Whining Iraqis!!

[shaunbhoy]

Which is why if you want to get as close to the truth as possible, you need to criticise the science. If you could discredit that you would have made your point.

I've been criticising the science for years you dipstick. The problem has been getting that message to permeate through that mullet-topped armour-plated cranium of yours and into the darkest depths of that miniscule yet dormant organ that you keep stored in there for who knows what purpose.


It really is enjoyable conducting an adversarial debate with a person of considerable intellectual standing. However, until they show up I'll content myself with the much more mundane activity of rubbishing your posts sg.

[sasguru]

I've been criticising the science for years you dipstick. The problem has been getting that message to permeate through that mullet-topped armour-plated cranium of yours and into the darkest depths of that miniscule yet dormant organ that you keep stored in there for who knows what purpose.


It really is enjoyable conducting an adversarial debate with a person of considerable intellectual standing. However, until they show up I'll content myself with the much more mundane activity of rubbishing your posts sg.

The Chico comparison is apt. He, too, avoided any discussions of the specifics while resorting to inane abuse. Unlike you, however, he had the saving grace not to try to appear more intelligent than he was by the inappropriate use of long words.
So let me repeat - what precisely and exactly is your evidence, you fraudulent buffoon?

[shaunbhoy]

So let me repeat - what precisely and exactly is your evidence, you fraudulent buffoon?

My evidence hinges on the fact that the planet has warmed and cooled on a great number of occasions long before man-made carbons ever occurred. I would also point out that over the last century, the vast majority of the warming occurred prior to 1940, and after the war the temperature actually dropped for a while despite an explosion in the production of emitted carbons in the wake of WW2 when worldwide industry was going flat out. There are a whole raft of facts that contradict the science you seem so taken with, based as it is on arbitrary parameters and speculative guesswork, not least of which is the incredibly low percentage of the overall carbon count unarguably attributed to man-made intervention.
You, and a great many other sheep, seem hell bent on accepting the findings of a body of people that cannot accurately predict what the weather will be next week in many cases. I choose not to.
Now, whilst we are on the subject, do YOU have anything valid to throw into the ring or are you going to google on "Milliband + GW Policy + for the hard of thinking"?

[sasguru]

My evidence hinges on the fact that the planet has warmed and cooled on a great number of occasions long before man-made carbons ever occurred. I would also point out that over the last century, the vast majority of the warming occurred prior to 1940, and after the war the temperature actually dropped for a while despite an explosion in the production of emitted carbons in the wake of WW2 when worldwide industry was going flat out. There are a whole raft of facts that contradict the science you seem so taken with, based as it is on arbitrary parameters and speculative guesswork, not least of which is the incredibly low percentage of the overall carbon count unarguably attributed to man-made intervention.
You, and a great many other sheep, seem hell bent on accepting the findings of a body of people that cannot accurately predict what the weather will be next week in many cases. I choose not to.
Now, whilst we are on the subject, do YOU have anything valid to throw into the ring or are you going to google on "Milliband + GW Policy + for the hard of thinking"?

In your illogical, rambling way, you seem to be making 3 tired, hackneyed points, all made in the "Swindle" program which seems to be the limit of your argument :

1. "the planet has warmed and cooled on a great number of occasions long before man-made carbons ever occurred."

This particular argument is a staple of the scientifically illiterate and actually the facts have been well understood for years.

This from a US govt Commerce dept. site - hardly your green tree-huggers:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../holocene.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../medieval.html



2."over the last century, the vast majority of the warming occurred prior to 1940, and after the war the temperature actually dropped for a while despite an explosion in the production of emitted carbons in the wake of WW2 when worldwide industry was going flat out."

During this period, aerosols became a dominant negative forcing, which means that they had a cooling effect. Since that time, we have successfully cut aerosol emissions because of concerns about the ozone and acid rain. Thus, CO2 has become an even more dominant positive forcing.

Don't have a link for this but you can find out if really care.


3. "the incredibly low percentage of the overall carbon count unarguably attributed to man-made intervention. "

Complete bollocks:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

But the greatest lie in the Swindle program is the solar activity link, debunked here:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu...onLaut2004.pdf

To summarise, you don't seem to familiar with the debate and all your views seem to be gleaned from one TV program. Please recall why you started this thread.

[The Lone Gunman]

Sas mate.

Have you looked at the Vostok and other ice core graphs?
Can you explain the recurring pattern over hundreds of thousands of years with your man made climate change?

According to that pattern we are due a period of global warming.

[wendigo100]

Well LG, that was certainly a show-stopper. They're both dumbstruck. The equivalent of Sean Connery typing "Why" into that computer in one of the early James Bond films.

Who was actually winning?

[The Lone Gunman]

Well LG, that was certainly a show-stopper. They're both dumbstruck. The equivalent of Sean Connery typing "Why" into that computer in one of the early James Bond films.

Who was actually winning?

I do not think there is a winner possible here. There is clearly evidence that climate change/GW or whatever you want to call it is happening. I do not think there is any doubt that human activity is contributing, it is a question of how much.
The problem is that that the human activity crowd think that by planting a few more trees, not flying and not using our cars so much we can do something about it. The natural crowd know they can't. The two camps are busy arguing instead of trying to focus on a contingency plan to deal with the outcome.
Some parties have a vested interest and that is blurring the issue even more.
Gordo can use the excuse to prop up his failing tax system so he wants to promote man made. The Yanks economy relies on fuel burning so they promote natural.
Blah blah blah.....