Global Warming - don't wait up!

QUOTE FROM PERSEUS:-
“You quote readers post DelBoy so I will take a short cut and do the same because I can't improve on this one:” quote.
.........................................................................

DEL BOY response:-
NO Perseus – you yourself posted that quote as part of your own link; I merely drew attention to that careless stupidity; be honest. Hold your hands up.

QUOTE FROM PERSEUS:-

BWAHAHAHAHA! Daily Mail? This is the best you've got? The Daily ***** Mail??? Are you ***** serious? It's a ***** tabloid. They have as much credibility as a drunk at the corner of the street. quote.

DEL BOY response:-

NOW NOW PERSEUS, stop that crying! Stiff upper lip man – you are supposed to be English; pull your self together. You’ve obviously forgotten to take your pills again– That Tourette Syndrome is getting the better of you!

...................................................................


QUOTE FROM PERSEUS:-


"Who is David Rose? I'll tell you: a hack journalist with ZERO scientific credentials. He knows nothing about science. His article is full of statements with no attribution that we are supposed to take on faith. ...

You are going to have freakish crazy weather all over the globe, it is not all going to be getting hotter everywhere, cretins! Are you so ***** stupid as to think the local weather conditions reflect the general trends of the entire planet? It is not simple, it is a vastly complex system.

Get back to us with something from a peer reviewed journal, something academic, simpletons ". quote

RESPONSE FROM DEL BOY:-

WHO IS DAVID ROSE, Perseus? Well, contrary to your nonsense here, YOUR OWN LINK describes him thus:-

by Unity
December 14, 2009 at 12:24 pm
“So, at last, the Mail on Sunday has waded into the furore surrounding the hacked CRU emails with a special investigation, bringing out its big guns, David Rose, who is highly regarded as a journalist and has a solid track record in serious reporting and investigations, to write up the story.”
As it happens – Unity seems to be a fan of his, despite of the fact that as a top investigative journalist and author, he has to accept that when you are constantly turning over stones and exposing the creatures that crawl underneath, you have to expect to get bitten from time to time; just part of the job.
Now then, Perseus, your link is nothing but a political blog site, with unattributed authors, very unlike The Daily Mail, Englands’s most popular newspaper with a readership of 2 million, and expert journalists like David Rose.
David Rose is a writer and investigative journalist
His awards include the David Watt Memorial Prize and the One World award for human rights journalism.
His work regularly appears in The Observer and Vanity Fair.
Among his books are In the Name of the Law, a widely-praised examination of the British criminal justice system [buy from Amazon.co.uk]; and A Climate of Fear, an investigation of the Broadwater Farm case and the conviction of Winston Silcott [buy from Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk].
He has also written books on mountaineering, including Regions of the Heart [buy from Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk], a biography of Alison Hargreaves, the British climber who died in her attempt to conquer K2, and he is working on a book about the US death penalty centred on a miscarriage of justice in the town of Columbus, Georgia.
He lives in Oxford with his family.
Now Perseus, you can’t match David Rose with your link – LIBERAL CONSPIRACY isn’t it? Simply a self-admitted left wing political blog site, self-admittedly committed to an agenda to push left-centre politics further to the left.
Who are these complete non-entities?
This is who they are, they tell us:-
“Liberal Conspiracy is the UK's most popular left-of-centre politics blog. Our aim is to re-vitalise the liberal-left through discussion and action.”.


You try to hit me with a plain ol’ fashioned political blog, against The great English institution The Daily Mail and one of their top contributors.

WHO THE HELL IS ‘UNITY’? Credibility? CREDENTIALS? HA! Calling people Simpletons - do me a favour; get off your horse and drink your milk.

Get back to us in a hundred years, sunshine. Our opening hours are 9am – 5 pm; Enclose a stamped and addressed envelope.
 
Last edited:
IPCC Having doubts,... again.

Do these clowns have even the slightest idea of what they are doing. This looks like being the cautious start to a complete about turn back to the ideas of a few years ago. No one will ever come out and say "It looks like we were wrong" but they will start by feeding the public titbits like this, and gradually work towards a full reversal. Of course they will deny ever saying anything about Global warming if their latest guess looks like coming through, but if it doesn't, they will revert to the Warming theory and say it was merely a "hiccup" in their data.

