My|m?|
possessive adjective
1 belonging to or associated with the speaker : my name is John | my friend.

Who did I call a denialist? Myself
Who were the concerns pertaining to? Me
Did I refer to Mr Gates sharing a number of concerns with me? Yes
Did I refer to the concerns as being denialist in themselves? No
Did I refer to Mr Gates as a Denialist? No

"The concerns which pertain to me, the denialist"

Don't you understand simple English A_A?
Would you like me to arrange a referral to the "Derek Zoolander Institute For Kids Who Can't Read Good and Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too"?

You tried to set up a straw man, and you failed, poor you, diddums…

As I said – next!

eh?

It is at least consistent with the rest of his posts. confused blathering

I haven't been following this with much attention, but have we established who's got the biggest dad yet?

er, not quite, i reckon it's got a few more pages to go…

i'm really not sure what agenda Hainey and Mr-11 are working to, but i'm pretty sure it's not 'looking at the world through science'

Hainey, Mr-11, may i have your attention please?

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there are others methane for example, CO2 is more important than methane because there's so much more of it. (we can't pin all of this on farting cows)

2) human activity has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 40% (and rising) – through deforestation and the use of fossil fuels.

3) are you seriously trying to argue with points 1 and 2? – then i'm afraid you'll need to show some me some evidence, or i'll write off your behaviour as attention seeking.

i am not dogmatic, show me evidence and i will let it change me.

(for example, i was writing a report for work last week, i was barking up the wrong tree with my basic assumptions, until Mr Reggiegasket kindly pointed me in the right direction)

Regardless – back in the box with your terrorist mates, just like the Taliban you'd rather see us back in the stone age! I suppose like them and greenpeace you think the only way to "make" people stop producing carbon is going to be direct action, better get your place in flight school booked!

And right there you lost any credibility you may still have had. Go ride your bike Jimbob it'll do you the world of good.

Go ride your bike K****** (Zulu has posted his initial himself in the past)

Play nice Dave, you know the rules:

Privacy Policy

Gofar Enterprises Ltd fully respects the privacy of all our users and while we do collect information at registration and from time to time through various means such as surveys, competitions and other means, we strictly believe in respecting your right to privacy. To this end we will NEVER supply the personal details of any user to any third party unless a) you give us your explicit permission to do so, or b) we are obliged to do so by relevant authorities

Whats that Dave? Are you suggesting that a little bit of baiting the Greenie's isn't quite playing fair? 😈

I mean, its ok for people to call anyone who disagrees with their faith based interpretation of "the science" a moron, play ad hominem with any counter argument, and try to set up straw man arguments that you claimed something you didn't…

But its not OK to point that out or mention that Bin Laden has quite clearly expressed an opinion that industrialised countries are to blame for the 'global warming crisis', which is a pretty interesting development given the fact that Greenpeace have been supporting a 'direct action' agenda for a while now. 😆

I mean, as a 'mod', I wouldn't expect you to support double standards! 🙄

Don't worry Edukator, I mean, rules clearly only apply if you agree with what someone is saying…

However, obviously given the fact that I've said on the same thread that my career involved over a decade of animal research, one would have thought that at some point the common sense personal security and safety implications might kick in there… I mean, maybe Dave's sympathies really do lie with terrorists? 😯

Not reading all that, but I too am sceptical. The Climategate proved scientists were bigging up the threat for funding. Don't know if anyone's posted this yet – but the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is:

Earth's atmosphere contains roughly (by molar content/volume) 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, a variable amount (average around 0.247%, National Center for Atmospheric Research) water vapor, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and traces of hydrogen, helium, and other "noble" gases (and of volatile pollutants).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere

0.038%. Apparantly scientists think we're responsible for lifted it 0.003%, and thus destroying the world. Hard for me to believe

Steve – run away before you are burned at the stake!! 😉

Most scientists think man has raised atmospheric CO2 from 290ppm in 1860 to 380ppm today with a combination of industrial emissions and the destruction of natural sinks. That's a 31% increase. Some oil industry funded scients claim this increase is natural but have failed to identify a natural cause.

I suggest reading before posting Steve. There's plenty of information on the previous pages that you need to read before you can add anything useful.

hainey – Member
Steve – run away before you are burned at the stake!!

Good analogy – the global warming nazis do seem to be conducting a witch hunt, again as was seen in the Climategate saga.

🙂

Thanks for the advice Edukator.

…now **** off!

Don't forget Godwin's law Steve.

No burning anyone, just hoping for poetic justice.

Ah, you have a potty mouth too Steve. Will do, wife willing.

any neutral can clearly see who is winning this argument. Calling those who disagree with you terrorists an Nazis clearly shows this.

godwins law indeed.

Zulu – for all you claim to be in testing and research your understanding of scientific method and how to assess research is sadly lacking – unless of course you are trolling. Or do you work at teh level od sweeping out the animals cages?

Steve – hard for you to believe? Perhaps you should read some of the data. CO2 plays a large part in regulating the heat on the planet. The higher the co2 levels the higher the temp. CO2 is higher now than it was a couple of hundred years ago by 30 % Global temps are up over the same period. these are all facts that cannot be disputed by anyone with any sense.

You can dispute how significant mans role in this is but those three things are indisputable measured facts.

Yes hard to believe. You've chosen to believe biased scientists seeking more and more funding. I read scientists were claiming man was responsible for a 10% increase, not 30%.

You like to use 30%, cos it sounds greater – even if it is 30% of a small figure)
If the population of the UK were the atmosphere, it would be like increasing from 14896 to 21280, probably the amount of posters on here.

