Global protests over climate change

[Tep]

What charming people.

And have you noted how the Green/Left is always "demanding" change, not "requesting" it?

These ill-mannered ingrates mistakenly believe, in their infantile narcissism, that they have a right to demand things, an attitude which most people grow out of at the age of about 5.

But, then, I'm forgetting that the bible of the "progressives" is Robert Fulghum's All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.

And, boy, does it show............

The Mayor of New York City and the Secretary General of the United Nations are 'infantile narcissists'? Their participation adds significant weight to the demonstration. As does the estimated size of 300,000. Not quite so easy to dismiss I think.

It is good to see that people, especially the coming generation, continue to take the issue seriously and are pushing for solutions. I, like most people, am comfortable with the idea that the science is settled, although further work should be done and find the one-upmanship of people claiming their chart is better that someone else's chart quite boring. In any case, whatever the ideology, it must be a positive thing to have regard for the environment and the impact of human activity on that environment.

There are serious policy issues that need to be addressed in this region, particularly in the energy sector which is a major contributor to environmental impact. Ongoing public demonstration that people continue to be concerned over these issues is good for driving efforts to cooer pate to find solutions to the issues. This includes things like energy efficiency, new technologies, regional trade in power and gas.

I add my support to the protestors and hope they keep up the pressure.

[RickBradford]

I add my support to the protestors and hope they keep up the pressure.

I can't imagine that anyone is feeling "pressure" from these bewildered nitwits except for New York's municipal cleaning services.

These are people who say they want to "save the planet", and they haven't even learnt to use a trash can.

[canman]

@ Tep & Thakkar

You both are comfortable that the science is settled.

Could you please explain the science to us then and why you believe that trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are responsible for what you call climate change.

[Tep]

I add my support to the protestors and hope they keep up the pressure.

I can't imagine that anyone is feeling "pressure" from these bewildered nitwits except for New York's municipal cleaning services.

These are people who say they want to "save the planet", and they haven't even learnt to use a trash can.

Then I doubt you have any experience with public policy development, implementation and management. Consultation is a key to effective public policy. Quite a few people around the world will have taken notice of the protest and will draw messages more substantial than the trash can non-issue.

[Tep]

@ Tep & Thakkar

You both are comfortable that the science is settled.

Could you please explain the science to us then and why you believe that trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are responsible for what you call climate change.

No. You want to nit-pick the issue to death. I did not say I believe trace amounts of C02 do anything. I did not even use the phrase climate change. I specifically referred to the impact of human activity on the environment. If you want an answer to your question, ask a scientist, but then you will certainly have heard explanations for whatever detail you are fixated on and will have rejected it on ideological grounds

Read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports for a start and move from there. They are on the web. Not hard to find.

I am comfortable with the consensus. Most of the people who matter and most of the coming generation are of like mind. That is of consequence to me. Not some pissing contest of whose data is better. I made specific reference to that in my post. I am interested in the public policy issues and look forward to anyone who wants to discuss or debate this.

[canuckamuck]

I think we should all get out and protest. Stupid climate has been changing for millions of years now. It is about time we put a stop to it!

Don't get me started on the weather

[meand]

@ Tep & Thakkar

You both are comfortable that the science is settled.

Could you please explain the science to us then and why you believe that trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are responsible for what you call climate change.

I hesitate in posting this as I would take it a good portion of you and your ilk are incapable of understanding it. It's all there though, have a look. But, of course you won't do that, will you.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5presentation1403.pptx

Will you listen to the people who they literally call rocket scientists, the best and brightest rocket scientists mind you.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Oh, you won't listen to them either. How curious. I think they have a term for people like you - vacuous will do for now. In your parlance, something about not being the brightest shining star in a box of crayons or other.

[tartempion]

It's not the climate change that's the problem, it's the human species behavior, mainly Greed.

Nature will correct itself, unless an other JFK pushes the button, unfortunately he missed that opportunity.

[RickBradford]

Consultation is a key to effective public policy.

That may well be true, but it has nothing to do with the absurd "climate march".