It's hard to be "wrong" when you plan your denials so many years ahead. There definitely appears to be more "science" goes into their cover ups, than in their climate work.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/...cooling-headed-our-way-for-the-next-30-years/

And yet there are supporters of these idiots who stand and state categorically that they are correct. (But only if their findings are in agreement with the supporters personal "gut feeling").

What I would like to know is how can they make these enormously important decisions when those whom they quote change their minds everytime they see consensus building against their previous guesswork.

Science,.... ppbbbtt,... more like very poor guesswork, they seem to get it wrong at least as often as the bloke who just looks out the window.

Whatever happens,... there will be a long and involved excuse,......
 
Last edited:
RESPONSE FROM DEL BOY:-

WHO IS DAVID ROSE, Perseus? Well, contrary to your nonsense here, YOUR OWN LINK describes him thus:-

by Unity
December 14, 2009 at 12:24 pm
“So, at last, the Mail on Sunday has waded into the furore surrounding the hacked CRU emails with a special investigation, bringing out its big guns, David Rose, who is highly regarded as a journalist and has a solid track record in serious reporting and investigations, to write up the story.”
As it happens – Unity seems to be a fan of his, despite of the fact that as a top investigative journalist and author, he has to accept that when you are constantly turning over stones and exposing the creatures that crawl underneath, you have to expect to get bitten from time to time; just part of the job.
Now then, Perseus, your link is nothing but a political blog site, with unattributed authors, very unlike The Daily Mail, Englands’s most popular newspaper with a readership of 2 million, and expert journalists like David Rose.
David Rose is a writer and investigative journalist
His awards include the David Watt Memorial Prize and the One World award for human rights journalism.
His work regularly appears in The Observer and Vanity Fair.
Among his books are In the Name of the Law, a widely-praised examination of the British criminal justice system [buy from Amazon.co.uk]; and A Climate of Fear, an investigation of the Broadwater Farm case and the conviction of Winston Silcott [buy from Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk].
He has also written books on mountaineering, including Regions of the Heart [buy from Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk], a biography of Alison Hargreaves, the British climber who died in her attempt to conquer K2, and he is working on a book about the US death penalty centred on a miscarriage of justice in the town of Columbus, Georgia.
He lives in Oxford with his family.
Now Perseus, you can’t match David Rose with your link – LIBERAL CONSPIRACY isn’t it? Simply a self-admitted left wing political blog site, self-admittedly committed to an agenda to push left-centre politics further to the left.
Who are these complete non-entities?
This is who they are, they tell us:-
“Liberal Conspiracy is the UK's most popular left-of-centre politics blog. Our aim is to re-vitalise the liberal-left through discussion and action.”.


You try to hit me with a plain ol’ fashioned political blog, against The great English institution The Daily Mail and one of their top contributors.

WHO THE HELL IS ‘UNITY’? Credibility? CREDENTIALS? HA! Calling people Simpletons - do me a favour; get off your horse and drink your milk.

Get back to us in a hundred years, sunshine. Our opening hours are 9am – 5 pm; Enclose a stamped and addressed envelope.


RESPONSE FROM MONTYB (Seems we post in third party now)

Which of these things make him an expert on climate science?

Now I admit I am not really interested in the response because I pretty much already know most of it will be based around bravado and bluster with next to no verifiable fact but does he have any scientific credentials or has he just read and interpreted the same data as is available to everyone else?

I have kind of watched this argument unfold and I am amazed and somewhat impressed that Perseus has hung in this long given the level of hostility he has faced from you two, but for what it is worth I think he has done a fine job providing facts, links and information from accredited professional institutions regarding his case sadly all he has been given in return editorials.
 
David Rose passes on what he finds; he is very credible in his field, even his opposition admit this, his sources also are of high renown, unlike those he that have been presented here against him, who appear to be an odd collection of blog amateur politicians; some do not even have proper name attributions to their contributions, but we are expected to accept their criticisms at face value.

