Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat]

The classic tactic of the troll, to accuse others of the very thing he's guilty of himself!

 

I realised long ago on this thread that there's no point arguing with you on this subject, as the moment you're confronted with facts that prove you wrong you do the online equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "ner ner ner! Can't hear you!".

 

However, it's important for newcomers to this thread to realised that you're in a minority of one, and thankfully most people are waking up to the fact they've been tricked into believing that global warming exists and only now is the truth coming out.

 

A minority that includes the vast majority of the scientific community.

 

As for trolling what about your blatant inability to understand the article you cited on the micronesian islands opposing your view rather than supporting it?

 

No comment on that but instead post some rubbish about my view being a minority one, when there are no more than a handful of scientists that have a different one to the one I have been putting forward.... Now that is blatant trolling. But then what else would people expect from you?

[Cyclone]

Climate gate scandal proved nothing except the extent to which people will believe what they want to believe inspite of the evidence.

 

This accusation is as easily levelled at you as at any denier.

You deny that anything unusual was going on despite all the evidence to the contrary.

[Wildcat]

What about when millions of people realise they've been led up the (green) garden path; that their extra taxes are not being used to investigate alternate energy sources, but to enable people like (prince) Albert Gore to live in mansions, jet around the world and get rich?

 

What about when our already fragile economy collapses due to the extra strain placed on it be ill concieved green policies?

 

What about when people realise that CO2 isn't the problem we were greenwashed into believing it was?

 

Even when all that happens , I still wouldn't be calling for people to be tried for treason, to be strangled in their beds or to be executed.

 

I might call for them to be jailed though; along with all the others who have helped to perpetrate the myth.

 

PS if CO2 output is such a problem, why aren't you calling for China and India to also massively reduce their output?

 

Considering the vast majority of scientists think CO2 is the issue and so far no one has been able to provide an alternative explanation that stands up to any scrutiny, then CO2 not being the issue is extremely unlikely. In the unlikely event that another cause is discovered then people will look back on the science of today and judge it in terms of the information available at that time and without any substantive criticism.

 

As to the efficacy of green solutions. In some cases like carbon trading they will probably be disturbed that space for a proper debate on them was prevented by nay-sayers and deniers who's obvious political short term motivations to make themselves rich off oil trading has hijacked the debate and space to discuss them. As I have already said earlier on on this thread I have strong reservations about carbon trading as a solution.

 

China and India per capita put much lower amounts of CO2 in to the atmosphere. They have I believe been making some progress towards using the latest technologies to reduce carbon emissions, but as their economies develop from agricultural to modern they will no doubt increase their total carbon emissions dramatically. Whilst we emit more per capita than they do, we have no right to criticise them however. We have to lead by example, and by that I mean take seriously reductions in our carbon emissions, rather than putting our heads in the sand and trying to promote any small criticisms of the science as an excuse not to act.

[convert]

China and India per capita put much lower amounts of CO2 in to the atmosphere. They have I believe been making some progress towards using the latest technologies to reduce carbon emissions, but as their economies develop from agricultural to modern they will no doubt increase their total carbon emissions dramatically. Whilst we emit more per capita than they do, we have no right to criticise them however. We have to lead by example, and by that I mean take seriously reductions in our carbon emissions, rather than putting our heads in the sand and trying to promote any small criticisms of the science as an excuse not to act.

 

Don't spout that per capita rubbish.

 

As per pro AGW 'science' the earth isn't affected on a per capita basis, it's (allegedly) affected by the total amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere.

 

So would you like to re-think your answer on this and let me know why the greenies don't really care about the amount of not only CO2, but poisonous pollution being discharged into the atmosphere; if it comes from less developed nations?

[Cyclone]

On the contrary, there was evidence and you simply keep denying that it existed.

Your opinions appear to be held as a matter of faith, you immediately dismiss anything contrary to them and accept no criticism or ambivalence. You might like to think that you hold your opinion in a rational way, but it certainly doesn't appear that way from the outside.

[convert]

On the contrary, there was evidence and you simply keep denying that it existed.

Your opinions appear to be held as a matter of faith, you immediately dismiss anything contrary to them and accept no criticism or ambivalence. You might like to think that you hold your opinion in a rational way, but it certainly doesn't appear that way from the outside.

 

Well said. I can't believe Wildcat is trying the 'Holocaust Denier' tactic again.

 

I really think that that statement should be retracted.

[GordonBennet]

Well said. I can't believe Wildcat is trying the 'Holocaust Denier' tactic again.

 

I really think that that statement should be retracted.

 

Indeed. Wildcat really is embarrassing himself on this thread with his pigheaded refusal to listen to facts and reason.

 

Let's not take too much notice of him though - at the end of the day he's just an enthusiastic amateur, not a scientist. And the scientific community is coming round to the fact that global warming was a myth. I reckon future generations will look back at this time and think we must have been extremely gullible to ever have fallen for it!

[Wildcat]

Don't spout that per capita rubbish.

 

As per pro AGW 'science' the earth isn't affected on a per capita basis, it's (allegedly) affected by the total amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere.

 

So would you like to re-think your answer on this and let me know why the greenies don't really care about the amount of not only CO2, but poisonous pollution being discharged into the atmosphere; if it comes from less developed nations?

 

You are talking about a political solution, something that has to take in to account fairness! Without taking that in to account there will be no solution.

 

Why should China and India's economies be restricted when it outputs a tenth per capita that we do?

[Wildcat]

Well said. I can't believe Wildcat is trying the 'Holocaust Denier' tactic again.

 

I really think that that statement should be retracted.

 

But I won't, because the analogy is clear.

[Wildcat]

Indeed. Wildcat really is embarrassing himself on this thread with his pigheaded refusal to listen to facts and reason.

 

Let's not take too much notice of him though - at the end of the day he's just an enthusiastic amateur, not a scientist. And the scientific community is coming round to the fact that global warming was a myth. I reckon future generations will look back at this time and think we must have been extremely gullible to ever have fallen for it!

 

The only fact you have cited today has been one that explicitly opposed the point you made