AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers

[RollingThunder]

You support prosecuting people for having a difference of opinion. That's pure National Socialism. We defeated you people during WW2.

Nope! Wrong again, little retard!

I support prosecuting people like the Koch brothers and certain fossil fuel industry executives for deliberately and knowingly trying to fraudulently deceive the public and Congress about the global warming effects of the massive amounts of CO2 that their products were putting into the Earth's atmosphere, even after their own scientists had warned them of the dangers that excess CO2 posed to humanity and the Earth's biosphere.....and for doing it for greed, because they realized that any effective steps by world governments to restrict carbon emissions would also tank their profits and stock prices.

You just proved my point...LMAO

Nope! Wrong again, little retard.

I just further debunked your demented drivel.

You are just too retarded and insane to comprehend the fact that your denier cult propaganda bullshit is fraudulent twaddle, you poor sad victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

propaganda bullshit is fraudulent

Well, of course the demented twaddle you post is "fraudulent propaganda bullshit", JustCrazy....we all knew that already. you scrape pseudo-science and lies written by non-scientists who stooge for the Koch brothers or EXXON, off of astroturfed denier cult blogs.....and hilariously expect people to fall for that transparently insane nonsense. You are a hoot!

fraudulent? how is it fraudulent? what the hell is your problem blunder?

LOLOLOL. Oh no.....WildBullKrap's ridiculous and fraudulent OP got debunked in post #4...and now he and one of his fellow denier cult retards, JustCrazy, have gone into a full-on anti-science, reality-denying, 'Obamazafascist-nutbagger' spaz-out....

The AG said: "that the Justice Department has discussed taking civil legal action against the fossil fuel industry."

Your fossil fuel industry sponsored rightwingnut propaganda outlet, 'The Blazing Retards', spun that into: "Justice Dept. Has Discussed Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers"

Is 'the fossil fuel industry' equal to 'the climate change deniers'?...in your demented denier cult world-view?....do you actually admit that fact to yourselves???....or do some of you denier cult trolls just totally identify with 'the fossil fuel industry' because you actually work for them, or just insanely stooge for them for the sake of your crackpot rightwingnut ideologies??????

Has any Attorney General, on any level, State or Federal, or any other Government Official, ANYWHERE, EVER, called for the prosecution of ordinary people who simply say something denying the reality of human caused global warming? ...... OF COURSE NOT, YOU FLAMING RETARDS!!!

They are considering legal actions against fossil fuel industry executives, very similar to the actions taken against tobacco company executives who were found, though their own internal company documents and memos, to have conspired to deceive the public about the very real and, even at that time, well documented and researched medical evidence that smoking tobacco was very hazardous to people's health.....and doing that for the sake of corporate profits and their own greed. People died unnecessarily because of those tobacco executives' conspiracies and actions......a lot more people are going to die because of the actions and conspiracies and propaganda campaigns of the fossil fuel executives and billionaire owners to deceive people about the reality and dangers of AGW/CC in order to delay any effective action on restricting carbon emissions....again for the sake of corporate profits and stock prices, and their own greed.

The U.S. Government's racketeering case against Big Tobacco

THE GOVERNMENT'S CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

Exxons Climate Cover-Up Should Be Investigated By DOJ, Tobacco Prosecutor Says

Were not the ones hiding our work, data and methods...

Nope! You are the ones hiding your heads in your rectums so you can deny the scientific facts confirming the reality and dangers of human caused global warming and its consequent climate disruptions and changes.

I say bring it on..Discovery is going to be rather interesting and enlightening as well.. Exposing the libtards pseudoscience will be a eye opener for the general public. When the court finds the law suit frivolous and intentionally deceiving the court (perjury) by the alarmists is shown there will be whole new round or criminal proceedings. IT wont end well for the alarmists who have no facts and fraudulent science as their backing.

Your demented fantasies and delusions are always hilarious, Boober, and your ignorance and insanity seem boundless...

Totally hilarious how you and the rightwingnut propaganda rag you cite here, 'The Blazing Retards', both equates the "fossil fuel industry" to "climate change deniers"....which is true, in a way, since the fossil fuel industry created and finances and controls the AGW denial movement and writes most of their fraudulent propaganda.....

....and also deceitfully tries to conflate the greedy fossil fuel industry executives -- who the AG was specifically referring to as being being under consideration for possible legal action, who knowingly misled the public and their shareholders, starting several decades ago, about the very real dangers of CO2 driven global warming and its consequent climate changes caused by their products, and who are now the targets of various state and federal investigations....and who are will probably eventually be tried for 'Crimes Against Humanity'....(as they should be!) -- with the ordinary run-of-the-mill, very ignorant, somewhat retarded, anti-science rightwingnut dupes, like you, WildBullKrap, who have been conned and bamboozled into denying the obvious, scientifically confirmed reality of AGW/CC that most sane people can clearly see, and dementedly upholding corporate profits over the welfare of the human race.....BUT who are not at all the target of the possible legal actions that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was referring to in her testimony to Congress....as she very plainly said. YOUR PUPPETMASTERS ARE TRYING TO FRIGHTEN YOU DENIER CULT CLOWNS by twisting the meaning of the information they're citing - they're doing it right in front of your eyes - and you are too dense to see it. LOL. That's hilarious!

First, you shoot the messenger, then you support government prosecution of people who don't buy into the global warming bullshit...lol

Can you imagine what you sound like?

I debunked your idiotic propaganda neme OP in post #4. You are apparently much too stupid to understand how you are being duped, even though I spelled it out for you, fool.

No one is talking about prosecuting you dumbass bamboozled denier cult dimwits for your brainwashed denial of science and reality. They are considering going after the greedheads in the fossil fuel industry whose own scientists had warned them about CO2 driven global warming decades ago but who chose to finance anti-science denialist propaganda campaigns and astroturfed 'think tanks' and foundations as propaganda outlets.

Exxon Mobil on Hot Seat for Global Warming Denial
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman subpoenaed the oil and gas giant Wednesday evening.
U.S. News and World Report
By Alan Neuhauser
Nov. 5, 2015
(excerpts)
The New York attorney general has launched an investigation into Exxon Mobil to determine whether the country's largest oil and gas company lied to investors about how global warming could hurt its balance sheets and also hid the risks posed by climate change from the public.

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman issued a subpoena to Exxon Mobil on Wednesday night seeking financial records, internal communications, climate studies, advertising materials and other documents, an official in the attorney general's office familiar with the investigation confirmed Thursday.

The probe spans two areas of the law: consumer protection – whether Exxon Mobil engaged in deceptive or misleading business practices – and New York's fraud and securities law, known as the Martin Act, according to the official, who was not authorized to speak on the record.

Peabody Energy, the nation's largest coal producer, has also been under investigation for the past two years.

The dual investigations were first reported by The New York Times.

Schneiderman's subpoena comes just weeks after a probe by InsideClimate News revealed that despite Exxon funneling millions of dollars in past decades to advocacy groups to obscure how burning oil, gas and coal warms the environment, it had once been a global leader in climate change research.

As early as 1977 – roughly a decade before researcher James Hansen testified before Congress to alert the world to the dangers of climate change – a senior company scientist warned executives that "there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," InsideClimate News reported.

Schneiderman's office began scrutinizing Exxon Mobil as early as last year, the office official tells U.S. News.

In the weeks since the debut of the InsideClimate package – which was followed shortly by another expose by the Los Angeles Times – the hashtag #ExxonKnew has been a trending topic on Twitter.

Schneiderman's subpoena could mark the opening salvo in a far broader effort by states to examine what fossil fuel companies knew about man-made climate change, when they knew it and what they may have done to hide its dangers from the public to protect company profits – a campaign that may resemble others that elicited billions of settlement dollars from tobacco companies. (Many of the same marketing figures who worked for the tobacco companies reportedly have more recently found work with climate-denial groups.)

Private lawsuits aimed at holding companies liable for damage they've caused to the world's climate have met with little success.

