AHHH...  when man's emissions are zero, just what are you guys going to do about the other 97% of CO2?  hmmm?

I mean it'll keep going up and down as it likes to.
Weather, seasons and climate will continue to change.
Warming and cooling will continue.
The planet will continue to evolve, be dynamic, etc, etc, etc...

Next Ice Age you guys can open up the old Coal Fired Power Stations eh...  and fend off the cold weather and climate change.  ;D ;D ;D

oh and before I go let me leave you with this...

Just what climate zones have changed?  I mean climate change eh...  there must be changes in climate if there is climate change.  So which zones have changed and how?

merry Xmas  ho ho ho...  ;D ;D ;D

Didn't you understand my explanation of carbon fluxes on the other thread? You can only get that kind of figure (97%) by ignoring the negative fluxes - the fluxes from the atmosphere to the land and ocean.

It's called lying. Those people lied to you Grendel

Just using the figure most quoted by YOUR fellow believers Muso...
can't debate, can't refute.
now goodbye.
DWMT

- ok - I understand. You didn't win , must toodle.

It's impossible to debate anything with you. At least Soren would listen to the points I was making.

Once again, I am not swayed by anything that a person says just because of his or her qualifications. I want to see the evidence and make my own appraisal based on scientific facts. Without that testing mechanism, it's just an opinin.  

On the other hand, your approach is - I know what the answer is, let's find something I can cut and paste from so I can reinforce that answer.  You like opinions, as long as they agree with yours.

Have you ever actually changed your mind on anything in your entire life, Grendel?

Actually you have it completely arse about.

I just cant understand that.

I cant see how a person who professes to be intelligent can be so wrong.
Unless he's actually a dumbass.

Now like I said...  I am not hanging around here again...  I'll drop in occassionally as I have in the past, but as long as the moron Skippy is here I don't feel inclined to be trolled from topic to topic and have him ruin it for everyone just because he's obsessed.

As for you...  do you ever ask yourself how you can be so wrong?

Now today is still Friday and after Friday unless there is something really compelling to start a discussion on...  I'm outa here.

Lets hope Copenhagen...  is a disaster eh.  because you and I both know all it is is a cash grab by poorer nations and despots  and a milchecow for bankers in the first-world.

Oh and stop lying to Tom and being dishonest.  you and I both know dissenters weren't invited to the "big" Copenhagen conference.  can'yt have that now can we dissent and a balanced pov...  tsk tsk tsk...  not allowed.

You go and have alook at the relpies on any Denialsit site, and see the nutcases that go on about conspiracies, and new world orders, and maybe you may find you would be more comfortable just agreeing with them, you do not require any thought or knowledge, just hold an absolutely intransigent, and totally extremist opinion and you are one of the gang.

Sounds like a perfect fit for your post ON persona.

Who would have thought the demise of pauline would leave so many fringe dwellers looking for a home?
Well most impartial observers would I guess, but at least they can commune with kindred spirits.
Have fun in your fact free zones over at the heartland institute and prison planet.

mozzoak, just stop, is that your only response ever?  Conspiracy theorist, you are the perfect fit for a denialist.  This has nothing to do with prisonplanet.  The world government is what is happening at Copenhagen, are you going to refute the politicians own words and their own treaty?

I'm out of this place, like Grendel said it is pointless arguing with the posters on this forum like muso and especially mozzaok and skippy.  You get more from a brick wall.  

hmmm  10 to Saturday...  one last comment for the eternally ignorant mozza.

mantra already posted good information here about the Un.

The treaty in its original form was a travesty.  And Tom and mantra have been spot on in their interpretations of it and various UN documents.

I guess you never even read it eh Mozz...  nothing unusual in that.  Just total hypocrisy.

And blind bloody minded denialism  Which again makes you a first class hypocrite.

Well merry Xmas to you Mozz.

Bye all...  not much chance of you saying anything in the next 5 mins to need replying to.  ::)  I hope.

Quote:

The world government is what is happening at Copenhagen, are you going to refute the politicians own words and their own treaty?

I am not going to say whether I'm a denialist or an advocate, but what I do believe is that Tom is right. Copenhagen is all about officially forming a one world government and many of the wealthier nations attending don't give a stuff about climate change, although that's the rubbish we've been fed.

I have said for a long time that the Trilateral Commission/IMF/World Bank are behind this, as they have been with many schemes over the last 30 years.

It is either extreme capitalism as its best or worse - communism. Man made global warming is taking a back seat at this Summit. The treaty our government will sign will obligate us to pay a net 2% of our GDP - minimum, then that will be taxed by the World Bank before it is "distributed" to needier nations - or so we're being told. It wouldn't surprise me if the alleged figure of 2% ends up being a lot higher.

