The Great Global Cooling/Warming Thread

[Slybacon]

Physics is flawed at its very core, and the relationship between Quantum Physics and Reality is yet to be understood.

We are not scientists, so dont expect a scientific debate!

And don't worry to much about treading softly around me WD... I know your not being personal.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Slybacon

[synchromesh]

At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers?

[FancyPants]

At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers?

 

Shit, that's intense. Punishment is no way to hold a mature debate. However the seriousness of our acting upon GW (no matter if you believe it's caused by humans or not) is of utmost importance and urgency. But no, IMHO that isn't the answer.

[s4L]

Hutch, Its a bit worrying that you cant see that all the links and information you posted from the climate realists website are total nonsense. They have no basis in reality.

Your not actually supposed to take substance D.

[hutch]

There is a pretty good analysis here of the climate gate emails....

http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/

And these are the people I am meant to trust?

[hutch]

How much money has been wasted because this climate science expert got it so wrong....can't have your cake and eat it to... apparently you can....

Am I reading the right stuff now? The people should be made aware of everything.....

Editorial: Australia – not such a lucky country

16 June 2007

From New Scientist Print Edition.

Tim Flannery

Over the past 50 years southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming. Similar losses have been experienced in eastern Australia, and although the science is less certain it is probable that global warming is behind these losses too. But by far the most dangerous trend is the decline in the flow of Australian rivers: it has fallen by around 70 per cent in recent decades, so dams no longer fill even when it does rain. Growing evidence suggests that hotter soils, caused directly by global warming, have increased evaporation and transpiration and that the change is permanent. I believe the first thing Australians need to do is to stop worrying about "the drought" - which is transient - and start talking about the new climate.

While the populated east and south of Australia have parched, rainfall has increased in the north-west. This has prompted some politicians to call for development of the north, including massive schemes for dams and pipelines. Some have even called for a large-scale shift of population to follow the rain. Yet computer models indicate that the increased rainfall is most likely caused by the Asian haze, which has pushed the monsoon south. This means that as Asia cleans up its air, Australia is likely to lose its northern rainfall. Australians need to leave behind their dreams of opening a new frontier and focus on making the best of the water remaining to them where they live today.

To achieve this, much has to be done. Industry, power plants, farmers and households pay too little for their water, so they waste it. Water thrift is an absolute prerequisite for life in the new climate. The country also needs to shift to a new energy economy. Australia's coal-fired power plants consume around 2 tonnes of water - for cooling and steam generation - for every megawatt-hour they produce. They also emit much of the CO2 that is the ultimate cause of the drying. Dwindling water supplies are raising the price of electricity, and to avoid an economic and environmental disaster the old coal clunkers need to be closed as quickly as possible and replaced with cleaner, less thirsty means of power generation. These could include geothermal, solar thermal, solar, wind or wave energy, and possibly clean coal.

Australia needs to design and build an irrigation system fit for the 21st century. It is tempting is to try to fix the existing system, but that is hopeless. The country needs to move to highly efficient irrigation and to think laterally about water use. As the climate becomes more variable it may make sense, for example, to plant rice and cotton during the odd wet year, rather than persist with permanent plantings of grape, citrus and so on, which need water year-round.

The cities need drought-proofing by, for example, installing water tanks in all dwellings that can accept them. Because in affected areas the decline in river flow is three times that in rainfall, water tanks that use roofs as catchments are now far more effective than dams for supplying drinking water in cities such as Sydney and Brisbane. Recycling can help too. This needs new investment and in some instances will require state government water monopolies to be broken up. It will cost more, but the benefits in terms of water security and recapture of nutrients in solid wastes are immense.

Desalination plants can provide insurance against drought. In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months. Of course, these plants should be supplied by zero-carbon power sources.

Last, but by no means least, Australia must ratify the Kyoto protocol and agitate globally for a swift and decisive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Our best theories show that Australia is suffering early and disproportionately from climate change. As one of the two renegade developed nations not to have ratified the treaty (the other is the US), and as the world's worst per capita emitter of CO2, some may say that Australia deserves its fate. If it is to save itself from even more severe climate impacts the country needs to change its ways, and fast.

http://www.science.o...t/105ns_001.htm

[synchromesh]

Our best theories show that Australia is suffering early and disproportionately from climate change.

At least the bogan is a little honest...

