Reply to: Whining Iraqis!!

[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.....

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

Okay, here's an issue for you. If the scientists you seem so impressed with (the same ones that were incidentally predicting the new Ice Age a mere 30 years ago!) were to produce models that suggest that man's interference is of limited import in all this, what might happen to their bottomless funding and research grants? That's right, they would disappear overnight. And so would the leverage for an infinite number of ongoing green tax takes for governments around the planet. So it is hardly surprising that they manufacture the self-perpetuating set of results that they do. Not that anything that sinister would dawn on nasally-led primates like you. For those of us less gullible it is not that hard to comprehend. It really is a no-brainer, you should be right at home. Sadly, as with so many things that are not stunningly simple, you cannot fathom it.

That is of course possible. It is also possible that the pro GW science is right. 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. But as such a simple logical chain seems beyond you, you resort to a cliched, banal repetition of propaganda.

[Lucifer Box]

To be fair, the weather has been a bit chilly the last few days. Isn't this proof that the increase in Air Passenger Duty is working its magic already? A bit of road use charging and we should be fine.

[shaunbhoy]

For a second there I thought you were going to do a bit of thinking and point out some issue with the science of global warming that would have us racking our brains.

Okay, here's an issue for you. If the scientists you seem so impressed with (the same ones that were incidentally predicting the new Ice Age a mere 30 years ago!) were to produce models that suggest that man's interference is of limited import in all this, what might happen to their bottomless funding and research grants? That's right, they would disappear overnight. And so would the leverage for an infinite number of ongoing green tax takes for governments around the planet. So it is hardly surprising that they manufacture the self-perpetuating set of results that they do. Not that anything that sinister would dawn on nasally-led primates like you. For those of us less gullible it is not that hard to comprehend. It really is a no-brainer, you should be right at home. Sadly, as with so many things that are not stunningly simple, you cannot fathom it.

[sasguru]

Thank God for that. I thought you were going to go hyper-google again and produce some more obscure references to back up your clumsy contentions.
To quote William Hague, "you are all spin and no delivery" sasguru. A one-dimensional thinker in a multi-dimensional world. Perhaps we should have you stuffed one day and kept in the Natural History Museum, somewhere in between the Deep Sea Sponges and the Dodo?

No, thank God for that! For a second there I thought you were going to do a bit of thinking and point out some issue with the science of global warming that would have us racking our brains.
But I shouldn't have worried. What you see is what you get with you, SB - a bumptious buffoon more at home twittering about whatever propaganda matches up with your cartoonish view of the world.

[shaunbhoy]

I'll leave it to the objective reader of this thread to make up their own mind

Thank God for that. I thought you were going to go hyper-google again and produce some more obscure references to back up your clumsy contentions.
To quote William Hague, "you are all spin and no delivery" sasguru. A one-dimensional thinker in a multi-dimensional world. Perhaps we should have you stuffed one day and kept in the Natural History Museum, somewhere in between the Deep Sea Sponges and the Dodo?

[sasguru]

There is much more to this than you seem prepared to grasp ...

And I suppose your inter-planetary sized brain has managed to grasp these issues, where the rest of us chimps have failed

I'll leave it to the objective reader of this thread to make up their own mind

[shaunbhoy]

I prefer to argue things on the basis of the quality of the science rather than on the comments and background of the personalities involved, if it's all the same to you.

Well the science that you seem so keen on believing is based on computer models that work largely on the GIGO principle. Garbage in, Garbage out.
Like your representative polls, they can be manipulated and cherrypicked to give whatever outcome you prefer. "Set parameters to induce maximum research grant funding Mr Gobbledygook, and careful with that temperature axis!"
There is much more to this than you seem prepared to grasp sg. Hardly surprising given your limits. Do a google on 'Global Dimming' for further evidence, you are good at that if nothing else.

[sasguru]

By all means do just that sasguru, but before you do, make sure you read the Independent Television Commission's judgement on a documentary Martin Durkin made some years ago about greenies, here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archi...int_id=40.html



And be aware that someone has already stepped forward with the same complaint about Durkin's Global Warming Swindle doco.

Also be aware that in 1998 the American Petroleum Institute wrote a memo stating

http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/quote.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_E...entists_report

Looks like quite a few people on here have been played for chumps...

I prefer to argue things on the basis of the quality of the science rather than on the comments and background of the personalities involved, if it's all the same to you.