Jump to content

Climate Change Consensus?


Recommended Posts

They basically ruined the skyline putting up that monstrosity.

They are the most inefficient and costly way of producing power.

In BC site C dam should be being built NOW.

In the rest of the country nuclear power plants should be built NOW.

IMHO of course. laugh.gif

Have you ever seen the country that will be flooded by site C? I'm from that part of the world and I think it is far better to have wind mills on Grouse that to destroy a beautiful river valley in MY backyard.

Besides wind mills have zero impact on the enviroment (or near zero compared to Hydro projects)

OK I'll take my tongue out of my cheek.

There is a simple solution and that is, enact a law that states only power in excess of what is required for domestic needs, can be exported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rattler
Have you ever seen the country that will be flooded by site C? I'm from that part of the world and I think it is far better to have wind mills on Grouse that to destroy a beautiful river valley in MY backyard.

Besides wind mills have zero impact on the enviroment (or near zero compared to Hydro projects)

OK I'll take my tongue out of my cheek.

There is a simple solution and that is, enact a law that states only power in excess of what is required for domestic needs, can be exported.

Of course they do have a very negative impact on bats ...................

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/BatsWindmills/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9102101282.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A possible crack in the environmentalist propaganda, maybe even the beginning of an end to a Foundation, or at the very least, its discreditation?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politi...article1344485/

“The conclusions [the report] draws are irresponsible,” said Mr. Prentice in an interview with The Globe and Mail from Kingston.

**************

My words - The feds still need to come a long way to rid themselves of the idea that a carbon tax is necessary. One reason they probably won't though is because it's free money for them as the vast majority of sheeple in this country don't think things out for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some of the usual predictions by the well known voices of the man-made global warming crowd. Who believes these people are credible?

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics...html?id=2162089

Jeffrey Simpson, The Globe and Mail's official climate panjandrum, recently referred dismissively to what he called the "shrill chorus of climate-change deniers." We know a few deniers, and all seem remarkably calm and cool and not usually given to extremes, hype or exaggeration. When it comes to shrill, in fact, nobody beats the proponents of global warming theory and official climate policy. Some examples, in no particular order:

- UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the official climate change science reports are "are as frightening as a science-fiction movie. But they are even more terrifying, because they are real."

- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said the CEO of Massey Energy, Don Blankenship, "should be in jail... for all of eternity." He said coal companies Massey Energy, Peabody Energy and Arch Coal are "criminal enterprises."

- James Hansen, NASA climate scientist, said of coal that, "If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains -no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species." Hansen estimated that one coal-fired power plant "would be responsible for the extermination of about 400 species."

If world temperatures rise above 2 degrees Centigrade, it would be "exceedingly dangerous" because the world has not seen such temperatures in more than 3-million years, according to James Hansen.

- Lord Nicholas Stern, author of the Stern report on climate economics and New Labour climate change guru: "We have not seen those sort of conditions for 30 million years. These kind of changes will have huge consequences -- southern Europe is likely to be a desert; hundreds of millions of people will have to move. There will be severe global conflict."

- Former UN secretary general Koffi Annan claims that 300,000 people a year are being killed by climate change.

- Current UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon says, "Many scientists are saying that worst-case projections are already being realized -- indeed surpassed... Some estimates say that rising greenhouse gas emissions could cause a decline of 5 per cent or more in global GDP."

- David Suzuki, head of the David Suzuki Foundation and former board member of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association says, "What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there's a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they're doing [on climate policy] is a criminal act."

DeSmogBlog, Jim Hoggan's shrillerama blog site, recently carried a headline: "What if we handled Hitler like we're dealing with climate change?" It links to a cartoon video, with a newsreel voice that says, "Global warming continues on a path of global domination. What if the world dealt with the Nazis of yesterday the same way were are dealing with the scourge of global warming today?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of the satellite data shows a statistically significant cooling trend for the past

12 to 13 years, with it not being possible to reject a flat trend (0 slope) for 16 years.

