On 10/02/2015 6:35 PM, T wrote:
On 02/09/2015 11:08 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
T wrote:
On 02/09/2015 06:35 AM, songbird wrote:

Hi Songbird,

There is a lot of evidence out there that Global
Warming is bunk. You don't have to rely on Frank's
reference.


No there isn't. There is a lot of propaganda.

Hi Dave,

He's never signed himself as "Dave" in this or any other forum in which
I've seen him post. See his sig. line in this post above and in any of
the other posts he has made in the group.

Actually, Global Warming comes off like that to me. I
have a strong science background as an engineer and
all my alarm bell are going off, especially the part
about not accepting any dissenting opinion and persecuting
those that do.Just look at all the name calling on this
group towards those that dissent.

The problem with those who dissent here, which IIRC has only been
expressed by you and Frank, is that neither of you have given cites that
can withstand any scrutiny to support your claims that climate change is
'bunk'. For example, that newspaper article cited by Frank can be
demolished in about 60 seconds flat using the most simple of google
searches.

It also surprises me that anyone with any form of science background,
even engineering, would dismiss all of the research done on climate
change by a large number of climate scientists by using the single word
of 'bunk'. That word does not bring to mind scientific rigour coupled
with a dispassionate analysis of the scientific evidence.

Ice core sample have shown that CO2 emission have
always occurs "after" a rise in global temperature.

Cite?

Be careful about calling dissenting opinion "lies".

David hasn't. He's used the descriptor of "propaganda".

And the Global warming crowd has been caught fudging
and out right fabricating in a number of instances.

Cite? And please don't drag up that hoary old mistake that appeared on
a page between 400 and 500 of Volume 2 of the IPCC report.

Sea levels are not rising;

Cite?

Pacific atolls are not
being covered up;

Kiribati and Tuvalu are both Pacific atolls and the residents of those
nations and the governments of those nations say they are regularly
being covered by sea water as a result of rising sea levels caused by
climate change.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel...940704/?no-ist
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...21818107001890
http://www.climate.gov.ki/category/e...astal-erosion/

Can you provide a cite to support your claim that those nations aren't
suffering inundation on a regular basis because of sea rise? And while
you are at it, don't restrict yourself to just the Pacific, you could
also provide a cite that covers the problem of sea rise for the
Maldives.

ocean data shows the Earth is
cooling slights over the past 10 or so years.

Cite?

from the fossil fuel
industry because it is convenient to their own political leanings,
rather than go to the source and ask what does the science really say.

Lysenkoism sound to me exactly like the tactics the Global Warming
crowd is using,

"The global warming crowd"?? Who are these people? Would they be
scientists? Or even climate scientists? And would those people
actually work and publish in the field of climate science and be subject
to peer review?

including the use of extremist religious terms
like "Denier".

Oh barf! "Extremist religious terms"!

"Denier" is just like the terms "warmist" and "alarmist" that the
deniers dandy about. All of those temrms are the swapping of insults on
the old principle of "what goes round, comes round".

It's just like you calling David, Dave, referring to climate scientists
who work and publish in the field of their expertise as "the global
warming crowd".

Our grandchildren will wear the consequences. But the current mob in
power don't see that as a problem, as to look to the future requires
statesmanship, all we get is politics.

True. If you are correct our grandchildren a big mess. If I
am correct and the Global Warming crowd gets their way, we/they
in for a lot of tyranny.

Nice we can talk about this as gentlemen. Geez there are a lot
of sore heads on your side of this issue.

Yes, there are indeed some sore heads on this side and your attempt to
sucker David by trying to soft soap him as a 'gentleman' doesn't cut it
with my sore head.

My head will stay sore until you put up some cites that can withstand
some degree of scrutiny and which can't be demolished by a few very
simple google searches. In other words, do some analysis, find some
reputable science cites as opposed to propaganda and don't put forward
junk science cites that even me with my Arts/social sciences background
can see through in a short amount of time by comparing it to climate
science sites.