Chris

I am not quitting the site (OLO is one of the best we have got) - I am quitting this thread.

Agree, you do not need to respond to comments you do not want to. Therein lies a dilemma, this I am sure everyone understands.

bonmot

1. A simple humiliating admission of defeat would do, but looks like the best expedient your desperation can come up with is merely repeating your tactic of evasion.

2. Of course it's catastrophic warming you fool. The globe warms whenever the sun shines on it, and varies in termperature all the time. Ordinary or unproblematic warming has never been in issue. The issue is whether we face global warming so bad that it's going to lead to ecological catastrophe and a world "unsafe for my grandchildren".

3. Unlike the claim that we face catastrophic global warming, which has NO REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE to support it, and rests entirely on appeal to absent authority such as you have kept displaying all along, on the other hand, reference to Malcolm Roberts does not represent appeal to absent authority at all because the relevance of his questions does not rest on his authority; they rest on the fact that YOU AND ALL OTHER WARMISTS ARE COMPLETELY UNABLE TO ANSWER THEM. Your retreating suggestion that we are involved in appeal to absent authority is a mere back-bite - you assume everyone else shares the same unscientific method that you do.

4. Now. Got that real-world evidence of catastrophic global warming there yet, fellah?

Any response from you by way of appeal to absent authority (e.g. "the evidence is on the internet somewhere") is just the warmists' stnadard dishonest way of conceding everything that is in issue.

"Rpg
You missed it? Open your eyes and look again, please."

No, I don't miss much .. I'll just put you down as a serial dodger

That's fine, it's what you are, no problem

Chris

The technical summary can be found here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

Bye
bonmot

Bonmot,

Ok, thanks.

I’ve only been away for a short time and I seem to have missed much of the action on this thread.

My apologies for wrongly stating that Malcolm Roberts was a “Professor”. My error and apologies for any controversy I have caused. His qualifications are:

Malcolm Roberts BE (Hons), MBA (Chicago)
Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA,Aust)

Graham Young,

There are many Australian’s who are very keen to have a voice in relation to the AGW topic. Many feel they are being denied this or are denigrated for wanting to ask questions. They face a hostile media, ridicule and abusive comments from government politicians, a severe “talking to” from academics, outrageous exaggeration from NGO’s, and an endless stream of “partisan science” from technical advocates.

Those of us who feel this way don’t really care how the message is sent or by whom, we just want to have a voice and we would like these questions answered. If this happens to be from Malcolm Roberts, if it happens to be “couched in such emotional language” or that it is “not going to be taken seriously”, is not the issue, we will take what we can get.

Are you suggesting that the AGW case has not been “couched in emotional language”?

If on the other hand, you have some suggestions as to what questions to ask, who should ask them, to whom they should be sent and how they should be framed, I’m sure we would love to hear from you.

How about you get some of your media colleagues to sit in a room long enough to actually ” listen” to these questions rather than suggesting that these questions are “not helpful”?

I am personally grateful to Malcolm Roberts for making the effort to formulate and to present his challenges and for the many others doing the same. I doubt that we will get a hearing, let alone a response but at the very least they have been tabled for us.

Eventually, those not listening will pay the same price as the NSW ALP.