Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.
- Thread starter lonesomebob
- Start date
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Mark, this is also from 2011, Post #156 this thread.
Say Mark, tell us more about "Despicable, lies"
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Here are more photos showing receeding glaciers.
These photos along with tons of scientific data show the obvious fact that the earth is in a warming cycle. The cause of this warming is not known. Some will say it is entirely natural, some will say is entirely caused by man and somewill say it is a little of both.
The truth is that nobody knows.
Anyone who says its entirely natural does not know what they are talking about.
Anyone who says its entirely caused by man does not know what they are talking about.
But anyone who says it is not warming is wrong!
The title of this thread, Global cooling warming hoax, is crap!
Say Bob, are these photos part of your HOAX?
Mark, this is also from 2011.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Jim, this is from 2014.
And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year | Mail Online
And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year | Mail Online
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
I posted the above in a discussion with Pete. Pete had implied that I had changed my views on global warming.
Mark them jumped in with the following, which is not only rude beyond belief, buy totally untrue......
Mark then posted this, if proved wrong: "I will be the first to offer an apology and make a retraction".........
Well Mark, its been over 30 hours............
I'm still waiting......
Last edited:
From 18k years ago the world warmed substantially, and most of the warming occurred with few in any humans. Yet we are to believe that no matter what the weather (this winter for instance) it is all caused by man made global warming and not normal weather change. Really!!!
OK, let's consider the physical evidence.
The moon is moving away at a tiny, although measurable distance from the Earth every year.
Do the maths and you will clearly see that 85 million years ago it was orbiting the earth at a distance of about 35 feet from the earth's surface. This would explain the death of the dinosaurs; the tallest ones, anyway.:idea:
Bob
The moon is moving away at a tiny, although measurable distance from the Earth every year.
Do the maths and you will clearly see that 85 million years ago it was orbiting the earth at a distance of about 35 feet from the earth's surface. This would explain the death of the dinosaurs; the tallest ones, anyway.:idea:
Bob
Ian Anderson
Lifetime Supporter
Jim
Can I ask a question or two?
What line of business are you in?
Are you receiving funding for research into this "debatable" area? (Call it climare change, global warming or whatever?)
Ian
Can I ask a question or two?
What line of business are you in?
Are you receiving funding for research into this "debatable" area? (Call it climare change, global warming or whatever?)
Ian
I also stated clearly, that I would require time to go back over all the various posts on this subject, Jim.
However, you could not wait and began re-posting some of your previous posts instead.
Well, with a life (of sorts), I have not completed my referencing of the post history on this subject and you seem to think 30 hours is sufficient.
Therefore I will retract my posts, if you prefer and revisit the subject soon. I am not ready to apologize, but I can either delete them, or leave them up, what is your pleasure?
I will say, that if I have not responded one way or other by the end of the week, then I should expect to offer a full apology, as it would seem unfair to either expect an indefinite time, or conversely, be expected to meet your inadequate timetable either. How does that sound?
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Mark,
Pete and a few others have always maintained that there is absolutly no global warming, just ask him!
Pete then implied that I had changed my views, he though like you that at one time I argued that man was responsible for global warming.
I told Pete that he was mistaken, my view has always been that no one knows what is responsible for the warming, but it is warming.
********************
Now Mark read my post and without taking even a few seconds to go back over the posts in this thread...........If he had he would have seen many, many posts as far back as 2011 where I said just that.
But no, Mark did not take a few seconds to check, he posted this:
Originally Posted by Mark Pickford
Oh my god, I just almost threw up my breakfast!
Despicable, lies!
If you can't be honest about things Jim, shut the fuck up.
That incredabley rude post it totally untrue.
Now once again I demand a retraction and an appology!
********
You took seconds to slander me but want days to decide if you should appologize........
Bull Shit!
Time won't help Mark, my views have not changed!
Time to be a man Mark!
Last edited:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Jim your memory is failing, I have never said their is no such thing as global warming, I have always said that the science was flawed and those scientists that were deniers lost their grants. I have always said the climate is always changing, it's called weather.
I have said that global warming is bullshit based on the now proven flawed computer modelling by the IPCC .
The globe has been cooling for the last 17 years BTW. I believe that that is the normal cycle of weather.
I have always said that we should stop pollution wherever possible.
Start with China, India and Indonesia.
And don't try and redistribute wealth by taxing all of us based on flawed computer modelling.
I have said that global warming is bullshit based on the now proven flawed computer modelling by the IPCC .
The globe has been cooling for the last 17 years BTW. I believe that that is the normal cycle of weather.
I have always said that we should stop pollution wherever possible.
Start with China, India and Indonesia.
And don't try and redistribute wealth by taxing all of us based on flawed computer modelling.
This is our problem Jim: Neither Pete, Larry, nor I, have ever said that the climate doesn't, or isn't changing. You frequently offer claimed evidence to support global warming, with the odd little comment (as indicated in your quotes above) sometimes attached, to leave your exit door open. Sadly the main bulk of your posts however, to me at least, have always come across very pro MMGW. So you obviously think you come across all open-minded on the subject. In which case, I fear I am not alone in having mis-read your opinion? I tend not to argue so avidly against opinions that reflect my own, yet I must have got this one very wrong indeed!
