Forums
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Larry's Codpiece.
20 Dec 09 00:23
Joined:
Date Joined: 03 Dec 06
| Topic/replies: 1,297 | Blogger: Larry's Codpiece.'s blog
We all know that the real climate changers are angry people. Not the nudge and wink merchants who see an opportunity to make or take money. For them climate change is no more important than a packet of soap powder.

I'm talking about the real deal. You know the ones. A bit swivel eyed and barely just this side of outright lunacy. Have you noticed how angry they become when their little religion is questioned? I think I have worked it out. They belong to a cult and you know the passion which cultists possess for the object of their fixation.

So why are they so angry?

They know that deep down the vast majority of people don't really believe them. Imagine if most people weren't paying lip service to this notion of MMGW. Imagine if they really believed it to be true. There would be absolute and total pandemonium. The fact is that we don't believe and this as it is for many cults is what makes them so angry.

They know that deep down we pity them. They know that deep down we see them as fools. They know that deep down their lifes work will come to naught.

Imagine if you were faced with that realisation every day and the realisation that you were being patronised and used to such an extent.

Wouldn't that make you angry?
Pause Switch to Standard View Why climate changers are so angry......
Show More
Loading...
Report sibaroni December 20, 2009 1:53 AM GMT
They have been persuasive enough to force something like 200 world leaders to meet. Hardly being ignored, are they.
Report Compound Magic December 20, 2009 1:59 AM GMT
Brings to mind the philosopher Thoreau who said ~
"The mass of men lead lives of quite desperation"

They feel they must be part of something, they want a say, they are begging to be heard.

Using the philosopher Socrates Method in questioning these warmists you don't get to far
before reducing them blithering idiots.

These people refuse to question the veracity of what is spruiked.
Report ribber December 20, 2009 6:42 AM GMT
Larry, you could insert 'denier' between 'climate' and 'change' in your post, and it would make as much, if not more, sense.
Report ribber December 20, 2009 6:44 AM GMT
*sorry, that should of course be insert 'denier' after 'climate' and 'change'
Report Arsenal Oldie December 20, 2009 8:15 AM GMT
The denier word usage is clever.

A scientology denier
A flat earth denier
A creationist denier
and a man made climate change denier

are all just non gullible people.
Report wur December 20, 2009 9:06 AM GMT
The Rio Earth Summit, Kyoto and Copenhagen were held because climate scientists throughout the world have alerted politicians to the dire consequences of greenhouse gas induced global warming. I hope you find this information helpful.
Report alfie255 December 20, 2009 9:07 AM GMT
The vast majority of people don't believe in climate change....evidence please?
Report wur December 20, 2009 9:21 AM GMT
He doesn't have any evidence. As usual, the opposite is true.


The percentage of Americans who believe global warming is happening has dipped from 80 to 72 percent in the past year, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, even as a majority still support a national cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

This Story
Fewer Americans believe in global warming, poll shows
Poll data
Debate the Climate Panel: Did hacked e-mails expose skeptics or scientists?
New doubts on warming, but most favor action
View All Items in This Story
View Only Top Items in This Story
The poll's findings -- which also show that 55 percent of respondents think the United States should curb its carbon output even if major developing nations such as China and India do less -- suggest increasing political polarization around the issue, just as the Obama administration and congressional Democrats are intensifying efforts to pass climate legislation and broker an international global warming pact.

The increase in climate skepticism is driven largely by a shift within the GOP. Since its peak 3 1/2 years ago, belief that climate change is happening is down sharply among Republicans -- 76 to 54 percent -- and independents -- 86 to 71 percent. It dipped more modestly among Democrats, from 92 to 86 percent. A majority of respondents still support legislation to cap emissions and trade pollution allowances, by 53 to 42 percent.

