Hasbeen

You either have a very simple mind, or you are deliberately distorting what I’ve said.

If the former, let me make it simpler.

You said to David (VK3AUU) “have a look at the growing Arctic ice mate ...”

This is a typical response/excuse from the ‘deny-n-delay’ brigade that usually follow it up by saying that global warming is a myth or a world-wide conspiracy. It seems people like you fail to appreciate that Arctic ice extent grows in ‘extent’ every winter or that last year’s ice extent was the lowest in recorded history – with Russia, Canada, US, Greenland, Denmark and others jockeying for passage and exploration rights.

You also fail to understand that the growth in ‘ice extent’ every winter is ‘new ice’ – it is thinner and it has not replaced the thicker ‘old ice’ – you know, the bit that has melted, gone.

These links may help others, if not you:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/heavy-snow-job/

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/arctic-ice-update/

You also said to David; “have a look at the ... ice growth in the Antarctic”

You clearly did not understand my comment: “When you put energy into a defined system, it heats up, water evaporates and must condense out somewhere as rain or snow.”

Ice mass has been growing on the inner portion of Antarctica, it has been losing ice mass from the ice shelves.

Hasbeen, if you are deliberately distorting what I have said ... then, you are just a liar.
________

Belly ... Thanks!
_______

Gimmy

Gimme a break, many of my colleagues were on Inhoffe's original '400' list, without their authorisation and certainly contrary to the views they had about the reality of AGW

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/more_on_inhofes_alleged_list_o.php
_______

Col,
I respect your right to “scepticism” – but, you have no idea what “science” scepticism is.

Oh yeah ... Col says:

"With theoretical quasi science, based on incomplete research and models which lack the critical component of “parallel running” against real data, we are witnessing one of the biggest scams since ... "

Complete and utter crapola!

But Col dear, we are "parallel running" models against real data.

Col may be the ants pants accountant, but he hasn't a clue about science.

“(Hasbeen) You either have a very simple mind, or you are deliberately distorting what I’ve said.”

“Col may be the ants pants accountant, but he hasn't a clue about science.”

No one cares what you think of me or hasbeen, your voice is that of the malcontent, the spoilt brat who cannot front an argument.

Accountancy is part of the arts faculty. Not the science faculty.

I have observed, throughout my working life, the intransigence of engineers (and those of the physical studies, which includes scientists) and a complete inability to recognize or understand the nuances and changes due to subjective influences. They just don’t learn that stuff in engineering and science studies.

The arts are about subjective influences. Any accountant can be technically accurate and his business books perfect until he has to assess the need for a provision or a contingent liability.

At that moment, all accuracy goes out the window and we are left with a subjective judgment of result.

Most influences on human progress are subjective, what to eat, where to live, where to send the kids to school, how to balance work and home life etc.

These macro human decisions are not driven by any scientific or scientifically disposed law or doctrine, they are subjective and individual values.

What I believe, subjectively, as a professional accountant regarding of climate change is:

A lot of what is being spouted as scientific fact, as it pertains to global warming is politely called

Speculation

A lot of scientific people have a vested interest in gaining access to soft government research funds.

The opportunity for the mass defraudment through carbon taxes presents an irresistible goal for those who seek a soft and selfish life.

This is no different to the directors of Enron or those behind a thousand other schemes predicated on a gullible public and small minded government bureaucrats.

Given the mix of
Speculation
Soft funds
Selfish opportunism

The economic and social consequences of the "climate science" and carbon taxation fraud will be

A disaster on a scale which places the US subprime lending debacle into insignificance.

I keep my promises and do not bother with reading your vitriol anymore, however I cannot ignore the following lie.

COL:

You claim: "Accountancy is part of the arts faculty. Not the science faculty."

Not at any major University with which I am familiar and neither RMIT nor Melbourne Uni, where I studied included Accountancy in the ARTS Faculty ever. Accountancy ALWAYS was in the Faculty of Business along with related topics such as: Law, Business Management, Commerce, Finance and Marketing. And always will be.

Admittedly, many Bachelors and Masters degrees do cross over, for example I studied Contract Law and Fine Arts.

However, unless bean-counters required the Faculty of Arts in order to learn how to hold a green biro, this latest claim exceeds even the most outrageous furphy from your dear friend Pollycarp.

BTW

I agree that you are entitled to hold any opinion you wish to express, however, you fail apply the same courtesy to others when you disagree with your persistant argumentum ad personam, which erases whatever credibility you may have.

Col we all have opinions, and we are free to put them in print.
You do tend to use insults as tools to rebutte opinions you do not like.
It seems clear you rarely agree with me, for that I thank you.
I believe in climate change, and that we ,man ,contributes to it.
I see benefits not costs in trying to fix it.
New fuels may be cheaper or the reverse but we will get them.
Man has come from the caves because he can except challenges and change, not by hiding his head in that cave.
I and you can not live forever but in just ten years looking back at this debate we will see great progress.
You referrals to the crisis in the economy reminds me of change, 12 months ago predicting todays crisis would have seen our sanity questioned.

Fractelle” keep my promises and do not bother with reading your vitriol anymore, however I cannot ignore the following lie.. . . .
this latest claim exceeds even the most outrageous furphy from your dear friend Pollycarp.”

Oh horror of horrors…

I exercised a poor use of words and have offended the mighty fractelle

I should have been more careful, let me don sack-cloth and ashes and throw myself prostrate on the floor in a display of abject contrition,

I admit I should have said

”in general terms, most studies fall into one of two categories

‘The sciences’ or ‘the Arts’.”

Chemistry, physics, biology, engineering all being examples of things studied under the general heading “the sciences” and parochially defined as

hard truths which are subject to defined laws, rules and understanding

Fine arts, accountancy, law and business all being examples of things studied under the general heading “the arts” and generally defined as things which include a ‘subjective / interpretive content’ and thus,

CANNOT be defined as

hard truths which have defined laws and rules etc.

For someone who "claims" to ignore my posts, you seem to be intimately obsessed with finding any hint of error on which to rip into.

So, with that in mind, I feel fully entitled to observe
“I disagree with your persistant argumentum ad personam, which erases whatever credibility you may have.”

I must admit, these days I have this enduring image of fractelle

It wavers between a wizened crone of Shakespearian drama and the Grinch

Belly “Col we all have opinions, and we are free to put them in print.
You do tend to use insults as tools to rebutte opinions you do not like.”

Actually I simply respond in kind, based on how people choose to talk down or be rude to me, be it in response to what I may post or just because they are having a bad day.

I guess you must be having a few bad days recently.