This is a length of time at which disagreement with climate models can no longer be

attributed to simple LTP. On the other hand, studies cited herein have documented a

50-70 year cycle of climate oscillations overlaid on a simple linear warming trend since

the mid-1800s and have used this model to forecast cooling beginning between 2001

and 2010, a prediction that seems to be upheld by the satellite and ocean heat content

data. Other studies made this same prediction of transition to cooling based on solar

activity indices or from ocean circulation regime changes. In contrast, the climate models predict the recent flat to cooling trend only as a rare stochastic event. The

linear warming trend in these models that is obtained by subtracting the 60-70 yr cycle,

while unexplained at present, is clearly inconsistent with climate model predictions

because it begins too soon (before greenhouse gases were elevated) and does not

accelerate as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate. This model and the empirical

evidence for recent cooling thus provide a challenge to climate model accuracy.

loehle_2009_E_E.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The direct economic costs of meeting Kyoto’s obligations are upwards of $150-billion per year. The costs of new commitments made at Copenhagen could be substantially higher. There are several concerns which stem from this fact.

The Copenhagen Consensus, a think-tank run by Bjorn Lomborg, found that $27-billion in funds could prevent 28 million people from getting HIV, $12-billion could cut malaria cases by more than a billion a year, and $10-billion spent annually on food aid and agricultural production could feed the 229 million people who currently live in hunger. Climate skeptics think saving these lives now should take precedence over seemingly ineffective treaties that attempt to prevent potential harms decades distant.

Next, climate skeptics rightly question whether the policy prescriptions being advocated in the leadup to Copenhagen can achieve the reductions in carbon emissions needed to halt global warming.

The Case Against Action on Climate Change

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rattler

Caribbean, Gulf spared widespread coral damage

Last Updated: Friday, November 6, 2009 | 10:06 AM ET

Associated Press

Egg-sperm bundles, like tiny balls of snow, are spewed into the Caribbean off the coast of Puerto Rico during August spawning of elkhorn coral. (SECORE/Ramon Villaverde/Canadian Press)Lower-than-feared sea temperatures this summer gave a break to fragile coral reefs across the Caribbean and the central Gulf of Mexico that were damaged in recent years, scientists said Thursday.

Unusually warm water in recent years has caused the animals that make up coral to expel the colorful algae they live with, creating a bleached colour. If the problem persists, the coral itself dies — killing the environment where many fish and other marine organisms live.

"We dodged a bullet this year. The good news is that temperatures didn't get quite warm enough for there to be a large-scale bleaching problem," said C. Mark Eakin, co-ordinator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Coral Reef Watch network. He was among scientists gathered in Puerto Rico's capital for a meeting of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force.

The worst coral bleaching in the region's recorded history occurred in 2005, when hot seas caused bleaching of as much as 90 per cent of corals in the eastern Caribbean, with more than half of that dying.

In July, the Coral Reef Watch network warned that high temperatures this year might lead to severe coral problems because sea surface temperatures in parts of the Caribbean were unusually hot.

Eakin said the threat had passed for 2009, since temperatures are now cooling, but the problem could return.

"We're seeing little signs of coral recovery in the Caribbean, where the damage has been like a ratchet wrench clicking down and staying there," Eakin said. "Temperatures could be severe enough next year."

Reef-building coral is a fragile organism, a tiny polyp-like animal that builds a calcium-carbonate shell around itself and survives in a symbiotic relationship with types of algae — each providing sustenance to the other. Even a one-degree rise in normal maximum sea temperatures can disrupt that relationship.

Bleaching can occur when sea temperatures rise just a few degrees above average in the warmest summer months. Bleaching that lasts more than a week can kill the organisms, since they rely on the algae for sustenance.

Some coral bleaching was recorded this year in the Cayman Islands, according to Eakin and scientists in the British Caribbean dependency.

Croy McCoy, a senior researcher with the islands' Department of Environment, told The Associated Press that officials are still calculating the damage to local reefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should not forget how the doctrine of global warming came into being. In a normal case, everything starts with an empirical observation, with the discovery of evident trends or tendencies. Then follow scientific hypotheses and their testing. When they are not refuted, they begin to influence politicians. The whole process finally leads to some policy measures. None of this was the case with the global warming doctrine.

It started differently. The people who had never believed in human freedom, in impersonal forces of the market and other forms of human interaction and in the spontaneity of social development and who had always wanted to control, regulate and mastermind us have been searching for a persuasive argument that would justify these ambitions of theirs. After trying several alternative ideas -- population bomb, rapid exhaustion of resources, global cooling, acid rains, ozone holes -- that all very rapidly proved to be non-existent, they came up with the idea of global warming. Their doctrine was formulated before reliable data evidence, before the formulation of scientifically proven theories, before their comprehensive testing based on today's level of statistical methods. Politicians accepted that doctrine at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and -- without waiting for its confirmation -- started to prepare and introduce economically damaging and freedom endangering measures.