The post from me that MontyB presents happens to be a necessarily robust rebuttal of a very deliberately hostile post from Perseus and should be taken in context. MontyB admits that he has not even read the David Rose article he is commenting on; I think that is a shame, and must nullify his post in fact. Reading and responding to one side only is never a clever thing to do and does explain one or two matters which have puzzled me.

The hostility MontyB refers to has been on Perseus' part, largely because of the dismissal of all questioning as criminal and deserving of the salt mines; the blazing away with this 'denier' nonsense. Negative re-action has been brought upon himself.

I feel that his interest is to a degree political, whereas mine is more or less the part of the devil's advocate, in that I am simply trying to put up the arguments of the other side; these should not be dismissed with the abuse of any who hold such views. I am prepared to defend my positions in support of the views of commentators which I put forward for consideration because I myself pretend to no expertise in this field.

My personal view is that Perseus' attitude is childish and unnecessary as far as I am concerned; the presentation of opposing views should be acceptable; I believe that my stand as a sceptic, or questioner, or man with rerservations , watching the development of an argument which I do not consider a closed book, is quite a reasonable and worthy one.
 
Last edited:
David Rose passes on what he finds; he is very credible in his field, even his opposition admit this, his sources also are of high renown, unlike those he that have been presented here against him, who appear to be an odd collection of blog amateur politicians; some do not even have proper name attributions to their contributions, but we are expected to accept their criticisms at face value.

He may well be a good journalist I dont know but if he doesn't have any training in the field he is discussing then he is only as good as the information he is fed just like everyone else.



The hostility MontyB refers to has been on Perseus' part, largely because of the dismissal of all questioning as criminal and deserving of the salt mines; the blazing away with this 'denier' nonsense. Negative re-action has been brought upon himself.

Odd as Wolfen asked a very straight forward and was given an answer that included both sides views, I would hardly consider that a sign of a biased contributor, the sign of a good "scientist" is not whether he gives you the answer you want but whether his answer is verifiable and no matter what Perseus's responses have been.

As for his anger, it was mentioned early on that all sides should have to validate their data yet time and again the same one or two debunked theories are rolled out to counter him, if I cared enough to get seriously involved in this discussion I would be angry by now as well because to deliberately use inaccurate information on a matter of this importance should be criminal.


My personal view is that Perseus' attitude is childish and unnecessary as far as I am concerned; the presentation of opposing views should be acceptable; I believe that my stand as a sceptic, or questioner, or man with rerservations , watching the development of an argument which I do not consider a closed book, is quite a reasonable and worthy one.

Nonsense, at every stage he has provided links, data and analysis to back his argument that is not a childish response by any stretch of the imagination. It is also not hard to see why you have been put in the "denier" category as most "devils advocates" take both sides of an argument to extract the most from any given discussion point as yet I have not seen you raising any pro-warming points to progress the discussion.
 
Don't expect any reply from senojekeps, they are still trying to revive him
Yeah, if the IPCC change their mind one more time. Their idiocy is staggering, have you read the latest prediction?

"30 years of Global Cooling now predicted". I don't think these pricks have any shame whatsoever. A new day,... and a new crisis, they don't care what the crisis is, as long as they might be able to screw the tax payers for more research funds.

Warming,... Cooling, i guess we'll have screaming headlines in a few more months. "Fears Escalate, as Climate Normality Crisis Looms" :lol:

What do they have left.????

Honestly these idiots are dead from the toenails up. I seem to remember telling people that a few years ago,... at least my predictions seem to bear some fruit.
 
Last edited:
No idea who this could be, all intelligent people on here of course, so just a footnote

Marketing Research: Are you being targeted?

Ice was given $510,000 to test its messages in key markets, all of which happened to be the homes of members of the energy and commerce or ways and means committees of the US House of Representatives. The purpose was to "demonstrate that a consumer-based media awareness program can positively change the opinions of a selected population regarding the validity of global warming." If it worked, Ice would "implement program nationwide".

It identified "target audiences": "Target 1: Older, less educated males". These people, Ice said, would be receptive to "messages describing the motivations and vested interests of people currently making pronouncements on global warming – for example, the statement that some members of the media scare the public about global warming to increase their audience and their influence … "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/07/george-monbiot-blog-climate-denial-industry
 
"30 years of Global Cooling now predicted".

but where did you read this?