[WoodDragon]

Hutch.

You obviously have no understanding of James Inhofe and Marc Morano, or you might be a little less credulous about their propaganda. And that's what it is - propaganda. There is no way that I could even start to summarise the prodigeous amount of misrepresentation, distortion and outright lying about climatology that they have engaged in, so I'll make to points only on your link to their stuff - the rest is up to you to research properly, with a real sceptical hat on.

1) The hysteria that Morano whipped up about jailing deniers is a huge exaggeration of what one climatologist, James Hansen, said. In fact even the most contentious of Hansen's statements has been greatly distorted. Take Morano's:

NASA's James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for "high crimes against humanity."

You probably think that Hansen was trying to put good folk like you in jail, don't you? Well, it's not like that at all. What Hansen said to Congress was that oil company chiefs were fully aware of the real climatological science, and that in spite of this they paid front groups and lobby organisations to deliberately spread misinformation, knowing full-well that the information was scientifically incorrect. In Hansen's own words:

Special interests have blocked the transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil fuel companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, just as tobacco companies discredited the link between smoking and cancer. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming.

CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.

Note that at the end he said that it was his own opinion. It was not a recommendation, and it was not representative of climatologists in general. (I recommend that you actually listen to that Naomi Oreskes piece, and learn the context of this stuff.)

So keep your knickers on - you're not going to jail just yet.

And talk of execution comes from numpties on the side that accepts the science. But so what? There are idiots in all walks of life, and it's not an idea that climatologists themselves support. This practice of attempting to discredit the science by discreditting people who accept it is the logical fallacy of poisoning the well, and it's a pernicious practice indeed. Some idiot spouting off about execution doesn't invalidate the science.

What's interesting in all of this is that Inhofe himself wants to put his country's best climate scientists in jail. Rich, isn't it? Not only are he and Morano screaming hypocrites, but he wants to jail the US's best climate scientists because they are doing their jobs, and telling the world about the physics of global warming.

Seriously, do you condone that sort of McCarthyism?

2) One of Inhofe's and Morano's favourite lies, and one that crops up in your link, is that it stopped warming in 1998. This is just

, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Get it?

Wrong

.

That last link is worth looking at, because it's by one of the best time-series statisitcians in the US, and probably in the world, and he used CRUTEM3 data to show that it's still warming. This is significant, because in letting "the baby (David Whitehouse) have his bottle" and using CRUTEM3, he used a dataset that omits polar temperature readings, and because the poles are warming up disproportionately fast compared with the rest of the planet, their absence in the CRUTEM3 dataset means that the effect of the 1998 El Niño is exaggerated in the record.

It really shouldn't (and doesn't) make any difference though in statistical terms, although the better dataset (GISSTEMP) gives an even more conclusive result. The problem comes from the fact that denialists don't understand the significance (or, more accurately, the lack thereof, of one outlier in a time-series. I mentioned variance before - go back and find the link and try to figure out why even in the CRUTEM3 context 1998 does not indicate that warming stopped in that year. I'll give you a gold star if you can explain it to us.

Oh, and because most of those links are from before the end of 2010, you might be wondering what's happened in the last year. For the record, 2010 was hotter than 1998 in the GISSTEMP dataset. It's probably going to pan out as the hottest land-based year ever, and almost tied with 2005 as the globally hottest year ever. Pretty impressive for a La Niña period when the cool deep ocean waters are reaching the East Pacific surface to chill things a bit, and when the sun is still asleep in solar output terms...

And before you ask, UAH measures tropospheric temperature, not surface temperature.

Next.

Climategate?

Read this, this, this, this, and this - the scandal was not a scandal.

On the other hand, the report to Congress that Inhofe and his partisans commissioned turns out to be a big pile of academic misbehaviour. This Wegman report is the lynchpin of the denialists' attempts to disprove the warming over the last century, and it turns out to be bogus!

Oopsie.

[Edit:

New link on 2010 temperatures. Turns out that 2010 ties with 2005 for warmest year in the instrumental record, and it was warmer than 1998. It had the second warmest land temperature record, and the warmest Northern Hemisphere record.]

Edited January 13, 2011 by WoodDragon

[WoodDragon]

Bacon.

Physics is flawed at its very core, and the relationship between Quantum Physics and Reality is yet to be understood.

With the first part, I agree with you and I don't, at the same time.