Consultation over policy is a very different thing to ragged bands of wannabe Socialists making a nuisance of themselves in Manhattan and elsewhere.

[canman]

@ Tep & Thakkar

You both are comfortable that the science is settled.

Could you please explain the science to us then and why you believe that trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are responsible for what you call climate change.

I hesitate in posting this as I would take it a good portion of you and your ilk are incapable of understanding it. It's all there though, have a look. But, of course you won't do that, will you.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5presentation1403.pptx

Will you listen to the people who they literally call rocket scientists, the best and brightest rocket scientists mind you.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Oh, you won't listen to them either. How curious. I think they have a term for people like you - vacuous will do for now. In your parlance, something about not being the brightest shining star in a box of crayons or other.

Typical response from the chicken little crowd. Point to a website and call someone with an opposing view names.

[canman]

@ Tep & Thakkar

You both are comfortable that the science is settled.

Could you please explain the science to us then and why you believe that trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are responsible for what you call climate change.

No. You want to nit-pick the issue to death. I did not say I believe trace amounts of C02 do anything. I did not even use the phrase climate change. I specifically referred to the impact of human activity on the environment. If you want an answer to your question, ask a scientist, but then you will certainly have heard explanations for whatever detail you are fixated on and will have rejected it on ideological grounds

Read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports for a start and move from there. They are on the web. Not hard to find.

I am comfortable with the consensus. Most of the people who matter and most of the coming generation are of like mind. That is of consequence to me. Not some pissing contest of whose data is better. I made specific reference to that in my post. I am interested in the public policy issues and look forward to anyone who wants to discuss or debate this.

My mistake; when you posted" I, like most people, am comfortable with the idea that the science is settled" I assumed you were refering to the "science" of climate change and the effect of CO2 which is what the IPCC is claiming as the root cause of "climate change"

[canuckamuck]

@ Tep & Thakkar

You both are comfortable that the science is settled.

Could you please explain the science to us then and why you believe that trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are responsible for what you call climate change.

I hesitate in posting this as I would take it a good portion of you and your ilk are incapable of understanding it. It's all there though, have a look. But, of course you won't do that, will you.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5presentation1403.pptx

Will you listen to the people who they literally call rocket scientists, the best and brightest rocket scientists mind you.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Oh, you won't listen to them either. How curious. I think they have a term for people like you - vacuous will do for now. In your parlance, something about not being the brightest shining star in a box of crayons or other.

Textbook greeny attack formation. Start out with an adhominen attack, refer to a large organization or two that supports your ideology without of course spelling out your quintessential point, then put words in the mouth of the opponent or make a gross generalization, and follow with quick couple of adhominens

*A couple of pointers, this should be followed by a protruding tongue smiley or something like that. but you did get a gold star for NASA. We would have also accepted NOAA, IPCC, PEW, WMO, Climate Institute, or USGCRP.

[meand]

The points are in the literature. I don't feel the need to repeat them because it won't do any good of course; you are modern day babies who have been spoofed crap and have taken every bit of it in. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound when you say "it's just another natural warming cycle"? I know you don't, because you would not say it if you did.

I'm not sure what more you guys want. This isn't the third grade anymore, your teacher is not there to hold your hand and give you information. NASA is a recognizable organization. We all know their accomplishments and reputation. Why on earth would you not feel comfortable with the information they publish?

Having said all that, believe what you want. I actually think it's healthy and good to question things. If you didn't the world would be a duller, less interesting and even scary place. But with that data out there, from those particular organizations (among many others) you look rather foolish. And, You're the only group on earth that doesn't recognize it unfortunately.

Edited September 24, 2014 by meand

[RickBradford]

(sigh)

More petty sneering, belittling people who disagree, and name-calling along with zero substantive debate.

It's actually an important reason why so many people have turned off climate alarmism -- telling people they are wrong is one thing, but saying that they are "foolish" and "babies" if they disagree with you has quite the opposite effect to that intended. That really is a third-grade tactic.

But then, the Green/Left will never understand that calling people names is counter-productive -- it's all they know how to do.