"New York's attorney general has shown great courage in holding to account arguably the richest and most powerful company on Earth," Bill McKibben, co-founder of the environmental group 350.org, said in a statement. "We hope that other state attorney general and the federal Department of Justice, and the Securities [and] Exchange Commission, will show similar fortitude."

Imagine that.. Liberals wanting to use an illegal act, under the US Constitution, to promote their crap.. Discovery will be very enlightening.. They will try to do as Michael Mann is doing now to end run discovery.. I'm in awe that our current DOJ Bimbo is where she is at. This clearly violates the US Constitution.

Too bad you're so ignorant and crazy, Boobles. You live in your own little rightwingnut fantasy world. You have no idea what is going on. And your knowledge and understanding of US law and our Constitution is, as usual, beyond just totally ignorant and out into the ozone of false beliefs, misinformation and the outright lies that you have been fed. You are completely clueless!

 

[RollingThunder]

Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified Wednesday that the Justice Department has “discussed” taking civil legal action against the fossil fuel industry for “denying” the “threat of carbon emissions”
toiletpaper://ww.theblaze.com/AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers

Totally hilarious how you and the rightwingnut propaganda rag you cite here, 'The Blazing Retards', both equates the "fossil fuel industry" to "climate change deniers"....which is true, in a way, since the fossil fuel industry created and finances and controls the AGW denial movement and writes most of their fraudulent propaganda.....

....and also deceitfully tries to conflate the greedy fossil fuel industry executives -- who the AG was specifically referring to as being being under consideration for possible legal action, who knowingly misled the public and their shareholders, starting several decades ago, about the very real dangers of CO2 driven global warming and its consequent climate changes caused by their products, and who are now the targets of various state and federal investigations....and who are will probably eventually be tried for 'Crimes Against Humanity'....(as they should be!) -- with the ordinary run-of-the-mill, very ignorant, somewhat retarded, anti-science rightwingnut dupes, like you, WildBullKrap, who have been conned and bamboozled into denying the obvious, scientifically confirmed reality of AGW/CC that most sane people can clearly see, and dementedly upholding corporate profits over the welfare of the human race.....BUT who are not at all the target of the possible legal actions that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was referring to in her testimony to Congress....as she very plainly said. YOUR PUPPETMASTERS ARE TRYING TO FRIGHTEN YOU DENIER CULT CLOWNS by twisting the meaning of the information they're citing - they're doing it right in front of your eyes - and you are too dense to see it. LOL. That's hilarious!

There is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 produced by human activity has caused or will ever cause deleterious global warming in the foreseeable future.

That's the fact of the matter.

There is the science-denying, reality-denying utter insanity of the hard-core denier cult fanatic....laid bare for all to see.

Actually, it's pretty hilarious to watch retards like ol' MuhMuhMuh squirm and twist as reality bitch-slaps them again and again......

 

[Billy_Bob]

You support prosecuting people for having a difference of opinion. That's pure National Socialism. We defeated you people during WW2.

Nope! Wrong again, little retard!

I support prosecuting people like the Koch brothers and certain fossil fuel industry executives for deliberately and knowingly trying to fraudulently deceive the public and Congress about the global warming effects of the massive amounts of CO2 that their products were putting into the Earth's atmosphere, even after their own scientists had warned them of the dangers that excess CO2 posed to humanity and the Earth's biosphere.....and for doing it for greed, because they realized that any effective steps by world governments to restrict carbon emissions would also tank their profits and stock prices.

You just proved my point...LMAO

Nope! Wrong again, little retard.

I just further debunked your demented drivel.

You are just too retarded and insane to comprehend the fact that your denier cult propaganda bullshit is fraudulent twaddle, you poor sad victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

propaganda bullshit is fraudulent

Well, of course the demented twaddle you post is "fraudulent propaganda bullshit", JustCrazy....we all knew that already. you scrape pseudo-science and lies written by non-scientists who stooge for the Koch brothers or EXXON, off of astroturfed denier cult blogs.....and hilariously expect people to fall for that transparently insane nonsense. You are a hoot!

fraudulent? how is it fraudulent? what the hell is your problem blunder?

LOLOLOL. Oh no.....WildBullKrap's ridiculous and fraudulent OP got debunked in post #4...and now he and one of his fellow denier cult retards, JustCrazy, have gone into a full-on anti-science, reality-denying, 'Obamazafascist-nutbagger' spaz-out....

The AG said: "that the Justice Department has discussed taking civil legal action against the fossil fuel industry."

Your fossil fuel industry sponsored rightwingnut propaganda outlet, 'The Blazing Retards', spun that into: "Justice Dept. Has Discussed Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers"

Is 'the fossil fuel industry' equal to 'the climate change deniers'?...in your demented denier cult world-view?....do you actually admit that fact to yourselves???....or do some of you denier cult trolls just totally identify with 'the fossil fuel industry' because you actually work for them, or just insanely stooge for them for the sake of your crackpot rightwingnut ideologies??????

Has any Attorney General, on any level, State or Federal, or any other Government Official, ANYWHERE, EVER, called for the prosecution of ordinary people who simply say something denying the reality of human caused global warming? ...... OF COURSE NOT, YOU FLAMING RETARDS!!!

They are considering legal actions against fossil fuel industry executives, very similar to the actions taken against tobacco company executives who were found, though their own internal company documents and memos, to have conspired to deceive the public about the very real and, even at that time, well documented and researched medical evidence that smoking tobacco was very hazardous to people's health.....and doing that for the sake of corporate profits and their own greed. People died unnecessarily because of those tobacco executives' conspiracies and actions......a lot more people are going to die because of the actions and conspiracies and propaganda campaigns of the fossil fuel executives and billionaire owners to deceive people about the reality and dangers of AGW/CC in order to delay any effective action on restricting carbon emissions....again for the sake of corporate profits and stock prices, and their own greed.

The U.S. Government's racketeering case against Big Tobacco

THE GOVERNMENT'S CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

Exxons Climate Cover-Up Should Be Investigated By DOJ, Tobacco Prosecutor Says

Were not the ones hiding our work, data and methods...

Nope! You are the ones hiding your heads in your rectums so you can deny the scientific facts confirming the reality and dangers of human caused global warming and its consequent climate disruptions and changes.

I say bring it on..Discovery is going to be rather interesting and enlightening as well.. Exposing the libtards pseudoscience will be a eye opener for the general public. When the court finds the law suit frivolous and intentionally deceiving the court (perjury) by the alarmists is shown there will be whole new round or criminal proceedings. IT wont end well for the alarmists who have no facts and fraudulent science as their backing.

Your demented fantasies and delusions are always hilarious, Boober, and your ignorance and insanity seem boundless...

Totally hilarious how you and the rightwingnut propaganda rag you cite here, 'The Blazing Retards', both equates the "fossil fuel industry" to "climate change deniers"....which is true, in a way, since the fossil fuel industry created and finances and controls the AGW denial movement and writes most of their fraudulent propaganda.....

....and also deceitfully tries to conflate the greedy fossil fuel industry executives -- who the AG was specifically referring to as being being under consideration for possible legal action, who knowingly misled the public and their shareholders, starting several decades ago, about the very real dangers of CO2 driven global warming and its consequent climate changes caused by their products, and who are now the targets of various state and federal investigations....and who are will probably eventually be tried for 'Crimes Against Humanity'....(as they should be!) -- with the ordinary run-of-the-mill, very ignorant, somewhat retarded, anti-science rightwingnut dupes, like you, WildBullKrap, who have been conned and bamboozled into denying the obvious, scientifically confirmed reality of AGW/CC that most sane people can clearly see, and dementedly upholding corporate profits over the welfare of the human race.....BUT who are not at all the target of the possible legal actions that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was referring to in her testimony to Congress....as she very plainly said. YOUR PUPPETMASTERS ARE TRYING TO FRIGHTEN YOU DENIER CULT CLOWNS by twisting the meaning of the information they're citing - they're doing it right in front of your eyes - and you are too dense to see it. LOL. That's hilarious!

First, you shoot the messenger, then you support government prosecution of people who don't buy into the global warming bullshit...lol

Can you imagine what you sound like?

I debunked your idiotic propaganda neme OP in post #4. You are apparently much too stupid to understand how you are being duped, even though I spelled it out for you, fool.

No one is talking about prosecuting you dumbass bamboozled denier cult dimwits for your brainwashed denial of science and reality. They are considering going after the greedheads in the fossil fuel industry whose own scientists had warned them about CO2 driven global warming decades ago but who chose to finance anti-science denialist propaganda campaigns and astroturfed 'think tanks' and foundations as propaganda outlets.

Exxon Mobil on Hot Seat for Global Warming Denial
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman subpoenaed the oil and gas giant Wednesday evening.
U.S. News and World Report
By Alan Neuhauser
Nov. 5, 2015
(excerpts)
The New York attorney general has launched an investigation into Exxon Mobil to determine whether the country's largest oil and gas company lied to investors about how global warming could hurt its balance sheets and also hid the risks posed by climate change from the public.

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman issued a subpoena to Exxon Mobil on Wednesday night seeking financial records, internal communications, climate studies, advertising materials and other documents, an official in the attorney general's office familiar with the investigation confirmed Thursday.

The probe spans two areas of the law: consumer protection – whether Exxon Mobil engaged in deceptive or misleading business practices – and New York's fraud and securities law, known as the Martin Act, according to the official, who was not authorized to speak on the record.

Peabody Energy, the nation's largest coal producer, has also been under investigation for the past two years.

The dual investigations were first reported by The New York Times.

Schneiderman's subpoena comes just weeks after a probe by InsideClimate News revealed that despite Exxon funneling millions of dollars in past decades to advocacy groups to obscure how burning oil, gas and coal warms the environment, it had once been a global leader in climate change research.

As early as 1977 – roughly a decade before researcher James Hansen testified before Congress to alert the world to the dangers of climate change – a senior company scientist warned executives that "there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," InsideClimate News reported.

Schneiderman's office began scrutinizing Exxon Mobil as early as last year, the office official tells U.S. News.

In the weeks since the debut of the InsideClimate package – which was followed shortly by another expose by the Los Angeles Times – the hashtag #ExxonKnew has been a trending topic on Twitter.

Schneiderman's subpoena could mark the opening salvo in a far broader effort by states to examine what fossil fuel companies knew about man-made climate change, when they knew it and what they may have done to hide its dangers from the public to protect company profits – a campaign that may resemble others that elicited billions of settlement dollars from tobacco companies. (Many of the same marketing figures who worked for the tobacco companies reportedly have more recently found work with climate-denial groups.)

Private lawsuits aimed at holding companies liable for damage they've caused to the world's climate have met with little success.

"New York's attorney general has shown great courage in holding to account arguably the richest and most powerful company on Earth," Bill McKibben, co-founder of the environmental group 350.org, said in a statement. "We hope that other state attorney general and the federal Department of Justice, and the Securities [and] Exchange Commission, will show similar fortitude."

Imagine that.. Liberals wanting to use an illegal act, under the US Constitution, to promote their crap.. Discovery will be very enlightening.. They will try to do as Michael Mann is doing now to end run discovery.. I'm in awe that our current DOJ Bimbo is where she is at. This clearly violates the US Constitution.

Too bad you're so ignorant and crazy, Boobles. You live in your own little rightwingnut fantasy world. You have no idea what is going on. And your knowledge and understanding of US law and our Constitution is, as usual, beyond just totally ignorant and out into the ozone of false beliefs, misinformation and the outright lies that you have been fed. You are completely clueless!

Old Frauds problem is obvious...

The historical facts dont support his fantasy's... So he has to project his own failings...

 

[Crick]

Telling lies that hurt people cost the tobacco industry billions of dollars. What do you think these lies will cost Exxon/Mobil & company? Their very existence?

 

[RollingThunder]

Telling lies that hurt people cost the tobacco industry billions of dollars. What do you think these lies will cost Exxon/Mobil & company? Their very existence?

I expect that, after the damages, starvations, innundations and death tolls really start to mount up, we will see an International Tribunal, something like the Nuremberg Trials after WWII, bringing indictments for Crimes Against Humanity and Conspiracy to Commit Crimes Against Humanity against a large number of culpable individuals and corporations.....which can carry the death penalty, as those Nazis at Nuremberg discovered to their dismay. I'd nominate the Koch brothers as the first ones to go on trial.

 

[jc456]

Telling lies that hurt people cost the tobacco industry billions of dollars. What do you think these lies will cost Exxon/Mobil & company? Their very existence?

I expect that, after the damages, starvations, innundations and death tolls really start to mount up, we will see an International Tribunal, something like the Nuremberg Trials after WWII, bringing indictments for Crimes Against Humanity and Conspiracy to Commit Crimes Against Humanity against a large number of culpable individuals and corporations.....which can carry the death penalty, as those Nazis at Nuremberg discovered to their dismay. I'd nominate the Koch brothers as the first ones to go on trial.

You never answered what they're hiding?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified Wednesday that the Justice Department has “discussed” taking civil legal action against the fossil fuel industry for “denying” the “threat of carbon emissions”
toiletpaper://ww.theblaze.com/AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers

Totally hilarious how you and the rightwingnut propaganda rag you cite here, 'The Blazing Retards', both equates the "fossil fuel industry" to "climate change deniers"....which is true, in a way, since the fossil fuel industry created and finances and controls the AGW denial movement and writes most of their fraudulent propaganda.....

....and also deceitfully tries to conflate the greedy fossil fuel industry executives -- who the AG was specifically referring to as being being under consideration for possible legal action, who knowingly misled the public and their shareholders, starting several decades ago, about the very real dangers of CO2 driven global warming and its consequent climate changes caused by their products, and who are now the targets of various state and federal investigations....and who are will probably eventually be tried for 'Crimes Against Humanity'....(as they should be!) -- with the ordinary run-of-the-mill, very ignorant, somewhat retarded, anti-science rightwingnut dupes, like you, WildBullKrap, who have been conned and bamboozled into denying the obvious, scientifically confirmed reality of AGW/CC that most sane people can clearly see, and dementedly upholding corporate profits over the welfare of the human race.....BUT who are not at all the target of the possible legal actions that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was referring to in her testimony to Congress....as she very plainly said. YOUR PUPPETMASTERS ARE TRYING TO FRIGHTEN YOU DENIER CULT CLOWNS by twisting the meaning of the information they're citing - they're doing it right in front of your eyes - and you are too dense to see it. LOL. That's hilarious!

There is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 produced by human activity has caused or will ever cause deleterious global warming in the foreseeable future.

That's the fact of the matter.

There is the science-denying, reality-denying utter insanity of the hard-core denier cult fanatic....laid bare for all to see.

Actually, it's pretty hilarious to watch retards like ol' MuhMuhMuh squirm and twist as reality bitch-slaps them again and again......

What's funny, is when warmer diciples insist that the science is settled, then we find out that the science has actually been faked.

Good job, sport!

 

[RollingThunder]

Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified Wednesday that the Justice Department has “discussed” taking civil legal action against the fossil fuel industry for “denying” the “threat of carbon emissions”
toiletpaper://ww.theblaze.com/AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers

Totally hilarious how you and the rightwingnut propaganda rag you cite here, 'The Blazing Retards', both equates the "fossil fuel industry" to "climate change deniers"....which is true, in a way, since the fossil fuel industry created and finances and controls the AGW denial movement and writes most of their fraudulent propaganda.....

....and also deceitfully tries to conflate the greedy fossil fuel industry executives -- who the AG was specifically referring to as being being under consideration for possible legal action, who knowingly misled the public and their shareholders, starting several decades ago, about the very real dangers of CO2 driven global warming and its consequent climate changes caused by their products, and who are now the targets of various state and federal investigations....and who are will probably eventually be tried for 'Crimes Against Humanity'....(as they should be!) -- with the ordinary run-of-the-mill, very ignorant, somewhat retarded, anti-science rightwingnut dupes, like you, WildBullKrap, who have been conned and bamboozled into denying the obvious, scientifically confirmed reality of AGW/CC that most sane people can clearly see, and dementedly upholding corporate profits over the welfare of the human race.....BUT who are not at all the target of the possible legal actions that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was referring to in her testimony to Congress....as she very plainly said. YOUR PUPPETMASTERS ARE TRYING TO FRIGHTEN YOU DENIER CULT CLOWNS by twisting the meaning of the information they're citing - they're doing it right in front of your eyes - and you are too dense to see it. LOL. That's hilarious!

