Yes I'm "stoking the fire"

Good to see you still have a sense of humor. Now you have had a laugh you can see just how funny the AGW agenda has looked to others all along! I agree it just shows no one really knows what is going on for sure.

Yes it works both ways Woodbe now it is up to you which one you prefer to believe!

One theory that has empirical evidence to support it and some sound scientific basis or the pie in the sky models made up from a scientific theory that has no emperical evidence to support it.

Good to see you give it a nice bold heading :)

BTW did you read it? If so what part of it do you disagree with? Maybe you might attack the information for once instead of me :)

Hi Rod,

you have been arguing all along that climate change is not proven and do nothing until its proven to your satisfaction. No probs. But the article you linked to says man IS influencing the change.

So fair enough for woodbe to point out the humour in that.

I dont think we need to kill anyway just yet. Just share what wealth we have with all in a sustainable way. By raising people above the poverty level they have less children which means less population.

there need not be any more debate about climate change. Just set about looking after the world, preparing for change, be it influenced by man or not, reduce our reliance on fossil fuel for it will run out, and live sustainably for all earthlings, not just us rich buggers.

The irony of the article is that they say the world will cool for the next 10 years but it is still warming by man.

They have bought themselves another 10 years to continue the charade yet the globe is actually cooling!

They hope that when it comes out of the cooling phase they can stoke up the argument for AGW warming again. Yep I know what the article said.

The proverty issue is interesting pehaps for another thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

Good to see you give it a nice bold heading :)

BTW did you read it? If so what part of it do you disagree with? Maybe you might attack the information for once :)

---

Actually the forum did that bold stuff, I just copy/pasted it. :2tsup:

I read enough of it to realise you probably hadn't read it all either. :U
I found no compulsion to agree or disagree with it. It's 'news' in a newspaper.

Why would I attack something I read in an online newspaper on an internet forum? :?

Rod, I'm just asking you to live up to the standards you proclaim the pro-AGW crowd should adhere to. By the way, you still haven't responded to my question about how you would like that GW-supporting Tasman Glacier melt reported so as to not offend your anti-AGW sensibilities.

woodbe.

Woodbe I think I have made it perfectly clear where I stand on the standards you mention irrespective of which side of the debate. They are both non committal so neither side really knows what the future holds or why. What we do know is the climate is not static, never was, nor ever will be. Natural occurance perhaps?

You seem to keep wanting to personalise this thread to an attack on me instead of an attack on the subject. Your trivial attacks on me have no relation to the overall argument presented in this thread. It seems fery atypical of many supporters of AGW to partake in this sort of activity. Thankfully most people see through this charade and focus on the debate, this is why the AGW theory is losing momentum.

It was built up by hysterical claims that could not be proven and then betean up by an equally hysterical media wanting sensational stories to sell papers. As momentum gathered it was taken up by politicians and politicized for electoral expediency. Now the unravelling has started to take place you will see people ducking for cover. But in the meantime, due to lack of further supporting scientific evidence or emperical evidence, they have turned to attaking the credibility of the sane people providing evidence that casts a shadow over AGW as their only defence.

Really obvious when you look at it objectivly without green coloured glasses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

Really obvious when you look at it objectivly without green coloured glasses.

---

Agree. Those green coloured glasses are awful, depressing.

It all looks much better through rose coloured glasses. :2tsup:

woodbe.

Just a bit more reading material for discussion.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...zYmViZjQ=#more

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...a7c3f&Issue_id

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/...ing_stone.html

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3066

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63360

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../04/do0405.xml

These types of articles rarerly get to see the light of day in the MSM shameful really.

As they filter through sentiment toward AGW will rapidly change as it gaining pace all the time.

Rod,

You have proved beyond doubt that you don't believe in global warming. You have also proved that you will grab any article no matter how unbalanced or dubious to support your view. Sadly you have also shown you know nothing about intelligent debate, or that you can show some sign that your view may have some imperfections or the opposite side may have some positives.

What you have achieved is a level of bigotry that comes from a closed mind, so how about not boring the life out of all of us and move onto something else for a change.

Johnc if it bores you so much simply dont read it.

I dont think it is me that has the closed mind here. It is the AGW supportes that have closed off the debate. They are the ones claiming the science is settled and try to shout down those who claim it is not.

What I am doing is demonstrating that the science is far from settled. When someone can come up with some scientific evidence that proves that AGW is real beyond doubt and that emissions can actually be reduced and if they are that there will be measurable benefit to justify the cost in doing so.

That is not to much to ask in return for the billions of $ about to be spent on trying to change the climate. Particularly when the biggest emitters wont play ball.

This makes no sense at all.

The cost to us for this folly is simply to huge to simply move on to something else as you suggest. It is just another example of shutting down the dissenters. Maybe you would prefer to see Australia going down this path.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/st...ectid=10507649

or more accurately this.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/governme...bilities/kyoto

And this is a MUST READ if you are concerned about carbon trading scheme costs.

http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/u...-taxation1.pdf

Expect to hear more when the costs start rolling in! You will be bored to death.