We have a relatively stable amount of Co2 in the atmosphere – yet massive variations in weather, so me, anyone saying the Co2 is so massively important is wrong.

I'm not saying man made global warming isn't happening. I'm saying I'm far from convinced – and probably less convinced now than 2 years ago.

CO2 is higher now than it was a couple of hundred years ago by 30 % Global temps are up over the same period. these are all facts that cannot be disputed by anyone with any sense.

But the fact that one causes the other can be – the simple fact you choose to gloss over in your statement above! as Junkyard pointed out, correlation does not mean causality – cue pirate graph!

If I'm wrong on my understanding of scientific method TJ, I suggest you might want to stop taking a whole variety of prescription medicines… 😉

Calling people terrorists? Are you denying that Greenpeace has consorted with terrorist organisations?

a 30% increase is a measured fact and is not a "reactively stable" amount

weather is not climate

So your opinions from clearly zero knowledge and zero understanding are more valid than the scientific concensus?

Go and do some reading and try to gain some basic understanding and knowledge. Try to argue with something other than ignorant and stupid opinions

TJ said :You can dispute how significant mans role in this is but those three things are indisputable measured facts

correlation does not mean causality

I agree

Zulu at least read what I wrote. 🙄

Calling people terrorists? Are you denying that Greenpeace has consorted with terrorist organisations?

Lets have some proof of that completely ridiculous assertion.

the scientific concensus?

Said it before, this is not a valid scientific argument, mere confirmation bias – the scientific consensus was that the world was flat and that the sun went round the earth! I suggest you go and read the works of Thomas Kuhn!

Zulu – try reading what is written and answering the questions put to you rather than quoting out of context.

You are getting more and more desperate and far fetched in your arguments and anytime someone catches you out you slither off in a different direction trying to distract from the bollox you have spouted.

Right – someone else turn. I can't be bothered any more.

There could be one atom of some exotic gas in the atmosphere, and we could chuck another up increasing by 100% the amount up there. Are we supposed to believe that's gonna end the earth?

You're being pedantic. I don't profess to know much about the science, but have seen plausible rebutals of the man made global warming arguments. The earth has been hotter before, the atmosphere has had more Co2 before, but now climate change – that no-one would have noticed had we not been told it's happening – is all our fault.

Seems you've not changed much – still the know all condescending ****.

On a different subject TJ you called me ignorant, stupid, and making it worse for myself about a year ago by ignoring a speeding fine.

Guess what – still heard nothing, now nearly 18 months gone.

sorry steve, godwins law, you lose.

(i don't make the rules).

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas; it absorbs infrared radiation.

2) human activity has increased the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere; we know this because we can look at the levels of decayed carbon isotopes which come from fossil fuels.

3) places like bangladesh, where millions of people live on land less than 1m above sea level are beginning to feel a bit nervous about the implications of points 1 and 2

i am not dogmatic, show me evidence and i will let it change me – will you?

X

(the earth's gonna be just fine, WE're probably going to be fine, but people struggling to live in marginal areas of the world are already feeling the pinch)

I don't profess to know much about the science

clearly

Now that is a really good argument. Wow I'm convinced. You are still an arrogant and ignorant clown. 🙄

It's just stupid for the world to be spending huge amounts on global warming research, when all they have to do is ask you TJ.

…………..then again, you do have a history of being wrong!

Or perhaps the thousands of well qualified scientists who are researching climate change that believe it to be man made?

yes there is a debate and rightly so. However the clear weight of evidence is on one side.

clear weight of evidence

Care to enlighten us what you think this evidence is?

hmm, well i just did a very basic job search for 'climate scientist' – you know, the ones who are after all the money (and are therefore biased).

the average pay i found was approx £30k.

not bad really, but you can earn more being a teacher, and i'm sure with all their science acumen they would quite easily be able to find plenty of other, better paid jobs.

seems then that they probably don't do it for the money…

hmmm…

hainey – Member

clear weight of evidence

Care to enlighten us what you think this evidence is?

You don't know where to get it from?

Plenty of references to it on here and plenty out there is you want it. I suggest "nature" as a start point or scientific American or new scientist. they will have papers, references and citations to follow

Come on, if there is overwhelming evidence it must be very easy for you to summarise for us in say a couple of sentences…. no?

On the other hand:

http://www.climategate.com/

Oh – you want a summary? Plenty on this thread. Junkyard and edukator have put it better than I could.

Today we can update you with the news that the credibility of the IPCC and Prime Minister Gordon Brown has taken another major blow as Britain’s highest ranked government scientist, Professor John Beddington CMG FRS admits the science for global warming is “uncertain.”

Global warming belief is like a new and terrible religion.

Steve – you can do better than that bunch of paranoid conspiracy fantasists suerly?

About

The goal of Climategate.com is to provide a daily dose of information regarding the world’s greatest scam, climategate, and other information and news to help you in your battle against the Religion of Settled Science to dispute their views on Anthropogenic Global Warming, and in addition, to battle the one-world socialist agenda, which is the movement’s leaders’ real goal.

Their main "scientist" appears to be Christopher Monckton, otherwise known as Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. He has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/nov/14/science.comment

Yes hard to believe. You've chosen to believe biased scientists seeking more and more funding.
This strikes me as an interesting argument. I wouldn't for a moment dispute that scientists have a tendency to be biased towards their sponsors. But science tends to be funded by people with some vested interest in getting something useful out of the research. Which raises the question as to what commercial or governmental agencies would be falling over themselves to provide such funding in the first place?

Ian – they are using it as an excuse to raise your taxes and to put a global socialist state in place. did you not realise?

🙂