Report caleyjags December 20, 2009 9:38 AM GMT
It's great how Man Made global warming turns into climate change or just global warming whenever polls get quoted.
Report Arsenal Oldie December 20, 2009 9:40 AM GMT
correct caleyjags.

in fact unless you believe that the world's temperature is permanently static, you have to answer yes to the question

do you believe in climate change?
Report alfie255 December 20, 2009 10:11 AM GMT
The phrase climate change had to be coined because of cretins getting confused about the consequences of global warming.
Report kkkatt December 20, 2009 11:28 AM GMT
"the increase in climate skepticism is driven by a shift within the GOP"........try the weather...........today for example washington broke a 1932 december snowfall record with 40 cm and with more snow forecast it is set to be the biggest snowfall to hit the capital since records began in 1885. in the current era of hockey stick global warming you might have thought the opposite would be the case.
Report wur December 20, 2009 11:30 AM GMT
Not at all. It's late December. More warming = more water evaporating from oceans = more rainfall in summer and more snowfall in winter.
Report sibaroni December 20, 2009 11:42 AM GMT
I get the distinct impression that it is the sceptics who are angry, personally.
Report Iwantyourmoney December 20, 2009 11:43 AM GMT
That is why they changed the name from GW to CC.

They realised that their fantasy could be exposed so they changed the name.

So if there is a warmer winter they shout 'Climate change'

If they have a colder winter they shout 'Climate change'

If there is a flood anywhere, guess what? yes you are right.....

A far amount of people who go on these CC protests in this country were on the poll tax marches. These utter plonkers got NuLiars in and guess what??? Council Tax shot up.

These people then went on demos about the War in Iraq, but they were the ones who got nulairs in in the first place.

They are complete morons. That is why Doc J is a laughing stock on this forum.

:( :(

These lot are the same lot who cause the vioilence in the facist 'anti-facists' demos.

They need to wakre up, go to the supermarket and buy some soap.

:) :)
Report sibaroni December 20, 2009 11:46 AM GMT
see what I mean.
Report Iwantyourmoney December 20, 2009 11:47 AM GMT
sceptics who are angry, personally.

That is a fair point.

Yes I am angry that such gullibility has taken over the population and that our governments are handing out more money to African dictators, encouraging over population and supporting Nuclear arms in India

:( :(
Report Iwantyourmoney December 20, 2009 11:48 AM GMT
What is the lib dumb policy on handouts to India?

Do the lib dumbs support such a policy?

;) ;)
Report Larry's Codpiece. December 20, 2009 11:52 AM GMT
So if there is to be more rain in summer and more snow in winter where is the global warming going to come from?

Of course if we have a scorcher next summer wur will be on to tell us it is yet further evidence of MMGW. Summer rain will be but a distant memory unless of course we have heavy rain in which case it will be yet further evidence of MMGW.

Like I said. A cult and by turns an angry and condescending one at that. Whatever the weather it is evidence of their theory but like all cults they get real nasty if you confront them with evidence against their theory.

CO2 levels never higher than recently. Nearly everybody, instead of a handful of Europeans, industrialising at great pace and yet temperatures have dropped. Their answer? Not a statistically long enough period. One wonders why such profound changes could produce a decade of cooling but this is their only answer. Ask them what would be a long enough period and you can't help feeling that the real answer would be long enough to show global warming.

There is always jam tomorrow. Next year will be warmer. Or the one after. Or the one after that. What a con.
Report wur December 20, 2009 12:36 PM GMT
No, I'm not stupid enough to think that a warm summer in the U.K. next year would be evidence of global warming.

But when you get a series of very hot, dry summers across Europe, resulting in unprecedented numbers of heat related deaths and record areas of countryside devastated by wildfires, that is consistent with the warnings scientists have been giving us for the past 20 odd years.

There will also be more record breaking flood events, more droughts, more record breaking hurricane seasons, like the Atlantic 2005 season, more devastation of northern forests by wood boring beetles whose numbers are usually checked by very cold winters, spread of tropical diseases into areas where people have less genetic immunity, more famines, more environmental refugees and, in the long term, inundation of coastal areas due to sea level rise.

When the environmental refugees come knocking on the door, I'll leave it to you to explain to them that it's all a big con trick.
Report grendel December 20, 2009 12:46 PM GMT
omg wur ... you got it bad mate !
Report wur December 20, 2009 12:49 PM GMT
Me and about 20,000 climate scientists.
Report Dr J December 20, 2009 12:54 PM GMT
Seems like all the anger on this thread is coming from LC.

