meme by his language and content, what there is that makes sense (not much), does not do the skeptics course any good.
Then he may be funded by big oil so a little biased because he appears to have no credentials that can contribute to a proper debate.
If we do not manage our world and improve our environment (reducing co2 is a start), then we are stuffed.

Hi Gilliana, I respect the democratic right of people to hold opinions others than my own. I respect that not everyone wants to agree with the rational scientific findings about climate change. I respect a good argument.

The problem is, I link to valid, peer reviewed, scientific journals and climate experts and all I get back is sneering. There's no debunking of my sources, no demonstration of further reading, no engagement with the arguments, and indeed... the sneering and INSULTING PATRONIZING RUBBISH just continues unabated.

So when Jayb says I'm dehumanising a whole "side" that's not correct. I know environmental skeptics that make me cranky and sad, but at least I can have a decent, polite conversation with them. If they are really honest they might even admit a point in my direction now and then.

MeMe shows no evidence of EVER reading one of the sources I've painstakingly researched and linked to.

I repeatedly asked MeMe to respond ON TOPIC, but to no avail.

I apologize if I've offended you by my actions towards MeMe, but if you read through my posts I was not just trying to provoke a reaction from MeMe to help him gain some insight into his own behaviour, but also "testing the waters" here at OLO to see if this site actually moderates?

I was deliberately provocative, because I was hoping a moderator would step in and see what the fuss was about. By now in other forums I would have earned an "infraction point" but usually by now the troll has been KICKED OFF THE BOARD!

I can easily forgive and forget and retract my caricature of Meme if Meme actually engages the topic and demonstrates that he's actually not an “internet troll” (which is a term with very specific meaning and is not just me trying to “dehumanize” Meme. Look it up).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

We’ll see what happens hey, especially whether or not OLO is a forum worth belonging to. Will it moderate infuriating trolls? We'll see.

Your go MeMe.

See the candle video yet?

Hi all,the following comment also applies to the last decade. Just think how fast things will accelerate once the ice is gone!
.......
"There will be no rise in temperature in any area undergoing a phase change, until the change is complete. The heat is entirely taken up by the phase change itself.

Since the world's glaciers and ice sheets are demonstrably melting, we have a phase change. None of the regions in which the phase change is taking place will be rising in temperature for the same reason that water with melting ice will not rise in temperature.

BUT THEY ARE ALL WARMING!

You are confusing temperature with heat. The two are NOT the same! The two are proportional IF AND ONLY IF no phase change is taking place.

In order to create the kinds of phase change being observed, an enormous amount of heat is involved, but without any corresponding rise in temperature. This is very basic stuff.

Ok, so what about the fall in temperature? What about it? Temperature is only proportional to heat for a specific material, including a specific mix of gasses. As water evaporation increases, you are altering the composition of the atmosphere. Ergo, an absolute temperature means bugger all. You must calculate the heat present (based on the gasses/vapour) and then talk about the change in heat.

This is really basic stuff and I shouldn't have to be telling you this. You learned it in school and the laws of physics haven't changed since. Not even Scotty could change the laws of physics, so don't think that believers or skeptics could do so.

And as I've said before, the only person I regard as a credible voice in all of this is James Lovelock. Since he believes that Global Warming is real, man-made and far too advanced to be stopped (merely limited in impact), and as he's been entirely correct on all prior predictions, his conclusion is the one I will be going with."

Come on over to: http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warming
the world's largest open forum on global warming where you can debate all day without limits to people on both sides of the fence.

And just so you warmies know:
http://www.whatdoestheinternetthink.net/index.php?s=global+warming&st=all
-the tide is turning fast in the deniers's favor to "preserve our planet", not save and rescue it with outdated science and childish media fear. Get ahead of the curve warm mongers and climate pu$$ies and stop scaring our children.
Mememine69, your petrosexual denier.

Why would we debate global warming with you over there on your site when you don't "debate" global warming here? You just call people "warmie pussies". Nice.

See what we're dealing with Gilliana? He STILL hasn't answered the question about why the candle warmth couldn't get through the tube full of Co2. I highly recommend watching this youtube clip. The demonstration of Co2’s effects is at 1:30 which is a scene from the documentary, “Carbon Wars”. MeMe simply WILL NOT engage this subject because it would reveal that global warming is based on repeatable, demonstrable physics in a lab. He will not attempt to disprove the basic spectrometry that tells us what CO2 does, nor bothered to find a paper that debunks the Radiative Forcing Equation.
http://tinyurl.com/mvv325

If a small tube of Co2 can deflect a candle’s thermal energy, how much more energy does the Co2 prevent leaving the earth’s surface and atmosphere when heated by the sun?

MeMe hasn't replied about what the real forcing was in the Milancovitch cycle, and what Co2's role might have been in exaggerating and magnifying the “wobble” of the earth on the climate.

He's not here to actually debate this like an adult, and just posts constant snide and rude comments that are designed to taunt and sneer. That lack of engagement with the discussion and pathological need for negative attention is what we call an "internet troll". (Not my term.)

Ian Plimer in his Heaven and Mirth book, constantly claimed that warming ceased in 1998 and that it has been cooling ever since.

During an interview with Brian Carlton of ABN Newswire, where Plimer claimed that climate scientists are "pompous and arrogant and are treating people as stupid," he claimed that after 1998, climate remained "static" and cooling didn't commence until after 2003.

What's that old adage? A convincing liar needs a good memory?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnF7ilVzeo