What's funny, is when warmer diciples insist that the science is settled, then we find out that the science has actually been faked.

Saying your demented anti-science denier cult delusions out loud just makes you sound even more insane and delusional than before, WillBullKrap.....and I really didn't think that was possible. LOL. You poor crackpot conspiracy theory wacko.

 

[jc456]

Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified Wednesday that the Justice Department has “discussed” taking civil legal action against the fossil fuel industry for “denying” the “threat of carbon emissions”
toiletpaper://ww.theblaze.com/AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers

Totally hilarious how you and the rightwingnut propaganda rag you cite here, 'The Blazing Retards', both equates the "fossil fuel industry" to "climate change deniers"....which is true, in a way, since the fossil fuel industry created and finances and controls the AGW denial movement and writes most of their fraudulent propaganda.....

....and also deceitfully tries to conflate the greedy fossil fuel industry executives -- who the AG was specifically referring to as being being under consideration for possible legal action, who knowingly misled the public and their shareholders, starting several decades ago, about the very real dangers of CO2 driven global warming and its consequent climate changes caused by their products, and who are now the targets of various state and federal investigations....and who are will probably eventually be tried for 'Crimes Against Humanity'....(as they should be!) -- with the ordinary run-of-the-mill, very ignorant, somewhat retarded, anti-science rightwingnut dupes, like you, WildBullKrap, who have been conned and bamboozled into denying the obvious, scientifically confirmed reality of AGW/CC that most sane people can clearly see, and dementedly upholding corporate profits over the welfare of the human race.....BUT who are not at all the target of the possible legal actions that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was referring to in her testimony to Congress....as she very plainly said. YOUR PUPPETMASTERS ARE TRYING TO FRIGHTEN YOU DENIER CULT CLOWNS by twisting the meaning of the information they're citing - they're doing it right in front of your eyes - and you are too dense to see it. LOL. That's hilarious!

What's funny, is when warmer diciples insist that the science is settled, then we find out that the science has actually been faked.

Saying your demented anti-science denier cult delusions out loud just makes you sound even more insane and delusional than before, WillBullKrap.....and I really didn't think that was possible. LOL. You poor crackpot conspiracy theory wacko.

Is the science settled?

 

[Muhammed]

Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified Wednesday that the Justice Department has “discussed” taking civil legal action against the fossil fuel industry for “denying” the “threat of carbon emissions”
toiletpaper://ww.theblaze.com/AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers

Totally hilarious how you and the rightwingnut propaganda rag you cite here, 'The Blazing Retards', both equates the "fossil fuel industry" to "climate change deniers"....which is true, in a way, since the fossil fuel industry created and finances and controls the AGW denial movement and writes most of their fraudulent propaganda.....

....and also deceitfully tries to conflate the greedy fossil fuel industry executives -- who the AG was specifically referring to as being being under consideration for possible legal action, who knowingly misled the public and their shareholders, starting several decades ago, about the very real dangers of CO2 driven global warming and its consequent climate changes caused by their products, and who are now the targets of various state and federal investigations....and who are will probably eventually be tried for 'Crimes Against Humanity'....(as they should be!) -- with the ordinary run-of-the-mill, very ignorant, somewhat retarded, anti-science rightwingnut dupes, like you, WildBullKrap, who have been conned and bamboozled into denying the obvious, scientifically confirmed reality of AGW/CC that most sane people can clearly see, and dementedly upholding corporate profits over the welfare of the human race.....BUT who are not at all the target of the possible legal actions that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was referring to in her testimony to Congress....as she very plainly said. YOUR PUPPETMASTERS ARE TRYING TO FRIGHTEN YOU DENIER CULT CLOWNS by twisting the meaning of the information they're citing - they're doing it right in front of your eyes - and you are too dense to see it. LOL. That's hilarious!

There is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 produced by human activity has caused or will ever cause deleterious global warming in the foreseeable future.

That's the fact of the matter.

There is the science-denying, reality-denying utter insanity of the hard-core denier cult fanatic....laid bare for all to see.

Actually, it's pretty hilarious to watch retards like ol' MuhMuhMuh squirm and twist as reality bitch-slaps them again and again......

Where's the evidence?

Where is it you fucking brainwashed dooomsday cult member. C'mon chicken little show us some proof.

 

[RollingThunder]

There is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 produced by human activity has caused or will ever cause deleterious global warming in the foreseeable future.
That's the fact of the matter.

There is the science-denying, reality-denying utter insanity of the hard-core denier cult fanatic....laid bare for all to see.
Actually, it's pretty hilarious to watch retards like ol' MuhMuhMuh squirm and twist as reality bitch-slaps them again and again......

Where's the evidence? Where is it you fucking brainwashed dooomsday cult member. C'mon chicken little show us some proof.

Is the science settled?

I might as well 'kill two retards with one stone', so to speak.

Although, I should add one little note to ol' MuMu......if you want to challenge the scientific consensus on the physics of greenhouse gases and the connection of the human caused 43% more CO2 in the atmosphere, I'm not the one you need to talk to....go get some degrees in climate science, do some research, write up your (pre-determined) conclusions, submit your paper to some top scientific journals and try to get them past peer-review and published, and argue with real scientists.....OTHERWISE....you're just blowing hot air about something that you know less than nothing about.

Because scientific understanding and knowledge is always being refined and expanded, and science is always open to considering new data, even findings or research results which perhaps challenge old theories, and committed to arriving at a better understanding of things in order to explain and incorporate any new information into the scientific 'picture' or basic understanding of the Universe....so....it could legitimately be said that science is never 'absolutely' settled.....HOWEVER...in many areas of science, scientists have gained a profound understanding how things work...basic and advanced physics...and their certainty in their understanding of some processes and events approaches a kind of certainty.....which is why scientists often express their findings in terms of how certain they are.

]In the case of human caused global warming, the basic facts about what is happening now with the Earth's warming and climate changes are currently very well understood by the climate scientists who have been studying and researching this field very intensely for many decades now, and they say they have 95% confidence in their conclusions.

Since you two obviously know nothing about science, you very likely have no real idea what that means....

WHAT 95% CERTAINTY OF WARMING MEANS TO SCIENTISTS
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Sep. 24, 2013
WASHINGTON (AP) — Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill.

They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous.

They'll even put a number on how certain they are about climate change. But that number isn't 100 percent. It's 95 percent.

And for some non-scientists, that's just not good enough.

There's a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, specialists say.

That is an issue because this week, scientists from around the world have gathered in Stockholm for a meeting of a U.N. panel on climate change, and they will probably release a report saying it is "extremely likely" — which they define in footnotes as 95 percent certain — that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951.

One climate scientist involved says the panel may even boost it in some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent.

Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed. After all, most people wouldn't get on a plane that had only a 95 percent certainty of landing safely, risk experts say.

But in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty.

"Uncertainty is inherent in every scientific judgment," said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Thomas Burke. "Will the sun come up in the morning?" Scientists know the answer is yes, but they can't really say so with 100 percent certainty because there are so many factors out there that are not quite understood or under control.

George Gray, director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University, said that demanding absolute proof on things such as climate doesn't make sense.

"There's a group of people who seem to think that when scientists say they are uncertain, we shouldn't do anything," said Gray, who was chief scientist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration. "That's crazy. We're uncertain and we buy insurance."

With the U.N. panel about to weigh in on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of oil, coal and gas, The Associated Press asked scientists who specialize in climate, physics, epidemiology, public health, statistics and risk just what in science is more certain than human-caused climate change, what is about the same, and what is less.

