- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,439
I don't and never have had such beliefs.And furthermore Red Rob your belief that that somebody on the loony left could be a forward thinker is an oxymoron.
Your arguments are getting more and more pathetic.
You keep attacking the man while simultaneously saying we should stop.
You keep invoking the "straw man" defence when your position is countered.
You keep quoting junk scientists and lay people to support your propositions.
You have not provided a shred of credible information in this thread that counters the recorded and visible evidence that is consistent with the theory underpinning global warming.
You appear to rely on snippets of information that fit your mindset, and remain closed to a contrary view.
You quote credentialled scientists that are skeptics, but are unable to disprove AGW.
The most rational scientists in this debate are not those that hold to a pro or anti position, but remain uncertain that the evidence is presently definitive. They do not dispute the science, but recognise much of the available data is conceivably within the bounds of statistical uncertainty.
and converselywayneL said:But my consistent argument is that the AGWH religion draws attention from other "real" and urgent matters.
If you love your grandchildren, focus on the other myriad of environmental catastrophes and stop shadow boxing against the nonsense of co2 induced GW. If approached in this way, co2, if a factor in CC, will reduce as well. ...
I bet the people living in New York would enjoy some global warming right now....
May be, but it is the juxtaposition of extreme heat and cold that increases weather activities, longer periods of heat lead at time to extreme (but shorter mind you) dashes of cold.
I mean, snow down at Las Vagas.
It snows here in Geelong every 10 years or so, has done for 1000's of years I believe, so do you have research to back up your statement?
just amazing, whatever occurs, whether it's floods, drought, heat, hail or snow it's the fault of global warming..... Oh hang on, it's been proven that it isn't getting warmer anymore, better take down our charts and just call it "climate change" we can't go wrong with that.
The climate will always change..... They can't disprove that.
The cynicism of the church of climatology is incredible
The twisters across the USA over the last five years have been the worst since records kept. Last year about 1000% up on 20 years ago. Not science, just what is happenning.
Are the number of tornadoes increasing?
The number of tornadoes that occur each year is not increasing, but the number of spotted and reported tornadoes is. The reason for this is that more people live in or travel through tornado prone areas than used to. This has led to better communication and reportings of severe weather.
I have backed up my points.Sorry Red,
I don't find you credible enough anymore to take you seriously, some of the above points being demonstrably ludicrous.
I am satisfied with my position and at peace with my environmental actions, satisfied that they are superior to the alarmists.
Over and out.
Seems like this is a mute point. What’s more important is who's right and who's wrong. Also how much money we may lose if we take a giant leap...forward.and conversely
if you look after the co2, the other pollutions will likewise reduce as well.
I agree with you Wayne, are the alarmists actually changing their habits?I am satisfied with my position and at peace with my environmental actions, satisfied that they are superior to the alarmists.
Sorry Red,
I don't find you credible enough anymore to take you seriously, some of the above points being demonstrably ludicrous.
I am satisfied with my position and at peace with my environmental actions, satisfied that they are superior to the alarmists.
Over and out.
You are attacking the man here.I have backed up my points.
You have backed out of any reasoned debate.
Yet again you fail to substantiate your view.
Perhaps there's a positive correlation between ego and gutless wonderment?
You are attacking the man here.
What points have you added that may back up your stance?
This is a derogatory comment red. You are attacking the man not debating.I don't and never have had such beliefs.
I simply asked you to prove you view on flat earth thinking and you did a Wayne on me.
Not attacking the man at all, only the reasoning,
have another read of it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?