Chill out, old boy - tis the season to be merry, not railing unconvincingly against others.
Report grendel December 20, 2009 12:57 PM GMT
i would deem wur's outbursts more angst-ridden than LC's Mr J !
Report paradox and equilibrium December 20, 2009 2:09 PM GMT
wur 20 Dec 10:06
The Rio Earth Summit, Kyoto and Copenhagen were held because climate scientists throughout the world have alerted politicians to the dire consequences of greenhouse gas induced global warming. I hope you find this information helpful.

Scienticians would be a more apt title, in a Simpsonesque sort of way.

Bought and paid for opinions from dependant lackies.

Some of us DON'T suffer from the "Men in white Coats" syndrome.

Hope this Helps. :D
Report Larry's Codpiece. December 20, 2009 2:11 PM GMT
Dr J

I'm not in the least angry. If I gave a tuppeny fart about your little climate change cult I may for the briefest moment feel a little sorry that you are wasting your life. Then again it would only be brief because with the kind of character you seem to be if your heart wasn't bleeding over climate change you would find some other cause celebre to rant an rave about.
Report sibaroni December 20, 2009 2:22 PM GMT
it doesn't seem to be him ranting, if I might be so bold to say.
Report gus December 20, 2009 2:30 PM GMT
Surely you should know the formulae by now:

"I disagree with Larry's Codpiece." = ranting

"I think Larry's Codpiece may be mistaken" = chip on your shoulder

"Larry's Codpiece is wrong" = **** you, you ******* lump of ****.

:)
Report Larry's Codpiece. December 20, 2009 2:31 PM GMT
gus

What's up? Christmas bonus not arrived this year?
Report Ghostdog December 20, 2009 3:28 PM GMT
So if there is to be more rain in summer and more snow in winter where is the global warming going to come from?

pmsl. Whole thread is hilarious.

All over the internet the deniers are FOAMING WITH RAGE. And it's the mainstream science backers that are supposed to be irrational.

Priceless.
Report Larry's Codpiece. December 20, 2009 5:26 PM GMT
Ghostdog

We haven't got time to foan with rage. We are too busy laughing at you mugs.
Report Arsenal Oldie December 20, 2009 7:26 PM GMT
The denier word usage is clever.

A scientology denier
A flat earth denier
A creationist denier
and a man made climate change denier

are all just non gullible people.
Report Manchild December 20, 2009 7:31 PM GMT
That is a powerful and persuasive argument, AO. In history, some people have been wrong, therefore I must be right this time.

Congratulate yourself on your education. Well done.
Report Larry's Codpiece. December 20, 2009 7:42 PM GMT
Methinks Manchild is developing a bit of an obsession on this subject.

Haven't you got a couple of t1ts to play with? I hear Nearctic and Dr J are usually free on a Sunday evening.
Report Manchild December 20, 2009 7:45 PM GMT
And it is clear that you are.....
Report Larry's Codpiece. December 20, 2009 7:47 PM GMT
A love god?
Report Manchild December 20, 2009 7:52 PM GMT
More of a t1t, I was thinking............
Report Arsenal Oldie December 20, 2009 8:04 PM GMT
Manchild - my point is that the word denier is cleverly used to describe non believers by believers to validate their own idiotic claims. Atheists are God deniers, but it doesn't make them wrong.

Also no one denies climate change - the climate changes every day - the questions are:

1) is there a meaningful statistically significant dangerous trend in the climate?
2) if there is one, can it be proved that it is caused by man?

ps if your education is superior to mine, I'd be very surprised... ;-)
Report Manchild December 20, 2009 8:19 PM GMT
Also no one denies climate change - the climate changes every day - the questions are:

1) is there a meaningful statistically significant dangerous trend in the climate?
Well, I would suggest that a trend that creates a sea-level rise that destroys vast tracts of land is meaningfully significant. And also one that renders much of the globe agriculturally useless over time.

2) if there is one, can it be proved that it is caused by man? Does it matter? I mean - do you know of another planet that we can realistically switch to around here? We need to be able to adjust to the changes and mitigate them where possible and practical.

ps if your education is superior to mine, I'd be very surprised... Excellent - a man who has learned enough. Just what we need for a meaningful debate. If you are so schooled, you would know that it is more important to know how to use the information that you discover, rather than just to compare boy-scout badges.
Report slimfast December 20, 2009 8:27 PM GMT
Manchild 20 Dec 21:19


Also no one denies climate change - the climate changes every day - the questions are:

1) is there a meaningful statistically significant dangerous trend in the climate? Well, I would suggest that a trend that creates a sea-level rise that destroys vast tracts of land is meaningfully significant. And also one that renders much of the globe agriculturally useless over time.

