Arguments about climate change

Kate P wrote:

I'm in the middle of moving the climate stuff together - where you and ibis and youngdan should have been having this hilarious discussion - and returning the weather thread to its original glory.

Whew!

All done. You can relax now cactus - all the climate change stuff is here.

The global warmers are like Creationists. If you don't believe their gospel they are upset. They don't believe in Nature so talking about ice ages and the other planets warming is taboo. Man and his CO2 created all this. Don't think of the Sun and ignore the Lough freezing up. Nothing matters to them and the Earth is flat

Now we will see more drival. They want to reduce emissions. Now that emissions are to reduced due to a depression it still will not matter a fig to these eco-bible thumpers. They will still want more. When there is no industry in Ireland they will still rant.

To them it is a religon. Just watch.

youngdan wrote:

The global warmers are like Creationists. If you don't believe their gospel they are upset. They don't believe in Nature so talking about ice ages and the other planets warming is taboo. Man and his CO2 created all this. Don't think of the Sun and ignore the Lough freezing up. Nothing matters to them and the Earth is flat

Now we will see more drival. They want to reduce emissions. Now that emissions are to reduced due to a depression it still will not matter a fig to these eco-bible thumpers. They will still want more. When there is no industry in Ireland they will still rant.

To them it is a religon. Just watch.

There are of course some people like that. Their grasp of the science involved is usually as weak as the denialists on the other side, and their arguments as irrational. However, the mad supporters of any particular viewpoint constitute an argument against that viewpoint only when they form its almost exclusive support (aside of course from those to whom they are 'useful idiots').

Lads read the Charter please, in the corner. Just the faintest hint of ad hominem creeping in. (Mod cf)

He started it

youngdan wrote:

He started it

That's as may be

what sites do you all find useful for examining climate change data with access to peer review?Or indeed a book that you would reccomend.

This is the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change site:

http://www.ipcc.ch/

It should be up to date and peer reviewed.

cactus flower wrote:

This is the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change site:

http://www.ipcc.ch/





It should be up to date and peer reviewed.

Looks good,plenty of reading material there. Thanks

Papal Knight wrote:

youngdan wrote:

The global warmers are like Creationists. If you don't believe their gospel they are upset. They don't believe in Nature so talking about ice ages and the other planets warming is taboo. Man and his CO2 created all this. Don't think of the Sun and ignore the Lough freezing up. Nothing matters to them and the Earth is flat

Now we will see more drival. They want to reduce emissions. Now that emissions are to reduced due to a depression it still will not matter a fig to these eco-bible thumpers. They will still want more. When there is no industry in Ireland they will still rant.

To them it is a religon. Just watch.

mod (ad hominem) cf

Em . . . I didn't make that post.

Thanks for deleting that post by Papal, Cactus. It was particularly nasty and hurtfull. I am not surprised he denies making it.

youngdan wrote:

Thanks for deleting that post by Papal, Cactus. It was particularly nasty and hurtfull. I am not surprised he denies making it.

You're off topic, youngdan. I would appreciate it if you would return to the matter of climate change.

The insult was so scarring that I thought it was raining but it was instead a flood of tears at such a low ad-hominem attack.

Mmm...Lyndon LaRouche.

ibis wrote:

Mmm...Lyndon LaRouche.

I didn't see him in there. I saw I pile of Australians...?

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

Mmm...Lyndon LaRouche.

I didn't see him in there. I saw I pile of Australians...?

I don’t think that’s the correct term for a group of Australians, it should be a “Bruce” as far as I know.
A “pile” is the term used to describe a collective of sporting substitutes.

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

Mmm...Lyndon LaRouche.

I didn't see him in there. I saw I pile of Australians...?

I don’t think that’s the correct term for a group of Australians, it should be a “Bruce” as far as I know.
A “pile” is the term used to describe a collective of sporting substitutes.

http://www.roperld.com/graphics/TempPop.jpg

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

Mmm...Lyndon LaRouche.

I didn't see him in there. I saw I pile of Australians...?

Check the CEC & LaRouche menu item.

So lyndon larouche, well known neo fascist, is a cc sceptic. Is that surprising ?

http://www.lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-obama.htm