They said gravity is a good example of something more certain than climate change. Climate change "is not as sure as if you drop a stone it will hit the Earth," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. "It's not certain, but it's close."

Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss said the 95 percent quoted for climate change is equivalent to the current certainty among physicists that the universe is 13.8 billion years old.

The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly.

"What is understood does not violate any mechanism that we understand about cancer," while "statistics confirm what we know about cancer," said Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist. Add to that a "very high consensus" among scientists about the harm of tobacco, and it sounds similar to the case for climate change, he said.

But even the best study can be nitpicked because nothing is perfect, and that's the strategy of both tobacco defenders and climate deniers, said Stanton Glantz, a medicine professor at the University of California, San Francisco and director of its tobacco control research center.

George Washington's Gray said the 95 percent number the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will probably adopt may not be realistic. In general, regardless of the field of research, experts tend to overestimate their confidence in their certainty, he said. Other experts said the 95 percent figure is too low.

Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. And because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.

But the role of nature and all sorts of other factors bring the number down to 95 percent when you want to say that the majority of the warming is human-caused, he said.

 

[Muhammed]

There is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 produced by human activity has caused or will ever cause deleterious global warming in the foreseeable future.
That's the fact of the matter.

There is the science-denying, reality-denying utter insanity of the hard-core denier cult fanatic....laid bare for all to see.
Actually, it's pretty hilarious to watch retards like ol' MuhMuhMuh squirm and twist as reality bitch-slaps them again and again......

Where's the evidence? Where is it you fucking brainwashed dooomsday cult member. C'mon chicken little show us some proof.

Is the science settled?

I might as well 'kill two retards with one stone', so to speak.

Although, I should add one little note to ol' MuMu......if you want to challenge the scientific consensus on the physics of greenhouse gases and the connection of the human caused 43% more CO2 in the atmosphere, I'm not the one you need to talk to....go get some degrees in climate science, do some research, write up your (pre-determined) conclusions, submit your paper to some top scientific journals and try to get them past peer-review and published, and argue with real scientists.....OTHERWISE....you're just blowing hot air about something that you know less than nothing about.

Because scientific understanding and knowledge is always being refined and expanded, and science is always open to considering new data, even findings or research results which perhaps challenge old theories, and committed to arriving at a better understanding of things in order to explain and incorporate any new information into the scientific 'picture' or basic understanding of the Universe....so....it could legitimately be said that science is never 'absolutely' settled.....HOWEVER...in many areas of science, scientists have gained a profound understanding how things work...basic and advanced physics...and their certainty in their understanding of some processes and events approaches a kind of certainty.....which is why scientists often express their findings in terms of how certain they are.

]In the case of human caused global warming, the basic facts about what is happening now with the Earth's warming and climate changes are currently very well understood by the climate scientists who have been studying and researching this field very intensely for many decades now, and they say they have 95% confidence in their conclusions.

Since you two obviously know nothing about science, you very likely have no real idea what that means....

WHAT 95% CERTAINTY OF WARMING MEANS TO SCIENTISTS
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Sep. 24, 2013
WASHINGTON (AP) — Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill.

They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous.

They'll even put a number on how certain they are about climate change. But that number isn't 100 percent. It's 95 percent.

And for some non-scientists, that's just not good enough.

There's a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, specialists say.

That is an issue because this week, scientists from around the world have gathered in Stockholm for a meeting of a U.N. panel on climate change, and they will probably release a report saying it is "extremely likely" — which they define in footnotes as 95 percent certain — that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951.

One climate scientist involved says the panel may even boost it in some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent.

Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed. After all, most people wouldn't get on a plane that had only a 95 percent certainty of landing safely, risk experts say.

But in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty.

"Uncertainty is inherent in every scientific judgment," said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Thomas Burke. "Will the sun come up in the morning?" Scientists know the answer is yes, but they can't really say so with 100 percent certainty because there are so many factors out there that are not quite understood or under control.

George Gray, director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University, said that demanding absolute proof on things such as climate doesn't make sense.

"There's a group of people who seem to think that when scientists say they are uncertain, we shouldn't do anything," said Gray, who was chief scientist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration. "That's crazy. We're uncertain and we buy insurance."

With the U.N. panel about to weigh in on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of oil, coal and gas, The Associated Press asked scientists who specialize in climate, physics, epidemiology, public health, statistics and risk just what in science is more certain than human-caused climate change, what is about the same, and what is less.

They said gravity is a good example of something more certain than climate change. Climate change "is not as sure as if you drop a stone it will hit the Earth," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. "It's not certain, but it's close."

Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss said the 95 percent quoted for climate change is equivalent to the current certainty among physicists that the universe is 13.8 billion years old.

The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly.

"What is understood does not violate any mechanism that we understand about cancer," while "statistics confirm what we know about cancer," said Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist. Add to that a "very high consensus" among scientists about the harm of tobacco, and it sounds similar to the case for climate change, he said.

But even the best study can be nitpicked because nothing is perfect, and that's the strategy of both tobacco defenders and climate deniers, said Stanton Glantz, a medicine professor at the University of California, San Francisco and director of its tobacco control research center.

George Washington's Gray said the 95 percent number the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will probably adopt may not be realistic. In general, regardless of the field of research, experts tend to overestimate their confidence in their certainty, he said. Other experts said the 95 percent figure is too low.

Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. And because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.

But the role of nature and all sorts of other factors bring the number down to 95 percent when you want to say that the majority of the warming is human-caused, he said.

In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever.

 

[RollingThunder]

There is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 produced by human activity has caused or will ever cause deleterious global warming in the foreseeable future.
That's the fact of the matter.

There is the science-denying, reality-denying utter insanity of the hard-core denier cult fanatic....laid bare for all to see.
Actually, it's pretty hilarious to watch retards like ol' MuhMuhMuh squirm and twist as reality bitch-slaps them again and again......

Where's the evidence? Where is it you fucking brainwashed dooomsday cult member. C'mon chicken little show us some proof.

Is the science settled?

I might as well 'kill two retards with one stone', so to speak.

Although, I should add one little note to ol' MuMu......if you want to challenge the scientific consensus on the physics of greenhouse gases and the connection of the human caused 43% more CO2 in the atmosphere, I'm not the one you need to talk to....go get some degrees in climate science, do some research, write up your (pre-determined) conclusions, submit your paper to some top scientific journals and try to get them past peer-review and published, and argue with real scientists.....OTHERWISE....you're just blowing hot air about something that you know less than nothing about.

Because scientific understanding and knowledge is always being refined and expanded, and science is always open to considering new data, even findings or research results which perhaps challenge old theories, and committed to arriving at a better understanding of things in order to explain and incorporate any new information into the scientific 'picture' or basic understanding of the Universe....so....it could legitimately be said that science is never 'absolutely' settled.....HOWEVER...in many areas of science, scientists have gained a profound understanding how things work...basic and advanced physics...and their certainty in their understanding of some processes and events approaches a kind of certainty.....which is why scientists often express their findings in terms of how certain they are.

]In the case of human caused global warming, the basic facts about what is happening now with the Earth's warming and climate changes are currently very well understood by the climate scientists who have been studying and researching this field very intensely for many decades now, and they say they have 95% confidence in their conclusions.

Since you two obviously know nothing about science, you very likely have no real idea what that means....

WHAT 95% CERTAINTY OF WARMING MEANS TO SCIENTISTS
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Sep. 24, 2013
WASHINGTON (AP) — Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill.

They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous.

They'll even put a number on how certain they are about climate change. But that number isn't 100 percent. It's 95 percent.

And for some non-scientists, that's just not good enough.

There's a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, specialists say.

That is an issue because this week, scientists from around the world have gathered in Stockholm for a meeting of a U.N. panel on climate change, and they will probably release a report saying it is "extremely likely" — which they define in footnotes as 95 percent certain — that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951.

One climate scientist involved says the panel may even boost it in some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent.

Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed. After all, most people wouldn't get on a plane that had only a 95 percent certainty of landing safely, risk experts say.

