'Naysayers Guide to Global Warming.

[Mondy]

Good point Wibbles

What you perhaps have to look at in this debate, is if we all agreed on GW, then the world would be putting plans into action. The fact that the world isnt doing so, shows that out there, throughout the globe, not everybody has the same idea on what is happening.

It should make an interested readable debate, so lets not tell people to go and post elsewhere (or in turn, please respect others views as well).

Chris, as already stated, you've maybe not been following the previous threads, the vast most recent topics in the environment section all cover climate change/GW and the like. They all pan out the same way. Someone, usually me, disagrees and the rest pounce.

Never once have i said i don't respect their views. That feeling is not reciprical, i think, when i post a counter argument.

[Devonian]

And the other links?

Now now, lets deal with the Lord M and C&K first then we can move on to the rest of the confetti.

DO you accpet Lord M mislead, do you accpet C&K is awful? Either or both.

[Mondy]

You are entitled to your view - I'd defend that etc etc.. What I'm doing is examining what you've presneted in support of your view. I've shown that one thing you presented to us was misleading and another downright rubbish. Will you acknowledge that reality please

Misleading and downright rubbish? To you maybe. And that's exactly the point i'm making above.

[Devonian]

Chris, as already stated, you've maybe not been following the previous threads, the vast most recent topics in the environment section all cover climate change/GW and the like. They all pan out the same way. Someone, usually me, disagrees and the rest pounce.

Never once have i said i don't respect their views. That feeling is not reciprical, i think, when i post a counter argument.

I've NOT attacked you. Don't misrepresnt me. I've attacked what you post. OK

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

Mondy, you are welcome to keep your thread exclusively for naysayers. Personally people can have their theoretical debates and scientific discourses to their hearts content as as far as I am concerned. What I do hope for though is that people accept that they should be modifying their day to day lifestyle regardless of their opinion.

A perfect analogy is passive smoking. I am a smoker, but I am acutely conscious of avoiding as much as possible other people inhaling my smoke. Now there isn't to my knowledge any incontrovertible proof that passive smoking causes harm, but nevertheless I attempt to avoid causing other people to inhale my smoke purely because there is a possibility that it might happen. Further I believe that if I didn't bother about who else inhaled my smoke I would consider that to be extremely selfish behaviour. My attitude to AGW is the same.

[Mondy]

Now now, lets deal with the Lord M and C&K first then we can move on to the rest of the confetti.

DO you accpet Lord M mislead, do you accpet C&K is awful? Either or both.

I'll accept bloody nothing considering i put the link up..

We know you are a great believer. Do you have even 1% of misgivings? Or are you, like me, too set in your ways? That's the clash, y'see. It's not repairable.

PTFD. Appreciate your thoughts.

[Devonian]

Misleading and downright rubbish? To you maybe. And that's exactly the point i'm making above.

You accpet Lord M's figures? Seriously? But, look, it's simple they are misleading. They compare a NET figure with GROSS figure.

Now, you can accept that but it's still just plain misleading.

I'll accept bloody nothing considering i put the link up..

We know you are a great believer. Do you have even 1% of misgivings? Or are you, like me, too set in your ways? That's the clash, y'see. It's not repairable.

Humm, one minute you complain about personal attacks (yet you've recieved none, I've attacked the evidence you present) the next minute you attack me personally...

Edited February 25, 2007 by Devonian

[VillagePlank]

People such as WiB, SF, VP and more were getting irked with people like me and others who were hijacking their own threads . . .

I think you'll find that I've always championed open debate no matter what you're stance. You'll also recall it was personal attacks that I've had enough of.

[Mondy]

If this is the way it's gonna be on every one of these topics, there really is no point in continuing.

I've posted counter-argument links, seemingly easily laughed at, given a naysayers POV, continued to respond correctly and adult (aprt from the last couple of posts which i apologise if any outburst offended), yet the underlying current is that i'm misleading and posting rubbish. With sentiments like that, there really is no point in my continuing.

I'm actually glutten for punishment as already this week, my sig was emblazoned that no more antiGW replies would be forthcoming. Yet, here we are a few days later, on a new thread, going over old ground and disagreeing again. Y'see, my logic is simple. If something is there to be challenged, challenge it. Devonian, you've challenged a couple of my links. You are entitled to. But, let's remember, there is more than just me on here who is a sceptic and those links were put up specifically for other sceptics to view.

So, with the best of wishes to everyone, i'd like to request to a moderator that this thread is locked for the good of everyone.

Col

[Iceberg]

I've delibrately stayed away because that was the wish of the author.

Would not make sense in the view of friendship to start a thread where the Pro AGW's me included can express any concerns they have with the AGW argument. ?, it's current predictions and the way it's manipulated by the Media.

For starts I think there is a good chance that the warming we have experienced so far is partly enhanced by Synoptic changes, caused by stratospheric cooling, again a by product of AGW, if this is true we can expect the warmer to have peaked for the next decade or so.

[Gray-Wolf]

I would ask Mondy to reconsider his request for thread closure.