Birth of a Climate Crock

is not a new one.
Early in September 2009, at a gathering of experts on global climate change, one of the world's most respected and experienced climate modelers, Mojib Latif, made some observations on climate, media and human nature.

The message seemed clear.
natural variations in the long term warming might be misinterpreted,
by the media. out of ignorance, or malice.

Climate deniers were quick to take Latif's remarks, and begin
doing exactly that.

You can listen to Latif's original remarks, here, by clicking on the
recording titled "Advancing climate prediction science".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khikoh3sJg8&feature=player_embedded
 
I can't believe this, the guy who is accused of this slander has just hit back at the UK largest supplier of 'toilet' paper. The mail should apologise and retract and so should you Del Boy for spreading mindless unfounded propaganda.

11 January 10
Scientist hits back at Daily Mail's "global cooling" claim

Tags: Desmogblog, climate change, daily mail global cooling, global warming, Mojib Latif, UK
blue%20glacier.JPG
An article over the weekend in the UK's Daily Mail titled The mini ice age starts here, is being refuted by the scientist whose research was used in the story to back the claim that global warming is nothing to worry about because we are entering a phase of "global cooling."
Mojib Latif, a Meteorologist at the Leibniz Institute at Kiel University in Germany, told the Guardian newspaper that:
""It comes as a surprise to me that people would try to use my statements to try to dispute the nature of global warming. I believe in manmade global warming. I have said that if my name was not Mojib Latif it would be global warming."
The Daily Mail is prone to publishing attention-grabbing stories on climate change. Most recently the newspaper claimed that Chinese hackers in league with Russians may be behind the leaked emails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University.
No correction has appeared on the Daily Mail article yet, so I have emailed the correction and a link to the Gaurdian article to the Sunday editor here: news@mailonsunday.co.uk

Here's the message I sent, I will let you know if they respond:
Dear Sir/Madam,

Your article here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html is being reported by the Gaurdian as being incorrect and the scientist quoted heavily is saying that his research has been misused: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif

On such an important issue as climate change, and as a major media outlet I would urge you to make a prominent correction right away or risk undermining your credibility.

I had to laugh at the last bit though, what credibility? the Mail is the biggest joke newspaper around.
 
Last edited:
but where did you read this?
Maybe if you read or listened to your daily news you would read it too. It was part of Climate change "Centre Spread" In our State News yesterday with references back to a similar article published back in 2008. Designed to make people think a little more about what we are being spoon fed by these so called "experts"

Yeah,.... I know,... any paper other than that which you quote is only a scandal rag. But I guess if you had a real interest and an open mind you could have just Googled for the Story.

Try: IPCC "Global Cooling"

I'm not saying that he is right, just that if the IPCC can't make up their mind......
 
Last edited:
He may well be a good journalist I dont know but if he doesn't have any training in the field he is discussing then he is only as good as the information he is fed just like everyone else.[


Of course; tell us something we don't know. Still it makes sense to question what is raised and in your case to read the material in question before critiquing it.

Odd as Wolfen asked a very straight forward and was given an answer that included both sides views, I would hardly consider that a sign of a biased contributor, the sign of a good "scientist" is not whether he gives you the answer you want but whether his answer is verifiable and no matter what Perseus's responses have been.

And your point is?

As for his anger, it was mentioned early on that all sides should have to validate their data yet time and again the same one or two debunked theories are rolled out to counter him, if I cared enough to get seriously involved in this discussion I would be angry by now as well because to deliberately use inaccurate information on a matter of this importance should be criminal.


Which inaccurate information Deliberately used?

Nonsense, at every stage he has provided links, data and analysis to back his argument that is not a childish response by any stretch of the imagination. It is also not hard to see why you have been put in the "denier" category as most "devils advocates" take both sides of an argument to extract the most from any given discussion point as yet I have not seen you raising any pro-warming points to progress the discussion.

Again the nonsense is yours- I specified that the childish attitude I referred to was his abusive swiping dismissal of opposing point of view; anyone who oppposed him is a criminal. Personal abuse instead of rebuttal; So far the criminal interference with data has been from his sources.

