Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Banjax]

here Nickbat, have some light Hogmanay reading - each of the 137 most used arguments by climate change sceptics....and why they are tripe - purely in the interests of being "fair and balanced" you understand, as I can't recall you ever mentioning something which didn't fit your argument - see if these plug the gap.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

 

It makes for a good laugh with its twisted statements.

I haven't the time or inclination to go through them all, but #53 caught my eye: "Thick Arctic ice is in rapid retreat". It caught my eye particularly as I had just read this:

"Area Of Thick Arctic Ice Has Doubled In The Last Two Years - US Navy PIPS data"

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/31/area-of-thick-arctic-ice-has-doubled-in-the-last-two-years/

Incidentally, the link you provided is to a website set  up recently by the leading warmist activists who are rightly fearful that their house of cards is about to collapse.   

you're making a mistake common to a lot of deniers Nickbat, looking at individual years instead of the overall trend - its why you hear people scoff at global warming because its cold where they live - as usual the most blinkered and belligerent are the more interesting story - its far better if its a hoax than if its true, it has more traction, especially with the swivel-eyed. unfortunately for the debate its become a freedom from taxes issue and purloined by the powerful right wing lobbies especially in the states where they fear "the state" more than anyone.

you make a few interesting points, if i may quote you

"It makes for a good laugh with its twisted statements.

I haven't the time or inclination to go through them all"

well thats it in a nutshell isnt it - you're utterly typical of the sceptics in that you dont read anything other than what confirms your viewpoint, i on the other hand read widely....and come to a conclusion about the shouty ones on both sides and the cold hard facts in the middle - you seem to wish to close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears. I've still never read a scientist denying AGW who isn't being paid by an interested party when you scratch the surface.

Its a bee in your bonnet Nickbat, its not in mine - whether you accept whats happening or dont either way you will do little to effect the situation, neither by the way, will I 

I hope you're right Nickbat, I don't think you are tho 

[Nickbat]

BJ, just a few chosen nouns and adjectives from your post:

Denier
Blinkered
Belligerent
utterly typical
swivel-eyed
powerful right wing lobbies

terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired. Try scientific arguments instead of slurs.


"you dont read anything other than what confirms your viewpoint"

How do you know what I read? 

[Banjax]

BJ, just a few chosen nouns and adjectives from your post:

Denier
Blinkered
Belligerent
utterly typical
swivel-eyed
powerful right wing lobbies

terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired. Try scientific arguments instead of slurs.


"you dont read anything other than what confirms your viewpoint"

How do you know what I read? 

because you pretty much link everything? 


"terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired. Try scientific arguments instead of slurs."

indeed.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Nothing is black or white, there is a lot of grey in the middle, and as far as I am aware no-one knows a great deal in this world.  We have it all to learn, especially when it comes to the environment.  

[Banjax]

Nothing is black or white, there is a lot of grey in the middle, and as far as I am aware no-one knows a great deal in this world.  We have it all to learn, especially when it comes to the environment.  

now them's wise words Liz, who was it said "no one knows anything" i feel he was right and everyone else by definition is wrong