Which leaves just one more thing to consider. When Co2 exceeds the o2 amount, the world is thrown back to 300 millions years to the time of the first scorpions and land plant life. Now it did take all that time to lock down the Co2 in the first place, and it seems in just 100 years or so, mankind has put a fair amount back in to the system that the planet had worked so hard for you, and you and you to be here:)

We may have to consider, times up.

http://tinyurl.com/4fen82u

http://tinyurl.com/46adprb

http://tinyurl.com/4a9wscy

http://tinyurl.com/4h7b4yk



BLUE

What a Delmer.

Now for all those that can not see....."who is paying you to help kill this planet? Yes people, The Conservationist/scientists are at the top of what is called intelligents.

The rest just seem like a bunch of ignorant fools, with either nothing to loose, or payed to lie!

Capitalist's are your friends.....yeah right! And I cant wait for 10 billion more people on this planet, wont that be fun? Its only 40 or so years away.

Think who's got the most to loose when green and sustainable management care is questioned, and who's getting fat and rich at the exspence of the planet.

The people in power now are killing all your life-supports, so you might say, why!...WELL, if your old, who cares right.

Its your planet.

You know, its sad when they cant clean up there own mess, isn't.

BLUE

Every one has an opinion, as it should be.
Some are over confident about their own.
And too easily discount others.
CULT?
A fact we are having global warming, why? I do not think we know yet.
But think man is having an impact.
Now any one want an idea for a book?
Just here in OLO one exists, waiting for you to get it out from under its blanket.
review all our opinions,you will find mine changed and got it very wrong or very right.
If you are young enough,your second book will be a best seller, it can be so as humorous or factual.
In 30 years no doubts about global warming will exist you, not me,will know.
The claims,just here of those on both sides,in my view the no sayers,will make for a good read.

I really can’t make it any simpler. We have almost every AGW Advocate on this thread telling skeptics they lack intelligence, skeptics are abused as “Deniers”, and patronizingly provided with a definition of what a denier really is.

So if skeptics are so unintelligent, why cannot the AGW advocates help us?

If you wish to call someone a “Denier” that’s fine, now all you have to do is meet the criteria for that definition, kindly provided by Bugsy, to be valid;

Firstly, where is the “empirically verifiable reality” and secondly what are “radical and controversial ideas” being adopted rather than the “scientific consensus” of AGW?

Two very simple points; “empirically verifiable reality” and the “radical and controversial ideas”?

Then we have a very short list of just three issues that form the basis of AGW Advocacy and that make “skeptics” skeptical.

1. The absolute authority of the UN over the “orthodoxy”
2. The mandatory single “orthodoxy”
3. The mandatory application of “selective” science that supports only that orthodoxy.”

You have the opportunity to conclusively support your “Denier” accusations and you have a stunning opportunity to explain or justify the core of your “beliefs” and the causes of skepticism in one hit.

If you cannot justify your use of the term “Denier”, you will never again be able to use it legitimately because you cannot even correctly define it.

If you cannot justify the very core of AGW Advocacy, many skeptical posters will rightfully feel absolutely vindicated.

Finally, there is the issue of constantly being accused of being “unintelligent”? If you cannot use your own massive intellects to address these very simple issues, we must draw our own conclusions as to where the intellectual deficit is.

AGW Advocates on this thread have simply ignored the issues to be faced; all we get back is diversionary “righteous indignation” with a few more self incriminating “cult” responses.

If you can’t get there, then walk away from the thread. But be very careful in future if you ever think about leveling the terms “Denier”, “Skeptic” or “Lack of Intelligence”.

My appologies to Bugsy, the "deniers" link was provided by wobbles.

Indeed spindoc, apology accepted (although you made the mistake twice, the first was ignored as it should be) but I don't know where you get off by also implying that I have accused you as being 'unintelligent'. It does not require one to be stupid to be a 'skeptic'.

It just requires a complete rejection of the findings of the scientific establishment and all that it has achieved. I'm sorry, I just don't think that is a justified position to take, at least not for me at this time.