Tom definitely has a point about Mozzaok's argumentative style. He tends to argue by calling everybody else a conspiracy nut or by immediately dismissing the points of others (without actually refuting them) as outdated and ridiculous; he did this with me frequently when I first registered.

Grendel wrote on Dec 11^th, 2009 at 10:55pm:

Bye all...  not much chance of you saying anything in the next 5 mins to need replying to.  ::)  I hope.

And that was the final in our series "What's up Grendel's Arse".

Tune in for our next series of the Grendel sagas... "Grendel - I'm Back And I'm Pissed Off".

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_fBd3JHgctkk/SnWDWuML3kI/AAAAAAAAALU/q8yz2brzWg0/s400/al+jolson.jpg

;D

Grendel wrote on Dec 11^th, 2009 at 9:00pm:

Now like I said...  I am not hanging around here again...

Aw! Can't you stay? We'll all miss you  :-*

(NOT)

Now that's mean Helian and Muso. People enjoy arguing with Grendel and you can't blame him for getting frustrated at times.

mantra wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 10:33am:

Now that's mean Helian and Muso. People enjoy arguing with Grendel and you can't blame him for getting frustrated at times.

It wasn't mean, Mantra.

We're all used to Grendel's emotional grand exits and returns to forums.

Yes Mantra. I must apologise. Grendel is really not a bad person. He has many positive attributes, which no-doubt appeal to those with sensitive well developed maternal instincts, but I won't dwell on his good features, because he might come back.

Well I will list one good feature of his - He never stays around for very long.

aikmann4 wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 1:46am:

Tom definitely has a point about Mozzaok's argumentative style. He tends to argue by calling everybody else a conspiracy nut or by immediately dismissing the points of others (without actually refuting them) as outdated and ridiculous; he did this with me frequently when I first registered.

It's a great temptation. I have to deliberately steer away from such remarks, even if it's obvious that these people such as Monckton are 'making stuff up'.

It's very difficult to attack the argument when they don't have a concrete argument. They don't post in Scientific journals because they wouldn't get past peer review, so they publish in Newspapers and Blogs instead.  

All they do is say things like AGW is a hoax, or attack Al Gore (a communicator). The guy is not a scientist. He's just a very good mouthpiece and communicator. The same can be said of Christopher Monckton, although quite frankly he gets through a lot of time without making a point. He is a very adept  waffler.

muso wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 11:09am:

aikmann4 wrote on Dec 12th, 2009 at 1:46am: Tom definitely has a point about Mozzaok's argumentative style. He tends to argue by calling everybody else a conspiracy nut or by immediately dismissing the points of others (without actually refuting them) as outdated and ridiculous; he did this with me frequently when I first registered. It's a great temptation. I have to deliberately steer away from such remarks, even if it's obvious that these people such as Monckton are 'making stuff up'. It's very difficult to attack the argument when they don't have a concrete argument. They don't post in Scientific journals because they wouldn't get past peer review, so they publish in Newspapers and Blogs instead.   All they do is say things like AGW is a hoax, or attack Al Gore (a communicator). The guy is not a scientist. He's just a very good mouthpiece and communicator. The same can be said of Christopher Monckton, although quite frankly he gets through a lot of time without making a point. He is a very adept  waffler.

Don't you just love that? "My mouthpiece is a very good communicator, yours is a waffler, his a nazi."

Soren wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 11:32am:

Don't you just love that? "My mouthpiece is a very good communicator, yours is a waffler, his a nazi."

If he had some decent subject matter, I'm sure that he'd do a good job of communication, especially in the US. They love his accent and pretentious wit. They are totally oblivious to the fact that he's a prime upper crust English looney.  

muso wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 2:19pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 12th, 2009 at 11:32am: Don't you just love that? "My mouthpiece is a very good communicator, yours is a waffler, his a nazi." If he had some decent subject matter, I'm sure that he'd do a good job of communication, especially in the US. They love his accent and pretentious wit. They are totally oblivious to the fact that he's a prime upper crust English looney.

And what is Gore if not a prime uppercrust American looney?

There has been requests already for examples - not relying on some greenie hungerstriker's youtube effort - where he or anyone else 'made stuff up'. Are you still searching?

I don't have any real comment on Gore. I don't know very much about him. He's irrelevant, except as a communicator.  Some of the emphasis he puts on things is unusual to me. There is a danger inherent in simplification, just as there is a danger inherent in presenting too complex an explanation.

It's very difficult to communicate what is so obvious. To understand that it's obvious takes a bit of effort unfortunately.