And NASA, as it happens, has agreed that there has been no global warming for over 17 years, so even this "recognizable organisation" understands that there is considerable uncertainty as to where the climate is heading.

[Tep]

@ Tep & Thakkar

You both are comfortable that the science is settled.

Could you please explain the science to us then and why you believe that trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are responsible for what you call climate change.

I hesitate in posting this as I would take it a good portion of you and your ilk are incapable of understanding it. It's all there though, have a look. But, of course you won't do that, will you.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5presentation1403.pptx

Will you listen to the people who they literally call rocket scientists, the best and brightest rocket scientists mind you.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Oh, you won't listen to them either. How curious. I think they have a term for people like you - vacuous will do for now. In your parlance, something about not being the brightest shining star in a box of crayons or other.

Textbook greeny attack formation. Start out with an adhominen attack, refer to a large organization or two that supports your ideology without of course spelling out your quintessential point, then put words in the mouth of the opponent or make a gross generalization, and follow with quick couple of adhominens

*A couple of pointers, this should be followed by a protruding tongue smiley or something like that. but you did get a gold star for NASA. We would have also accepted NOAA, IPCC, PEW, WMO, Climate Institute, or USGCRP.

Hang on, I'm confused by your posting, canuckamuck. The attack format you described is used by cancan in response to one of my postings. I have not used ad hominem attacks, nor have I referred to any large organisations and I thought my point was very clear. Are you accusing cancan of green tendencies and green conspiracy inspired tactics?

My statement on my comfort with the consensus on climate change science stirred the pot. Nobody have bothered responding to my 'quintessential' issue of policy responses that take into account a regard for the environment. Yet everyone wants to argue C02, or probably other things like sea water levels, icebergs etc etc.

Anyway, can you clarify if it was me or the other guy you were insulting?

[Tep]

@ Tep & Thakkar

You both are comfortable that the science is settled.

Could you please explain the science to us then and why you believe that trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are responsible for what you call climate change.

I hesitate in posting this as I would take it a good portion of you and your ilk are incapable of understanding it. It's all there though, have a look. But, of course you won't do that, will you.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5presentation1403.pptx

Will you listen to the people who they literally call rocket scientists, the best and brightest rocket scientists mind you.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Oh, you won't listen to them either. How curious. I think they have a term for people like you - vacuous will do for now. In your parlance, something about not being the brightest shining star in a box of crayons or other.

I think this post is directed at me. You are being deliberately obtuse. You have constructed an entire dialogue involving me but in which I have not participated. You and the others may argue the scientific details all you want. The fact is that there is consensus on the issue of climate change among the policy makers in the region and internationally with whom I work and I am comfortable with that. You want an argument about C02. Go for it, just not with me. I, like most people who matter have moved on and we deal with next generation issues.

I am always amused by people who use the term ilk. Do you also say 'behooves'? Happy to discuss climate change policy issues all the time. Join me if you want.

[Tep]

@ Tep & Thakkar

You both are comfortable that the science is settled.

Could you please explain the science to us then and why you believe that trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are responsible for what you call climate change.

I hesitate in posting this as I would take it a good portion of you and your ilk are incapable of understanding it. It's all there though, have a look. But, of course you won't do that, will you.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5presentation1403.pptx

Will you listen to the people who they literally call rocket scientists, the best and brightest rocket scientists mind you.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Oh, you won't listen to them either. How curious. I think they have a term for people like you - vacuous will do for now. In your parlance, something about not being the brightest shining star in a box of crayons or other.

Textbook greeny attack formation. Start out with an adhominen attack, refer to a large organization or two that supports your ideology without of course spelling out your quintessential point, then put words in the mouth of the opponent or make a gross generalization, and follow with quick couple of adhominens

*A couple of pointers, this should be followed by a protruding tongue smiley or something like that. but you did get a gold star for NASA. We would have also accepted NOAA, IPCC, PEW, WMO, Climate Institute, or USGCRP.