I have always believed (and in fact, most scientists do), that our physical theories, models, and such never really explain the universe.

But this doesn't actually matter at most non-quantum levels, or at most non-light speeds or black-hole masses. The models and theories that we do have are perfectly adequate to describe the phenomena to which they pertain, because they were (tautologically) derived from these very same phenomena! Take Newtonian mechanics for example. It's been superceded by relativity, but is is still perfectly adequate for explaining how planets move around the sun, or how a car crashed into a wall. And relativity itself might not be the best explanation of the universe, but it permits us to have a functioning global positioning system.

Similarly, there might be things about the laws of physics used in climate science that will be superceded. However, at the scales of space, time, mass, and enery that are relevant to atmospheric and solar physics, they function perfectly well. If there were any major problems they would have been found by now - and believe me, there have been many people desperately looking for the chink in the armour!

Where I think science starts to become rubbery is when the very beginning of time is considered, or when the edge of the universe is considered, or when really tiny bits of (subatomic) stuff or distance or time are considered. Or when you go really, really fast. Or get really, really massive. Then it's just weird. Whether our logic really copes, who knows... But it makes for some brainbending thoughts.

Edited January 13, 2011 by WoodDragon

[hutch]

The real purpose of climate change?

Is redistributing the world's wealth and natural resources." I'm pretty comfortable with that statement...

The UN seeks to redistribute wealth, while CFACT works to reduce "energy poverty"

As conference delegates shivered in Cancun during its coldest weather in 100 years, power-hungry elitists labored behind the scenes to implement the real goal of this "global warming" summit, this sixteenth Conference of the Parties (COP-16), this clever political con job.

That the Cancun summit was never a climate conference at all has become increasingly obvious. Even before it began, IPCC Working Group III co-chair Ottmar Edenhofer said, COP-16 is actually "one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War…. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." In fact, it has "almost nothing to do with the environmental policy." Its real purpose "is redistributing the world's wealth and natural resources."

http://www.climatech...cun-climate-con

Edited January 13, 2011 by hutch

[hutch]

These "35 inconvenient truths" are a bit old but just as relevant...before you start, I would pit my Lord Monckton against your Al Gore any day...

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

[hutch]

This is a long read but well and truly worth it...this guy has gone to a lot of trouble to show why there are still so many doubters that it's the scientist's that have lied for monetary game and they are still covering it up.....Grab a coffee and put your feet up....

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

[hutch]

Could I just ask that the WoodDragon fan-club refrain from negging my post's for nothing? (is Negging a word)

Since our little spat I have remained on topic and let all insults through to the keeper.... (well nearly) This is a perfect example of what is wrong with the debate on climate science. You think the debate is over and I and many others think the debate is still raging.....anyone who dares disagree gets super attacked. Hence the immature negativing of post's (plural) just because it goes against an idioligy hey fancypants? Do you want to deny it? That is how immature the debate has become. You can see it in the numerous emails in Climate Gate" ...It's a well known fact that you make a denier look like an IDIOT (to use your favorite term) to win an argument...is it not? Make him too scared to speak up for the fear of public ridicule..exactly what is going on here. Keep on negging my post's and I will go away. Your wrong cause like I said earlier...some one needs to stand up an insure this fraud is uncovered and I will do my best to assist...

I think you had the opposite affect on me cause your insults just got me angry and now I'm very active and I wasn't before....So if I end up with a rating say neg 100 then I will rest my case.....If you want to neg me at least have the balls or the piss flaps to tell me why or all your doing is attempting to shut down free speech

Regards

Hutch

[nabraxas]

Lord Monckton

The record now shows that Monckton was also wrong - and frankly, wrong is such a way that he himself must be found to be either a flagrant and shameless liar or the most incompetent compiler of information since church scholars gathered to argue for the flatness of the earth...

time and again, Monckton has consistently misinterpreted, misrepresented or flat-out lied about his "evidence" arguing against the theory of human-induced global warming. He has mangled references, misrepresented findings, cobbled together unattributed graphs and staked his case to critically compromised scholars.

Monckton has already revealed himself as someone whose capacity to be antisocial goes well beyond mere rudeness. This new presentation should be required viewing for anyone who regards him as even vaguely credible on climate science. Take the time: you will find he is anything but.

