Originally Posted by Clippo:
Since those contrarian thinkers have had all their arguments thoroughly debunked, the only place to go for them is ad hominem attacks.

opinion not fact again

Originally Posted by :
g hall wrote:-


Have you researched anti-MMGW g hall? Please post some reliable data to support your conclusions if you have.

Yes I have and the last time I did your predictable answering posts were
Not peer reviewed
Debunked
Exxon (or another oil company) sponsored

So why bother when you clearly do not read them and do not accpet any viewpoint but your own

Originally Posted by :
Failing that it would be a good idea to not post pointless drivel.

hmm pot - kettle
[Rep]

C_Steam wrote:-

Originally Posted by :
But you'll never get from AGW such commentary gems as the immortal
"The bowler's Holding, the batsman's Willey"

Further to this, Wiki says that Brian Johnston claims never to have said this (& I know you didn't imply this) but this extract is just as funny imo:-

Originally Posted by :
Incidents and gaffes
In one famous incident during a Test match at the Oval, Jonathan Agnew suggested that Ian Botham was out hit wicket because had failed to "get his leg over." Johnston carried on commentating (and giggling) for 30 seconds before dissolving into helpless laughter.[2] Among his other gaffes was

“ There's Neil Harvey standing at leg slip with his legs wide apart, waiting for a tickle. ”

when Neil Harvey was representing Australia at the Headingley Test in 1961.[3]

The oft cited quote:

“ The bowler's Holding, the batsman's Willey ”

allegedly occurred when Michael Holding of the West Indies was bowling to Peter Willey of England in a Test match at the Oval in 1976. Johnston claimed not to have noticed saying anything odd during the match, and that he was only alerted to his gaffe by a letter from "a lady" named "Miss Mainpiece".[3][4] ...........

[Rep]

g hall wrote:-

Originally Posted by :
Ah the exxon conspiracies which you denied and if you bothered to read my posts there might be something of interest there for you

I denied they were 'conspiracies' because Exxon-led AGW doubt tactics were clearly in the public domain. You obviously are incapable of appreciating that fine logic.

Okay, I do bother to read your posts - please remind me which ones are interesting instead of the usual **** & bluster.

Did you bother to read the Exxon link I gave from the Union of Concerned Scientists ?
If so, why not critique it for us all to see?
[Rep]

g hall wrote:-

Originally Posted by :
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clippo
a) The science of GW is overwhelmingly in favour of AGW

No it's not

Yes it is - by your own previous allusions, you are living in a fairy-tale world of make-believe.

Even in the USA where the doubt machine started, The Global Climate Coalition has conceded defeat and even 'oil-bleeding' Dubya's administration accepts the reality of AGW. All presidential candidates are pledging 'action' on AGW - why would they do that if they didn't believe it or the US public generaly believed it ?

Any anti-AGW science that has been published in respectable publications has been restricted to nit-picking little bits of data and has all been subsequently debunked.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
g hall wrote:-


I denied they were 'conspiracies' because Exxon-led AGW doubt tactics were clearly in the public domain. You obviously are incapable of appreciating that fine logic.

A conspiracy is a conspiracy it need not be that well hidden
I accept that I cannot appreciate your logic but I doubt if any rational human being could

Originally Posted by :
Okay, I do bother to read your posts - please remind me which ones are interesting instead of the usual **** & bluster.

Sorry I should have said read AND understand my mistake

Originally Posted by :
Did you bother to read the Exxon link I gave from the Union of Concerned Scientists ?
If so, why not critique it for us all to see?

No
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
g hall wrote:-


Yes it is - by your own previous allusions, you are living in a fairy-tale world of make-believe.

So you can use metaphors but noone else is allowed too
Do you make the rules up as you go along ?

Originally Posted by :
Even in the USA where the doubt machine started, The Global Climate Coalition has conceded defeat and even 'oil-bleeding' Dubya's administration accepts the reality of AGW. All presidential candidates are pledging 'action' on AGW - why would they do that if they didn't believe it or the US public generaly believed it ?

I have seen posts doubting the orthodox position which have been in other countries
If a politician agrees with you they are always right and if they disagree always wrong what a wonderfully rational basis for a debate
As for the general public too many believe what they where last told by hysterical frontmen on TV
It's amazing what other things the general public believe in just because it is the orthodoxy of the time

Originally Posted by :
Any anti-AGW science that has been published in respectable publications has been restricted to nit-picking little bits of data and has all been subsequently debunked.

I would not describe the hockey stick miscalculation as nit picking little bits of data
Of course it would help if the so-called respectable publications printed all the papers which argue against MMGW but somehow they appear not to
and certainly not all of it has been debunked why else would positions have been changed

I'm afraid Clippo you approach the pseudo science of MMGW with all the religious fervour of a TV evangelist and when myself and others have posted papers that query your religion you become hysterical and resort to name calling and making your usual posts about
Not peer reviewed
Debunked
Oil company sponsored
Not written by a climatetologist (although much of what has been written in support of MMGW wasn't either )
and then we become silly or stupid

Perhaps you should review the work of John R Christy who is a climatetologist who has produced some very interesting papers along with Roy Spencer
[Rep]

So from various ravings you have recently made on this forum, do I correctly conclude that you do not believe the world has warmed over the last 2 decades but that you do believe Climate Change is occuring ?

If that is a correct understanding of your views, could you descibe to me the 'factors' that cause Climate to change ?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
So from various ravings you have recently made on this forum, do I correctly conclude that you do not believe the world has warmed over the last 2 decades but that you do believe Climate Change is occuring ?

If that is a correct understanding of your views, could you descibe to me the 'factors' that cause Climate to change ?

Firstly Clippo can you stop posting like a 13 year old with your often silly and petty insults - it merely shows that you are not adult or capable enough to debate seriously these issues which have an impact on all of us.
It does weaken your position and show you up

Reread my posts and you will see the answers you require are there
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
If that is a correct understanding of your views, could you descibe to me the 'factors' that cause Climate to change ?

Factors? Reasons? maybe it just feels like it. Its called 'mother' earth for a reason!
[Rep]

C_Steam wrote:-

Originally Posted by :
Factors? Reasons? maybe it just feels like it. Its called 'mother' earth for a reason!

Oh, so really you are a touchy-feely person ? Explain more fully your last sentence in the quote please.

Any change to any system in the understood universe has a cause or causes - (I used the term factors or you could substitute reason(s) if you find it easier to understand.)

I merely asked g hall to enumerate what causes Climate Change because I thought I had read eleswhere that he believes Climate Change is occurring.

Simple question to a simple mind & simple enough for him to answer.
[Rep]