I apologize unreservedly for saying this, "Despicable, lies! If you can't be honest about things Jim, shut the fuck up". I over-reacted to you accusing me and others of being delusional.
If you are indeed, so open to the real causes of our climates' ever-changing nature, then I fear I may owe you more apologies for many more insults and counter-insults between us in the past?
I apologize unreservedly for saying this, "Despicable, lies! If you can't be honest about things Jim, shut the fuck up". I over-reacted to you accusing me and others of being delusional.
If you are indeed, so open to the real causes of our climates' ever-changing nature, then I fear I may owe you more apologies for many more insults and counter-insults between us in the past?
You are still arguing about the Argument.
Here it is in black & white. Simplified for the Paddock...
Hopefully we can all accept that there was some extremely dodgy science to begin with which has now been discredited.
"Global Warming" - A term now widely discredited.
"Climate Change" - Generally accepted term for unusual weather events.
Now the scope of the 'conflict' This is now the accepted area of dispute (if any).
Mans Role in:
a) the Cause (of Climate Change) and
b) the Cure (or Control of Climate Change")
Side A of the argument has said that Man is to blame - disputed by Side B
Side A says that the main component in Climate Change is CO2 Emissions by Man - disputed by Side B.
Side A maintains that Man CAN control climate change or at least slow it down - disputed by Side B.
Side A stipulates that by a series of punitive taxes it can 'encourage' producers and citizens to be eco friendly and thus slow down or eradicate Climate Change. Disputed by Side B.
Side B position is that Climate Change is the natural cycle of the Earth and that anything Man has done or can do is but a pinprick, but that there should be some consensus on a less wasteful approach Industrial and Domestic consumption of fossil fuels and the generation of waste.
Quite how far Side B is prepared to go in order to fulfill a 'greener' approach has never been expounded, in fact neither side has been particularly specific, depending mostly on rhetoric to force an argument, plus it would seem to me that nobody can prove anything either way. It's just a concept.
Seconds out......
Edit: Graphs and pie charts will now be essential to support any theories.
In the meantime, as Al has pointed out, the Chinese are marching up your high street!
Here it is in black & white. Simplified for the Paddock...
Hopefully we can all accept that there was some extremely dodgy science to begin with which has now been discredited.
"Global Warming" - A term now widely discredited.
"Climate Change" - Generally accepted term for unusual weather events.
Now the scope of the 'conflict' This is now the accepted area of dispute (if any).
Mans Role in:
a) the Cause (of Climate Change) and
b) the Cure (or Control of Climate Change")
Side A of the argument has said that Man is to blame - disputed by Side B
Side A says that the main component in Climate Change is CO2 Emissions by Man - disputed by Side B.
Side A maintains that Man CAN control climate change or at least slow it down - disputed by Side B.
Side A stipulates that by a series of punitive taxes it can 'encourage' producers and citizens to be eco friendly and thus slow down or eradicate Climate Change. Disputed by Side B.
Side B position is that Climate Change is the natural cycle of the Earth and that anything Man has done or can do is but a pinprick, but that there should be some consensus on a less wasteful approach Industrial and Domestic consumption of fossil fuels and the generation of waste.
Quite how far Side B is prepared to go in order to fulfill a 'greener' approach has never been expounded, in fact neither side has been particularly specific, depending mostly on rhetoric to force an argument, plus it would seem to me that nobody can prove anything either way. It's just a concept.
Seconds out......
Edit: Graphs and pie charts will now be essential to support any theories.
In the meantime, as Al has pointed out, the Chinese are marching up your high street!
Last edited:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Jim, I have just spent an hour going through this thread and cannot find the post.
Perhaps you can give me the number?
In any event I'm not sure what point you are making?
Jim, you're absolutely right.....we don't have 100% definitive and conclusive proof that the current climate change trend is man-made. However, we have a LOT of smart scientists who generally, on balance, agree that is a man-made phenomenon. Of course, there are a few scientists who say it isn't but, again, on balance, the overall and general consensus is that it is.
That's good enough for me, but a person (including me) doesn't have to be a scientist to make an informed conclusion here. Just use common sense. Yes, there has been climate change in the past as a result of natural phenomenon (ie. not man-made), but that climate change has happened for the most part at a very gradual rate (tens of thousands of years) except for a couple more rapid changes which appear to coincide with the arrival of a major meteor landing. As far as I know, no major meteors have touched down on planet earth in the last 100 or so years other than the relatively minor ones in Russia in 2013 and 1908, neither of which appear to be sufficient size to cause climate change.
So what does that leave? Man. Specifically, the staggering amount of environmental damage left by man over the last 100 years or so.
People are naturally inclined to stick their heads in the sand when it comes to facing something unpleasant. It was the same with facing the threat of Third Reich in the 30's...most chose to ignore it and hope it would go away....until it was too late.
We would be best to stop squabbling about who's fault it is, or what's causing it....and just get on with leading cleaner and more environmentally friendly lives.