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

[hutch]

http://www.stthomas....ring/jpabraham/

 

Interesting reading and I will continue but still...Who is Al Gore?

[hutch]

http://www.stthomas....ring/jpabraham/

 

Some good stuff there I will admit

But then it is so easy to fine countering views on the threat to Polar bears...I was reading this yesterday as well as a few others I will find if you like..

http://newsbusters.o...nvenient-truths

Who do you believe? The ice sheets are not melting? 4 dead bears could have been caused by a storm?

[nabraxas]

Who is Al Gore

Al Gore may have exaggerated the dangers ov climate change in order to create more marketing power for himself.

But Lord Monckton seems to be a much more repugnant fellow.

[hutch]

Al Gore may have exaggerated the dangers ov climate change in order to create more marketing power for himself.

But Lord Monckton seems to be a much more repugnant fellow.

 

Maybe but I hope your not just referring to his eyes

[nabraxas]

Who do you believe?

i suspect that the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group would be more trustworth than most.

Last year, at the latest meeting of the world's peak polar bear study group, the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, scientists reported that eight of the 19 sub-populations of polar bears were declining, compared with five declining populations in 2005. Of the other 11 sub-populations, three were stable, one was increasing, and there was insufficient data to describe a trend in the remaining seven.

Polar bear populations rebounded dramatically after over-hunting was restricted in the 1970s, but the threat posed to polar bears now is completely different - a loss of the sea ice habitat that is essential to their survival.

polar bear status table

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/ten-antianticommandments-and-lord-moncktons-verbal-bombs-20100201-n72y.html

[Slybacon]

I actually agree with hutch on the negativeness..... Hutch is allowed to have an opinion and if you disagree it is probably more relavent to add to the debate rather then giving Hutch a negative point. Im sure WD isn't negatising hutch despite the heat in the debate. As stated earlier, Ive tried to non biasly correct them back to zero but no Im only gonna bring back the negative ones. So I ask, either positive the posts you agree with or put your own opinion up, no need to give negative points away. Of course this is JMO

[-YT-]

so you changed the negs to positives lol isnt that a conspiracy on your part to make the thread look better than it really is!!

But seriously what your saying is that you condone hutchs childish behaviour and lack of basic debating skills and analysis, theres no need in an big boy grown up disscussion to name call or justify as such because someone pushed your buttons. The positive and negative ratings is for voting on the primary relevance of the information contained within that thread so that in the future or down the track people who want to find relevant and kick ass info can easy do so. Not sure how many of you actually spend time trawling around here but i for one would rather skip reading the shite

does seem the newbs decend into plurium interrogationum when arguments arent shaping up as desired, and no i havent replied to the topic im still reading all the stuff that woody posted you know learn a bit before shooting the gun

[hutch]

so you changed the negs to positives lol isnt that a conspiracy on your part to make the thread look better than it really is!!

But seriously what your saying is that you condone hutchs childish behaviour and lack of basic debating skills and analysis, theres no need in an big boy grown up disscussion to name call or justify as such because someone pushed your buttons.

does seem the newbs decend into plurium interrogationum when arguments arent shaping up as desired, and no i havent replied to the topic im still reading all the stuff that woody posted you know learn a bit before shooting the gun

 

Maybe you should finish reading it ALL before you comment...the bloke with a science degree can throw around the insults but because I'm just a denier I should be "big boy grown up" about it all....read it all first...he threw the first insult and he kept throwing them and even now he continues to use insults but that is ok hey...seems you don't really have an issue with shooting from the hip...do you? but now I'm just going to get more negs....

[Slybacon]

so you changed the negs to positives lol isnt that a conspiracy on your part to make the thread look better than it really is!!

and no i havent replied to the topic im still reading all the stuff that woody posted you know learn a bit before shooting the gun

 

It's only a conspiracy if it hidden ;)

So what your saying is, You only look for information that has a positive rating by other members anonymously. Your basically saying, you'd rather be a sheep?