Hang on, I'm confused by your posting, canuckamuck. The attack format you described is used by cancan in response to one of my postings. I have not used ad hominem attacks, nor have I referred to any large organisations and I thought my point was very clear. Are you accusing cancan of green tendencies and green conspiracy inspired tactics?

My statement on my comfort with the consensus on climate change science stirred the pot. Nobody have bothered responding to my 'quintessential' issue of policy responses that take into account a regard for the environment. Yet everyone wants to argue C02, or probably other things like sea water levels, icebergs etc etc.

Anyway, can you clarify if it was me or the other guy you were insulting?

Sorry canuckamuck, the attack was from means not canman I think. The quoting format confused me. But I think my question remains.

[meand]

(sigh)

More petty sneering, belittling people who disagree, and name-calling along with zero substantive debate.

It's actually an important reason why so many people have turned off climate alarmism -- telling people they are wrong is one thing, but saying that they are "foolish" and "babies" if they disagree with you has quite the opposite effect to that intended. That really is a third-grade tactic.

But then, the Green/Left will never understand that calling people names is counter-productive -- it's all they know how to do.

And NASA, as it happens, has agreed that there has been no global warming for over 17 years, so even this "recognizable organisation" understands that there is considerable uncertainty as to where the climate is heading.

There is no debate to be had.

And why would I debate here. Nobody will listen, and I would not even blame them. That's why I give you the citations. The question now is, if NASA is so uncertain, why do they post such things? NASA on climate change, if I may.......

"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."

Yeah, organizations like nasa just post stuff like this for fun. Another nice argument you've got (sigh).

It seems the only argument you all have is "gosh, more name calling". Lol. Quite substantive. Let me tell you something, if a person comes to me and says something like "it's not raining" when it is in fact pouring cats and dogs, I'm going to have a hard time finding euphemisms for his thought process and behavior. So be it.

Further, what is this?

And more bewildered idiots pushing an agenda without troubling to consult the facts.

It seems many of you don't even understand you are accusing people of what you are yourself doing. Very odd, but this does in fact make sense when one analyses you positions.

Here is the only perfectly clear aspect of all this. You guys won't accept what gets written out by a member on these boards, no fault there. Yet, you also won't accept what every science institution in the world is telling you. I guess my question is, who do you trust? You don't have the instruments and expertise to collect and analyze data sets like this yourself, so who would you trust? Nobody? Ok. But realize, you're not a considering any of the data from any of the organizations able to collect it. So, you see how that seems like a kinda biased, ridiculous even, viewpoint?

The other certainty is you seem to take part in things that you demonize the other side for taking part in, as proven above. Interesting, and hypocritical logic, but I'd expect nothing less I suppose.

There really is nowhere to go from here but down. So, let that mentality that you all have set in, and post as much as you can so as to satisfy this very clear belief you all seem to have that the more you post, the truer it must be.

So, go ahead.... Continue on..... The more you post the more true it becomes, and the more you win. What amazing creatures you are, being struck over the head with a Louisville slugger and you think it's a nice beautiful breeze or something. Well, enjoy the breeze and post away, your ilk is counting on it.

Edited September 24, 2014 by meand

[Tep]

Consultation is a key to effective public policy.

That may well be true, but it has nothing to do with the absurd "climate march".

Consultation over policy is a very different thing to ragged bands of wannabe Socialists making a nuisance of themselves in Manhattan and elsewhere.

Come on. You can't really be letting your ideological position blind you to the idea of protest as part of public policy and social and political change? The anti Vietnam war protests, the UK poll tax protests, the red and yellow protests here in Thailand. You may hate what they are saying or the look or the politics of the people who are saying it, but those voices do contribute to decisions being made. I have been involved in consultative processes here that in some cases could have turned violent and in many cases were very uncomfortable for officials. Some of these processes included mob demonstrations and marches.

[RickBradford]

Consultation is a key to effective public policy.

That may well be true, but it has nothing to do with the absurd "climate march".

Consultation over policy is a very different thing to ragged bands of wannabe Socialists making a nuisance of themselves in Manhattan and elsewhere.

