Yawn, here we go again......
The biggest concern for the anti-climate change crowd seems to be the fear that taxes and prices will rise to deal with environmental regulations and, fuel-consuming cars will be confiscated and heating and electricity will be rationed. Is this your main concern, or not?
No it's not.
And perhaps you should be more paticular in what you're talking about. Are you talking about Climate Change or Global Warming..... I've noticed a lot of Global Warmongers like to interchange the two as if they mean the exact same thing.... thus further clouding up the argument.
Get access TNZ if you are interested. It's not that difficult.
As soon as I figure out how and have enough interest to, I will.
Yes, your multi-paragraph reply shows how much you don't really care.
Irrelevant, moving on....
I call bullshit when I see it, and most arguments from the anti-climate change crowd are off the meter.
Speaking of BS, once again you show that you clearly have no understanding on the topic in question let alone my position.
I believe Climate Change exists..... I do not believe Global Warming exists. There is a difference and if you can't see it, that's not my problem and only makes your side of the arugment seem more foolish.
You can call "Bullshit" on whatever you want, it doesn't make you anymore right, however.
Yeah, like calling other posters trolls. Very mature indeed.
When you don't actually contribute anything to the thread/topic, refuse to supply anything that could possible back up your own claims..... and you intentionally attempt to insult other member's intelligence for expressing themselves and supplying factual information to support their arguments, that's what a Troll is.
Go look it up.
Never mind, I know you won't, so I'll do it for you:
Troll (Internet)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
What did Chekov say? If the shoe fits??
You haven't even attempted to refute any of my claims or counter any of my sources already provided, so you tell me who's the immature one here?
Easy, champ. You don't want to pop a blood vessel.
You're far from causing any such thing with me, but if it makes you feel good about yourself, you keep thinking that.
I called your reasoning bullshit, your evidences shallow and your attitude annoying. Again, where is the trolling? Let your accusation be specific, or shut up.
You tossed out all sorts of random rants and claims, you argue about my evidence, yet provided nothing to prove against or counter my claims and evidence except more rants and personal sh*t flings.
In counter, I provided all sorts of sources, links and information which is commonly accepted, as well as many other members in here have done so as well, and many of them have no issue actually addressing those sources and comments. But you don't.... you just claim they're all wrong and you're right..... I don't know what little pow wows you were in in the past that you've won debates using this method of argument, but it's not going to help you here.
You complain about my attitude being annoying? Wonderful way of focusing on the poster and not the post..... I know I could list off all sorts of things I think about your attitude, but it's irrelevant to the topic at hand.
So who's the troll again?
Best go educate yourself, because obviously you need it.
And I personally couldn't care less what you think of me or my attitude. To imagine that you, some faceless, no-name forum goer's views of myself and my attitude would have any effect on me or how I conduct myself would be something I'd consider border-line insane.... oh well.
Yeah, funny that. Listening to the opinion of people that actually know what they are talking about. The nerve! I love how the creeping anti-intellectualism always seems to seep into this kinds of threads.
Uh huh..... And I also suppose you still believe Saddam had WoMD.... afterall, that's what the "Experts" told you to believe, using half-assed evidence I knew was a crock of crap from the get go.
There is nothing wrong challenging and questioning information given to ensure it is accurate and true...... the real problem is when people such as yourself simply follow what you're told like a trained little puppy.
Called on your bullshit. I think it's more that enough. Your links and factual informations were shown to be sensationalist bullshit. Now what?
It's been shown?
Really?
By whom?
Certainly not you since you haven't provided anything worthwhile still except your baseless rants..... but hey if you think that's the way to come to a factual conclusion, all the power to you girlfriend.
Just because you call something "Bullshit" doesn't somehow make you right, esspecially when you provide nothing to back up your claims except more personal attacks and rants.
Yes, sure it's me ranting, whining and flinging crap around. Your quiet and peaceful posts are really zen-like.
Glad you approve. You give crap, you get crap back, don't like it? Change your attitude.
Because they are climatologists and they know what they are talking about. Unlike a lot of other people, for example.
Yes, because experts or people who hold a fancy title are infallible and can never be wrong..... yes.... because history isn't filled with experts who've been wrong on occasion or used personal bias or financial incentive to twist information to suit one side before.
Last I checked, they're humans, and humans make mistakes from time to time.... you of all people should know this.
I'm not a climatology expert but I'm a scientist, and I can actually see the difference between actual scientific arguments and wacky conspiracy theories.
The only conspiracy theory that exists here is the one you seem to continually support..... since all that Global Warming is is a Theory based on a select few Computer Simulations that in the original report confirmed had numbers cooked to support a paticular view.
You're on the side of trying to prove something exists or is happening..... I'm just the side of the argument that actually looks at evidence and facts..... and faulty computer simulations and theories are not evidence or facts.
You may claim you're a scientist, but I also see no evidence in this either and can be just another typical ploy of a poster to invent something to somehow support their side of an argument..... thus irrelevant. Even if you are actually a Scientists, your approach in this thread alone and your lack of any sort of sources or information supporting your side of the argument clearly shows you have allowed the fearmongering bandwagon of GW to sweep you off your feet to a point where now all your responses remind me of some religious fanatic who just attacks those who don't agree with his view, and when asked to explain further or to back up your claims, like a religious fanatic, you just beat around the bush and continue on with your rants.
Not my problem.
Actually, no. Somebody's position is based on the professional opinion of actual experts about the subject at hand, while some other's position are based on pop science and politicized journalism. Guess who is me and who is you?
So far, evidence in this thread alone would dictate that you're the one tailing along with Pop Science and Politicized Journalism.
If you wanna go all philosophical, nobody can know anything for sure. But for the time being, I will trust actual scientists above people that have read something on a blog, somewhere, some day or the other. The difference between you and me it's that I'm more than willing to say that I'm not a leading expert on climatology, and thus I give weight to the informed opinion of real climatologists, not professional opinion-makers. In this time and age, science is complex and extremely specialized, and this is how the scientific community works. You, on the other hand, assume you know more than people that studied the subjects for years. You should use your own advice and learn a bit of humility.
Perhaps.....
..... but not today.
The difference here is that I have researched this topic for over 20 years of my life long before this became Pop Science in 2000, and many of the questions and concerns I have come across over the years still lack any credible answers, or any answers at all for that matter.... and if there are holes or no answers for certain aspects of this paticular topic, then I have doubts in its credibility..... and since it's still all a theory, I and everyone else is fully allowed to question and doubt such claims.
Don't like it?
Meh.
Actually, nothing of the sort. Defensive much?
Then contribute to the topic at hand if that isn't the case.
Locking the thread? What are you talking about? I posted my view, based on the opinion of thousands of actual experts on the subject,
Which you reference none.
some of them actually on this board.
Which you referenced none, except two members I can not access their provided information, moving on.....
You just copied and pasted various bits from less than trustwhorty magazines and newspapers, with various bolding, italicizing, and underlining and sometime all three together, and then play the victim. Color me unimpressed.
Ah yes.... because my country's main news sources are untrustworthy? Because you said so??
I suppose you think Fox News is more reliable? Pssh....
What I can say? Good riddance?
Too bad, I changed my mind.
They wouldn't thank you for that. 
