British Democracy Forum - View Single Post - More evidence that man-made global warming is a crock...

Clippo · 06-12-2006, 02:30 PM

Besoeker,
It’s good to see someone else debating on this and associated threads who appreciates the factual truth of GW. This debate is absolutely about the rate of GW and imo, mankind’s contribution to this warming.

I’m going to take a break from this thread & topic for a little while – got much more to do on other threads & the run up to the festive season.

I’m assuming, (even though generally unwise), that you are probably on the side of commonsense & majority. If you are, and if you choose to continue the debate here, here’s a bit of genuinely friendly advice. (I’m sure you understand what I mean, with your number of posts you’ve undoubtedly come across it before – but just in case!). If you’re a GW sceptic then ignore the rest of this letter.

1. When your debating opponent pointedly refuses to answer your questions and then picks you up on a trivial spelling/grammatical mistake made in the heat of typing, you know your opponent is reeling and frantically scraping the barrel for anything to throw back at you.

2. When said opponent then accuses you of being intellectually incompetent because of said mistake, and then extrapolates this incompetence to everything else you have said, you know that you have won hands down, completely. All they have triumphantly proved is that they, not you, are the intellectual pip-squeak.

3. GW sceptics are generally trying to reverse their comprehensive intellectual thrashing on GW, (and man’s accepted contribution to it), that was carried out in the USA Congress about 15 plus/minus 2 years ago. In any dispute, there are always losers – and in every dispute, an even smaller minority can never, ever accept they are wrong. (e.g Nazis, Creationists, Flat-Earthists and so on).

4. GW sceptics will try various techniques to undermine yours. They will pick on some published article professing to support their case. Usually, they’ve not had the wit or intelligence to have read the article or truly understood it. Wherever this may be the case, try to read the carefully. You can them dispose of them easily.

5. Also, in the vast majority of cases, the said article is a ‘rework’ of the original publication by various groups, usually in the USA, and who are funded openly or covertly by USA Oil interests and big business.

6. GW sceptics will pore over published work, often scientific papers that have been peer reviewed, to try to find any slightest weak spot – then, (a usual typical lawyer technique), try to undermine confidence in the whole by implying an error on an inconsequential point.

7. Then, when they see that you’re getting the upper hand, (which you are bound to because you are dealing with true scientific facts), they start to accuse you of being part of various conspiracies. (I think I’ve been called Fascist, Fascist EU, commie, EU commie, and commie with all sorts of other add-ons, eco- religious and you name it). When they do that, you know again that you’ve won because they haven’t any FACTs to debate with you so they resort to bluff & bluster.

8. Don’t mention the hockey-stick graph!!!! GW sceptics have, metaphorically speaking, got their knickers in real twist over this – neither understanding the difficulties of getting the original data, or the interpretation of that data, or realising that since it was published, their efforts to debunk it have in turn been thoroughly debunked.

9. Most, by far the greatest number, of GW sceptics have never published a scientific paper in climate change or allied subjects. Some of them, (but definitely not on this forum), are clever in other disciplines but assume falsely they can just jump track without anyone noticing.

10. I could go on and on, I certainly could write a book about it but someone has beaten me to it.
Amazon

Amazon
Finally, I would suggest you don’t carry on this debate. It’s a broken pencil – pointless. The GW sceptics here are under severe delusions that their crackpot views will have some effect on the opinion of all the World’s governments, the massive majority of the world’s scientists of all disciplines, and the huge majority of even the slightly educated world population including us. We’ve got truth & fact on our side.

There are some GW sceptics also, 4 x 4 lovers, (who want Jeremy Clarkson as prime minister), who must be sick as a parrot, as they say, with the news today that sales of said vehicles have slumped due to massive extra taxes on them.
Aah, poor things.

One does really suspect that many of the GW sceptics are ‘several cards short of a full pack’ – some many much shorter that others.

Regards

Clippo

Ps. I’ll try to discuss your ‘ something-from-nothing’ machine one day – think there may be a flaw there somewhere.

