The AGW Crowd: Only Fools and Polar Bears
 

Sorry, but I ask you. There are articles and posts flying around the internet at the moment and our own Del Boy Dawlish has already linked one in his post

'Interesting concept. Did 'early' CO2 increases save humanity from an ice age?'


http://www.reportingclimatescience.c...n-ice-age.html


No doubt the story from MIT will be used to say how wicked greedy humans preventing the globe from getting the ice age it deserves.. Imagine the struggle to survive for many marine and land based animals in a full scale period of glaciation. A period like that would see many humans perish as will as severely incapacitation any life on earth, yet if the human release of C02 is so effective at warming our atmosphere as the AGW proponent keep saying then we have just seen a momentous miracle if the glaciation period has been delayed and we should all be celebrating as we would be if a massive asteroid had just missed our planet.

But we won't see that , we will see people saying that humans have affected the atmosphere and denied all life freezing to death over a huge swathe of land mass across the globe.

The whole thing is absolutely bizarre with thes people.

The AGW Crowd: Only Fools and Polar Bears
 

Idiot.

The AGW Crowd: Only Fools and Polar Bears
 

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:08:13 -0800 (PST), Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

Sorry, but I ask you. There are articles and posts flying around the internet at the moment and our own Del Boy Dawlish has already linked one in his post

'Interesting concept. Did 'early' CO2 increases save humanity from an ice age?'


http://www.reportingclimatescience.c...n-ice-age.html


No doubt the story from MIT will be used to say how wicked greedy humans preventing the globe from getting the ice age it deserves.. Imagine the struggle to survive for many marine and land based animals in a full scale period of glaciation. A period like that would see many humans perish as will as severely incapacitation any life on earth, yet if the human release of C02 is so effective at warming our atmosphere as the AGW proponent keep saying then we have just seen a momentous miracle if the glaciation period has been delayed and we should all be celebrating as we would be if a massive asteroid had just missed our planet.

But we won't see that , we will see people saying that humans have affected the atmosphere and denied all life freezing to death over a huge swathe of land mass across the globe.

The whole thing is absolutely bizarre with thes people.

The only "bizarre" people are those who write and believe in the above nonsense.

The AGW Crowd: Only Fools and Polar Bears
 

On Friday, 22 January 2016 08:28:40 UTC, Malcolm Ogilvie wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:08:13 -0800 (PST), Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

Sorry, but I ask you. There are articles and posts flying around the internet at the moment and our own Del Boy Dawlish has already linked one in his post

'Interesting concept. Did 'early' CO2 increases save humanity from an ice age?'


http://www.reportingclimatescience.c...n-ice-age.html


No doubt the story from MIT will be used to say how wicked greedy humans preventing the globe from getting the ice age it deserves.. Imagine the struggle to survive for many marine and land based animals in a full scale period of glaciation. A period like that would see many humans perish as will as severely incapacitation any life on earth, yet if the human release of C02 is so effective at warming our atmosphere as the AGW proponent keep saying then we have just seen a momentous miracle if the glaciation period has been delayed and we should all be celebrating as we would be if a massive asteroid had just missed our planet.

But we won't see that , we will see people saying that humans have affected the atmosphere and denied all life freezing to death over a huge swathe of land mass across the globe.

The whole thing is absolutely bizarre with thes people.

The only "bizarre" people are those who write and believe in the above nonsense.

Mr Olgilvie, or should I call you Dawlish. What do you actually disagree with?

The AGW Crowd: Only Fools and Polar Bears
 

On Thursday, 21 January 2016 17:08:15 UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
Sorry, but I ask you. There are articles and posts flying around the internet at the moment and our own Del Boy Dawlish has already linked one in his post

'Interesting concept. Did 'early' CO2 increases save humanity from an ice age?'


http://www.reportingclimatescience.c...n-ice-age.html


No doubt the story from MIT will be used to say how wicked greedy humans preventing the globe from getting the ice age it deserves.. Imagine the struggle to survive for many marine and land based animals in a full scale period of glaciation. A period like that would see many humans perish as will as severely incapacitation any life on earth, yet if the human release of C02 is so effective at warming our atmosphere as the AGW proponent keep saying then we have just seen a momentous miracle if the glaciation period has been delayed and we should all be celebrating as we would be if a massive asteroid had just missed our planet.

But we won't see that , we will see people saying that humans have affected the atmosphere and denied all life freezing to death over a huge swathe of land mass across the globe.

The whole thing is absolutely bizarre with thes people.

This is a very interesting article and certainly makes a valid point. It takes as read the connection between temperature and CO2 levels, something that certain people try not to believe.
There is a certain irony here which I think you have rather overstated because the timescale of this effect is tens of thousands of years whereas current GW thinking is about the next 100 years, say. It may just get a bit *too* hot before the return of the woolly mammoths.

Tudor Hughes.

The AGW Crowd: Only Fools and Polar Bears
 

On Thursday, 21 January 2016 17:25:08 UTC, dawlish wrote:
Idiot.

Pavlov would have been proud. Woof, woof! The irony, even if a bit stretched, was lost on you.

Tudor Hughes.

The AGW Crowd: Only Fools and Polar Bears
 

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:09:40 -0800 (PST), Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

On Friday, 22 January 2016 08:28:40 UTC, Malcolm Ogilvie wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:08:13 -0800 (PST), Lawrence Jenkins wrote:



The whole thing is absolutely bizarre with thes people.

The only "bizarre" people are those who write and believe in the above nonsense.

Mr Olgilvie, or should I call you Dawlish. What do you actually disagree with?

I disagree with people who can't spell my name and I disagree with people who are stupid
enough to believe that I am Dawlish. And if they're stupid enough to believe that AND to
keep on attempting to argue against the incontrovertible evidence for AGW, then they fully
deserve the epithet "idiot".

The AGW Crowd: Only Fools and Polar Bears
 

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 7:14:36 AM UTC, Malcolm Ogilvie wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:09:40 -0800 (PST), Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

On Friday, 22 January 2016 08:28:40 UTC, Malcolm Ogilvie wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:08:13 -0800 (PST), Lawrence Jenkins wrote:



The whole thing is absolutely bizarre with thes people.

The only "bizarre" people are those who write and believe in the above nonsense.

Mr Olgilvie, or should I call you Dawlish. What do you actually disagree with?

I disagree with people who can't spell my name and I disagree with people who are stupid
enough to believe that I am Dawlish. And if they're stupid enough to believe that AND to
keep on attempting to argue against the incontrovertible evidence for AGW, then they fully
deserve the epithet "idiot".

Sorted. 😀

The AGW Crowd: Only Fools and Polar Bears
 

On Saturday, 23 January 2016 07:14:36 UTC, Malcolm Ogilvie wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:09:40 -0800 (PST), Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

On Friday, 22 January 2016 08:28:40 UTC, Malcolm Ogilvie wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:08:13 -0800 (PST), Lawrence Jenkins wrote:



The whole thing is absolutely bizarre with thes people.

The only "bizarre" people are those who write and believe in the above nonsense.

Mr Olgilvie, or should I call you Dawlish. What do you actually disagree with?

I disagree with people who can't spell my name and I disagree with people who are stupid
enough to believe that I am Dawlish. And if they're stupid enough to believe that AND to
keep on attempting to argue against the incontrovertible evidence for AGW, then they fully
deserve the epithet "idiot".

But I never denied global warming did I Ooglevie,we all know the planet has warmed the only dispute is how much of that warming is down to humans (you included although some could argue). The main point is, from the link your altered -ego provided and that being that humans could have inadvertently, with the release of co2 delayed the imminent period of glaciation.

Another point of mine being, that if human co2 release is wholly responsible for this warming then what's to worry about, I'm sure life on earth (and even where you live) would much prefer what we have now to full scale glaciation.

Listen Malcolm you really need to stop getting your sporran in a twist, calm down and for once address the issues.

The AGW Crowd: Only Fools and Polar Bears
 

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 2:23:20 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Saturday, 23 January 2016 07:14:36 UTC, Malcolm Ogilvie wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:09:40 -0800 (PST), Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

On Friday, 22 January 2016 08:28:40 UTC, Malcolm Ogilvie wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:08:13 -0800 (PST), Lawrence Jenkins wrote:



The whole thing is absolutely bizarre with thes people.

The only "bizarre" people are those who write and believe in the above nonsense.

Mr Olgilvie, or should I call you Dawlish. What do you actually disagree with?

I disagree with people who can't spell my name and I disagree with people who are stupid
enough to believe that I am Dawlish. And if they're stupid enough to believe that AND to
keep on attempting to argue against the incontrovertible evidence for AGW, then they fully
deserve the epithet "idiot".

But I never denied global warming did I Ooglevie,we all know the planet has warmed....

Do you? Why do you quote whatever you can to attempt to tell us that it has not warmed since 1998, that the evidence backs this and thus there is no need to examine a cause?

That's why you get called, quite correctly, an idiot.