This is what they said about global cooling 1971-1994

Clippo · 08-04-2007, 07:55 PM

Thanks gc !

Clippo · 08-04-2007, 07:58 PM

Allanon,
I’m going to make this as short as I can because I have other commitments this evening, However, you shouldn’t interpret my brevity as rudeness or insult.

On any web forum, especially one such as this, discussion & debate is hampered by the lack of visual signals like body language or feedback and so on. Therefore, one can only judge another debater’s ‘position’ by what they have previously written.

You claim to be a sceptic where you define that as being undecided whereas I and others take the view in the AGW debate that you cannot debate if you haven’t a decided position.

You may argue I have been mistaken, but I have interpreted many of your responses to me as being biased to the anti-AGW argument thus I am inclined to think you are a closet denier. I even tried to be helpful to you when you indicated that you wanted ‘independent facts’ perhaps through Her Majesty’s good agencies. I received no feedback from you and therefore assumed, as is de rigour on this forum, that most posters don’t like to read information that is anathema to their preconceptions, (particularly on the contrarian side).

However, I have also read many of your responses to others and in other topics in which you seem ‘question’ in a slightly provocative manner – a technique reminiscent (weak admittedly) of our resident troll.

So, I repeat, its down to you to unmask yourself before I can categorise you :-

you tell me which side you've come down on with respect to:-

1. The subject of the 'Swindle' thread, i.e. do you think the ‘Swindle program was fraudulent or misleading or not
2. Do you believe that the major cause (not the only one), of the Earths’ current Global warming is anthropogenic. You might like to specify, if you do, which activity of mankind is the major contributor to AGW.

If you don’t agree with either, then please produce a reasoned argument, quoting verifiable science why you don’t agree.

BTW, this is no retraction in any way but I wrote the ‘dirty little puddle’ phrase after a long & frequently altered post. With hindsight I think I would have preferred to have written :-
‘swim in your murky pools of paranoid absurdities’.

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

08-04-2007, 07:55 PM	#41 (permalink)
Clippo Uber Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Cheshire Posts: 2,273	Thanks gc !

08-04-2007, 07:58 PM	#42 (permalink)
Clippo Uber Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Cheshire Posts: 2,273	Allanon, I’m going to make this as short as I can because I have other commitments this evening, However, you shouldn’t interpret my brevity as rudeness or insult. On any web forum, especially one such as this, discussion & debate is hampered by the lack of visual signals like body language or feedback and so on. Therefore, one can only judge another debater’s ‘position’ by what they have previously written. You claim to be a sceptic where you define that as being undecided whereas I and others take the view in the AGW debate that you cannot debate if you haven’t a decided position. You may argue I have been mistaken, but I have interpreted many of your responses to me as being biased to the anti-AGW argument thus I am inclined to think you are a closet denier. I even tried to be helpful to you when you indicated that you wanted ‘independent facts’ perhaps through Her Majesty’s good agencies. I received no feedback from you and therefore assumed, as is de rigour on this forum, that most posters don’t like to read information that is anathema to their preconceptions, (particularly on the contrarian side). However, I have also read many of your responses to others and in other topics in which you seem ‘question’ in a slightly provocative manner – a technique reminiscent (weak admittedly) of our resident troll. So, I repeat, its down to you to unmask yourself before I can categorise you :- you tell me which side you've come down on with respect to:- 1. The subject of the 'Swindle' thread, i.e. do you think the ‘Swindle program was fraudulent or misleading or not 2. Do you believe that the major cause (not the only one), of the Earths’ current Global warming is anthropogenic. You might like to specify, if you do, which activity of mankind is the major contributor to AGW. If you don’t agree with either, then please produce a reasoned argument, quoting verifiable science why you don’t agree. BTW, this is no retraction in any way but I wrote the ‘dirty little puddle’ phrase after a long & frequently altered post. With hindsight I think I would have preferred to have written :- ‘swim in your murky pools of paranoid absurdities’.