06-12-2006, 02:30 PM	#17 (permalink)
Clippo Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Cheshire Posts: 1,962	Besoeker, It’s good to see someone else debating on this and associated threads who appreciates the factual truth of GW. This debate is absolutely about the rate of GW and imo, mankind’s contribution to this warming. I’m going to take a break from this thread & topic for a little while – got much more to do on other threads & the run up to the festive season. I’m assuming, (even though generally unwise), that you are probably on the side of commonsense & majority. If you are, and if you choose to continue the debate here, here’s a bit of genuinely friendly advice. (I’m sure you understand what I mean, with your number of posts you’ve undoubtedly come across it before – but just in case!). If you’re a GW sceptic then ignore the rest of this letter. 1. When your debating opponent pointedly refuses to answer your questions and then picks you up on a trivial spelling/grammatical mistake made in the heat of typing, you know your opponent is reeling and frantically scraping the barrel for anything to throw back at you. 2. When said opponent then accuses you of being intellectually incompetent because of said mistake, and then extrapolates this incompetence to everything else you have said, you know that you have won hands down, completely. All they have triumphantly proved is that they, not you, are the intellectual pip-squeak. 3. GW sceptics are generally trying to reverse their comprehensive intellectual thrashing on GW, (and man’s accepted contribution to it), that was carried out in the USA Congress about 15 plus/minus 2 years ago. In any dispute, there are always losers – and in every dispute, an even smaller minority can never, ever accept they are wrong. (e.g Nazis, Creationists, Flat-Earthists and so on). 4. GW sceptics will try various techniques to undermine yours. They will pick on some published article professing to support their case. Usually, they’ve not had the wit or intelligence to have read the article or truly understood it. Wherever this may be the case, try to read the carefully. You can them dispose of them easily. 5. Also, in the vast majority of cases, the said article is a ‘rework’ of the original publication by various groups, usually in the USA, and who are funded openly or covertly by USA Oil interests and big business. 6. GW sceptics will pore over published work, often scientific papers that have been peer reviewed, to try to find any slightest weak spot – then, (a usual typical lawyer technique), try to undermine confidence in the whole by implying an error on an inconsequential point. 7. Then, when they see that you’re getting the upper hand, (which you are bound to because you are dealing with true scientific facts), they start to accuse you of being part of various conspiracies. (I think I’ve been called Fascist, Fascist EU, commie, EU commie, and commie with all sorts of other add-ons, eco- religious and you name it). When they do that, you know again that you’ve won because they haven’t any FACTs to debate with you so they resort to bluff & bluster. 8. Don’t mention the hockey-stick graph!!!! GW sceptics have, metaphorically speaking, got their knickers in real twist over this – neither understanding the difficulties of getting the original data, or the interpretation of that data, or realising that since it was published, their efforts to debunk it have in turn been thoroughly debunked. 9. Most, by far the greatest number, of GW sceptics have never published a scientific paper in climate change or allied subjects. Some of them, (but definitely not on this forum), are clever in other disciplines but assume falsely they can just jump track without anyone noticing. 10. I could go on and on, I certainly could write a book about it but someone has beaten me to it. Amazon Finally, I would suggest you don’t carry on this debate. It’s a broken pencil – pointless. The GW sceptics here are under severe delusions that their crackpot views will have some effect on the opinion of all the World’s governments, the massive majority of the world’s scientists of all disciplines, and the huge majority of even the slightly educated world population including us. We’ve got truth & fact on our side. There are some GW sceptics also, 4 x 4 lovers, (who want Jeremy Clarkson as prime minister), who must be sick as a parrot, as they say, with the news today that sales of said vehicles have slumped due to massive extra taxes on them. Aah, poor things. One does really suspect that many of the GW sceptics are ‘several cards short of a full pack’ – some many much shorter that others. Regards Clippo Ps. I’ll try to discuss your ‘ something-from-nothing’ machine one day – think there may be a flaw there somewhere.