Climate Change

[Nom De Plume]

Fe fi fo fum,
I smell the stench of a bogan's bum.
The sources he used, have not been provided
'Nor will they' he farts, as his arse is stretched wider.

I accept your defeat Bogan.

[brian ross]

Bogan, answer the question. It is not a hard question. Nom is not on "my side". She, like me, has standards in debate, standards you don't seem to care about. Time to pay up or shut up.

[Black Orchid]

"Tsk tsk", "yawn", "you are a blah blah", "go play in the mud" are pretty low standards of 'debate', Brian.

[brian ross]

"Tsk tsk", "yawn", "you are a blah blah", "go play in the mud" are pretty low standards of 'debate', Brian.

I suppose I could adopt the Billy standard of debate and call everybody names and use foul language. Or the Mechanic or Cereal Brain standard of debate and call everybody liars, hey, Black Orchid? Or I could adopt your standard of debate and just praise the Tories to the roof and criticise the mysterious "left" for whatever they have done which annoys you? Oh, and defending the indefensible. Yeah, that'd really further debate, now wouldn't it? I use those points because they annoy my opponents and because while rude, they are to the point without using foul language. You'll also note I've basically stopped using most of them for some time 'cause of criticism. I will return to using them if that is what you want me to. Do you?

[Black Orchid]

"Tsk tsk", "yawn", "you are a blah blah", "go play in the mud" are pretty low standards of 'debate', Brian.

I suppose I could adopt the Billy standard of debate and call everybody names and use foul language. Or the Mechanic or Cereal Brain standard of debate and call everybody liars, hey, Black Orchid? Or I could adopt your standard of debate and just praise the Tories to the roof and criticise the mysterious "left" for whatever they have done which annoys you? Oh, and defending the indefensible. Yeah, that'd really further debate, now wouldn't it? I use those points because they annoy my opponents and because while rude, they are to the point without using foul language. You'll also note I've basically stopped using most of them for some time 'cause of criticism. I will return to using them if that is what you want me to. Do you?

Do what YOU want Brian I don't control you as only you can do that but, if you do, don't expect anything less in return.

Rudeness will incur either one of two things. It is either ignored or returned.

As for your 'Tory' rubbish ... (fill in the blank yourself).

[brian ross]

So, then, Black Orchid, tell me, how am I to return comments from Billy/Bogan/Mechanic/Cereal/you/Cods/Neferti/Reboot? I give as good as I get. Invariably in response to the usual load of ad hominem debate that lot turn out. I do it pointedly to show just how childish they are.

[Bogan]

You could try submitting a reasoned argument as to why you hold the views you do. You could answer the questions I have asked you to answer. Are you wiling to try now?

OK Question 1. According to your own submitted graph which you claim proves that rising CO2 levels causes rising temperatures, how do you account for the fact that both the temperatures and CO2 levels fall in unison with each other? Your theory claims that CO2 causes temps to rise, but once they start rising they can't stop. Rising CO2 causes rising temps, which causes the warming oceans to release more CO2, which causes rising temps, a runaway greenhouse effect. Therefore, your premise that CO2 causes temps to rise must be false, isn't it?

Question 2. If CO2 causes temps to rise, that is, if CO2 drives temperatures, then what causes CO2 levels to suddenly drop causing the temperature to drop? You can't answer that one either, can you? So, unless you can figure out an explanations, you must concede that temperature drives CO2 levels, not the other way around.

[Bogan]

You could try submitting a reasoned argument as to why you hold the views you do. You could answer the questions I have asked you to answer. Are you wiling to try now?

OK Question 1. According to your own submitted graph which you claim proves that rising CO2 levels causes rising temperatures, how do you account for the fact that both the temperatures and CO2 levels fall in unison with each other? Your theory claims that CO2 causes temps to rise, but once they start rising they can't stop. Rising CO2 causes rising temps, which causes the warming oceans to release more CO2, which causes rising temps, a runaway greenhouse effect. Therefore, your premise that CO2 causes temps to rise must be false, isn't it?

Question 2. If CO2 causes temps to rise, that is, if CO2 drives temperatures, then what causes CO2 levels to suddenly drop causing the temperature to drop? You can't answer that one either, can you? So, unless you can figure out an explanations, you must concede that temperature drives CO2 levels, not the other way around.

[brian ross]

Bogan, answer Nom's question. It is not a hard question. Time to pay up or shut up.

[Bogan]

Easy. Look up Photos CO2 vs temperature. Then refine with 600 million years, 100 million years. 10 million years. 1 million years. 100,000 years. 10,000 years.

Now you.