LEGO

When are you going to provide evidence for your comments?
Proxies covering past eras and proxies covering temperature over the last 130 years knock out your ramblings. Ioe cores provide another line of objective data.
Please provide some evidence for what you right.

I won’t respond until you provide meaningful references.

Hi Mr Ant.

You will be ecstatic to know that President Trump, who has already called HIGW "a money making hoax", is empanelling a scientific committee to examine the evidence and figure out, once and for all, who is right and who is wrong. Or said another way, who is lying, and who is telling the truth.

And gee willackers, Margaret, guess which side is screaming it's head off trying to stop the committee being created? Yep, it is your side who don't want their "facts" and their "adjusted" temperature readings scrutinised, then held up to the light for the public to see. Do you think it might be because they have something to hide?

One notable critic is Bill Nye ("the science guy"), who has stated that the only fair debate you can have over HIGW, is with 3 deniers and 97 climate scientists. He has also called for sceptics to be jailed as "war criminals." I am glad he is on your side and not mine.

Anyhoo, your latest tactic of making me read your links backfired, because I know enough about the principles of climate change now to pick out the BS. The two links you gave to me were so bad they were funny. If you would like a much better pro HIGW site to get your facts wrong, then would I recommend "A History of Earth's Climate"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbnlTX7IjUA&t=7s.

At least the presenter on this site is smart enough to understand that solar related "orbital" (or Malenkovich) factors are the primary drivers of recurring and regular global warming and cooling. Which kinda blows the reasoning of your last link right out of the water. If you Alarmists want to stop the increasing public scepticism of your new religion, the first thing you should do is get your stories straight.

Lastly, if you are interested in understanding the sceptics case, the best site I have found on youtube (only yesterday) is "Don Easterbrook Crashes the Global warming Party." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSVkSCN_hLQ

It is 1.5 hours long, but the good professor addresses everything I know about the sceptics case.

LEGO

I said I wouldn't respond until you sent a reference.
In amongst all the references I have provided are pretty well most of the points he made. Right at the very end he says we have made a mess. We are meant to be in a cooling stage he said (Dan Britt). He also acknowledges our period is warmer than the Roman era and Medieval period.
Scientists acknowledge that temperature has been warmer and cooler in past eras.
Check what happened during the "great dying".

Of interest, when the asteroid hit Mexico and dinosaurs were wiped out, artefacts have not been found world wide. In other words, the asteroid hitting Earth is only part of the story it would seem.
LEGO you ridicule anything that doesn't fit into your opinion, yet, provide a reference that doesn't fully support your view.

Proxies and ice cores!

Good try, LEGO.

To Ant. Don't hold your breathe.

ant wrote..."Moore said of glyphosate, "You could drink a whole quart of it, and it won't hurt you." The interviewer then offered to actually bring him a glass of the stuff to drink on camera. Moore refused."

BUT he didn't include a link - always a dead give-away that he's trying, in his own utterly inept way, to pull a fast one.

Here's the rest of the quote....

"In the minds of the anti-glyphosate community, this was proof that the "glyphosate is safe" crowd was lying.

In reality, glyphosate is less toxic than table salt; however, commercial glyphosate preparations typically include other additives, such as surfactants (think soap) to make the target plants more readily absorb the compound. These surfactants can be more toxic than the glyphosate itself. Unless Moore could verify that the stuff being offered to him was in fact nothing but pure glyphosate and water, he was right to refuse. Also, just because it's safe to drink doesn't mean it tastes good.

Since the time of that infamous interview, others have gone on to drink glyphosate on camera."

Poor poor ant is revealed yet again to have zero ethics.

Would someone who is so convinced that he's right feel the need to lie and obfuscate so much and so often?

mhaze

This is the video I watched about Moore refusing to drink glyphosate, after stating it is perfectly safe. A bit like saying that asbestos dust is safe, because it won't kill you. Neither will kill you in the immediate future. Cancers can take a long time to develop, the causal factors are not always known. My guess is mhaze you would not drink a glass of glyphosate.

You can apologise for making an untrue accusation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM

The video is titled "Lobbyist Claims Monsanto's Roundup Is Safe To Drink, Freaks Out When Offered A Glass" In the end when offered a glass of it his response is "I'm not stupid."

Being abusive suggests you have nothing to offer.