Epiphanies Climate Change Denial: The Easy Life

I left a comment at http://gpwayne.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/climate-change-denial-the-easy-life/

This guy seems thoroughly opinionated but does not have much in the way of facts. His reply, if he can manage one should be interesting.

Well I have to say, this guy ran from the facts like a dog with his tail between his legs. In my opinion he is an absolute fraud.

This brings to zero to the grand total of “ALARMIST”  type people who cannot face any facts!

Graham,

If able to endure serious threats your “faith” by joining in a factual debate with me, you are more than welcome.

I say “faith” because I notice the essay above does not refer to one scientific paper or any other expert opinion in support of the many sweeping statements and narrow opinions.

You are welcome to visit my blog  http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com and consider the facts there. I make no apology for the opening political lampooning though.
The referenced facts point out some of the terrible flaws in the unproven “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis.
I look forward to your logical and well structures comment

Cheers

Roger

ps. As usual I will be posting this comment and your answers on http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com under the title of your blog.

gpwayne said 3 hours ago:

Well Roger, this post addresses sociological aspects of the debate, which is why there is no reference to the science of climate change. I stick to one subject at a time. And if you want to debate, here’s as good a place as any – you could have started that debate since you were here, instead of just plugging your own blog.

Graham,

As usual in spite of many attempts, I once again have got a cop-out or nonsense reply out of someone such as yourself.
As soon it comes down to why someone such as yourself believes in the unproven “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global warming” hypothesis, a hasty retreat in avoiding facts is made one way or the other.

I take issue with you that your post is not about the science of climate change as you mention the word “fact” about 8 times in context of climate change, you mention the word “denier” 13 times-generally in the context of a person who does not know the facts.

So I will add your answer to my blog at http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com as another ALARMIST who has no understanding of any relevant scientific facts, yet preaches world destruction and has no tolerance for the real truth.

My readers will see you for what you are-which is someone with a misplaced faith and no facts, knowledge or understanding of the beliefs that you so arrogantly espouse.

Cheers

Roger

  

Take issue with what you like. I’m singularly unimpressed by your attempts to advertise your own blog at my expense, and further references to it will be edited out of future posts.
As for your readers, they will see what they choose. If they want to know anything about climate science, just point them in this direction.

One other thing – I have zero tolerance for crap, so if you post any more nonsense, you can expect it to be removed. This is not the playground, and childish baiting and name calling are inappropriate here.

BYRON SMITH says

Roger,

It is generally considered to be fairly rude to post a comment whose primary aim is to direct readers to your own site.

By the way  here’s what you said over at your blog in a comment:
In my case I never junk comments unless they are name calling, obscene or possibly over repetitive.
Graham would be well within his rights to junk your comment since you have started name calling within two posts.

Thank you for your reply,

However, my comments are not intended as blatant attempts to advertise my own site, but rather, as I have clearly stated, to explore how much your beliefs are based on facts. Considering the volume of your verbiage and NAME CALLING of people who do not ascribe to your view, one would reasonably expect that you would have a lot to say for yourself.

Instead, and I have to say this is showing to be typical of people such as yourself, you are avoiding a confrontation of the facts.
I can understand that though, because my belief and understanding IS based on verifiable facts so you are perhaps sensible to avoid such a confrontation.

To some extent I apologise for any name calling, but if you have no facts behind your proselytism, you can be nothing else but an ALARMIST.
this is especially true as I am definitely giving you a chance to discuss whatever facts you may have.

Byron,

As I mentioned above, Graham engages in name calling regularly in his above post (I count 13 times). I would not dream of categorizing anyone in that way unless I have got some insite into the way he/she has come to their conclusions.
I have got an insite into Grahams basis for his writing, and it appears to me that in his case, it is particularly weak, hence the categorizing is accurate in this case.

If you are interested in discussing the basis of your opinions, I would be very happy to discuss facts with you as well.

Cheers

Roger

Cheers

Roger

Thing is Roger, all you’ve done so far is complain about style – name calling and the rest. You haven’t actually raised a single issue, rebutted a single point or refuted any part of my analysis. I invited you in my first response to discuss anything you took issue with, and you have notably failed to do so.

All you have done so far is slight me, attempt to attribute views to me, called me names and attacked my intelligence, my understanding of science and my honesty. Frankly, none of your posts have made any kind of substantive contribution. Perhaps you’d like to try being constructive instead of self-important, judgemental and sanctimonious?

Graham,

What you say is definitely not the case.

I have repeatedly invited you to show me the basis of the sweeping implications you make in your post.
I have offered to listen to the facts and evidence upon which you base these conclusions and the offer to explain the facts in my blog which disagree with your conclusions, and so far you have showm a distinct reluctance to take up my offer. Actually it is probably better described as a refusal.
Now what am I expected to conclude if you cannot even find it in yourself to even find one fact to share with me and the readers that justifies your faith in the unproven “anthropogenic co2 causes global warming” hypothesis?
Well the obvious one is that you have no facts to support your conclusions and therefore you are a fraud.
I am still inviting you to change my opinion but so far you have not done well.

Cheers

Roger

The above comment was spammed and replaced/answered by the following.

gpwayne said 10 hours ago:

Warning: Further foolish posts will be deleted on sight. You were warned, so if you want to bitch about it, do it somewhere else.

Graham,

No worries, a full text of our conversation and your “non answers” has been posted at http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com and my readers will be able to judge you for the fraud you are.

In the meantime I suggest you search your concience for your part in promoting the AGW fraud.
Basically all you are doing is scaring children old ladies and weak minded people and giving politicians an excuse to tax us more for no good reason.
If your intention is to help save the planet, you are failing and actually helping divert resources away from the real needs of our home.

Sleep well tonight if you can.

Cheers

Roger

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: