[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer OK Pooey lets look into the details of one of your so called valid sites? New Scientist Environment. The hockey stick graph.. Preface to the article on climate warming. Does this show evidence of bias before the facts are prevented? It show me that the author was predisposed to believe in anthropogenic causes.

What matters is the case content, it clearly spells out to you that you are lying when you say that the Hockey stick graph has been shown to be completed flawed and that later studies have disproved it.

Quote by: xyzer Chaotic influences..

Let me guess, you're trying to tell me that Climate runs on a chaotic system and thus cannot be predicted?

Quote by: xyzer We've discussed the value of certainty and the generalized definitions offered by the IPCC. Would you be willing to invest your life saving is it was only 'likely' that it would be safe? When one concludes from a study that something is likely to occur in 100 years is that enough certainty to act?

The percentage given was a figure of around 90% for certainty. If someone told you that there was a 90% chance your house would set on fire, wouldn't you call the fire brigade?

Quote by: xyzer Notice the shunting aside of this so called anomaly? Plus the admission that there are inherent errors in the observation and the models?

Which anomaly? Also, all current published science, especially those dealing with numbers must be given with margins of error. To feign that one's results are absolute would be the real crime. If you knew anything about science you would understand this.

Quote by: xyzer I've posted evidence that the IPCC has ignored contra evidence when it suited the agenda!

I seem to have missed this, where was it? Because I sure as hell haven't seen any so far!

Quote by: xyzer I could go on Pooey but even you might get the drift by now. There is a pall of uncertainty in this whole business. A rationalization of any facts or hypotheses that cast doubt on the IPCC orthodoxy that the warmth we are experiencing is due to human activity? This has been continued even when we experienced a recent period of cooler temperatures at the same time that CO2 emissions were increasing?

I have already posted this half a dozen times but I do so again; the cooling was due to human activities, and it was our act of change that ironically, allowed the warming to increase again.
This is another demonstration of how I have refuted your misleading points and you have conveniently ignored it, only to repost the same thing again some time down the line. I have no doubt that you will bring up this point again in a few weeks time, only to be shot down...again.

Quote by: xyzer By the way.. I'm not trying to override your or anybody elses opinions. I'm posting what I believe! I could care less whether you agree or disagree. Thats not the purpose of debate is it?

The contents of your posts would beg to differ.