Come on. You can't really be letting your ideological position blind you to the idea of protest as part of public policy and social and political change? The anti Vietnam war protests, the UK poll tax protests, the red and yellow protests here in Thailand. You may hate what they are saying or the look or the politics of the people who are saying it, but those voices do contribute to decisions being made. I have been involved in consultative processes here that in some cases could have turned violent and in many cases were very uncomfortable for officials. Some of these processes included mob demonstrations and marches.

Not at all - I'm just saying that elitist minorities coming out every year or so at the weekend to air their personal vanity projects and demand their right to a Green lifestyle that somebody else pays for aren't going to change anything. They are not in any sense a people's movement, which is why they trumpet the term in all their agit-prop.

I don't see politicians suddenly abandoning capitalism on the "demands" of these publicity-seeking Green zealots. Even the Occupy mobs had more motivation than these climate people.

[samran]

Consultation is a key to effective public policy.

That may well be true, but it has nothing to do with the absurd "climate march".

Consultation over policy is a very different thing to ragged bands of wannabe Socialists making a nuisance of themselves in Manhattan and elsewhere.

Come on. You can't really be letting your ideological position blind you to the idea of protest as part of public policy and social and political change? The anti Vietnam war protests, the UK poll tax protests, the red and yellow protests here in Thailand. You may hate what they are saying or the look or the politics of the people who are saying it, but those voices do contribute to decisions being made. I have been involved in consultative processes here that in some cases could have turned violent and in many cases were very uncomfortable for officials. Some of these processes included mob demonstrations and marches.

Clearly for these blokes the last acceptable type of protest was held in the 1770's when they overthrew the British. The next acceptable one will be when they overthrow 'Bama and the socialists who rule the US.

Only for the right causes you see, Tep.

[RickBradford]

Clearly for these blokes the last acceptable type of protest was held in the 1770's when they overthrew the British. The next acceptable one will be when they overthrow 'Bama and the socialists who rule the US.

I never said the protest was unacceptable; I said it was irrelevant, self-aggrandizing and ineffective.

[samran]

Clearly for these blokes the last acceptable type of protest was held in the 1770's when they overthrew the British. The next acceptable one will be when they overthrow 'Bama and the socialists who rule the US.

I never said the protest was unacceptable; I said it was irrelevant, self-aggrandizing and ineffective.

Then why care so much if it is so ineffective?

[samran]

Consultation is a key to effective public policy.

That may well be true, but it has nothing to do with the absurd "climate march".

Consultation over policy is a very different thing to ragged bands of wannabe Socialists making a nuisance of themselves in Manhattan and elsewhere.

Come on. You can't really be letting your ideological position blind you to the idea of protest as part of public policy and social and political change? The anti Vietnam war protests, the UK poll tax protests, the red and yellow protests here in Thailand. You may hate what they are saying or the look or the politics of the people who are saying it, but those voices do contribute to decisions being made. I have been involved in consultative processes here that in some cases could have turned violent and in many cases were very uncomfortable for officials. Some of these processes included mob demonstrations and marches.

Not at all - I'm just saying that elitist minorities coming out every year or so at the weekend to air their personal vanity projects and demand their right to a Green lifestyle that somebody else pays for aren't going to change anything. They are not in any sense a people's movement, which is why they trumpet the term in all their agit-prop.

I don't see politicians suddenly abandoning capitalism on the "demands" of these publicity-seeking Green zealots. Even the Occupy mobs had more motivation than these climate people.

No, the smart ones are building solar power stations backed up with new lithium technology batteries and making money off it.

[canuckamuck]

I hesitate in posting this as I would take it a good portion of you and your ilk are incapable of understanding it. It's all there though, have a look. But, of course you won't do that, will you.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5presentation1403.pptx

Will you listen to the people who they literally call rocket scientists, the best and brightest rocket scientists mind you.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Oh, you won't listen to them either. How curious. I think they have a term for people like you - vacuous will do for now. In your parlance, something about not being the brightest shining star in a box of crayons or other.

