I'm not entirely convinced you know what a debate actually is Nick 
1) Dig in your entrenched position
2) cut and paste some right wing websites
3) get really upset when anyone points out that maybe on the balance of probability you might, just conceivably not be 100% accurate
i'm quite happy to apply scientific principles and rigour to the argument - i've never seen you do the same in all honesty - IPCC have been guilty of over egging the pudding (i never saw the need) doesnt mean........................christ - i've just remembered its pointless debating with you - what am i doing wasting a perfectly good day? 
Is it not telling BJ, that those who propose the AGW theory are so convinced they’re right they will not debate the matter in case the outcome doesn't fit their analysis of the problem?
A position exploited so often by one of the main protagonists in the issue - former Vice-President Gore.
Whether this warming is being caused by human activity or the sun and natural cycles (my choice) is largely irrelevant because anything we try to do about it is pretty pointless.
For anyone to suggest that we, as a species, can alter the planetary weather patterns - especially the global temperature - is debateable in my view when the Coriolis Effect at the very minimum ensures that there is, and will continue to be, a wide difference in weather and temperature between the hemispheres and indeed locally within those areas. Take other phenomena into account and its plain to see that we are really inconsequential in the context of global weather patterns.
What’s the point in debate? – Because those pushing the AGW theory of planetary warming want to adopt extreme measures to try and stop this. When the time comes for you to pay more to simply exist – in terms of increased energy costs, increased commodity costs, altered lifestyle and so on will you be satisfied to accept these changes to your personal circumstances because others have told you that there’s no other option?
Furthermore, this matter should be vigorously debated due to the large number of individuals and bodies scenting the whiff of money in the air, the realisation by governments that this situation affords them the means to push an agenda that strengthens their influence over their citizens – witness the fear that President Obama is likely to peruse a more rigorous path to energy cap and trade measures in the wake of the Gulf oil spill.
If you’re happy enough to sit back and take the medicine spoon-fed by the likes of the IPCC, the United Nations, Al Gore, Tim Yeo, Ed Milliband, Zac Goldsmith, Chris Hunne, David Cameron, President Obama and so on, then I’m surprised.
Nick should be congratulated for his tenacity in this matter because there’s no point complaining after the event - when we’ll be the poorer, in many ways, as a result of this perverted attempt to influence the planets atmospheric behaviour by the blunt means of taxation, pricing and restriction of freedom.
Author
Topic: For Lizzie, Banjax et al... (Read 1680 times)