[FancyPants]

Could I just ask that the WoodDragon fan-club refrain from negging my post's for nothing? (is Negging a word)

Since our little spat I have remained on topic and let all insults through to the keeper.... (well nearly) This is a perfect example of what is wrong with the debate on climate science. You think the debate is over and I and many others think the debate is still raging.....anyone who dares disagree gets super attacked. Hence the immature negativing of post's (plural) just because it goes against an idioligy hey fancypants? Do you want to deny it? That is how immature the debate has become. You can see it in the numerous emails in Climate Gate" ...It's a well known fact that you make a denier look like an IDIOT (to use your favorite term) to win an argument...is it not? Make him too scared to speak up for the fear of public ridicule..exactly what is going on here. Keep on negging my post's and I will go away. Your wrong cause like I said earlier...some one needs to stand up an insure this fraud is uncovered and I will do my best to assist...

I think you had the opposite affect on me cause your insults just got me angry and now I'm very active and I wasn't before....So if I end up with a rating say neg 100 then I will rest my case.....If you want to neg me at least have the balls or the piss flaps to tell me why or all your doing is attempting to shut down free speech

Regards

Hutch

 

Actually I didn't respond to your reply to my other post because I didn't want to derail the thread any further. Which is why I kept out of it for so long until the rampant hypocrisy was too much to bear. Contrary to what you may think, I AGREE that healthy debate is more important than just one side having a voice. But if you wish to bring it up again I'll oblige... and keep in mind I never once called you - or any other denier - an idiot. I'll explain why I posted my view on why I said what I said in case WD gave up and I really wanted to hear more (both sides, as it extends education for all of us).

1. I never negged ALL the anti-GW posts. I negged the ones which were immature, irrelevant (because they changed the subject "do you believe in god?" etc), blatantly ignored questions previously asked or simply obviously hadn't bothered reading the arguments put forward by WD. I even actually positised a couple of posts by either you or Synchro or Sly (I forget who) who posted relevant links for that side of the argument or answered questions put by WD - eg post#50 where Sly at least answers WD's questions. I couldn't give a fart in a high wind about using the rating system for stupid things like popularity or childish disagreements.

2. Post#10 using sarcasm to refute a point, not helpful or mature for the debate and the first sign of obstinance.

3. Post#24, After having misunderstood a previous post by WD, there is unnecessary attitude in this post.

4. POst#25 WD CLEARLY SAYS not to just blindly believe what he says, but to educate ourselves with the FACTUAL SCIENCE. You et al ignored his assertion to do your own research and instead called him arrogant and asked him why you should believe someone who could be pretending to be a scientist.

5. On that point of not believing WD knows his shit; would you ask an ethnobotanical question on a forum which could potentially be harmful, and believe whatever a poster tells you? Even if that meant they were horrifically wrong and you ended up sick or dead?

6. Post#32 more sarcasm and closed mind after WD explained why.

7. Post#41 WD still tries to explain the SCIENCE with many links though he's starting to lose his cool. I wouldn't blame him at this point.

8. post#53 you take it personally that WD says the .pdf file was a waste of time. He said the author is without credit to which he gave links as to why. A credible paper would have been peer-reviewed which is was not.

I gave you an explanation - Codling and Evans are full of pseudoscientific crap.

9. post#63 Do you think an incredible source is more accurate than a credible one? What is your definition of credible; that you have nobody in the field of expertise agreeing with your statements? Why should person A believe what person B believes when 99% of other people disagree with person B? Do you realise maybe some disredited scientists were just shit scientists or that possibly they might have their own subversive purpose for trying to discredit GW? It's very possible Big Business is taking them on payroll so the BB bosses don't lose money. Calling on your attention span might not have been warranted had you read all the links WD posted. "Loony greenies" ? where do I begin with that offhand comment?

10. post#65 WTF does the Greens' policy have to do with whether or not GW is real or caused by humans?

11. post#66 hypocrisy about WD using cut-n-paste. It looks to me (IMHO of course) like WD has spent far more time typing out posts for the debate with many more links than you have. Also you call WD out on his apparent "self importance"... do you really think he's actually getting a kick out of debating this? To me it looks like he's really not enjoying having to argue. Which is clearly why other posters and myself encouraged him to continue.

12. post#69 you ignore that a. WD never said who or what was PM'd to him about this subject; b. you're getting irrationally angry over your ignoring WD's insistence not to believe HIM, but to believe the CREDIBLE SCIENCE, and c. calling science a "religion" is almost laughably irrelevant and WRONG. This post I definitely remember negatising you.

13. post#72 the first time WD actually called you - or anyone in this thread at least - an idiot and given the reasons he listed, I think was a fair call. It must be frustrating to have to repeat things ad nauseum.

