someone has to root Andie McDowell then to break the cycle

Any volunteers?

Yeah nah

 

[Eagle87]

That seems an entirely suitable 10,000th too

 

[Probitas_]

This would have to be the worst of the ten thousand.
You contribute nothing but sarcasm and disdain.
Congrats number 1.

I wouldn't want to take away from your excellent backpedalling work, I'm happy to be number 2.

 

[Keys]

Hahaha

Matt Priddis the Andie McDowell of the AFL

 

[Smotie]

I wouldn't want to take away from your excellent backpedalling work, I'm happy to be number 2.

Backpedaling?

 

[Smotie]

That seems an entirely suitable 10,000th too

My count says you were 10001.

DW I saw the one before.

 

[Falco]

Im impressed that we've cracked 10,000 posts on this thread. Good work guys.

 

[domo]

YAaaaaHHH!!
10,000

 

[paran]

It was actually explained in the link - however I'll say it now for you simply so you will have no excuses.


Imagine the real estate market in Perth - steadily going up - then the boom comes - you have a huge spike - then it goes down a bit then remains static for a few years - then starts to rise again - if you cherry pick your graph from 1992-2009 you can make it look like real estate has peaked and is on the way down again. Back your dates out to 1992-2014 and it tells a different story - back it out to 1900-2024 and it makes a complete lie of the first graph.

Same thing happened - the temps globally have increased over the years at a measured rate then there was a spike - if you cherry pick the last 18 years - you can indeed show no increase - if you back the graph out to 40 years it shows an inexorable upwards trend..... 80 years and moreso.

Man, this is going to take a while, and I really don't have time to go into this in detail at the moment. Firstly, REAL ESTATE?!?! If there's one market that is completely artificially controlled it's real estate. It's dictated completely by the supply of land and the release of land by governments and the pricing of land by developers. Seriously, do you know basic economics?! Population rises > housing availability rate. New land (400m2 block) is $300k is new suburb ($750/m2) an hour out of Perth.

The issue with this BS on AGW is not the earth warming/cooling, it is proving that CO2 (carbon dioxide, <1% of atmosphere) is the driver, and it has not been proven. CO2 has been increasing at ridiculous rates in the last 18 years, yet the Earth has been warming at ~0.03C/yr, which is statistically insignificant. Is it a supply and demand issue like real estate?! How?? It's not. If more CO2 = more warming, then there should be more warming, there should not be a pause. I don't know what affects the global temperatures (I suspect solar activity) but I know it is not CO2.

A you love stats and in reference to your "billionaires and oil companies line", here's a stat for you. Between 1989 - 2007 the US govt budgeted $30 Billion on climate change research vs Exxon's $23 million. That's ~130,000% more. In 2008 carbon trading (THE BUYING AND SELLING OF AIR!) reached $126 billion, making it the most traded commodity in the world! That's right! > oil/gas/coal/iron! Can you imagine the giggles at all the banks! Trading air! So who benefits from this again?!

It's a ridiculous amount of money being spent to fix a problem that isn't.

And again, Science is not a democracy. The consensus usually refers to the "flat earthers" and "the earth is the centre of the universe".

EDIT: I think we're OT enough here, if you want to PM me about this more, go for it. Still keen to hear what your climate scientist friend has to say though.

 

[Impunity!]

lol priddis

 

[paran]

View attachment 95268

Yeah nah

At least it's not Margot Kidder...

 

[Smotie]

Man, this is going to take a while, and I really don't have time to go into this in detail at the moment. Firstly, REAL ESTATE?!?! If there's one market that is completely artificially controlled it's real estate. It's dictated completely by the supply of land and the release of land by governments and the pricing of land by developers. Seriously, do you know basic economics?! Population rises > housing availability rate. New land (400m2 block) is $300k is new suburb ($750/m2) an hour out of Perth.

The issue with this BS on AGW is not the earth warming/cooling, it is proving that CO2 (carbon dioxide, <1% of atmosphere) is the driver, and it has not been proven. CO2 has been increasing at ridiculous rates in the last 18 years, yet the Earth has been warming at ~0.03C/yr, which is statistically insignificant. Is it a supply and demand issue like real estate?! How?? It's not. If more CO2 = more warming, then there should be more warming, there should not be a pause. I don't know what affects the global temperatures (I suspect solar activity) but I know it is not CO2.

A you love stats and in reference to your "billionaires and oil companies line", here's a stat for you. Between 1989 - 2007 the US govt budgeted $30 Billion on climate change research vs Exxon's $23 million. That's ~130,000% more. In 2008 carbon trading (THE BUYING AND SELLING OF AIR!) reached $126 billion, making it the most traded commodity in the world! That's right! > oil/gas/coal/iron! Can you imagine the giggles at all the banks! Trading air! So who benefits from this again?!

It's a ridiculous amount of money being spent to fix a problem that isn't.

And again, Science is not a democracy. The consensus usually refers to the "flat earthers" and "the earth is the centre of the universe".

EDIT: I think we're OT enough here, if you want to PM me about this more, go for it. Still keen to hear what your climate scientist friend has to say though.

So what you are saying in a nutshell is that climate change/global warming hasn't been adversely affected by co2 emissions but it has been affected by priddis.
That's what I thought.

 

[paran]

So what you are saying in a nutshell is that climate change/global warming hasn't been adversely affected by co2 emissions but it has been affected by priddis.
That's what I thought.

Something about about "hot air", "oxygen thieves", etc.

Still, you gotta be careful with these aspersions, or you end up with Masto TTHD stuff...

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Continued here