I've had to bite my tongue and post elsewhere when things here have 'got my goat' but I respect Mondy's open wishes for this thread to remain for the 'nay sayers'.

Of course we can debate but only in the places where debate is welcome and Mondy made it quite clear that this is solely for the purposes he outlined.

Don't attempt to upset him by being ignorant of his right to have his wishes respected....(do unto others as you would have done to yourself guys!!!!) it does you great dis-service to act like in such a low way (IMO).

[Devonian]

If this is the way it's gonna be on every one of these topics, there really is no point in continuing.

I've posted counter-argument links, seemingly easily laughed at, given a naysayers POV, continued to respond correctly and adult (aprt from the last couple of posts which i apologise if any outburst offended), yet the underlying current is that i'm misleading and posting rubbish. With sentiments like that, there really is no point in my continuing.

I'm actually glutten for punishment as already this week, my sig was emblazoned that no more antiGW replies would be forthcoming. Yet, here we are a few days later, on a new thread, going over old ground and disagreeing again. Y'see, my logic is simple. If something is there to be challenged, challenge it. Devonian, you've challenged a couple of my links. You are entitled to. But, let's remember, there is more than just me on here who is a sceptic and those links were put up specifically for other sceptics to view.

So, with the best of wishes to everyone, i'd like to request to a moderator that this thread is locked for the good of everyone.

Col

No darn it I'm not accusing you of misleading anyone, I am accusing Lord Monckton of what I have accused him of.

I think we need to debate these things - it's how you get to the truth. I don't like either the alternatives of slanging matches or ignoring each other. Imo, this should be a parliament, not a riot or two back turned groups.

Edited February 25, 2007 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

Perhaps it would be worthwhile keeping this thread (or starting a fresh, clean one!) to post challenges and links to articles and papers that dispute AGW, and open a separate thread in which people can discuss/debate these ideas should they so choose. This thread would then become like an alternative to the pinned "Basics of Environment Change" thread, but dedicated to the other side of the debate.

I appreciate that P3 has included several links in the "Basics..." thread that argue against AGW, but I thought it might be worthwhile to separate the "Pro" and the "Anti" links completely, for ease of browsing. Should people (such as Mondy's good self) wish to post links but not become involved in the debate, this would seem to be a solution to the problem of being "drawn in", and would prevent the aforementioned links from being buried (and eventually lost or forgotten) in increasingly off-topic discussions.

Just an idea! Any thoughts?

C-Bob

[Devonian]

Perhaps it would be worthwhile keeping this thread (or starting a fresh, clean one!) to post challenges and links to articles and papers that dispute AGW, and open a separate thread in which people can discuss/debate these ideas should they so choose. This thread would then become like an alternative to the pinned "Basics of Environment Change" thread, but dedicated to the other side of the debate.

I appreciate that P3 has included several links in the "Basics..." thread that argue against AGW, but I thought it might be worthwhile to separate the "Pro" and the "Anti" links completely, for ease of browsing. Should people (such as Mondy's good self) wish to post links but not become involved in the debate, this would seem to be a solution to the problem of being "drawn in", and would prevent the aforementioned links from being buried (and eventually lost or forgotten) in increasingly off-topic discussions.

Just an idea! Any thoughts?

C-Bob

I can live with that. I don't think there is equal weight of evidence on both sides so I think give a pro and anti thread gives that impression. But I can live with it.

I could also, if it helps, live with my comments in this thread being moved to another thread. What I can't do is see opinion I know to be giving, at the very best, the wrong impression go by unanswered.

[Gray-Wolf]

It would certainly engender a feeling of equality between the two opposing schools of thought without making one side or the other appear 'inferior' in any way.

Mondy feels in the 'minority' but this may not reflect fully the extent of feelings nationwide/worldwide.

For any 'newbie ' to the topic they could study both and make up their own minds on the evidence/proofs provided and then join the debate elsewhere.

I think a grand idea Lad!

[Admiral_Bobski]

I can live with that. I don't think there is equal weight of evidence on both sides so I think give a pro and anti thread gives that impression. But I can live with it.

I could also, if it helps, live with my comments in this thread being moved to another thread. What I can't do is see opinion I know to be giving, at the very best, the wrong impression go by unanswered.

In a court of law there may not be equal weight of evidence on both sides, but both the prosecution and the defence get an opportunity to lay out their viewpoints, so it seems only fair!

Perhaps it would be better to start clean threads, then no comments have to be moved anywhere and we can all start afresh. I appreciate that having questions and viewpoints go unanswered can be frustrating (I've had that happen to me, too!) - it seems to happen most often when a post has several comments covering different issues, but sometimes whole posts go unanswered. I don't know if there's a solution to that other than reposting the comment until it does get answered, but that can become even more frustrating if an answer is never forthcoming.

To give my views on Monckton, I would agree that he makes some misleading comments (although I have found some pro-AGW articles to have such misleading comments as well), but that he also makes some interesting points. The fact that some of his points are misleading doesn't invalidate the points that aren't. Sometime I should go back over his article and sot out which points I feel are pertinent, but I'm a bit busy today (I'm currently on a coffee-break!).

