eastender wrote:
On 2014-08-25 15:39:32 +0000, Dennis@home said:

On 25/08/2014 16:20, eastender wrote:
On 2014-08-25 14:31:26 +0000, Chris Hogg said:


With an intemperate rant like that, you make my point. No
consideration of the arguments, whether predictions based on
Milankovic cycles are valid or not, or whether the climate is or is
not just a chaotic system with attractors. Just abuse of those who
hold a differing view about GW. Silly man. You should try and be more
objective.

You can have a 'differing view' - but once you try and call it science
you might just as well sacrifice a chicken to see if AGW is real for all
the worth your view has.

All you've done is confirmed you're in the virtual pocket of the
industrial polluters and anarchist American liberterians.

E.

Another climate scaremonger or just a nym change?

There is no evidence that AGW is true.

So organisations such as the Royal Society are lying then? Go read this
lot - I'll put you in the 'perplexed' basket in absence of data that
you're a shill for the free market at any cost crowd.

In the words of the Royal Society:
Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to
make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing
global warming. Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this
will continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate
science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming are well
enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice. The
science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to
cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast as
possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change. We must
also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are
already inevitable.
€¢ The Royal Society has produced answers to eight misleading
arguments about climate change in their publication €˜Climate change
controversies: a simple guide
€¢ New Scientist has €˜Climate change: a guide for the perplexed.
€¢ The Skeptical Science website examines the science of global
warming scepticism and includes 74 sceptics arguments, ranked by
frequency of occurrence.
€¢ RealClimate also has a set of €˜Responses to common contrarian
arguments.


You've obviously missed reading the motto of the RS. Would suggest you
do so before continuing to make yourself look a huge fool!