The pleasure is all mine, csteele.

Hi Csteele,

So I'm a denier now, because I raise some questions ? Oh well, if the cap fits ....

But 32 degrees C ? Is that what you are claiming, that without AGW, the planet would on average be 32 degrees C cooler ?

The average year-round temperature in Kazakhstan is 1 degree C. Are you suggesting that - in line with a world average - without AGW, its mean annual temperature would be -31 degrees C ?

Australia's mean annual temperature is something like 20-22 degrees C, I don't know for sure, somebody can enlighten us. Are you suggesting that, without AGW, Australia's mean annual temperature would be -10 degrees C ? If so, why oppose AGW ?

Just kidding ;)

Darwin's mean annual temperature (i.e. day and night) is around 26 degrees C. According to the Book of Steele, its proper mean annual temperature is -6 degrees C. Is that so ?

I hope that, until my last breath, I am still allowed to ask questions, C. Steele, without some Yezhov or Beria wanting to put me up against a wall. Ask your parents.

I am just starting to understand what being a dissident entails, and one thing it does seem to provoke is a temptation to tell one's would-be executioner to shove it all up his @rse.

Okay, I'll pack my bag and have it ready by the door for when you come for me :)

Cheers,

Joe (a.k.a. Loudmouth the Denier)

csteel: The only problem is the last line about sea level rise and uninhabitable coastal cities was not in the original article but is an addition.

It appears that you are right on that account.

Washington Post: Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream still very warm.

Csteel: I am however blaming you for being an idiot and believing this stuff so completely that you didn't think to check something so obvious.

Obviously since one sentence in the article is fake then the whole article is fake. Is that what you are saying?

Csteel: Let this be a lesson to you young lad.

Old fart would have been better. But thank you anyway, dear.

Oh well Dr Adolf Hoel must have been some dole bludger of the street without any credability sent to test the depths at 3100 meters. I can see that. He wasn't American.

csteele demonstrates how low and smearing and desperate the warmist are to silence those who show how much fantasy they believe in

'However much you want to behave like the church did when it ignored the child abuse within its rank'

you show to what level of deceit you are prepared to go.

Dear Loudmouth,

Okay, I'm certainly prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and try and provide some answers from my very limited knowledge.

My manner, or shtick, in this thread is not one I normally adopt but I've had fun framing my arguments in the way many of the more strident anti-GW types are inclined to. It is certainly the lazy way of debating but I can see the attraction.

You seem to be confusing Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) with the green house effect.

From my understanding there are certain molecules that have, because of their structure, the capacity to vibrate at particular frequencies. Molecules rather than atoms alone that have this propensity. A CO2 molecule is a bit like a floppy dumbbell, one carbon atom with an oxygen atom attached on either end. This characteristic allows it to absorb a frequency of infra-red radiation that in a world without these molecules would move more easily out to space. The vibration and movement induced causes them to collide with other atoms and molecules in the atmosphere and create heat. This is the green house effect without which our global temperature would be 32C lower on average. It would not get as cold as the dark side of the moon since the atmosphere even without the greenhouse effect our atmosphere provides a degree of blanketing.

AGW is more about the enhancement of the green house effect by the potential doubling, through human activity, of the second most important molecule capable of contributing to the green house effect, CO2, plus the resultant increase in the concentration of the primary molecule H2O.

My point throughout the thread has been if the physics tells us these are the two most important molecules contributing to our planet being 32C warmer then why would a doubling of the concentration of CO2 have no effect? Doesn't make sense. Those who want to argue degrees of effect I can understand, but as I have said it requires a leap of faith to dismiss AGW in its entirety.

Dear JayB,

Shh.

runner,

"...low and smearing...desperate....deceit..."

You really are a wonderful advertisement for your faith. You appear to employ your Christianity as a convenient shield, behind which you cower while lobbing incendiary taunts in the direction of anyone holding an opposing view. You go merrily along judging your fellow man, casting aspersions on their characters and generally impugning their honour.

If I was Jesus, I'd come down and give you a good clip under the ear, and tell you to get your act together.