Thread: Yes I'm "stoking the fire"

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

Woodbe what you have just written is just plain ridiculous.

What part?

That I expect people to communicate rather than spruik? That we communicate with honour? That we respect other's opinions, and not ride over them in order to score another point for the religion?

woodbe.

Underfoot, sigh! really clever comment.

I guess you are unaware that the British courts threw a very dark cloud over 11 assumpions made by Gore!

Gore has been proven to distort the facts to suit his own agenda. Believe what and who you like I guess.

Your comment simply shoots the messenger therefore makes no sense at all.

Woodbe I will not be drawn into your little game of pedantics any more. The comments speak for themselves.

Speaking of Gore this flames another of his theories, Just check out who the person is making the claim before flamming me LOL! http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/20.../index.html?hp

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

Underfoot, sigh! really clever comment.

rod
do I detect a note of sarcasm?

I seem to recall that it was you that suggested that I read all the links before I made up my mind, ( most of which were posted you)

I did just that,

and have made up my mind,

despite the comments in your previous posts
you seem to have a problem with this?

The one thing about the internet is that comments stay for some time.

Not as long a time as some scientists use to forecast, like 300000 years instead of like 5 years.

The earths climate fluctuates so much within a decade, century through a 1000 years.

Gore makes a packet out of his sheep through lectures and inspirational rubbish.

You have to love some of those wonderful computer models. What a joke.

The media will never attain advertising revenue out of stating the obvious.

Keep it up Rod. Never stop questioning.

Not at all quite the contrary, I am glad you read the links, I guess you don't believe they are accurate. The thing is, no matter what evidence is provided, scientific or other, it will never sway the mind of some people. Thats ok and is expected. It makes no difference if you change your view or not.

Judging by the emails I have recieved lately it has changed the view of some and they are the ones that count.

I really really dont have an issue with anyone that chooses to believe AGW is real and etc. etc. If they are well read on both sides of the subject and make the choice that's fine. It simply means they believe one set of evidence over another and have made their own choice.

Most people don't even realise there is a contrary view to AGW. Now there is the difference. They are the people that in the end will sway public opinion one way or the other as more is know about the climate and is made public knowledge.

Autogenous, I will.

Need broad shoulders though, getting flamed here LOL

Originally Posted by woodbe

What part?

That I expect people to communicate rather than spruik? That we communicate with honour? That we respect other's opinions, and not ride over them in order to score another point for the religion?

woodbe.

Respectfully, i'd suggest that to call others posts "spruiking" is not to communicate with honour nor to respect their opinions - at least thats how its been received here.

I respectfully disagree..

I have not engaged in the AGW debate in this thread. I have responded to one post which in my opinion the response is patently wrong, based on facts that have been agreed in this thread, and I have not offered any AGW opinion.

In response, pharmaboy and rod have not been able to help themselves but respond to let me know how wrong my AGW reasoning is. Repeatedly.

Look through the thread and see how my posts have been met with anti-AGW rhetoric, even when I have repeatedly said and demonstrated I am not debating AGW.

If it's not spruiking, I don't know what it is.

woodbe.

Woodbe what is the point in being so indignant, and point scoring over this. It is unnecessary and not what the thread is all about. Let it go!

Lets just debate the content of the original links I provided. Which no one seems to want to do, wonder why?

Keep it nice kiddies.

Thanks Ian I want to keep it that way. Will take note.

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

Judging by the emails I have recieved lately it has changed the view of some and they are the ones that count.

Originally Posted by woodbe

I respectfully disagree..

I have not engaged in the AGW debate in this thread. I have responded to one post which in my opinion the response is patently wrong, based on facts that have been agreed in this thread, and I have not offered any AGW opinion.

In response, pharmaboy and rod have not been able to help themselves but respond to let me know how wrong my AGW reasoning is. Repeatedly.

seriously - whats the thread about?

I responded to you about arctic ice, and tried (unsuccessfully) to explain how both people were right depending on how you look at it - in keepping with the actual topic of the thread I also wrote a paragraph more generally on AGW - apologies for the crimes against humanity.

Posts on forums are rarely intended for the respondeent only, but more generally for the many who read for their own information or amusement.

You cansafely take the fiirst paragraph after a quote to eb directed at you, but after that your in the rough and tumble of forum discussion.

For the others that read, i hope they get a little of something out of it.

Rod, you're right, I have been indignant.

Allow me to explain, and please don't read any AGW debate into this.

What gets to me about forum debates of 'hot' topics is that people become adept at finding supporting information on google and various other sites. It's easy to do research in this way, because for whatever side of a debate you have adopted, there are literally thousands of parallel debates that have done their own google extractions of suitable material. If you're on a couple of forums you would see a few topics keep popping up that feed the 'research stream'

The outcomes of these debates are never arbitrated at the level that an organised debate would be, so the 'hot' topics quickly descend down into degenerative behaviours (see link) and the winner is usually the person or group of people with the best searching skills and/or the loudest voice. The biggest difference I see between Golding's island and the forum debates is that unlike the hapless Piggy, participants can leave the debate at will, and often do. That leaves behind the stayers, who are practised and expert in their ability to quote the truth at each other usually with many links, and dare each other to refute the claims of their impeccable sources.

The threads rarely die out, they usually die by the moderators axe like 's beautifully mesmerising example, or they reach the forum's post limit and a new thread is started to continue the 'fun'

So I have been playing the beast, and I've rushed through camp and taken the weapons. I'm not aligned with the debate, distracting, and hoping to put a spotlight on the futility of these debates and some of the tactics necessary to 'win' such a contest. I don't claim success but hopefully I made some people think and reflect on it.

I'll stop now if you apologise to Len for stamping over his opinion (just joking)

woodbe

In other words you are a moderator in training woodbe?