Why did they do that? They understood that playing the global warming game is an easy, politically correct and politically profitable card to play (especially when it is obvious that they themselves won't carry the costs of the measures they implement and will not be responsible for their consequences).

This country, my country, as well as the rest of the world face many real issues. We do not need to solve non-existing problems. I don't think the real issue is temperature and/or CO2, but a new utopian vision of the world. We have only two ways out: salvation through carbon capping or prosperity through freedom, unhampered human activity, productivity and hard work. I vote for the second option.

-Vaclav Klaus is the President of the Czech Republic. On Nov. 4, the Washington Times hosted a briefing, "Advancing the Global Debate over Climate Change Policy" at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. These remarks were given at the last panel of that event.

Largest tax increase in world history

Link to comment
Share on other sites

late course correction to avoid the rocks....

All hope is lost for Copenhagen climate treaty, British officials say

Nov 06, 2009 - Times Online

Ben Webster, Environment Editor

Barcelona - A world treaty on climate change will be delayed by up to a year and is likely to be watered down because countries with the highest greenhouse gas emissions are refusing to commit to legally binding reductions.

British officials preparing for next month’s UN summit in Copenhagen said the best that could be hoped for was that national leaders would make “political agreements” on emission cuts and payments to help poor countries to adapt to climate change. These agreements would be non-binding, however, and could later be revised or rescinded by national parliaments.

At pre-summit talks in Barcelona, the officials said the final agreement would not emerge until at least six months after the Copenhagen summit, which ends on December 17. They said they hoped another meeting would be convened by next December to allow leaders to sign the treaty.

The admission that no treaty will be signed at Copenhagen marks the failure of the process agreed at a UN meeting in Bali in December 2007, when industrialised countries agreed to deliver a binding climate-change agreement within two years. The delay has angered developing countries, which say they are already suffering from man-made climate change.

'China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, has also failed to announce targets'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

late course correction to avoid the rocks....

All hope is lost for Copenhagen climate treaty, British officials say

Nov 06, 2009 - Times Online

Ben Webster, Environment Editor

Barcelona - A world treaty on climate change will be delayed by up to a year and is likely to be watered down because countries with the highest greenhouse gas emissions are refusing to commit to legally binding reductions.

British officials preparing for next month’s UN summit in Copenhagen said the best that could be hoped for was that national leaders would make “political agreements” on emission cuts and payments to help poor countries to adapt to climate change. These agreements would be non-binding, however, and could later be revised or rescinded by national parliaments.

At pre-summit talks in Barcelona, the officials said the final agreement would not emerge until at least six months after the Copenhagen summit, which ends on December 17. They said they hoped another meeting would be convened by next December to allow leaders to sign the treaty.

The admission that no treaty will be signed at Copenhagen marks the failure of the process agreed at a UN meeting in Bali in December 2007, when industrialised countries agreed to deliver a binding climate-change agreement within two years. The delay has angered developing countries, which say they are already suffering from man-made climate change.

'China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, has also failed to announce targets'

Excellent news. As seen here, African nations could be asking for up to 200 billion a year to fight the climate change. No word from their leaders on the billions they steal every year from their own people.

http://www.reuters.com/article/environment...E5822YX20090903

So just be glad that Dion and his types of politicians are not in power now, or else you know where your money would soon be heading to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Another breath of fresh air from Harper today on climate change...Thank you Stephen. A global warming article below.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...lack-holes.aspx

Trillion-dollar black holes

The costs of climate control dwarf the financial crisis

By Terence Corcoran

There is much concern in financial markets about exit strategies. How are central banks and governments going to dig themselves out of their multi-trillion dollar monetary and fiscal stimulus holes? Frankly, it’s too late now to start worrying about that problem, which in any case is easily fixed: tax increases. Far more worthy of attention, before it’s too late, are the new mile-deep spending regimes governments are preparing to cover the cost of new climate change policies. And guess how they will get out of those trenches.

The green jungle drums are already at full volume in preparation for the Copenhagen climate policy extravaganza, even though the two week negotiation marathon isn’t set to open until Dec. 7. From now till mid-December, our days and nights are going to be filled with dark nightmares of global warming and bright utopian visions of the greatest reordering of economic activity since the industrial revolution — except run in reverse. No citizen of the world will be able to escape the run-up to Copenhagen where, one way or another, catastrophe looms.

