Copenhagen Treaty

[Guest]

LMAO at you guys, honestly, Copenhagen will lead to a third world war with the creation of a Communistic World Government?

You go from the ridiculous to the completely ludicrous and don't blink an eye.

You found WMD's in Iraq yet?

Chook.

[Guest]

Lord Christopher Monckton speaks with Alan Jones

http://podcasts.2gb.com/alanjones/al...ton261009b.mp3

World leading MIT Climatoligist Richard Lindzen speaks on Global Warming and Politics at an International Conference on Climate Change

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS-cLp1PEGQ


Thanks Chook you have inspired me this morning to find even more stuff which support my views

I'm sure you can find heaps of stuff to support your view that's not the issue, distingishing fact from fiction in what you find is where you continue to fail.

Chook.

[Kingbilly]

I'm sure you can find heaps of stuff to support your view that's not the issue, distingishing fact from fiction in what you find is where you continue to fail.
Chook.

Unfortunately Chook, regarless of copenhagen's agenda political outcome, distinguishing between fact and fiction has never been a priority of those perpetuating the "climate change" "global warming myths"

[Guest]

I'm sure you can find heaps of stuff to support your view that's not the issue, distingishing fact from fiction in what you find is where you continue to fail.

Chook.

So Chook answer this one simple question

What evidence can you provide that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will make the world much warmer?

[Guest]

Unfortunately Chook, regarless of copenhagen's agenda political outcome, distinguishing between fact and fiction has never been a priority of those perpetuating the "climate change" "global warming myths"

If by "those" you mean scaremongering morons who use any delusional garbage available to try and add weight to their viewpoint...then there are "those" on both sides of this debate KB, as evident by the above "third world war" clap trap!

I take it you're a skeptic based on your use of the word "myths" when talking about AGW? I'm guessing you've already made up your mind?

Chook.

[Kramer]

rcptn.

I found an interesting proverb that suits this non debate.

"It is with narrow minded people, as with narrow necked bottles.
The less they have in them, the more noise they make pouring it out"
Anon.

It is interesting that one should cast doubt on your opinion without providing theory to back up thier side of the debate.

Giddyup!

[Guest]

So Chook answer this one simple question

What evidence can you provide that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will make the world much warmer?

You first. Provide evidence of you initial claims as asked and I will answer your question.

Chook.

[Guest]

rcptn.

I found an interesting proverb that suits this non debate.

"It is with narrow minded people, as with narrow necked bottles.
The less they have in them, the more noise they make pouring it out"
Anon.

It is interesting that one should cast doubt on your opinion without providing theory to back up thier side of the debate.

Giddyup!

Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. This is what you are involved in Kramer. Still waiting for you to identify the "compelling evidence" you claim you found in rcptn's posts?

Chook.

[Kramer]

Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. This is what you are involved in Kramer. Still waiting for you to identify the "compelling evidence" you claim you found in rcptn's posts?

Chook.

Mate it is about providing debate.
Something you have not done, as you do not provide your side of the debate just denial of anything which casts doubt on the so called Climate change come Global warming school of though, further, as nothing has actually happened yet all this is purely conjecture on the part of the Pro warming lobby. Do you have compelling evidence that the planet is in dour trouble due to warming?

[Kingbilly]

Chook,
yes I have made my mind up based on alot of information.
My opinion is we should do what we can to preserve our environment.
Carbon trading schemes as put forward are a load of rubbish, they will do nothing or very little of benefit to the environment.

Unfortunately some of the important things to be done, such as alternative to fossil fuels are up against it because of the $s behind the petroleum companies.

There needs to be alot more research done, but independant science organisations.
The decisions being made now are emotive and more based on marketing than fact.
The myths refer to the spin and bullshit put forward by absolute halfwits like Gore.

[Guest]

You first. Provide evidence of you initial claims as asked and I will answer your question.

Chook.

Hang on mate I attempted to answer your questions earlier albeit unsuccessfully in your opinion.

Now its your turn to 1 simple question

What evidence can you provide that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will make the world much warmer?

Are you a man or a mouse? I'll let you decide

[Guest]

The UN IPPC report that claims to have around 2000 prominent climatoligists is a farce because in reality there were heaps beaurucrats and others listed who were no more scientits than you or me.

How do you know this is a farce? Do you know the 2000 climatologists are fakes?

What do consider as evidence? A copy an paste from an article on the net?

"Another way of stating the situation is this:

There is no compelling evidence that the observed overall warming in the 20th Century is anything but man-made.

We know that CO2 causes warming. We do not know the likely rate within a factor of three. Ignorance is not a good basis for dealing with risk."

Is that evidence?

For the record, I am still undecided...

[Kingbilly]

There is no compelling evidence that the observed overall warming in the 20th Century is anything but man-made.

Ah but thats the problem there is also no compelling evidence that the observed warming the 20th century is man-made.

Infact there is no compelling evidence that there has been an overall global warming and no compelling evidence that there hasn't been.

Just numbers we are told to believe, numbers that contradict each other and can't be proven correct.

This is why governments should not run off on these knee jerk reactions.

[Guest]

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1745/S...-for-ten-years


By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
Below is a reprint of a July 1, 2009 Open Letter to Congress by a team of prominent scientists.

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

You have recently received an Open Letter from the Woods Hole Research Center, exhorting you to act quickly to avoid global disaster. The letter purports to be from independent scientists, but that Center is the former den of the President's science advisor, John Holdren, and is far from independent. This is the same science advisor who has given us predictions of “almost certain” thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.

The facts are:

The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.

The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact

THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN'T EXIST.

The proposed legislation would cripple the US economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors. For such drastic action, it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not just computer projections, and not false claims about the state of the science.

SCIENCE IS GUIDED BY PROOF, NOT CONSENSUS

Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Alarmists are rolling in wealth from the billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken. It is always instructive to follow the money.

Robert H. Austin
Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
American Association of Arts and Science Member National Academy of Sciences

William Happer
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
Member National Academy of Sciences

S. Fred Singer
Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus, University of Virginia
First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service
Fellow APS, AAAS, AGU

Roger W. Cohen
Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs, ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)
Fellow APS

Harold W. Lewis
Professor of Physics Emeritus
University of California at Santa Barbara
Fellow APS, AAAS; Chairman, APS Reactor Safety Study

Laurence I. Gould
Professor of Physics
University of Hartford
Chairman (2004), New England Section of APS

Richard Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences

End Reprint of Open Letter. #

Editor's Note: Woods Hole Research Center is an environmental activist group -- not affiliated in any way with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

[Guest]

Hang on mate I attempted to answer your questions earlier albeit unsuccessfully in your opinion.

Opinion has nothing to do with it, you have not provided any facts to back up your claims, it's that simple. You have attempted to justify your claims with irrelevant conspiracy theory bullshit.

Now admit that and I'll answer your question.

Chook.