New insights into global warming

Deserving I don't suppose you actually meant " "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer"??
Often wrongly attributed to Chinese warlord Sun-tzu (who said, "Know your enemy and know yourself and you will always be victorious") or to "Michael Coreleone" who did say that in the movie, claiming to have been told it by his father Vito. However, the actual origin of the quote is from Machiavelli in "The Prince" which is the definitive primer for how to be a dictator.
But maybe you did mean it the wrong way round.

Keep your enemies close & your friends closer,is very apt I have found.
Ari,"I like your posts Bags" Is a good comment from someone who admits they are not , au fait with the subject but appreciates it. Many (some) said they couldn't follow it, thats ok, but why when it is mentioned do we get,"Patronising, untrue annoyed, agreed and other things that have been deleted,( not as a result of a complaint by me ), I add. My approach is not aggressive but couched in the manner of the replies that I invariably receive from the "playtime' bullies"
My comments to Bags, initially, were that it may not have been obvious which view she had taken, and that, latterly, Only three points of view need be considered. That was sufficient for everyone to express an opinion without resorting to playtime catcalling.
Greatn seems to have taken umbrage for an imagined slight ,(I feel bound to reply to her remarks). She on the other-hand made a very sensible comment Sun 12:57 , it's a pity that messages cross and are not sequential, or even chronological sometimes.
Who would have thought Bags that a post on global warming would attract so much negative, childish attention, well, I would to be honest, I think that there are more private messages flying around than messages that appear on the thread, and I use the word thread very loosely as it invariably, not just wanders off (as I am doing now) but changes completely often taking the appearance of concerted online bullying .
If I may reiterate,I think a lot more investigation is needed to place the blame totally on mans interference, although it has obviously made a difference.

I am sure my friends would be quite amused to be described as acolytes, temporary or otherwise. They tend to be very intelligent and independent and if they don't agree with me they don't scruple to tell me so. I like it that way!

Well there you go !!

That's the same. All the gods had acolytes.

In a non Christian sense , it can mean a follower or attendant !!

One that's not permanent. An acolyte is one who serves eg at an altar.

What's a temporary acolyte?

Earlier in the post I, and one or two others, said that we didn't join certain threads as we didn't know enough, but nevertheless enjoyed them. We do.

I am not "going off on one" as that is not my wont, but need to say that I find your approach aggressive and unnecessary, deserving

It's a person who disagrees with you, perhaps?
I appreciate that it's not one word, but I think you will know what I mean, on this occasion, as will your temporary acolytes .

Now what is the word I am seeking, for somebody who seeks to spread strife on a forum?

I had no doubt that it would work, i did but state the obvious,as has been proven.

See, it works! Several of us are now annoyed!

Agreed!

And patronising.

And untrue!

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Bags,
Don't think your article, as it was more than a thread, was understood by other than a few, and then only partially. Some couldn't understand if you were for or against,or neutral (waiting for more conclusive evidence) they are probably no wiser now. My advice to them is, "If you don't understand, don't comment" If you think you understand by all means contribute. As can be seen you have possibly two outcomes to consider and an "on the fence" position, what could be better than that. No need to ramble off elsewhere, as is the wont lately.
Before you go "off on one" about people telling you if and when you can post. I,m not.Just beating my head against the proverbial wall, awaiting the furore that invariably accompanies any sensible comment, anyone makes.

I follow all your posts on scientific thinking, bags - I rarely comment because I almost always agree with everything you say, or I do not think I am sufficiently knowledgeable to add anything constructive. I am completely torn on the climate change issue and await some more convincing proof from either side. Intuitively, I feel some of it must be down to manmade factors, but then I think of the longer time scale and I waver! I am naturally sceptical about anything that might have some commercial motive and Private Eye has had a few things to say about this subject.

You are not alone, deserving. I've been called a denier too, even though I'm not one. Mike Hulme's description of the reasons for varying amounts of scepticism (which is not the same as denial) on varying points of the current state climate science is very good.

I'm glad you mentioned the black and white approach. Nothing as complicated as global climate can possibly be anything other than grey. Some scientific facts (such as that CO2 is a greenhouse gas) are well known and accepted as facts. Sceptical arguments about issues of climate change problems and what to do about them are about much more complicated things than that simple fact. Some of those more complicated things we are only just beginning to understand.

Healthy scepticism in science is ALWAYS a good thing.

Thanks for the post that was,"particularly" for me. I appear to be completely on my own, again. It is apparent that some will never agree with me, my black will always be your white,
However amongst the scientists themselves some disagreement is prevalent, if you read the full account Bags first introduced us to, you will see that many of the calculations were made on suspect data. That is not to say that I agree entirely with one or the other theories, I will not be around long enough to see the outcome.Funny you quote the antarctic where the ice is in fact increasing, methinks the change in the tilt of the earth may have had some part to play in the climate changes we seem to be obsessed with.It was not taken into account when calculating "monthly" (would you credit it)? temperatures. To quote June temps in the middle ages and then note the difference with the temps now, (or last year) is ludicrous.We don't have sufficient data to be specific, our scale is far to small to be accurate. That is not to say that a change is taking place, that we should ignore it is problematical. That we should do something practical about it is even more of a problem.
Who to blame next, or most, seems to be uppermost, (a bit like GN) Blame the car drivers, although ruminants give out more gasses, forget the amount of forests that are being ,often illegally, felled.Appearances are everything, Blair committed us to a ridiculous reduction in emissions, (to look good again) that have put us at a great disadvantage, and the non-observence of others , and the offsetting make it all laughable.
Anyway, my son agrees with me, and I trust him, so that's all right then.

jings darling: Mwah!

Another quick for Bags!

Bags denies everything.

Oh!!! I see what you mean about floating balloons and letting people take pot shots at them!!! Very good.