14. post#75 again you place the credibility of a small percentage of non-peer-reviewed authors way above the credibility of the majority of scientific experts. Also you berated his lack of replying about Harold Lewis, which he DID and you either IGNORED or DIDN'T READ.

15. post#80 again juvenile and again ignoring WD's request for you to educate yourself, not just believe any random (including himself) utterly.

16. post#82 again juvenile and this time patronising to boot.

17. post#85 wrong and hypocritical. If this comment were a good point; why then were lengthy and informative posts by WD negatised?

18. post#86 you finally bother reading WD's links and FWIW I laud you with trying to understand.

19. posts#89-91 childish and utterly useless. Who's condescending now?

20. post#106 statement of refusal to continue mature debate. As another SAB member also noticed enough to comment after.

21. post#112 I just want to add that I thought I was being fair in saying that you were being deliberately mislead. I wanted to make sure there was a noted difference in what I said, and saying that you personally were at fault of being mislead. However not opening your mind to any reasonable argument does yourself no favour IMHO. Like I said, I didn't want to derail this thread, but wanted to show a bit of subjectiveness as to how this debate looks to the outsider. Hence why I've now listed what I was thinking while reading through the thread. Just like how a few years ago it was pointed out to me that I could get particularly arrogant after a few drinks; I didn't like to hear it but it was the truth. I just never realised until it was pointed out to me by an outside observer.

22. post#113 fair enough you've every right to dismiss my character based on my observation from post#112. Also

What you are saying is please don't join my argument if you have a different opinion.

is utterly wrong.

23. post#114 again with the pouting about ratings, if you don't like being negatised for a simplistic and childish post then don't post that. If you don't believe WD is/does what he says he is/does then that's your prerogative. Is there a reason you doubt his profession and knowledge? I don't know him personally from a bar of soap but it sure sounds like IMHO to me he knows his shit.

24. post#115 how do you know he wasn't preparing a detailed response to your post? He's been posting many more links and typed up more shit than you have. You also said you have a lot of free time. WD has said in another thread he's very busy. OK I agree with you that bringing his dad into it wasn't an insult; I apologise for that. Note again I did not just trash your (or others') posts with negs. I explained when and why I rate. Do you not believe in Urban Spiral? Why not? WD accedes science makes mistakes; but he also says rectifying mistakes by a highly scrutinous field of peers is what makes science infinitely more factual than an ideology or religion.

25. I like your next few posts whereby you at least offer some constructive articles for the debate (despite WD deconstructing them). I say that knowing full-well I've personally not offered any at all.

26. post#130 back to hypocrisy and immaturity.

27. post#136

So what you're saying is that you'll debate me, but not using science?

hit the nail on the head as it appears to me.

28. post#183 WD points out why I too was suckered in by Synchro's link in post#177. It's easy to be suckered in by deliberate misleading or biased media, which is what I attributed your problem to be in my post#112.

29. post#189 again you refuse to see the negging of your posts is nothing more than simple disagreeance, bit of a victim mentality there when you keep taking things so personally. WD never needed to attack you; his links and arguments were more than plenty to soundly disagree with whatever was said. In fact he had no qualms in agreeing with particular points made; so why do YOU keep insisting he's just disagreeing with you to be a dick? Come on! You also admit straight up you're convinced it's a fraud and so going into a debate without a mind open to the TRUTHS he's pointed out which you keep ignoring or don't read.

30. post#196, what YT said.

***

Final note; Do any of you who - with respect to personal opinion - disagree with GW think that humankind's continued behaviours is going to be positive for the planet?

[hutch]

Wasn't even mine and it is at number 1...I never mentioned god...well done....now be a little darling and do the same to all Woodies post's? How ignorant to waste all your time putting together a one sided argument as to why I am total fuck head...I could have told you that without you wasting all your time...fucking lame actually. An amazing waste of anybodies time..you would have had to go back and forth all over the place for ages...shows your desperation to shut me down....very humorous..If I ever had a doubt you were part of his fan club you just settled it for me..

So, if you don't have a degree or you are not so up to scratch on your debating skills then don't bother submitting anything here folks!!!...

Now lets have a look at your contribution to the subject...oh dear, just insults to me and glory be to your scientist friend...you have been a big contributor so thanks...

Maybe instead of just attacking me you should have a go at the subject matter....