But in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty.

"Uncertainty is inherent in every scientific judgment," said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Thomas Burke. "Will the sun come up in the morning?" Scientists know the answer is yes, but they can't really say so with 100 percent certainty because there are so many factors out there that are not quite understood or under control.

George Gray, director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University, said that demanding absolute proof on things such as climate doesn't make sense.

"There's a group of people who seem to think that when scientists say they are uncertain, we shouldn't do anything," said Gray, who was chief scientist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration. "That's crazy. We're uncertain and we buy insurance."

With the U.N. panel about to weigh in on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of oil, coal and gas, The Associated Press asked scientists who specialize in climate, physics, epidemiology, public health, statistics and risk just what in science is more certain than human-caused climate change, what is about the same, and what is less.

They said gravity is a good example of something more certain than climate change. Climate change "is not as sure as if you drop a stone it will hit the Earth," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. "It's not certain, but it's close."

Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss said the 95 percent quoted for climate change is equivalent to the current certainty among physicists that the universe is 13.8 billion years old.

The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly.

"What is understood does not violate any mechanism that we understand about cancer," while "statistics confirm what we know about cancer," said Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist. Add to that a "very high consensus" among scientists about the harm of tobacco, and it sounds similar to the case for climate change, he said.

But even the best study can be nitpicked because nothing is perfect, and that's the strategy of both tobacco defenders and climate deniers, said Stanton Glantz, a medicine professor at the University of California, San Francisco and director of its tobacco control research center.

George Washington's Gray said the 95 percent number the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will probably adopt may not be realistic. In general, regardless of the field of research, experts tend to overestimate their confidence in their certainty, he said. Other experts said the 95 percent figure is too low.

Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. And because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.

But the role of nature and all sorts of other factors bring the number down to 95 percent when you want to say that the majority of the warming is human-caused, he said.

In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever.

In other words, moron, scientists have an enormous amount of evidence supporting their conclusions. Your insane denier cult assumption that all those scientists have no evidence supporting the heating effects of increasing CO2 is incredibly stupid. Your ignorance is your problem. I'm not your teacher and I don't have to assemble the evidence and show it to a deranged denier cult retard who couldn't understand it anyway, and would just deny its reality even if I showed it to you. Your denial of the existence of Greenhouse Gases, such as carbon dioxide, is evidence of a pathological distrust of science and very probably, the kind of crackpot conspiracy theory ideation common to your cult.

If you want the 'evidence', little retard, why don't you just google 'evidence that increased CO2 causes global warming', and read what comes up?

Or, you could read this, if you dare (fair warning - could cause your head to explode)....

Scientists stick it to climate deniers: Study provides direct evidence that human activity is causing global warming
For the first time, researchers directly observed carbon dioxide trapping heat in the atmosphere
Salon, com
LINDSAY ABRAMS
FEB 26, 2015
People who continue to deny that human activity is directly impacting climate change (looking at you, Inhofe) had better pay attention to this one: scientists, for the first time, have provided direct observational evidence that carbon dioxide is trapping heat in the atmosphere.

In a study published in the journal Nature, researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory used eleven years of measurements from specialized instruments at sites in Alaska and Oklahoma to analyze the source of energy fluctuations, confirming that it’s carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels that’s causing warming — and not water vapor, changes in the sun or someone tampering with the data to make it look like global warming is worse than it is, as some have claimed.

“We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation,” lead author Daniel Feldman explained in a statement.

“Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect.”

It’s important to be clear that by no means did the Berkeley researchers need to do this in order to prove that carbon dioxide is trapping heat in the atmosphere: as physicist and climate expert Ken Caldeira explained to the San Francisco Chronicle, “the underlying physics is robust and was never in question.” Climate scientist Andrew Dessler told the Associated Press that the work is somewhat similar to using a falling rock to confirm gravity.

But the findings do help validate climate models that depend, in part, on correctly simulating the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Mashable’s Andrew Freedman explains. All of that research warning that human activity is directly contributing to global warming, in other words, and that “substantial and sustained” reductions in emissions are our best hope of avoiding “severe, pervasive and irreversible” consequences, is no longer deniable — not that it ever was.

Or...

Scientists witness carbon dioxide trapping heat in air
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Feb. 25, 2015

 

[Muhammed]

There is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 produced by human activity has caused or will ever cause deleterious global warming in the foreseeable future.
That's the fact of the matter.

There is the science-denying, reality-denying utter insanity of the hard-core denier cult fanatic....laid bare for all to see.
Actually, it's pretty hilarious to watch retards like ol' MuhMuhMuh squirm and twist as reality bitch-slaps them again and again......

Where's the evidence? Where is it you fucking brainwashed dooomsday cult member. C'mon chicken little show us some proof.

Is the science settled?

I might as well 'kill two retards with one stone', so to speak.

Although, I should add one little note to ol' MuMu......if you want to challenge the scientific consensus on the physics of greenhouse gases and the connection of the human caused 43% more CO2 in the atmosphere, I'm not the one you need to talk to....go get some degrees in climate science, do some research, write up your (pre-determined) conclusions, submit your paper to some top scientific journals and try to get them past peer-review and published, and argue with real scientists.....OTHERWISE....you're just blowing hot air about something that you know less than nothing about.

Because scientific understanding and knowledge is always being refined and expanded, and science is always open to considering new data, even findings or research results which perhaps challenge old theories, and committed to arriving at a better understanding of things in order to explain and incorporate any new information into the scientific 'picture' or basic understanding of the Universe....so....it could legitimately be said that science is never 'absolutely' settled.....HOWEVER...in many areas of science, scientists have gained a profound understanding how things work...basic and advanced physics...and their certainty in their understanding of some processes and events approaches a kind of certainty.....which is why scientists often express their findings in terms of how certain they are.

]In the case of human caused global warming, the basic facts about what is happening now with the Earth's warming and climate changes are currently very well understood by the climate scientists who have been studying and researching this field very intensely for many decades now, and they say they have 95% confidence in their conclusions.

Since you two obviously know nothing about science, you very likely have no real idea what that means....

WHAT 95% CERTAINTY OF WARMING MEANS TO SCIENTISTS
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Sep. 24, 2013
WASHINGTON (AP) — Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill.

They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous.

They'll even put a number on how certain they are about climate change. But that number isn't 100 percent. It's 95 percent.

And for some non-scientists, that's just not good enough.

There's a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, specialists say.

That is an issue because this week, scientists from around the world have gathered in Stockholm for a meeting of a U.N. panel on climate change, and they will probably release a report saying it is "extremely likely" — which they define in footnotes as 95 percent certain — that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951.

One climate scientist involved says the panel may even boost it in some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent.

Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed. After all, most people wouldn't get on a plane that had only a 95 percent certainty of landing safely, risk experts say.

But in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty.

"Uncertainty is inherent in every scientific judgment," said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Thomas Burke. "Will the sun come up in the morning?" Scientists know the answer is yes, but they can't really say so with 100 percent certainty because there are so many factors out there that are not quite understood or under control.

George Gray, director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University, said that demanding absolute proof on things such as climate doesn't make sense.

"There's a group of people who seem to think that when scientists say they are uncertain, we shouldn't do anything," said Gray, who was chief scientist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration. "That's crazy. We're uncertain and we buy insurance."

With the U.N. panel about to weigh in on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of oil, coal and gas, The Associated Press asked scientists who specialize in climate, physics, epidemiology, public health, statistics and risk just what in science is more certain than human-caused climate change, what is about the same, and what is less.

They said gravity is a good example of something more certain than climate change. Climate change "is not as sure as if you drop a stone it will hit the Earth," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. "It's not certain, but it's close."

Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss said the 95 percent quoted for climate change is equivalent to the current certainty among physicists that the universe is 13.8 billion years old.

The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly.

"What is understood does not violate any mechanism that we understand about cancer," while "statistics confirm what we know about cancer," said Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist. Add to that a "very high consensus" among scientists about the harm of tobacco, and it sounds similar to the case for climate change, he said.

