Dear Poirot,

I'm afraid I was fast running out of dance partners on the other AGW threads so I wondered if I could have a play with the odd wall flower in here.

But now that I look around I see you've danced most of them to a stand still. Greedy sod.

Actually by the number of blood noses you seemed to have learnt how to keep your elbows up. I think I'm safer off this floor.

Keep an eye out for forged dance cards though.

I'll leave you to it.

Here are some simple questions, Poirot:

* average world temperature has risen by 0.9 degrees in the past century - yes ? no ?

* sea-levels have risen by around two inches in the last century - yes ? no ?

* average world temperatures haven't risen by anything much in the last fourteen years. yes ? no ?

* there are a range of remedies that might mitigate the awful effects of Global Luke-Warming and CO2 poisoning, from nuclear power to tree-planting to switching of the kitchem light, etc. Yes ? No ?

No rush, AGLW is not such a big deal..... We can wait....

:)

Well hello, julia's nutter - Thursday, 9 August 2012 4:42:03 PM

>> This time I only read as far as this ... <<

Ok, let's give you the benefit of the doubt - you're just sticking your head in the sand.

Ergo, you're a fake sceptic. Real sceptics would at least look.

However, if you did read the article;

http://sharifflab.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/03/MarkowitzShariff2012.pdf

and you are telling a 'porky', then you (like others here);

1. find AGW non-intuitive and cognitively challenging, or

2. think yourself blameless for unintended consequences, or

3. feel guilty so exhibit defensive biases, or

4. wish the seriousness of global warming will not be as severe, or

5. identify with conservative idealogues, or

6. believe it's a problem for someone else.

My guess? All of the above.

If you (or others) think that's gratuitous ad-hom, perhaps you can refute the Markowitz/Shariff research.

bonmot, your 'moral' research is pathetic. For a start AGW believers such as yourself blame greedy fossil energy companies and sloth ridden consumers of fossil fuels for WILLINGLY causing AGW in spite of the overwhelming 'evidence' for AGW. This explains why the luvvies have dreamed up a new criminal offence of ecocide which loons like Flannery endorse because the world is a living gaia, don't you know. So the paper's claim that AGW is confusing because it is unintentional is rubbish from the start.

The gaia , mother Earth concept also contradicts the paper's 2nd point that:

"Climate change possesses few features that generate rapid, emotional visceral reactions8: it is an abstract, temporally and spatially distant phenomenon consisting of many different, disparate and seemingly incongruous events"

That is junk; the hysterics who support AGW do so because for them nature is an immediate and emotional concept; the fact that most of these people live in cities away from nature means that emotional connection to nature is NOT based on a realistic concept but the Disneyfication of nature as being something cuddly and, most importantly, something with an inherent moral structure.

This astounds me, Nature is AMORAL; 'it' has no moral purpose or guidelines at all except survival; the nitwits who live in cities and associate nature with bambi and peaches and cream and a moral benevolence which, if humanity could only live in accord with nature, would protect humanity are delusional; their emotional connection to nature is so profoundly intense because that concept is abstract; an unreal abstract but none-the-less an abstract. So, in this respect the paper doesn't know what it is talking about; supporters of AGW do have an immediate emotional response to nature precisely because it is an abstract for them.

I could go on, but suffice to say your paper is junk; so are you.

Oh, why gee, thanks nutter - I mean Anthony ... seems to have got to you too :)

cohenite,

That all sounds rather silly. Does not "life" depend on the earth and its systems for sustenance. You're the one who's deluded and can't see beyond the taming of nature that is human urbanisation. Beneath the facade of mastery over nature lies that reality. The earth of humanity isn't one big city - and if it was it couldn't sustain itself.

Loudmouth,

As csteele points out, I've danced with all the wallfowers on this thread. I have to point out that your dance steps appear peculiarly limited. You keep repeating a tired old left-footed three-step - (and my toes can only take so much)

Perhaps you should sit this one out - maybe toddle off and perch your derriere on one of the "luke-warm" benches for a while.

: )

: )