C-Bob

PS - Cheers, Gray-Wolf. It would be nice to think that this may sway some people one way or the other in the long run, but regardless of that it seems to be the most civilised way to go!

PPS - Just to show my ignorance, I'm still not 100% sure of how to go about doing these things, so does someone want to start a thread and get the ball rolling?!

[Mondy]

Thanks for the support, GW. It means a lot and i know you have grave concerns compared to me.

I'm not totally convinced by C-Bob's idea. It sounds good, but, really, how long before any of the "new" threads, be it for the doubters or believers, are reduced to a thread like this?

The only way i can see it working is if it's modded correctly and/or any offending, off topic posts are removed. Pinned threads would be a good start.

Links are definetly the way forward in these discussions, though. There are many of us on here loaded with said links, so it would make sense. Firing off rhetoric, is all well and fine if it makes you feel better(believe me, it does!), but it isn't actually aiding the main discussion, which if anyone has forgotten is about whether they believe in AGW/GW or not.

I'm loathe to get much more involved in this thread now, it's turned out not how i expected it to, but no matter. I would be willing to provide links to a new thread dedicated to anti (a)GW. Equally, i'm sure a pro (a)GW member(s) would be more than happy to counter on a seperate pinned thread.

Bearing in mind P3 already has a pinned thread with the basics of agw, there's no real seperate, wholesome threads to post opposing links.

edit: i'm thinking it's probably possible for a mod, shuggee, maybe to "lift" all the links i posted this morning on page 2 and began a new links threads from there.

Edited February 25, 2007 by Mondy

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks for the support, GW. It means a lot and i know you have grave concerns compared to me.

And the sooner I'm proved wrong in my thinking (to my own satisfaction) the happier I'll be!!!!(LOL) so get on with it!!!!

[Mondy]

Have PM'd shuggee in the hope he can dismantle this thread a bit and start a fresh with the links from page 2.

You'll need to begin an opposing links thread too, if it's to work without the arguments.

I've counted at least four "open" threads in this section which can still be used to oppose each others views. So with the dedicated links on either thread, we can all input in the other threads..

[shuggee]

All done

[Mondy]

Thanks shuggee, much appreciated.

Edit: Would it be too much to ask for it to be pinned or am i pushing my luck?

I think a links thread for AGW/GW is on the offing too, so could be real interesting to have them all pinned and easily found.

Edited February 25, 2007 by Mondy

[Admiral_Bobski]

I'm not totally convinced by C-Bob's idea. It sounds good, but, really, how long before any of the "new" threads, be it for the doubters or believers, are reduced to a thread like this?

The only way i can see it working is if it's modded correctly and/or any offending, off topic posts are removed. Pinned threads would be a good start.

Hi Mondy!

I'm not sure that having separate threads for "doubters" and "believers" is going to achieve much. The point of having a debate about something is that both sides of the argument can have their say and (hopefully) sway others to their viewpoint. Having a separate thread pinned for adding anti-AGW links seems like the ideal way to go, then discussing these links in separate threads with pro-AGWers. If all the doubters stay on one thread and all the believers stay on another thread then there is no debate, just a bunch of mutual back-patting (that's my view, anyway!).

In an ideal world there would be no modding required - if only we could all be human to each other! Perhaps we should all try modding ourselves?!

C-Bob

PS - Thanks for the help Shuggee!

[Gray-Wolf]

The debate has to/will be had (or is already ongoing) but separate 'Libraries' for pro/against seems an easier way to find stuff to back up your position in the main debate.

I too see no sense in 'reinforcing' our own errors by not having them open to discussion by a wider audience who can help us understand better if we are wrong in our thinking.

As you know there are areas of AGW that I feel are 'understated' in current models because the areas are relatively 'new' discaplines and as such are in a constant state of change.

I wouldn't dream of keeping these fears locked into a 'fretting thread' as I wish to discover whether I am correct or incorrect in my figuring. If my 'argument' is robust enough then I need not be worried by it's examination by others (unless they resort to character assasination instead of 'banter').

[kaz]

thanks for this thread Mondy.. but i still dare not post in here my thoughts to many bullies wanting to shout you down.. So please dont stop we need peeps like you to flip the otherside of the coin..

lol kaz xx

[mcweather]

Interesting thread Mondy. Unfortunately this issue always tend to send participants running towards the extremes of the argument.

Personally I was a great doubter until fairly recently. I now accept beyond doubt that the planet has warmed but how much of it it is down to us is still very much open to question in my honest opinion. Lets face it the IPCC supposedly the greatest authority on the subject are only 90% sure and being 90% sure is a bit like being 90% pregnant. It is a situation that cant exist. One is either sure or unsure and that is it. Which suggests to me that the IPCC still feel they could end up with egg on their face if they go for a definitive yes.

We are still at the extremely early stages ( hardly out of our nappies really) in our understanding of climate change and only time will tell. I think we probably are having some effect but along with many others who are not rabid anti AGW we feel that that effect is probabay being overplayed by people with vested interests in playing it up.

Having said that I am very much in favour of trying to live in a more sustainable way.