Originally Posted by MontyB

No you find it mildly amusing that some one who's opinion you agree with isnt being venerated for an argument you support.

The global warming argument is a religion it has it fanatics at both ends of the scale and I don't trust either of them, I would also point out that what Del Boy posted was a review of a book and was not the words of the writer so nothing in there was anything more than an opinion of someone else's work.

So perhaps "Pot meet kettle, he's black" applies here.

None of which disproves a single thing that I said.

True but that is because you didn't actually say anything to disprove.

Originally Posted by MontyB

The global warming argument is a religion it has it fanatics at both ends of the scale and I don't trust either of them, I would also point out that what Del Boy posted was a review of a book and was not the words of the writer so nothing in there was anything more than an opinion of someone else's work.

I agree with you. But if it cannot be conclusively proven, maybe we have a case against Algore for inciting a panic. I never bought into it but the US Government seems to have. This is all in spite of the fact that the jury is still out. Maybe we should wait until it is decided wither way, before we begin spending billions.

Originally Posted by MontyB

True but that is because you didn't actually say anything to disprove.

Not even this Monty?

Originally Posted by senojekips

---snip---this researcher's findings would have been accepted at face value and quoted as being without question when they supported the beliefs of the doom sayers, yet should he find evidence that the previous findings were flawed his credibility is suddenly bought into question.---snip---

If your last statement had even the slightest truth to it,,... why did you bother trying to (incorrectly) show that my initial statement was ill found?

Or did you just feel like an argument over "nothing" ? Not like you at all Monty, you're slipping,... badly.

Tell the truth, the glaringly obvious truth of my initial statement got up your nose.

Originally Posted by MontyB

The global warming argument is a religion it has it fanatics at both ends of the scale and I don't trust either of them, I would also point out that what Del Boy posted was a review of a book and was not the words of the writer so nothing in there was anything more than an opinion of someone else's work.

As always (applauding) you are nicely tip-toeing through the tulips and of course I approve of the sceptic approach.

This is why I recommend a choice of two paths for you on this issue.

1. Read the book and get back to us - don't be scared, it's nice.

or, highly recommended:-

2. Take my word for it that this guy's work should go the top of your tick-list ; you know I can be trusted to be instinctively correct at all times.
Just take hold of my coat-tails and you won't go far wrong.

Regardless, I have done my messenger job here on behalf of all and sundry; to sum up my position on this global warming issue is still "BEWARE OF PICKPOCKETS"!

G'day.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

As always (applauding) you are nicely tip-toeing through the tulips and of course I approve of the sceptic approach.

See here is the problem I have with the "its all a hoax" crowd, even if the entire "man made global warming" argument was entirely false the "Natural cycle" one isn't so we still have to deal with a problem no matter who is right.

In the end I really don't care who is right as long as we do not allow intransigence to create more problems further down the track, further to this I actually don't mind the idea of cleaning up our act environmentally as it will benefit us health wise and ascetically for generations to come, so given the choice of living in an unrestricted industrial wasteland or a clean environment, clean will win every time.

This is why I recommend a choice of two paths for you on this issue.

1. Read the book and get back to us - don't be scared, it's nice.

I told you I don't have the time and to a large part I don't have the interest right now.

2. Take my word for it that this guy's work should go the top of your tick-list ; you know I can be trusted to be instinctively correct at all times.
Just take hold of my coat-tails and you won't go far wrong.

Not going to happen because you and I share enough differences for me to know that you are only right when you agree with me.
:P

Regardless, I have done my messenger job here on behalf of all and sundry; to sum up my position on this global warming issue is still "BEWARE OF PICKPOCKETS"!

G'day.

Let me expand on this a little, "BEWARE OF PICKPOCKETS NO MATTER WHAT THEIR MOTIVE".

Have you cast your vote today Del Boy? UKIP, BNP or Conservative? All of them are Climate Denier's, don't be fooled by Cameron, he is only pretending to play the socially respectable card. Don't worry he won't really do anything to offend Businesses!

The Media bias is nothing more than a political conspiracy by big business to suppress moderate or left wing views. Here are last years circulation figures. It's a national disgrace, everyone knows advertising works (except with themselves) so don't suggest they can't influence voters decisions, especially those who haven't got the time or brains to make an informed decision.

Conservative = 7.0 million

Sun 2.8
Mail 2.1
Express 0.7
Telegraph 0.8
Times 0.6
FT 0.4

Labour = 1.6 million

Mirror 1.3
Record 0.3

Lib Dem = 0.5 million?

Guardian 0.3
Independent? 0.2

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/tabl...nal-newspapers

As regard to Spencer being the greatest climate scientist, from your (disambiguated) link. Yes he is the one you meant this is really true

Spencer is a proponent of intelligent design as the mechanism for the origin of species.[22] On the subject, Spencer wrote in 2005, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . .

and like all the so called 'climate skeptic scientists' he doesn't really deny CO2 must have an effect on the atmosphere, only by how much. This is something the Deniers fail to mention. Any scientist suggesting otherwise would be stating the impossible due to the inherent physical nature of these gases.

As John [Christy] said, if you add CO2, something has to change. But things are changing all the time anyway.

Source: George C. Marshall Institute Washington Roundtable, "Satellite Temperature Data", pdf, April 2006

Fred (Tobacco) Singer is the 3rd prominent 'sceptic'. He is so deep in oil money he 'can't remember where all the checks come from' (his words)