At Copenhagen, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will attempt to get about 140 nations to approve a new global plan to reduce carbon emissions and, at the same time, engineer a major redistribution of money from developed nations to developing nations. An early draft of the Copenhagen agreement, to replace the collapsing Kyoto Protocol, suggests the focus is as much on redistribution as on carbon reduction, with no guarantee that any of it will have the slightest impact on carbon emissions or the global climate.

In climate policy circles, trillion-dollar transfers and programs proliferate and, in total, easily overtake the paper losses suffered by financial markets through the 2008 crisis. The International Monetary Fund recently set its estimate of the global losses from the financial crisis for 2007-2010 to be US$3.4-billion. The draft Copenhagen document proposes annual “financial flows” to developing nations of somewhere between $70- and $140-billion. At $140-billion, the ten-year tab would run to $1.4-trillion. But forcing carbon-based energy out of the global economy will take a lot more than that.

The International Energy Agency, created decades ago to keep cheap oil flowing, is now dedicated to slowing it down and making it very expensive. In its latest World Energy Outlook report, the IEA estimated that a global attempt to reduce carbon emissions “will increase cumulative energy-related investment over the period 2010-2030 by $10.5-trillion.” On top of that the IEA envisages carbon taxes of between $50 and $110 a tonne; depending on how much of global carbon emissions are subject to carbon taxes or cap-and-trade programs, the carbon tax burden could easily exceed $1-trillion a year.

This week, in a second report, the IEA unleashed another money spinner, a global estimate of how much it will cost to develop carbon capture and storage. As with all climate reports, this one must levitate itself to new heights of urgency. “There is a growing awareness of the urgent need to turn political statements into concrete action.” Current energy use is “patently unsustainable” and it will “take an energy revolution and low-carbon energy technologies” to save the world from crisis. Plus it will take more trillions of dollars .

Carbon taxes of $100 a tonne will not provide enough financial flow to feed the carbon capture beast. The IEA report calls for OECD governments to increase funding to “an average annual investment of $3.5-billion to $4-billion from 2010 and 2020.” This money is just to provide “demonstration projects” to prove that taking carbon and storing it underground actually works and doesn’t blow up as an environmental horror. Another annual commitment of up to $2.5-billion will be needed to establish “new financing strategies” for non-OECD developing regions. That money would be run through whatever mechanisms and agencies are set up at Copenhagen to redirect, redistribute and recycle rivers of cash.

For North America alone, the IEA estimates carbon capture investments of $1.1-trillion. Globally, the number balloons to as high as $3.4-trillion. Along with other IEA carbon control cost estimates and the Copenhagen effort, plus uncountable and unmeasured other burdens on industry and consumers, the cost of the great anti-carbon revolution will eventually dwarf the costs of the financial crisis to global markets, even including government budget deficits and central bank red ink.

The big difference between the financial meltdown losses and carbon control spending is that the financial market losses are paper losses that, in time, will turn around. The IMF said the financial markets have already recouped 15% of their losses as securities values rebound. The carbon spending, if it were to take place, would be lost money never to be recouped. An expenditure of $3.4-trillion to pump carbon into the ground is $3.4-trillion vapourized into black holes.

The Copenhagen-based platform for these trillion-dollar economic schemes is being drafted at a time when many nations are already reeling — and when there is growing doubt about the validity and credibility of the science. Will the politics follow the dismal and risky economics and science of climate policy at Copenhagen? Whatever happens, catastrophe looms. If Copenhagen adopts extreme targets and objectives, the world economy will face more trillion dollar crises. If Copenhagen fails, the catastrophe will fall on climate change activists and their political proponents. Either way, it won’t be pretty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add some "fuel" to the misguided climate change whackos demise, here comes some more evidence that the gullible public is being led like a bull by the nose to the place of pleasant gentle pastures that actually contains the wolves of deadly tax destruction if they don't wake up:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/...imate.html?_r=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nation...article1372296/

"Mr. Hoggan, who is also chair of the Suzuki Foundation, said the Conservatives have been out of step with public sentiment on climate change virtually from the moment they took office in 2006. In his opinion, this represents a potential vulnerability for the government."