Textbook greeny attack formation. Start out with an adhominen attack, refer to a large organization or two that supports your ideology without of course spelling out your quintessential point, then put words in the mouth of the opponent or make a gross generalization, and follow with quick couple of adhominens

*A couple of pointers, this should be followed by a protruding tongue smiley or something like that. but you did get a gold star for NASA. We would have also accepted NOAA, IPCC, PEW, WMO, Climate Institute, or USGCRP.

Hang on, I'm confused by your posting, canuckamuck. The attack format you described is used by cancan in response to one of my postings. I have not used ad hominem attacks, nor have I referred to any large organisations and I thought my point was very clear. Are you accusing cancan of green tendencies and green conspiracy inspired tactics?

My statement on my comfort with the consensus on climate change science stirred the pot. Nobody have bothered responding to my 'quintessential' issue of policy responses that take into account a regard for the environment. Yet everyone wants to argue C02, or probably other things like sea water levels, icebergs etc etc.

Anyway, can you clarify if it was me or the other guy you were insulting?

Sorry canuckamuck, the attack was from means not canman I think. The quoting format confused me. But I think my question remains.

I haven't come across you before Tep, you must be fairly new. Welcome to TVF. No I was not responding to anything you said. I see that you have worked that now. I assume your question does remain but I have now idea what your questions is.

[Tep]

Consultation is a key to effective public policy.

That may well be true, but it has nothing to do with the absurd "climate march".

Consultation over policy is a very different thing to ragged bands of wannabe Socialists making a nuisance of themselves in Manhattan and elsewhere.

Come on. You can't really be letting your ideological position blind you to the idea of protest as part of public policy and social and political change? The anti Vietnam war protests, the UK poll tax protests, the red and yellow protests here in Thailand. You may hate what they are saying or the look or the politics of the people who are saying it, but those voices do contribute to decisions being made. I have been involved in consultative processes here that in some cases could have turned violent and in many cases were very uncomfortable for officials. Some of these processes included mob demonstrations and marches.

Not at all - I'm just saying that elitist minorities coming out every year or so at the weekend to air their personal vanity projects and demand their right to a Green lifestyle that somebody else pays for aren't going to change anything. They are not in any sense a people's movement, which is why they trumpet the term in all their agit-prop.

I don't see politicians suddenly abandoning capitalism on the "demands" of these publicity-seeking Green zealots. Even the Occupy mobs had more motivation than these climate people.

Ok. You now call them elites which is more palatable than narcissist or nitwit but still flavoured by your ideological bent. In any case, can't elites have a point of view and express it? I never really bought into the idea that neo-liberalism is elitism. Some of the arguments are persuasive but to turn this into a generalised slur is pushing it. I am happy to be called a liberal. Liberalism underpins western thought and has done since the philosophers of Athens were being ostracised and forced to drink poison.

I see your real agenda emerging from the torrents of scorn and invective and it relates to your belief in capitalism. You see the climate change agenda challenging this. I actually see the climate change agenda benefiting from this through innovation, technology and as another poster mentioned, making money from this. I know many fund managers and investors who are very into the renewable energy scene.

I would caution about a blind faith in capitalism though. The Anti-Globalisation protests that emerged in the late 90's in Seattle and the Occupy Wall Street are only manifestations of underlying weaknesses in the system, specifically the dangerously widening income inequality issue. Even in the US, it is conceivable that politicians could abandon one form of capitalism i.e. the one touted by the self interested asset owners for another form of capitalism. Teddy Roosevelt busted the trusts at the turn of the 20thC. And he was a Republican! So I wouldn't be so dogmatic.

I do not think that climate change is or should be a belief system. it is science and will stand or fall on scientific principles. I do not argue the science but fully support the scientific method as a way to find answers. However, my issue and my original post concerned the consensus about climate change, which does exist despite your protests, and how this will affect public policy going forward.

[canuckamuck]

The points are in the literature. I don't feel the need to repeat them because it won't do any good of course; you are modern day babies who have been spoofed crap and have taken every bit of it in. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound when you say "it's just another natural warming cycle"? I know you don't, because you would not say it if you did.