But even the best study can be nitpicked because nothing is perfect, and that's the strategy of both tobacco defenders and climate deniers, said Stanton Glantz, a medicine professor at the University of California, San Francisco and director of its tobacco control research center.

George Washington's Gray said the 95 percent number the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will probably adopt may not be realistic. In general, regardless of the field of research, experts tend to overestimate their confidence in their certainty, he said. Other experts said the 95 percent figure is too low.

Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. And because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.

But the role of nature and all sorts of other factors bring the number down to 95 percent when you want to say that the majority of the warming is human-caused, he said.

In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever.

In other words, moron, scientists have an enormous amount of evidence supporting their conclusions. Your insane denier cult assumption that all those scientists have no evidence supporting the heating effects of increasing CO2 is incredibly stupid. Your ignorance is your problem. I'm not your teacher and I don't have to assemble the evidence and show it to a deranged denier cult retard who couldn't understand it anyway, and would just deny its reality even if I showed it to you. Your denial of the existence of Greenhouse Gases, such as carbon dioxide, is evidence of a pathological distrust of science and very probably, the kind of crackpot conspiracy theory ideation common to your cult.

If you want the 'evidence', little retard, why don't you just google 'evidence that increased CO2 causes global warming', and read what comes up?

Or, you could read this, if you dare (fair warning - could cause your head to explode)....

Scientists stick it to climate deniers: Study provides direct evidence that human activity is causing global warming
For the first time, researchers directly observed carbon dioxide trapping heat in the atmosphere
Salon, com
LINDSAY ABRAMS
FEB 26, 2015
People who continue to deny that human activity is directly impacting climate change (looking at you, Inhofe) had better pay attention to this one: scientists, for the first time, have provided direct observational evidence that carbon dioxide is trapping heat in the atmosphere.

In a study published in the journal Nature, researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory used eleven years of measurements from specialized instruments at sites in Alaska and Oklahoma to analyze the source of energy fluctuations, confirming that it’s carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels that’s causing warming — and not water vapor, changes in the sun or someone tampering with the data to make it look like global warming is worse than it is, as some have claimed.

“We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation,” lead author Daniel Feldman explained in a statement.

“Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect.”

It’s important to be clear that by no means did the Berkeley researchers need to do this in order to prove that carbon dioxide is trapping heat in the atmosphere: as physicist and climate expert Ken Caldeira explained to the San Francisco Chronicle, “the underlying physics is robust and was never in question.” Climate scientist Andrew Dessler told the Associated Press that the work is somewhat similar to using a falling rock to confirm gravity.

But the findings do help validate climate models that depend, in part, on correctly simulating the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Mashable’s Andrew Freedman explains. All of that research warning that human activity is directly contributing to global warming, in other words, and that “substantial and sustained” reductions in emissions are our best hope of avoiding “severe, pervasive and irreversible” consequences, is no longer deniable — not that it ever was.

Or...

Scientists witness carbon dioxide trapping heat in air
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Feb. 25, 2015

See, you have no evidence whatsoever. All you have is logical fallacies.

 

[RollingThunder]

There is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 produced by human activity has caused or will ever cause deleterious global warming in the foreseeable future.
That's the fact of the matter.

There is the science-denying, reality-denying utter insanity of the hard-core denier cult fanatic....laid bare for all to see.
Actually, it's pretty hilarious to watch retards like ol' MuhMuhMuh squirm and twist as reality bitch-slaps them again and again......

Where's the evidence? Where is it you fucking brainwashed dooomsday cult member. C'mon chicken little show us some proof.

Is the science settled?

I might as well 'kill two retards with one stone', so to speak.

Although, I should add one little note to ol' MuMu......if you want to challenge the scientific consensus on the physics of greenhouse gases and the connection of the human caused 43% more CO2 in the atmosphere, I'm not the one you need to talk to....go get some degrees in climate science, do some research, write up your (pre-determined) conclusions, submit your paper to some top scientific journals and try to get them past peer-review and published, and argue with real scientists.....OTHERWISE....you're just blowing hot air about something that you know less than nothing about.

Because scientific understanding and knowledge is always being refined and expanded, and science is always open to considering new data, even findings or research results which perhaps challenge old theories, and committed to arriving at a better understanding of things in order to explain and incorporate any new information into the scientific 'picture' or basic understanding of the Universe....so....it could legitimately be said that science is never 'absolutely' settled.....HOWEVER...in many areas of science, scientists have gained a profound understanding how things work...basic and advanced physics...and their certainty in their understanding of some processes and events approaches a kind of certainty.....which is why scientists often express their findings in terms of how certain they are.

]In the case of human caused global warming, the basic facts about what is happening now with the Earth's warming and climate changes are currently very well understood by the climate scientists who have been studying and researching this field very intensely for many decades now, and they say they have 95% confidence in their conclusions.

Since you two obviously know nothing about science, you very likely have no real idea what that means....

WHAT 95% CERTAINTY OF WARMING MEANS TO SCIENTISTS
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Sep. 24, 2013
WASHINGTON (AP) — Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill.

They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous.

They'll even put a number on how certain they are about climate change. But that number isn't 100 percent. It's 95 percent.

And for some non-scientists, that's just not good enough.

There's a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, specialists say.

That is an issue because this week, scientists from around the world have gathered in Stockholm for a meeting of a U.N. panel on climate change, and they will probably release a report saying it is "extremely likely" — which they define in footnotes as 95 percent certain — that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951.

One climate scientist involved says the panel may even boost it in some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent.

Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed. After all, most people wouldn't get on a plane that had only a 95 percent certainty of landing safely, risk experts say.

But in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty.

"Uncertainty is inherent in every scientific judgment," said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Thomas Burke. "Will the sun come up in the morning?" Scientists know the answer is yes, but they can't really say so with 100 percent certainty because there are so many factors out there that are not quite understood or under control.

George Gray, director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University, said that demanding absolute proof on things such as climate doesn't make sense.

"There's a group of people who seem to think that when scientists say they are uncertain, we shouldn't do anything," said Gray, who was chief scientist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration. "That's crazy. We're uncertain and we buy insurance."

With the U.N. panel about to weigh in on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of oil, coal and gas, The Associated Press asked scientists who specialize in climate, physics, epidemiology, public health, statistics and risk just what in science is more certain than human-caused climate change, what is about the same, and what is less.

They said gravity is a good example of something more certain than climate change. Climate change "is not as sure as if you drop a stone it will hit the Earth," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. "It's not certain, but it's close."

Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss said the 95 percent quoted for climate change is equivalent to the current certainty among physicists that the universe is 13.8 billion years old.

The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly.

"What is understood does not violate any mechanism that we understand about cancer," while "statistics confirm what we know about cancer," said Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist. Add to that a "very high consensus" among scientists about the harm of tobacco, and it sounds similar to the case for climate change, he said.

But even the best study can be nitpicked because nothing is perfect, and that's the strategy of both tobacco defenders and climate deniers, said Stanton Glantz, a medicine professor at the University of California, San Francisco and director of its tobacco control research center.

George Washington's Gray said the 95 percent number the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will probably adopt may not be realistic. In general, regardless of the field of research, experts tend to overestimate their confidence in their certainty, he said. Other experts said the 95 percent figure is too low.

Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. And because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.

But the role of nature and all sorts of other factors bring the number down to 95 percent when you want to say that the majority of the warming is human-caused, he said.

In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever.

In other words, moron, scientists have an enormous amount of evidence supporting their conclusions. Your insane denier cult assumption that all those scientists have no evidence supporting the heating effects of increasing CO2 is incredibly stupid. Your ignorance is your problem. I'm not your teacher and I don't have to assemble the evidence and show it to a deranged denier cult retard who couldn't understand it anyway, and would just deny its reality even if I showed it to you. Your denial of the existence of Greenhouse Gases, such as carbon dioxide, is evidence of a pathological distrust of science and very probably, the kind of crackpot conspiracy theory ideation common to your cult.

