Well done bonmot

You've avoided the truth by ignoring the evidence in Poirot's repost ... and rounded onto a comparatively minor discourse in a field not related to the topic.

Well done you big fake froggy denier.

Well thankyou Julia's nutter,

I agree - the Heartland Institute is a minor discourse compared to the climate talks in Durban.

However, the Heartlanders think otherwise – perhaps you should give Bob Carter a buzz.

Thank you Poirot for the Naomi Klein article; what a joy to read the kind of argument I've been putting forward for ages! And I agree with her that we have to stop trying to appease the greedy/ignorant brigade of minimifidianists--a term that can be considered synonymous with neoliberal/conservative/rational-optimist. It "is" precisely their dystopia that has to be brought down, not only to save the planet, but to save humanity! Klein does't quite go far enough; any new dispensation should hold as sacred and irrevocable that "no" individual may amass wealth or assets beyond an absolute limit. It's precisely the allure of wealth, prestige and the power these bestow that is the cause of the kind of generational corruption we witness in such abundance as to make it perennial throughout history and banal! Gaddafi and Putin being just two of the current batch. Government office has to be transformed into a system whereby its functionaries are servants of the State and not its grotesque beneficiaries.
Consumerism has to be consigned to the vomit bag of history; it's not only nauseating and contemptible, but so far removed from reality as to be breathtaking--that our so-called prosperity "depends" not on thrift but on excess and gluttony!
So far as I'm concerned either humanity undertakes radical change or the sooner we're purged from the planet the better.

The real problem is getting a majority behind the drive for change; I don't believe this is possible, people will cling to their way of life and deny the undeniable, even deny a decent future for their kids or their kids' kids' before they'll embrace modest and unpretentious lives. And this renders all this talk mere "idealism" in a ruthlessly realist paradigm. That's why I believe action on climate change will be forced by ruin and population collapse rather than voluntarily.

imajulianutter,

"...big fake froggy denier."

Here's a link especially for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manners

There you go Poirot

Avoid the issue, that'll make it all go away.

Jeez you really are great for a good old belly laugh.

Here I'll repeat it:

Your repost.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm

It seems you haven't read it or you've indulged in a bit of 'confirmation bias' or straight out denial.

'An important clue came from some especially good ice core records that timed precisely the changes in the levels of CO2 and methane. The levels apparently rose or fell a few centuries after a rise or fall in temperature. At first this lag puzzled scientists, but they quickly realized that this was just what they should have expected. For it strongly confirmed that the Milankovitch-cycle orbital changes initiated a powerful feedback loop. The close of a glacial era came when a shift in sunlight caused a slight rise of temperature, and that evidently raised the gas levels over the next few centuries. The greenhouse effect then slowly drove the planet's temperature a bit higher, which drove a further rise in the gas levels... and so forth. On the other hand, when the sunlight in key latitudes weakened, that would not only bring more ice and snow, but also a shift from emission to absorption of gases, eventually causing a further fall in temperature... and so forth.'

It's even referenced. No 58. Shackleton (2000); etc

Then without reference or supporting data the article makes the following generalisation in it's conclusion:

'Our current situation was altogether different. The warming was not started by a small shift of sunlight, as in previous epochs. Our addition of gases to the atmosphere was initiating the process, with the temperature rise lagging behind the rise of gas levels. Emissions were climbing at a far swifter rate than anything in the Pleistocene record, so the lag was measured not in centuries, but mere decades. And already by the 1980s the levels of greenhouse gases had climbed far higher than anything seen for many millions of years.'

All other fundamental assumptions in the article were supported and referenced. But here no argument, no proof just a simpletons assertion.

jeez poirot,

You keep adding to my delight with your delicious double standards.

When you do it it is a case of:

'you (imajullianutter) appear to have set yourself up for the odd ribbing - and not just from me. Even the great Poirot is addressed in character often in relation to his comments....it's part of the deal.'

odd ribbing?

but when I do it it's a case of:

'"...big fake froggy denier."

Here's a link especially for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manners'

it's a case of bad manners?

Do you ever remember what you write?