Your use of the tired slogan 'denier' I find odious ; this argument is not a closed book; shame that you have to retreat behind this odious barricade. I am merely an observer, but anyone seeking only to discredit myself, The Daily Mail, David Rose, etc. for raising a head above the parapet just does not cut it.

My position regarding investigative journalism can be summed up in one word - "Watergate". Before your time I expect.

It seems it falls to me to remind you re .the definition of 'devil's advocate'. So far I fall into the Number 1 category; I often do:-.


  • 1. One who argues against a cause or position, not as a committed opponent but simply for the sake of argument or to determine the validity of the cause or position.
  • 2. Roman Catholic Church. An official appointed to present arguments against a proposed canonization or beatification.
 
Last edited:
You will note an earlier post...

RESPONSE FROM MONTYB (Seems we post in third party now)


Now I admit I am not really interested in the response because I pretty much already know most of it will be based around bravado and bluster with next to no verifiable fact but does he have any scientific credentials or has he just read and interpreted the same data as is available to everyone else?

Your problem remains that you take a cheap shot and then get butt hurt when it comes back and start going off the rails but hey I could be wrong so I will pose a question to anyone out there reading this...

Does anyone reading this believe Del Boy is arguing from an open minded position and is just playing "Devils Advocate"?

There I leave it in the hands of the forum members.

I would argue that at no stage in this discussion are you asking inquiring questions you are simply throwing the other side of the story out there which does not help determine the validity of the cause or position it just creates confusion which is a destructive tactic.

Now I guess I should say that I probably be going back to lurking in the thread until some new information is posted so do not take the lack of a response to your counter post as some sort of concession of defeat it is just the continuation of my not repeating myself Ad nauseam policy.
 
Last edited:
Help, stand back, son-of -a- gun, hell-fire. Get the wind farms up there. Is this man-made?



Climate change hits Mars


Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.
Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.
Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.
The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth. One of the researchers, Lori Fenton, believes variations in radiation and temperature across the surface of the Red Planet are generating strong winds.
In a paper published in the journal Nature, she suggests that such winds can stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising the planet’s temperature.
Fenton’s team unearthed heat maps of the Martian surface from Nasa’s Viking mission in the 1970s and compared them with maps gathered more than two decades later by Mars Global Surveyor. They found there had been widespread changes, with some areas becoming darker.
When a surface darkens it absorbs more heat, eventually radiating that heat back to warm the thin Martian atmosphere: lighter surfaces have the opposite effect. The temperature differences between the two are thought to be stirring up more winds, and dust, creating a cycle that is warming the planet.


MONTY B. - your last post.

"Does anyone reading this believe Del Boy is arguing from an open minded position and is just playing "Devils Advocate"?quote.

***
If folk feel otherwise, it is simply because I have done my job so well!

You are confusing me with someone who relies upon a popularity consensus. It is not up for anyone else to affect my motivation - it is a FACT that that is my sole motivation on this issue; whatever you think; you have sunk low to have to rely on that retreat.

Quote from MONTY B :-

"I would argue that at no stage in this discussion are you asking inquiring questions you are simply throwing the other side of the story out there which does not help determine the validity of the cause or position it just creates confusion which is a destructive tactic." quote.

****

I have already defined 'devil's advocate' for you. 'simply throwing the other side of the story' - translation :- Presenting the other side of the story , which is a reasonable approach faced by a new religious fanatisism which is currently being challenged from a number of directions. How else does a lay-man contribute?

Why should you or Perseus decide just what is valid or not, what is constructive or destructive? These are matters of opinion.

You and Perseus are here demanding a soap-box for Perseus, from which he feels free to hurl mud and abuse at those who hold an opposing view, and at the same time are demanding silence from the other side of the story.

If I happen to speak from a sceptic point of view, so what. What's it to ya? Don't try to tell me what I am or am not.

MONTYB:- quote

"Now I guess I should say that I probably be going back to lurking in the thread until some new information is posted so do not take the lack of a response to your counter post as some sort of concession of defeat it is just the continuation of my not repeating myself Ad nauseam policy. "

****
I could not care less regarding your defeat or otherwise, this is not about 'winning' or about you at all.. Certainly you should stop repeating yourself with ignoble accusations.
__________________
We are more often
 
Last edited:
OK - I can't top my Mars post- I have run out of territory to warm or cool.
I will now wipe my sword and leave the field to those more intensely involved in the issue.

