Originally Posted by Clippo:
(& thanks to Besoeker for the link earlier - I surprised I missed that becasue I go to that site occasionally)

YW. Though it doesn't give much information about SG, that in itself is somewhat interesting.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Besoeker:
Such personal abuse should be stamped upon by the mods.

If you have a problem make a complaint meantime think about yourself as you are exhibiting your prejudices again - it's ok when Clippo is rude both to me and others but when I suggest that some of his comments are stupid you immediately leap to his defence

some examples for you to help you clarify your thinking
http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/envi...tml#post527178
I wonder what is under the ****

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/envi...tml#post525451

Nice easy one for you Bessie

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/envi...tml#post525999

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/envi...tml#post526672

That enough for you
[Rep]

Some answers for you Clippo

Originally Posted by Clippo:
g hall wrote:-


You have relied on ‘The Register’ heavily recently. Is that listed in respected academic journals

This link will help you
Does it need to be "listed in respected academic journals" for you to read it and look at what it says if so that does explain rather a lot about your research

Read all about The Register

Originally Posted by :
Who is Steven Goddard ( the author of the articles in the Register link). What are his ‘qualifications’ for commenting on the ‘ice’ story ? Has he published his ‘arguments’ in a ‘peer-reviewed’ journal?

I suspect he is someone who contributes to the site
Now I expect that he does not have qualifications that you believe to be essential to be able to debate your beliefs however if he has researched as to why different organisations use different data sets to publish research in your peer reviewed respected academic journals then I believe he has the right to question the variance, now you may not agree but I suggest that you have a view that you will not change even if Al Gore admitted he lied

Originally Posted by :
I repeat & endorse what gc wrote:-

Well as gc wrote

Originally Posted by :
On this subject I would always go straight to the academic source. I have very little interest in the interpretations of pathological contrarians.

I can see you and he are of the same blinkered mindset
[Rep]

g hall wrote:-

Originally Posted by :
I wonder what is under the ****

'chap' :-)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by g hall:


I can see you and he are of the same blinkered mindset

I resent that remark.

I remember some years back when the big issue in environmental policy circles was the question of so-called "epistemic communities" of scientists. There was concern about the possibility of scientists over-emphasising the problems associated with climate change in order to further their own agenda (and their own careers). I think the debate has settled down now, but what we do have, and there is a lot of it on this forum, is mindless contrarianism that merely confuses the situation without contributing anything useful whatsoever. I suspect some folk may be driven by a simple fear of change, which is a bit sad. But values do change...

I am very excited by the concept of post-materialist politics. I think most people are coming around to that way of thinking, which is actually the prime reason for green issues being so important today. Interestingly, conservatives appear somewhat resentful of this change in social and economic values. Discussing this shift recently with a prominent conservative writer and academic, I was told "I hope you are wrong!"

I don't think I am wrong...

Hamburg University have everything that matters in post-materialist thinking on this website.

A Refined Inglehart Index Of Materialism And Postmaterialism
[Rep]

.........................
[Rep]

gc

Originally Posted by :
by g hall ( to Clippo)
I can see you and he are of the same blinkered mindset

Originally Posted by :
I resent that remark

Why do you resent a remark which on available evidence is true, you yourself say "On this subject I would always go straight to the academic source. I have very little interest in the interpretations of pathological contrarians."

My comment is that neither of you are willing to accept a view other then the similar view you have about climate change
[Rep]

Originally Posted by g hall:
If you have a problem make a complaint meantime think about yourself as you are exhibiting your prejudices again - it's ok when Clippo is rude both to me and others but when I suggest that some of his comments are stupid you immediately leap to his defence

Personal abuse from anyone should not be tolerated.
[Rep]

Besoeker wrote:-

Originally Posted by :
Personal abuse from anyone should not be tolerated.

I accept this.

I have tried to moderate my responses, especially since mpkd left, but I consider g hall (& rjt for example) have continued to personally abuse me. The argument 'you started it' is sterile and deflects from the truth of the debate so I will not continue it.

So, from now one I am going to try very hard to respond only to technicalities.

( I can't post any more this evening but I do have more to say on this thread).
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Besoeker:
Personal abuse from anyone should not be tolerated.

Nor should sanctimonious hypocrisy and deliberate misunderstanding of posts

Why did you call me out but say nothing before ?
[Rep]