This poll is tainted by its association with that foundation, I would think:

Martin Mittelstaedt Environment Reporter

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Published on Friday, Nov. 20, 2009 7:38PM EST

Last updated on Saturday, Nov. 21, 2009 3:01AM EST

On the eve of major UN climate change talks next month in Copenhagen, a major survey of Canadians has found that more than three quarters of the public feel embarrassed that the country hasn't been taking a leadership role on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

The view that Canada is an international laggard when it comes to dealing with emissions blamed for global warming was felt across the country, even in oil-rich Alberta, the province that would likely bear the highest financial costs of complying with any rules to reduce the burning of fossil fuels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discuss gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature. Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Dr. Trenberth wrote."

"In a 1999 e-mail exchange about charts showing climate patterns over the last two millenniums, Phil Jones, a longtime climate researcher at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, said he had used a “trick” employed by another scientist, Michael Mann, to “hide the decline” in temperatures."

Anyone notice how the man-made climate change posters on this thread are now silent(almost refusing to answer to over and over legitimate postings by myself and others). Now more and more scientists are being caught lying.

Please ask yourself why? And then be so grateful that the Conservatives are in power keeping billions of your dollars going toward the scam of the century.

However, if 3/4 of Canadians are embarrassed by Canada's lack of action on this issue, perhaps a new department can be set up to keep track of them and they can pay extra and be in line to lose their jobs so they can feel better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could be that nobody could be bothered to argue with the semi-coherent ranting of a socially inept message board poster.

I rest my case about the credibility of the man-made climate change crowd. Their response to legitimate article links and postings.....insults. Remember that when you consider voting for the party that really has a hidden agenda now. The liberals and climate change taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can find where I said climate change was man made I would be interested to see it however reading comprehension usually escapes you in most exchanges on here so I won't hold my breath.

Your complete lack of ability to see nuance or both sides of any issue leads one to speak to you in terms you have a chance of understanding.

You do however have interesting ideas about hidden agendas. Your newsletter intrigues me and I wish to sunscribe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can find where I said climate change was man made I would be interested to see it however reading comprehension usually escapes you in most exchanges on here so I won't hold my breath.

A review of this thread shows that you have never specifically said that "climate change was man made". On the first two pages of this thread you said.....

"The majority of scientists still believe global climate change is real"

"The overwhelming majority of scientists and scientific organizations have said that global climate change is real. If you want to plug your ears and rail against the "social activists" be my guest."

Then on page 1 of this thread you have links to sites and articles to stories saying man-made global warming is real. One story you linked to says in it "Most earth scientists believe humans cause of global warming, according to survey 97 percent of climatologists canvassed believe humans play a role". On Sep 8, you posted a link to a Sierra Club newsletter which attempts to prove that man-made global warming is a reality.

So somehow my comprehension is poor in your opinion, yet your posts and links pretty much speak for themselves. But, yes Chock, you have not specifically said anywhere that I can find that "climate change was man made".

So to quote you from a July 1 post on this thread...."Your condescending remarks about people's reading comprehension not withsatnding"(sic).....the reality is that my comprehension about the intention of your statements is bang on, as it, of course, always has been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the interest of continuing to pick apart piece by piece the man-made global warming theory instead of just getting bogged down by insults from man-made global warming types, I would like to quote two of the statements by a well known poster as I discussed above.

They are.....

"The majority of scientists still believe global climate change is real"

"The overwhelming majority of scientists and scientific organizations have said that global climate change is real. If you want to plug your ears and rail against the "social activists" be my guest."

Here is an important article debunking those who have been fooled by this belief that the above statements are true.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...ers-racket.aspx

Here are the first two paragraphs of the article...

"In a speech yesterday, Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd explained why he is so certain that the science is settled on climate change. It stems from the number 4,000 — a number that the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used to publicize its last major report.

“This is the conclusion of 4,000 scientists appointed by governments from virtually every country in the world,” asserted Mr. Rudd, in making his case that the planet is in peril.

Unfortunately for Mr. Rudd, he has made a blunder in citing this number. As he can confirm by contacting the secretariat of the IPCC, the thousands of scientists upon whom he rests his case never endorsed the IPCC’s report. Rather, the secretariat will advise him — as the Secretariat advised me when I inquired in 2007 — that the great majority of those scientists were merely reviewers. Worse for Mr. Rudd, those scientists had reviewed only a fraction of the report. Worst of all, far from endorsing the IPCC’s conclusions, many of the reviewers turned thumbs down on the IPCC sections that they read and only a handful actually endorsed the IPCC’s claims that man-made global warming represents a threat to the planet.