I'm not sure what more you guys want. This isn't the third grade anymore, your teacher is not there to hold your hand and give you information. NASA is a recognizable organization. We all know their accomplishments and reputation. Why on earth would you not feel comfortable with the information they publish?

Having said all that, believe what you want. I actually think it's healthy and good to question things. If you didn't the world would be a duller, less interesting and even scary place. But with that data out there, from those particular organizations (among many others) you look rather foolish. And, You're the only group on earth that doesn't recognize it unfortunately.

I would be deeply grateful if you could spell out for me how this is not just another warming cycle. Please be gentle. I am but a wee modern baby, apparently inferior to the old fashioned babies, but I am cool with that.

And by the way in a debate there are generally two sides. So when you say we are the only group (meaning skeptics) on Earth that doesn't recognize the data is out there. Makes yours the only group (meaning believers) that do think it is out there. So what is the data saying?

[Tep]

I haven't come across you before Tep, you must be fairly new. Welcome to TVF. No I was not responding to anything you said. I see that you have worked that now. I assume your question does remain but I have now idea what your questions is.

Thank you for the welcome. Yes I am very new to TV as a frequent poster. This is my first debate. I limited myself to answering questions on issues with which I am familiar before. But these posts never really generated much response as they dealt with arcane stuff on working with the Thai government and the energy sector.

Don't worry about my question to you. I kind of worked t out. The quoting format confused me. I remember a while back it used to be worse, but notice people still having problems with it. Entirely my mistake.

Enjoying the debate but I don't think people want to discuss my issues as they would rather just hurl things at each other. I have a fondness for dissenters. They make me think and force me to re=assess my assumptions.

[RickBradford]

@Tep

In any case, can't elites have a point of view and express it?

Once again, I never said they shouldn't. I'm making the point, since you brought in the Vietnam War and the UK poll tax protests, that there is no comparison between those, genuinely mass, movements which had the capacity to bring about change, and the climate nimrods out for a pleasant Sunday stroll in Manhattan.

Liberalism underpins western thought and has done since the philosophers of Athens were being ostracised and forced to drink poison.

Come on. You can't really believe that there is any philosophical connection between the liberalism of ancient Greece or the Renaissance, and what calls itself "liberalism" today, which is the virtual opposite. Today's liberals call themselves liberals in the same way that the country is named the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Liberalism these days is more like a kidnap gang threatening a hostage: "Do as I say and you won't get hurt."

I do not think that climate change is or should be a belief system.

Well, it is. Where else but in a belief system do you get constant vilifying and demonizing of everyone who disagrees? How can it be science when one side says purely "The science is settled. There is no debate."

As one smart scientist noted: "If it's settled, it's not science; if it's science, it's not settled."

[JDGRUEN]

Rehash - Rehash - Rehash... The Global Warming fanaticism fell through when the lead fanatics figured out that what global warning there was stopped 10 to 15 years ago ... and looked like it was part of a normal long term cycle... So - Global Warming gets morphed into Climate Change ... Yes we do have some climate change and it has little or nothing to do with human activity... The natural happenings in the Earth, the Solar System and the Sun dwarf anything humans have contributed... And the most dramatic series of climate change took place long before there were enough humans on Earth to have any possible effect. And most importantly Climate Change is not cause or abetted by human industrial production of C02 and Carbon Dioxide is not a toxic gas or the human race would not have evolved - but died out or never been formed millions and millions of years ago.

Global Warming was a hoax support my massaged data and Climate Change as being caused by human activity is a sick joke... Anyone who can read about the comings and goings of the Great Ice Ages and the majestic science of Glaciation and cannot understand or be willing to admit that 99% of what is going on now is a NATURAL OCCURRENCE - is either stupid or deliberately promoting a false agenda..

Climate Change is nothing more than a quasi-political movement promoted by Lemming Liberals and Leftist Control Freaks who only want to CONTROL society and 'fundamentally change' it so the world would operate as they see fit... Natural Occurrence Deniers are fanatics who have turned this silliness in to a vengeful Religion and they worship at the alter of pseudo science.