My concerns are the political knee-jerks we may suffer, PERHAPS unnecessarily.

I believe I have drawn attention to those concerns.

Of course , regarding these matters, I will be available on request here and for after -dinner engagements and Barmitzvahs.

Whoever started this thread should be shot at dawn.
 
One would think it was cold this month judging by the gutter press, hot in Australia, Arctic, shows they live in a western shroud

"It's very warm over the Arctic, with air temperatures locally at 10 to 15 degrees F (5.6 to 8.4 degrees C) warmer than they should be in certain areas," Serreze said in a telephone interview on Monday.

This contrasts with record or near-record cold over much of the eastern United States and Canada, Europe and Asia for the last two weeks of December and the first days of January, the data center reported.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60B3MC20100112?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2Fenvironment+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Environment%29

gsstanim.gif
 
Last edited:
I am just attempting to get some scientific facts into the discussion, if the politics say differently so much for politics. Every point you make Del boy has been debunked a thousand times.

WRONG.

Ah! So you want me back already I see! Big mistake. Well look at it this way- I am no longer interested in you and your political agenda. I am no longer at your service, you can spout away to your heart's content. But without doubt, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

Example - the obviously lying quote above. Presenting other opinions and questions as they appear is democracy at work. The corruption of data and information has so far been proven to be from the side you support. But of course you are, in fact, a denier of democracy on these issues. If you want to talk about debunking, take a look at the link below and shiver, it has you bang to rights.


You and your global warming cronies appear to be fearful of questioning so attempt to deflect questions with abuse of the questioner. What are they trying to hide - more dodgy data? What are they trying to brazen out? From devil's advocate position, I have been interested in finding out why you wish to persecute such questioners with religious fervour. I note those reporting views which do not align with your own are now "the gutter press". Is that ALL the press - the global press??


Now, back to the Mars question; I thought you would like that; not the dear old Daily Mail, not the dear old Express, but indeed the great thunderer - The Times itself. You should take it sometime.


NOW FOLKS - HERE IS THE REAL DEMOCRATIC VIEWPOINT, THE RESPONSE TO THE PILED PROPAGANDA THAT PERSEUS CALLS GOSPEL . TAKE A LOOKEE:-

http://desoggybog.com/an-all-kidding-aside-critique.php

DON'T MOVE ON -READ IT. ROLL UP, ROLL UP! SEE DEMOCRACY DEFENDED! DON'T MISS THIS.
 
Last edited:
Deniers have misused free speech to subvert the course of action. We were discussing extremist Muslim groups earlier, we have to draw a line somewhere. You obviously agree with that in the latter case! Deliberate misinformation is dangerous and if there were any genuine attempt to debate out of ignorance I would have no problem. I really don't believe these propagandists disbelieve AGW itself they are just interested in business profits and simply use PR as a game to achieve their ends. To them misleading people is just a legitimate democratic process.

We have a duty to spread truth, and bigoted deniers are not interested in this, they spread their lies like a virus (memes to be more exact) we need to stop the epidemic.

Would you believe that the Oil industries own scientists told them AGW was genuine back in the 90s. It's like the Vatican telling the Pope there is no God! So they ditched the science and tried another tack. What more proof do you need?
 
Last edited:
Would you believe that the Oil industries own scientists told them AGW was genuine back in the 90s. It's like the Vatican telling the Pope there is no God! So they ditched the science and tried another tack. What more proof do you need?

Seriously mate you should have figured out by now that even when there is water lapping their roof tops and it is 50 degrees outside they are just going to claim it is a hot wet summer.

I would love a solid coherent argument about climate change but you are not going to get it from people who will not believe anything you tell them therefore all the proof in the world is meaningless.

I have no doubt that they believe their argument but then so did the people who "discovered" the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth, science is very easy when you have your answer before you do the research.

My suggestion, relax, take it easy, have a good laugh at them and focus your serious arguments on those that actually want to know something.
 
Back
Top