Woxof...will the response be nothing or more insults?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woxof...will the response be nothing or more insults?

Woxof.... Comments of that nature aren't helpful... You characterize all of us who don't consider the matter as closed, as being either one of two insults.

You see, many of us have long ago recognized that, as this is not our field of expertise, we'll have to hope for a consensus among those who do indeed have expert knowlege of the matter... All of your links to a dissenting point of view are worthy of a look, and consideration in the greater view... however, most of us, I suspect -- and I fully recognize I cannot speak for others... I'm merely stating my opinion... -- have also considered the counterpoints to these arguments as equally worth consideration...

All in all, from all I've read, I don't see the answer yet.... there are still the two points of view there was a year ago... and more... So still, the question that comes to me is:

What are the consequences of a wrong conclusion? ....

If you're right, and the rest of the planet guessed wrong, what would be the harm done over the long term?

If you're wrong, and the rest of the planet guessed wrong along with you, what would be the harm in that, over the long term?

....can you see the significance of that question?

...and then... Can you see the huge interests that are obviously going to vehemently back the side that says we should do nothing? ...and does it not make sense that those interests would, because they are so vested, and so wealthy, be able to easily out-shout a bunch of climatologists with nothing but their data?

That last point I make to help you understand a part of why some of us who don't believe the matter is as clear as you so obviously do, may not comment on all these things you post. Much of it, I believe, is from those "interests". Personally, I'm a little skeptical of all of what I've read on the subject, from both poles of certainty... so that question still hangs... The cost of guessing wrong in one way is, I believe, far greater than the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woxof.... Comments of that nature aren't helpful... You characterize all of us who don't consider the matter as closed, as being either one of two insults.

I understand your point of view Mitch. Personally, I think it is based on fear from what appears to be increasingly shrill statements from the Climate Change crowd in the face of their ideas falling apart. Thanks for your good post, it is the first reply I have seen in a long time on this thread that is a rational response to legitimate articles that I have been continuously posting. Hopefully more of the same will flow in from others.

I would assume that you also feel that statements of response like "semi-coherent ranting of a socially inept message board poster" or "clueless" are not helpful either. It would appear that those on the other side of the debate characterize those who do "consider the matter closed"(or questioning this theory) as only worthy of insulting replies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Woxof

I characterize you the way I do for a few reasons.

I don't think you are interested in an actual conversation about this (or most things). You are looking for re-affirmation of the view point you already hold so that you can go on with comments like "scam of the century".

You selectively choose which parts of a person's posts to quote. On the 6th post of this thread I said that a links fest would begin but I also said something about the environment and global warming.

When you rush here to post the latest Op-ed you find on the internet and then characterize anyone who does not respond one way, you are guilty of hurling insults just like the petty crap I throw at you.

I called you socially inept because you drag out old posts about some insult, real or imagined, to get the mantle of victimhood. I don't think most on here have the inclination to do this, just seems like the work of someone lacking in social skills. I could be very wrong, maybe you just like to be thorough and this is how you get your affirmation.

Anyway I will refrain from the petty shots as it is a waste of our generous host's bandwidth. You may just want to re-examine why nobody chooses to respond rather than just assuming it is because your "evidence" is compelling people to remain silent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may just want to re-examine why nobody chooses to respond rather than just assuming it is because your "evidence" is compelling people to remain silent.

Ahhh, now this is not fair on your part. I choose not to reply because, as Mitch says, I don't know enough to be able to speak from any authority and I don't have the time or inclination to roam the interweb looking for the facts. It has nothing to do with making any judgement on woxof's social skills. In fact, I think you have crossed your own line and that calling someone else socially inept is in itself socially inept. Furthermore it appears that you have done this as a back-handed way of stifling him - you may wish to examine your own motivation in posting this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhh, now this is not fair on your part. I choose not to reply because, as Mitch says, I don't know enough to be able to speak from any authority and I don't have the time or inclination to roam the interweb looking for the facts. It has nothing to do with making any judgement on woxof's social skills. In fact, I think you have crossed your own line and that calling someone else socially inept is in itself socially inept. Furthermore it appears that you have done this as a back-handed way of stifling him - you may wish to examine your own motivation in posting this.

Absolutely.

In addition chockalicious has also altered woxof's quotes in a further attempt to vilify & discredit.

Woxof...you're presenting reasoned sound arguments that need to be heard, are well written and in my view, show amazing restraint. Well done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...