Originally Posted by senojekips

That sounds familiar. It must be a real let down when you can't even get agreement between two persons who are allegedly "on the same side" of the debate.

This is a typical example of why I have a very healthy scepticism in these matters. Too many eggheads trying to milk what they see as, potentially the worlds largest cash cow.

This argument is still going on I see...
I can see it now all the officers standing on the bridge of the Titanic arguing over the location of the hole until eventually they come to the conclusion that because they cant agree on a location the ship clearly is in no danger.

Speaking of misinformation,...

Originally Posted by MontyB

This argument is still going on I see...
I can see it now all the officers standing on the bridge of the Titanic arguing over the location of the hole until eventually they come to the conclusion that because they cant agree on a location the ship clearly is in no danger.

I hope you read your "evidence" more closely than you read my posts.

Nowhere, have I ever argued that there is no GW (hole).
Nowhere, have I stated that we should not be seeking alternatives.
What I'm saying (in your case) is that, "no on has proof that the helmsman was at fault".

In your scenario we would be debating whether it was the fault of the Helmsman or the iceberg, and it appears we are arguing after the fact, making it all rather pointless.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Speaking of misinformation,... you still fail to read my posts.

Nowhere, have I ever argued that there is no GW (hole).
Nowhere, have I stated that we should not be seeking alternatives.
What I'm saying (in your case) is that, "no on has proof that the helmsman was at fault".

In your scenario we would be debating whether it was the fault of the Helmsman or the iceberg.

Yes but this is exactly my argument you are so busily convincing people that its not the helmsman's fault and others are demanding the helmsman be put on trial for negligence that no one is actually plugging the damn hole.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Yes but this is exactly my argument you are so busily convincing people that its not the helmsman's fault and others are demanding the helmsman be put on trial for negligence that no one is actually plugging the damn hole.

My last line in the last post. I was altering it as you were posting it seems.

Monty, I noticed that you wouldn't or couldn't deny my original point.

That sounds familiar. It must be a real let down when you can't even get agreement between two persons who are allegedly "on the same side" of the debate.

This is a typical example of why I have a very healthy scepticism in these matters. Too many eggheads trying to milk what they see as, potentially the worlds largest cash cow.

On my end, although I don't believe the ship is sinking, the measures that I think we should take would prevent it from sinking anyway:

1) Implement a cleaner fuel and energy source.
2) Dispose of garbage in an organized manner.
3) Reduce, reuse and recycle.
4) Encourage rooftop gardens on buildings.

So I don't see what the problem is anyway.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Monty, I noticed that you wouldn't or couldn't deny my original point.

Whats to answer, I have stated that I believe it unlikely that man is having no effect on the environment given the "unnatural" manner in which we change it however I am uncertain as to what extent that change is given the natural warming cycle.

I am not sure how many times I need to repeat that I disagree with the "we can do as we wish" crowd (which I consider you to be part of) just as much as I disagree with the "sky is falling" crowd (which I feel Perseus to be part of), I could be described as fence sitting on this one but if I have to pick a side it would be Perseus's side as that in the end is safest option even if it turns out to be wrong.

Monty I don't believe that you that "thick".

The point I made was the fact that not even two persons supposedly "on the same side" can agree. Why would anyone with an inquiring mind believe the remainder of the evidence that they so willingly quote.

It's all a smoke screen. Yep,.. the truth is in there somewhere, but so far no one has been able to see where. So what's wrong with admitting it?

No one is saying that it's not happening, it's just that they, just like the rest of us, don't know why it's happening.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Monty I don't believe that you that "thick".

The point I made was the fact that not even two persons supposedly "on the same side" can agree. Why would anyone with an inquiring mind believe the remainder of the evidence that they so willingly quote.

It's all a smoke screen. Yep,.. the truth is in there somewhere, but so far no one has been able to see where. So what's wrong with admitting it?

No one is saying that it's not happening, it's just that they, just like the rest of us, don't know why it's happening.

I disagree, it is not unusual for people on the same side of an argument to disagree on the proportions of any particular aspect of the argument.

For example ask people who support the death penalty at what point it should be applied and you will get a range of responses this doesn't mean they don't support the death penalty.

In this case you have someone saying "agent x" is contributing 10% and "agent y" is contributing 20% and someone else no its 15% and 15%, me I just see the 30% total and in the end the result is still the same no matter how many times you try and twist or spin it.

Well in that case what i'm saying is that they should get their act together before they ask others to do something about it, otherwise we're going to end up with the innocent being executed and some murderers only being "cooked until it hurts a real lot"

If the outcome is to be worth having, let's at least get all our shite in one sock before we start.