2) if there is one, can it be proved that it is caused by man? Does it matter? I mean - do you know of another planet that we can realistically switch to around here? We need to be able to adjust to the changes and mitigate them where possible and practical.



1) these changes have happened before. Sea levels rise and fall, that's earth for you.

2) no we don't need to move to another planet, we just need to learn how to cope with this one.

So we have recently discovered that the planet's climate changes over time. Are you suggesting we should ** the earth so that the climate always remains the same? Why?
Report Manchild December 20, 2009 8:34 PM GMT
1) these changes have happened before. Sea levels rise and fall, that's earth for you.
Agreed. Except normally changes take much longer to become noticeable. Do you seriously suggest that man has had no impact over the last 60 years?

2) no we don't need to move to another planet, we just need to learn how to cope with this one.
Agreed again. And we will have to cope with the rapid changes. That coping may well involve rather radical behavioural changes by all too. Welcome to the responsible world.

So we have recently discovered that the planet's climate changes over time. Are you suggesting we should ** the earth so that the climate always remains the same? Why? No, we should work with the Earth rather than to try to control it.
Report slimfast December 20, 2009 8:44 PM GMT
1) these changes have happened before. Sea levels rise and fall, that's earth for you.
Agreed. Except normally changes take much longer to become noticeable.


How do you know changes take much longer to become noticeable? How many past lives have you lived?
We have 200 years of climate data. The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. How can you possibly draw definitive conclusions on such skimpy evidence?
Report Manchild December 20, 2009 8:50 PM GMT
A good point. We have only clues as to the actual temperatures of the past - but we do have an idea of the temperature-sensitive fauna and flora that have been able to live through fossil records.

Let this information be studied and debated. It can not lie and has no secret agenda for-or-against industrialisation.
Report slimfast December 20, 2009 9:15 PM GMT
Let this information be studied and debated. It can not lie and has no secret agenda for-or-against industrialisation.

Hear hear. By all means we should catologue and study this information. But let's not go jumping to conclusions.
And lets recognise the fact it is going to be 1000s of years before we can draw meaningful conclusions from the data.
Report Dr J December 21, 2009 9:58 AM GMT
I'm not in the least angry. If I gave a tuppeny fart about your little climate change cult I may for the briefest moment feel a little sorry that you are wasting your life.

Why do you post on the topic so much please, EO?

You love starting these threads that contain no new points but rather attempt to bait those of us you perceive as the 'opposition'. Very curious behaviour for one who doesn't give a 'tupenny fart', imo.

gus 20 Dec 15:30

Surely you should know the formulae by now:

"I disagree with Larry's Codpiece." = ranting

"I think Larry's Codpiece may be mistaken" = chip on your shoulder

"Larry's Codpiece is wrong" = **** you, you ******* lump of ****.


:D, gus.
Report Trevh December 23, 2009 7:05 PM GMT
wur 20 Dec 12:30


Not at all. It's late December. More warming = more water evaporating from oceans = more rainfall in summer and more snowfall in winter.

Read that again and seriously ask yourself if your logic is floundering. Do you really believe warmer temperatures will result in icier winters? If you do, it shows that you truly truly believe, which means your heart may well be in the right place but I'm afraid you haven't studied the science. No amount of debate will change your faith.

We're currently witnessing record breaking snowfalls in Eastern USA, and near record breaking low temperatures all around Europe, and that's unprecedented as early as December.
Report Ivor December 23, 2009 7:15 PM GMT
How are the average temperatures xmas faring please?
Report Lozzy December 23, 2009 7:26 PM GMT
They are angry like religious fanatics are angry. Cos they believe something they cannot prove.
Report Trevh December 23, 2009 9:46 PM GMT
Ivor 23 Dec 20:15


How are the average temperatures xmas faring please?


From what I gather Ivor, xmas day could see rain sleet or snow showers. Not much help then!
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com