Is what you said regarding whales actually being propagated on some of these disinformation blogs, and are people actually falling for the view that the CO2 comes from the sea, or is it something you made up on the spur of the moment?

I'll be honest, that post totally floored me. I can't think of a trivial comparison off hand.  It was just Daliesque.

It's not your fault that you don't have any scientific background, I guess. Take this post as a reflection rather than anything else.

muso wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 3:16pm:

I don't have any real comment on Gore. I don't know very much about him. He's irrelevant, except as a communicator.  Some of the emphasis he puts on things is unusual to me. There is a danger inherent in simplification, just as there is a danger inherent in presenting too complex an explanation. It's very difficult to communicate what is so obvious. To understand that it's obvious takes a bit of effort unfortunately. Is what you said regarding whales actually being propagated on some of these disinformation blogs, and are people actually falling for the view that the CO2 comes from the sea, or is it something you made up on the spur of the moment? I'll be honest, that post totally floored me. I can't think of a trivial comparison off hand.  It was just Daliesque. It's not your fault that you don't have any scientific background, I guess. Take this post as a reflection rather than anything else.

Gore is the public face of what you stand for, every bit as much as you make Monckton the face of what I am saying. SO embrace him. I like Monckton, I like the idea of a  Latin quoting, CoE aristo toff sticking it to the colonials (Americans). It is so unusual nowadats that it deserves top marks for panache.


Re whales - I was channeling Derek and Clive, you big scary scientist, you. Get up off the floor. ;D ;D ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pS6lbbQw3o

muso wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 3:16pm:

It's not your fault that you don't have any scientific background, I guess.

As things stand, I'm counting my blessings.
;)

Soren wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 9:08pm:

muso wrote on Dec 12th, 2009 at 3:16pm: It's not your fault that you don't have any scientific background, I guess. As things stand, I'm counting my blessings. ;)

It's a worrying trend. People are losing respect for those who have a scientific discipline. We're lapsing into a world where shamans and quacks will take over from those who use a reasoned approach.

When it gets as far as government, with the recent example of G W Bush consulting the high priests of religion before the rational advice  of science, that's the time we should be very worried.  

Now we have Tony Abbott as an opposition leader, there is a grave danger that the flickering flame of enlightenment and reason will extinguish for ever and we'll sink into another dark age - one where nobody will be around to explain why the sea is full of rotting decay and people are dying everywhere due to lack of food. They will probably blame it all on a sky god and take refuge in the words of ancient texts that foretell the end of the world.  

I think I'm wasting my time here. Just a couple of quotes from Idiocracy before I go:


Quote:

After several hours Joe finally gave up on logic and reason and simply told the cabinet that he could talk to plants and that they wanted water.

Quote:

It says on your chart that you're buggered up. Uh... you talk like a fag, and your sh1t's all retarded.

I've already seen parallels to that one on here.

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

muso wrote on Dec 13^th, 2009 at 6:29am:

Soren wrote on Dec 12th, 2009 at 9:08pm: muso wrote on Dec 12th, 2009 at 3:16pm: It's not your fault that you don't have any scientific background, I guess. As things stand, I'm counting my blessings. ;) It's a worrying trend. People are losing respect for those who have a scientific discipline. We're lapsing into a world where shamans and quacks will take over from those who use a reasoned approach.

Another blow for the climate change lobby: Prince Charles
Friday, 5th February 2010
This has been an appalling couple of months for the climate change lobby and now there’s been another, sickening, blow – which some of you, undecided in the debate, may well feel is the clincher. Prince Charles has waded into the issue, eviscerating climate change sceptics. “Please be in no doubt that the evidence of long term and potentially irreversible changes  to our world is utterly overwhelming,” he said. Hell, you could almost see them, at the IPCC and UEA, cringing, banging their heads against their computers upon which they were, at that very moment, making things up. Just what you need, the support of Prince Charles. It came on the same day that he said he didn’t agree with The Enlightenment.

The debate has changed, enormously so, since last Autumn. The BBC, for example, is slightly less likely to dismiss climate change deniers out of hand as being whacko right-wing headcases – even when they sometimes are whacko right-wing headcases. Admissions of error from the IPCC and the UEA have effectively re-opened a debate, which is a good thing.

It still seems to me rather more likely than not that man-made climate change is taking place and that even if it were not, the procedures demanded of us are necessary anyway for a whole host of other reasons. But the world is beginning to grip hold of the fact that science cannot be divorced from the personal or political imperatives which impel (or fund) its inquiries. Nothing is quite so simple as a “fact”. The less trident and cocksure the pronouncements from the climate change lobbyists, the more agreeable the rest of us may be to their demands.


That last sentence is a lesson yet to be learned by the messianic warmerists among us, isn't it, M & M?

