More evidence that man-made global warming is a crock...

mkpdavies · 05-12-2006, 03:40 PM

Quote:

As for mpkdavies, I’m beginning to think he losing, or has even lost, his sanity with his puerile postings. Go seek medical help !!!!

More abuse

Clippo · 05-12-2006, 03:59 PM

John Carter wrote:-

Quote:

Ummm, dude - the whole article says that the climate change cycle has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years. Yet we've only had industrialisation for a couple of hundred. Therefore, it's not caused by man's industrial activities or the burning of fossil fuel. Period.

Uumm dude or should that be duh! or doh! for you - Tell me something new. You are completely incorrect, as I said in my earlier reply, the ‘cycle’ has been going on for all of the generally accepted 4.6 Billion years of earths history, and will continue for millions more.

Consult a geology book!!

What we are talking about is here & now.

Yep,

Quote:

Yet we've only had industrialisation for a couple of hundred (of years)

my addition in bold.

But the whole point of that is in that period, a blink of an eye in geological terms, we’ve ‘burned’ fossil fuels that represent the saved energy of the sun of many ‘millions’ of years.

Once again, I challenge you cut & paste the relevant statements from the article that make you deduce 'GW is a man made crock…’ ( s**t or gold or what).

John Carter · 05-12-2006, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clippo

John Carter wrote:-

Quote:

Ummm, dude - the whole article says that the climate change cycle has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years. Yet we've only had industrialisation for a couple of hundred. Therefore, it's not caused by man's industrial activities or the burning of fossil fuel. Period.

Uumm dude or should that be duh! or doh! for you - Tell me something new. You are completely incorrect, as I said in my earlier reply, the ‘cycle’ has been going on for all of the generally accepted 4.6 Billion years of earths history, and will continue for millions more.

Consult a geology book!!

What we are talking about is here & now.

Yep,

Quote:

Yet we've only had industrialisation for a couple of hundred (of years)

my addition in bold.

But the whole point of that is in that period, a blink of an eye in geological terms, we’ve ‘burned’ fossil fuels that represent the saved energy of the sun of many ‘millions’ of years.

Once again, I challenge you cut & paste the relevant statements from the article that make you deduce 'GW is a man made crock…’ ( s**t or gold or what).

Right... ...so you freely admit that climate change has been going on forever. Yet somehow this time it's all down to man's activities on the planet - like it wouldn't have happened if we hadn't been burning fossil fuels.

It's a crock. Either you're too stupid to realise that or you're part of the oppressive system taking advantage of people's stupidity and pushing it for population control purposes. End of discussion.

Oh, and at this point I believe you're actually the former, since you make non-literate additions to posts. "A couple of hundred of years"? I can only assume that this illiteracy seeps into your perception of whatever facts about climate change it is that you read.

mkpdavies · 05-12-2006, 06:31 PM

O.K guys, funs over, let's not get too heated, otherwise we will get the blame for GW instead.

Besoeker · 05-12-2006, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Carter

Ummm, dude - the whole article says that the climate change cycle has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years. Yet we've only had industrialisation for a couple of hundred. Therefore, it's not caused by man's industrial activities or the burning of fossil fuel. Period.

That's not a valid conclusion. At best, from your reasoning, you could that the warming might not be caused by man's activities.

One can accept that there is a cyclical variation in the earth's temperature over hundreds of thousands of years. But what has set off alarm bells is that the present upward trend has ocurred in decades, not millenia.

As I said earlier in this thread you have to take into account rate of change.

John Carter · 05-12-2006, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Carter

Ummm, dude - the whole article says that the climate change cycle has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years. Yet we've only had industrialisation for a couple of hundred. Therefore, it's not caused by man's industrial activities or the burning of fossil fuel. Period.

That's not a valid conclusion. At best, from your reasoning, you could that the warming might not be caused by man's activities.

One can accept that there is a cyclical variation in the earth's temperature over hundreds of thousands of years. But what has set off alarm bells is that the present upward trend has ocurred in decades, not millenia.

As I said earlier in this thread you have to take into account rate of change.

No, sorry. The "heat up" has always occurred quite quickly. It's the "cool down" which is usually slower. You're perhaps reading the graph back-to-front.

Take a combination of control-obsessed commies, a bunch of geeky scientists who'd dearly love to be as sexy as the jock driving the Mustang/F150 and a bunch of sheeple who believe them and what is a natural event is suddenly hyped into mass hysteria.

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.

John Carter · 06-12-2006, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clippo

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.

The question was answered the first time you asked it. I can't help it if you didn't notice that. But it does set the tone, doesn't it - you know, you not noticing things?

And on the issue of grammar: I wouldn't have even bothered if it wasn't actually a result of your trying to correct my grammar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clippo

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.

You might hold some value in being an "intellectual". I don't. I remember when I was a uni lecturer that there was lots of people around me who were actually pig thick and trying to hide behind their veneer of "intellectual argument" or the like. You're not kidding anyone mate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clippo

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.

Uh huh. Which bit of "the Earth has been doing this warming and cooling cycle for millions of years without the help of mankind" are you not getting, exactly?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clippo

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.

Let's mention the hockey stick. Let's see that data extend back 100,000 years. Go on.

John Carter · 06-12-2006, 03:00 PM

Any of you GW voodooists/idiots want to argue that?
No, thought not.

Let's face it - your whole religion is driven by hatred of 4x4s.

mkpdavies · 06-12-2006, 03:15 PM

JC you can't argue with someone who has so much faith in their religion. It just isn't worth it.

They actually can't see the graphs you put up.

They can't comprehend the logic of what you are saying, because you don't believe in their voodoo.

They can only throw out insults and put downs.

Now Gordon has raped the people a bit more using the religion his like created, just for this very purpose, the voodoo fanatics will be celebrating in the streets I am sure.

05-12-2006, 06:31 PM	#14 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,615	O.K guys, funs over, let's not get too heated, otherwise we will get the blame for GW instead. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

06-12-2006, 02:30 PM	#17 (permalink)
Clippo Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Cheshire Posts: 1,773	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.

06-12-2006, 03:15 PM	#20 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,615	JC you can't argue with someone who has so much faith in their religion. It just isn't worth it. They actually can't see the graphs you put up. They can't comprehend the logic of what you are saying, because you don't believe in their voodoo. They can only throw out insults and put downs. Now Gordon has raped the people a bit more using the religion his like created, just for this very purpose, the voodoo fanatics will be celebrating in the streets I am sure. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-12-2006, 03:00 PM	#19 (permalink)
John Carter Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: On Sabbatical Posts: 5,110	Any of you GW voodooists/idiots want to argue that? No, thought not. Let's face it - your whole religion is driven by hatred of 4x4s.