The "Global Warming would be good for us" thread.

[Clippo]

g hall wrote

I specifically said I wasn't being condescending or can't you read !! I thought you might be a young debater not wise in the ways of this forum. I was trying to be kind to you but with your shoulder chip I see that I was very wrong.

The major theme of my posts on this thread have been that it is GW doubters, like mpkdavies and you apparently repeat drivel constantly, not me.

mpkdavies gets pi55sed off with me ( and lots of others) because I/we question him on the scientific validity of his GW claims. Since he has never previously provided valid research to back them up them he gets ratty and goes off into bluster mode in the hope he'll distract people.. You have obviously fallen into the same trap.

Now, having read the Wikipaedia article, do you consider that your earlier posting about solar activity was perhaps a bit naïve ? !!!

As for - S.M.A.C.K.D.O.W.N.- that’s really rich coming from the most smack-down’ed person on the GW thread. (or now will you claim that isn’t what you really meant John Carter ?)

[kernow]

Originally Posted by Millennium3

I am sure you would prefer a referendum on our continued membership of the EU [with all of the governments attempts to persuade] than none at all!

Agreed! But I am still very worried about it, simply because I think senior politicians from the three main parties aided and abetted by the EU with money no object, will pull every stunt possible to get a "Yes vote"!

[g hall]

I specifically said I wasn't being condescending or can't you read !!

Yes perfectly literate and you were/are condescending and just to cheer you up here are some links about man made global warming warning YOU may NOT like them

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/358953.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4066189.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...ts/4105327.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4203021.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3854461.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4693855.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4923504.stm
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu//?p=30
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentar...20041202d.html
http://www.the-electric-universe.info/
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...rradiance.html
http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/

Now I've put up go away and read also bear in mind Wiikipedia is constantly changing because anyone can change it

[mkpdavies]

He'll just right all those off as nutters. You shouldn't have wasted your time.

[Clippo]

mpkdavies wrote:-

He'll just right all those off as nutters. You shouldn't have wasted your time.

Obviously you now recognise the validity of my previous arguments with you.
Many of the BBC quotes do clearly say that this is one side of the debate and point out sources to other views -but it isn't raw valid scientific data. many of the links are old - the first BBC one is 1999, another suggests quite clearly that the world has been warmer in the past - who disagrees with that. Even the NASA link is 3 years old and obviously hasn't worn well or stood the test of independent scrutiny.

The rest are the the usual hackneyed old Exxon funded disinformation sites that mpkdavies guiltily admits to.

If you want a truly unbiased source (which I know you won't) go to

http://www.ipcc.ch/

re wkipaedia,

Now I've put up go away and read also bear in mind Wiikipedia is constantly changing because anyone can change it

I don't think that's true any more - i think they have some sort of neutral vetting process now to stop nutters like you perverting true data.

[g hall]

nutters like you

Who's the junior member ? and no they dont

So what if it is old (circa 1999) does that make it any less valid?

So when I do as you ask you resort to name calling well take your ball home little boy while the adults debate rationally

[Clippo]

g.hall wrote:-

So when I do as you ask you resort to name calling well take your ball home little boy while the adults debate rationally

You've fallen out of your pram on this one litlle boy and lost your dummy -and acting true to form for an intellectual midget.

also,

So what if it is old (circa 1999) does that make it any less valid?

Yes it very much does - it may have been proved or in your reference more likely disproved by serious scientists in the meantime.

Just give me some unbiased, un exxon polluted data - then I may credit you with some commonsense.

In the expectation that you won't, I'm tired of wasting my time in this way, so bye.

[Millennium3]

I agree - we should have a referendum.

[Feldoon]

Originally Posted by Clippo

g.hall wrote:-

You've fallen out of your pram on this one litlle boy and lost your dummy -and acting true to form for an intellectual midget.

Wouldn't it be a reasonable action for the both of you to not attack each other as a way of debate, or are fallacies that awesome?

Yes it very much does

Not necessarily.

it may have been proved or in your reference more likely disproved by serious scientists in the meantime.

So that means the field's open to you to try.

Without using fallacious arguing to support yourself, if you would be so kind.

[g hall]

The IPCC has been discredited recently by Christopher Monckton in his letter to The Honourable Senator Olympia Snowe (Republican, Maine) and The Honourable Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia) about their criticism of Exxon and free speech

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf

Makes interesting reading does it not, it's very recent, full of good references etc

and there's always this one
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Mo..._cancelled.pdf