gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:

Yes  -they can be under certain circumstances

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:

I apologise for actually knowing what a word means.  I realise this places you at a disadvantage. 

A a statement like 'Co2 is a pollutant' is not worthless as it conveys the meaningful information that CO2 may be a pollutant when it is introduced into a system in sufficient quantities that is causes environmental harm.  Co2 is currently causing environmental harm with respect to both global climate and ocean pH.  THis is why CO2 is a pollutant.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:
You have not produced any evidence to support your statement that the sceptic community is increasing rapidly.

Just like you have not produced any evidence to support your statement that glaciers are not receding - no matter how many time I ask you.  THis is why I assume you are lying.


gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:
Yes - a lot of people have opinions.

How about you show us some evidence.

You could start by showing us some evidence to support your claim that glaciers are receding.  If you can't - please apologise for telling lies.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:

Perhaps you could show us some of the research that has been published by these people which supports these opinions

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:

I am not the one that has been caught telling multiple lie.  That was you.

Let's start with your lie about glaciers having stopped receding.  We are still waiting for you to produce any evidence at all to support that statement.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:

Telling lies certainly wont do it.

Please show us some evidence to support your claim that glaciers have stopped receding


gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:

We are waiting for you to mount some sort of an argument.  Telling lies about glaciers and then running away when asked to provide evidence to support your statement is no way to make an argument

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:

I am able to provide evidence to support all of the statements I make. My understanding is based on this evidence.  This is why I know that global glacial mass balance is decreasing

1. The rate of annual melt-water production (ablation) by glaciers has been increasing, and comprised of about 1.7 m/yr in water equivalent for the period.
2. The annual accumulation (winter balance) rate has also been increasing with the average value of about 1.5 m/yr in water equivalent.
3. Annual volume change has been 90 km3/yr adding about 15-20% (0.25±0.11 mm/yr) to sea-level rise over the period.
4. The equilibrium-line altitude has risen by 200 m (square root error is about 100 m).
5. Accumulation area ratio decreased from about 60 % in 1968 to 50% in 1998 (square root error is
about 5%). 6. The mass balance sensitivity with respect to air temperature has changed at the end of 1980’s and reached – 700 mm per degree °C.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G10002/Occasional_Paper55/instaar_occasi...

Where is the evidence to support your statement that glaciers have stopped receding?
Is there any?  Or did you just make that up and decide to tell a lie?

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:

You have not shown us any evidence of  a credible sceptic argument.

All we get for you are silly lies about glaciers, undersea volcanoes and an MWP 4 degrees warmer globally than today - and zero evidence to support any of these fantasies.

let me see... how do you show the increase in the sceptic population. Well you could use the preponderance of scientifical sceptic websites but of course sceptic websites are by definition no t acceptable. you can of course use any pro-acc website you wish.

You could show the list of scientists actively naming themselves as sceptics but once again that doesn count unless you can demonstrate their entire publiching record, their academic transcript and a letter or permisison fro, their mother. But economista, paleontologists and pollies are quite as iron-clad evidence.

Does anyone see the problem??

Ah yes... A acientist produces an anti ACC report or even one merely questioning an aspect of it and can we call that into evidence?  no, we cant because he isnt a climate scientist because... you guessed it. he wrote something against the dominant religion.

You could quote information from the annual sceptics gatherings from the Heartland Institutue but you cant because you see, that is a sceptic organisation and therefore totally discredited.

the only thing that cant be dismissed is that pesky non-increase in temperature than even the zealots at CRU dont deny.

As Einstein said, that is the good thing about science. one fact dispels 300 opinions. And while temperature continues to refuse to rise and every other prediction fails to materialise, ACC is no more than an opinion that is looking increasingly less like truth.

And that is all that matters...

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:05pm:


pollutant (p-ltnt)
A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pollutant

Buy yourself a dictionary champ.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:14pm:

You could show us the published scientific papers by suitable qualified academics who argue that AGW is not occurring
gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:14pm:

Yes - they are as rare as hen's teeth

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:14pm:

Of course you can.  Please show us one

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:14pm:
Oh dear - keep your conspiracy theories to yourself please

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:14pm:

errrr...no.  You can't  quote information from the annual sceptics gatherings from the Heartland Institutue.  Try published scientific papers instead.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:14pm:

The 12 hottest years ever recorded occurred in the past 16 years.  Temperature has not stopped increasing.  Please stop that nonsense.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:14pm:

So....do you have a fact for us?

The global temperature is rising.  Please stop this nonsense that is isn't.  This is why you are called a denier


Every single one of the past 16 years has had a positive temperature anomaly with respect to a 30 year average.  This means the temperature is rising.
Sea levels are rising, the arctic ice cap is shrinking and global glacial mass balance is decreasing.  These are all results of a rising temperature.

The planet's temperature is increasing.  This is clear and unambiguous.  Quoting David Rose from the Daily Mail is really the dumbest thing you can do.  read the Met's response to David Rose
http://earthsky.org/earth/uk-met-office-responds-global-warming-did-not-stop-16-...

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:14pm:

we can see that truth does not matter to you.

When will you provide evidence to support your statement that glaciers have stopped receding?

Please show us or admit that you told a lie.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:55pm:


I put up a definition which you criticised and then produced a definition near idential to mine. It is hard to take you seriously.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 6:05pm:

You were the one that said CO2 was not a pollutant.  Not me.

You were also the one that claimed that glaciers had stopped receding.  Could you please provide evidence to support that statement, or apologise for telling a lie.

You were also the one that claimed that there was an underwater volcano causing the arctic ice cap to melt.  Could you please provide evidence to support that statement, or apologise for telling a lie.

You were also the one that claimed that the MWP was 4 degrees warmer globally than today.  Could you please provide evidence to support that statement, or apologise for telling a lie.

Why do you tell so many lies?

Is it because you have no idea what you are talking about?

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 6:07pm:




That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

We are not talking about levels of CO2 that will actually suffocate someone. We are talking about increasing the concentration of CO2 globally so as to affect the climate.

I really wish some of these global warming skeptics actually had a clue about the science (but I guess then they wouldn't be skeptics  )

MET office downgrades their forcast to a flat 20 years. Forget the flat 16, MET are going for 20.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9787662/Global-warmin...