M & M = McIntyre and McKitrick ? The bean counter and mining CEO? What have they got to do with anything?

muso wrote on Feb 5^th, 2010 at 6:17pm:

M & M = McIntyre and McKitrick ?

Mozza and Muso.

I didn't want to write 'smarties'...

So in a nutshell,

"You're probably right about the fact that there is a serious impending crisis and all that, but don't be so bloody arrogant about it because it pisses us off having to face the truth, and another thing - just keep it down, because we're trying to sleep and ignore it."

muso wrote on Feb 6^th, 2010 at 3:14pm:

So in a nutshell, "You're probably right about the fact that there is a serious impending crisis and all that, but don't be so bloody arrogant about it because it pisses us off having to face the truth, and another thing - just keep it down, because we're trying to sleep and ignore it."

Argued like a Muslim.


Either that or all who find themselves on the 'lost credibility' side of any dialogue resort to the same technique: "you know we are right but you are soo arrogant/enemy of god/satanic/conspiratorial/ignorant - always ignorant-  that you want us to be humble about the blindingly obvious truth we, WE, possess. Never!"


But the reality is that it shouldn't be so hard if you are so obviously right. But implicit in your way of arguing is the unacknowledged (because unrecognised) inkling that this is not a straightforward scientific argument in the mould of a mathematical solution , where there is only one answer. No, this is an argument about paradigms, first and foremost. Or the very least it might be a mathematically clear-cut and concluded argument in your alarmist heads while it is an open argument about paradigms in the heads of sceptics like me. You can depict sceptcs as ignorant/demonic only is you assume or insist that we are all on the same paradigmatic page.

I have nothing against skeptics per se, but the people who are pushing the barrow that you are so faithfully following are generally not skeptics in the true sense. They certainly do not have an equal paradigmatic basis either. A better term for them is 'pseudoskeptic'

Their arguments differ. The only commonality is the fact that they believe they should do nothing about it. They have little concern for the fact that their views are mutually exclusive. For example, let's take two commonly held views by 'pseudoskeptics:

1. The world is actually cooling.
2. Global warming is taking place, but it will be beneficial.

A true skeptic holding view 1 would be examining view 2 with a critical eye. They generally do not. That tells me that their actual views are irrelevant to them, and that those with totally disparate views only have one important thing in common - that they should continue to do nothing new.

Their so-called views are what I'd term "laughing through their teeth" truths. Nobody seriously believes them to be true, but they serve the purpose of causing an amusing kind of confusion among the naïve shallow thinking sector of the general population.

muso wrote on Feb 7^th, 2010 at 4:55pm:

I have nothing against skeptics per se,

Name one sceptic you have nothing against.

James Randi

muso wrote on Feb 8^th, 2010 at 4:03pm:

James Randi

A sceptic about climate alarm. Not a sceptic about the spoon bending.

I don't believe there are any (true skeptics).  They either know the truth and deliberately misrepresent their position for whatever reason, or they simply don't understand the issues.

That's why I used the term pseudo-skeptic.  

muso wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 10:55am:

I don't believe there are any (true skeptics).  They either know the truth and deliberately misrepresent their position for whatever reason, or they simply don't understand the issues. That's why I used the term pseudo-skeptic.

You are too closed-minded to be a scientist. “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed.”

Soren wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 1:15pm:

muso wrote on Feb 9th, 2010 at 10:55am: I don't believe there are any (true skeptics).  They either know the truth and deliberately misrepresent their position for whatever reason, or they simply don't understand the issues. That's why I used the term pseudo-skeptic.   You are too closed-minded to be a scientist. “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed.”

- as long as that skepticism is based on solid scientific grounds, I don't have a problem calling it skepticism. Not only do think that type of skepticism is healthy, I like it. I am very skeptical of people who try to peddle things which I can prove to be untruths. You are obviously more accepting of these things. I am a skeptic. People bring me lab results and to me they are total bs until I have totally dissected the methods used to arrive at the figures. That is what a skeptic should do.

You obviously have a different definition of skeptic from mine.

So tell me, what's your view on Evolution skeptics? The ones who think that the world was created 7000 years ago? Do they count as skeptics too?

What about the Flat Earth Society? Surely they are doing us a service by being skeptical of the view that the Earth is an ablate spheroid?

No? - damn - you are such a closet-minded fuddy duddy. You should get out and sniff the Mary Jane more often. It will inspire you to greater 'heights' of skepticism.

- Or vaccination skeptics for that matter -  despite the fact that the risks of developing complications from a vaccination are miniscule in comparison to not being vaccinated, they prefer to be skeptical, and put the rest of the population in danger by not immunising their kids.