If you want the 'evidence', little retard, why don't you just google 'evidence that increased CO2 causes global warming', and read what comes up?

Or, you could read this, if you dare (fair warning - could cause your head to explode)....

Scientists stick it to climate deniers: Study provides direct evidence that human activity is causing global warming
For the first time, researchers directly observed carbon dioxide trapping heat in the atmosphere
Salon, com
LINDSAY ABRAMS
FEB 26, 2015
People who continue to deny that human activity is directly impacting climate change (looking at you, Inhofe) had better pay attention to this one: scientists, for the first time, have provided direct observational evidence that carbon dioxide is trapping heat in the atmosphere.

In a study published in the journal Nature, researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory used eleven years of measurements from specialized instruments at sites in Alaska and Oklahoma to analyze the source of energy fluctuations, confirming that it’s carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels that’s causing warming — and not water vapor, changes in the sun or someone tampering with the data to make it look like global warming is worse than it is, as some have claimed.

“We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation,” lead author Daniel Feldman explained in a statement.

“Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect.”

It’s important to be clear that by no means did the Berkeley researchers need to do this in order to prove that carbon dioxide is trapping heat in the atmosphere: as physicist and climate expert Ken Caldeira explained to the San Francisco Chronicle, “the underlying physics is robust and was never in question.” Climate scientist Andrew Dessler told the Associated Press that the work is somewhat similar to using a falling rock to confirm gravity.

But the findings do help validate climate models that depend, in part, on correctly simulating the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Mashable’s Andrew Freedman explains. All of that research warning that human activity is directly contributing to global warming, in other words, and that “substantial and sustained” reductions in emissions are our best hope of avoiding “severe, pervasive and irreversible” consequences, is no longer deniable — not that it ever was.

Or...

Scientists witness carbon dioxide trapping heat in air
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Feb. 25, 2015

See, you have no evidence whatsoever. All you have is logical fallacies.

LOLOLOLOLOL.....your deranged twaddle got thoroughly debunked....now you just are spazzing out over your own ignorance.

Actually it is you who has "no evidence whatsoever" to support your demented denial of reality, MuMu. All you've got is your utter insanity.

 

[Muhammed]

There is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 produced by human activity has caused or will ever cause deleterious global warming in the foreseeable future.
That's the fact of the matter.

There is the science-denying, reality-denying utter insanity of the hard-core denier cult fanatic....laid bare for all to see.
Actually, it's pretty hilarious to watch retards like ol' MuhMuhMuh squirm and twist as reality bitch-slaps them again and again......

Where's the evidence? Where is it you fucking brainwashed dooomsday cult member. C'mon chicken little show us some proof.

Is the science settled?

I might as well 'kill two retards with one stone', so to speak.

Although, I should add one little note to ol' MuMu......if you want to challenge the scientific consensus on the physics of greenhouse gases and the connection of the human caused 43% more CO2 in the atmosphere, I'm not the one you need to talk to....go get some degrees in climate science, do some research, write up your (pre-determined) conclusions, submit your paper to some top scientific journals and try to get them past peer-review and published, and argue with real scientists.....OTHERWISE....you're just blowing hot air about something that you know less than nothing about.

Because scientific understanding and knowledge is always being refined and expanded, and science is always open to considering new data, even findings or research results which perhaps challenge old theories, and committed to arriving at a better understanding of things in order to explain and incorporate any new information into the scientific 'picture' or basic understanding of the Universe....so....it could legitimately be said that science is never 'absolutely' settled.....HOWEVER...in many areas of science, scientists have gained a profound understanding how things work...basic and advanced physics...and their certainty in their understanding of some processes and events approaches a kind of certainty.....which is why scientists often express their findings in terms of how certain they are.

]In the case of human caused global warming, the basic facts about what is happening now with the Earth's warming and climate changes are currently very well understood by the climate scientists who have been studying and researching this field very intensely for many decades now, and they say they have 95% confidence in their conclusions.

Since you two obviously know nothing about science, you very likely have no real idea what that means....

WHAT 95% CERTAINTY OF WARMING MEANS TO SCIENTISTS
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Sep. 24, 2013
WASHINGTON (AP) — Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill.

They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous.

They'll even put a number on how certain they are about climate change. But that number isn't 100 percent. It's 95 percent.

And for some non-scientists, that's just not good enough.

There's a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, specialists say.

That is an issue because this week, scientists from around the world have gathered in Stockholm for a meeting of a U.N. panel on climate change, and they will probably release a report saying it is "extremely likely" — which they define in footnotes as 95 percent certain — that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951.

One climate scientist involved says the panel may even boost it in some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent.

Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed. After all, most people wouldn't get on a plane that had only a 95 percent certainty of landing safely, risk experts say.

But in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty.

"Uncertainty is inherent in every scientific judgment," said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Thomas Burke. "Will the sun come up in the morning?" Scientists know the answer is yes, but they can't really say so with 100 percent certainty because there are so many factors out there that are not quite understood or under control.

George Gray, director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University, said that demanding absolute proof on things such as climate doesn't make sense.

"There's a group of people who seem to think that when scientists say they are uncertain, we shouldn't do anything," said Gray, who was chief scientist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration. "That's crazy. We're uncertain and we buy insurance."

With the U.N. panel about to weigh in on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of oil, coal and gas, The Associated Press asked scientists who specialize in climate, physics, epidemiology, public health, statistics and risk just what in science is more certain than human-caused climate change, what is about the same, and what is less.

They said gravity is a good example of something more certain than climate change. Climate change "is not as sure as if you drop a stone it will hit the Earth," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. "It's not certain, but it's close."

Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss said the 95 percent quoted for climate change is equivalent to the current certainty among physicists that the universe is 13.8 billion years old.

The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly.

"What is understood does not violate any mechanism that we understand about cancer," while "statistics confirm what we know about cancer," said Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist. Add to that a "very high consensus" among scientists about the harm of tobacco, and it sounds similar to the case for climate change, he said.

But even the best study can be nitpicked because nothing is perfect, and that's the strategy of both tobacco defenders and climate deniers, said Stanton Glantz, a medicine professor at the University of California, San Francisco and director of its tobacco control research center.

George Washington's Gray said the 95 percent number the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will probably adopt may not be realistic. In general, regardless of the field of research, experts tend to overestimate their confidence in their certainty, he said. Other experts said the 95 percent figure is too low.

Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. And because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.

But the role of nature and all sorts of other factors bring the number down to 95 percent when you want to say that the majority of the warming is human-caused, he said.

In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever.

In other words, moron, scientists have an enormous amount of evidence supporting their conclusions. Your insane denier cult assumption that all those scientists have no evidence supporting the heating effects of increasing CO2 is incredibly stupid. Your ignorance is your problem. I'm not your teacher and I don't have to assemble the evidence and show it to a deranged denier cult retard who couldn't understand it anyway, and would just deny its reality even if I showed it to you. Your denial of the existence of Greenhouse Gases, such as carbon dioxide, is evidence of a pathological distrust of science and very probably, the kind of crackpot conspiracy theory ideation common to your cult.

If you want the 'evidence', little retard, why don't you just google 'evidence that increased CO2 causes global warming', and read what comes up?

Or, you could read this, if you dare (fair warning - could cause your head to explode)....

Scientists stick it to climate deniers: Study provides direct evidence that human activity is causing global warming
For the first time, researchers directly observed carbon dioxide trapping heat in the atmosphere
Salon, com
LINDSAY ABRAMS
FEB 26, 2015
People who continue to deny that human activity is directly impacting climate change (looking at you, Inhofe) had better pay attention to this one: scientists, for the first time, have provided direct observational evidence that carbon dioxide is trapping heat in the atmosphere.

In a study published in the journal Nature, researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory used eleven years of measurements from specialized instruments at sites in Alaska and Oklahoma to analyze the source of energy fluctuations, confirming that it’s carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels that’s causing warming — and not water vapor, changes in the sun or someone tampering with the data to make it look like global warming is worse than it is, as some have claimed.

“We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation,” lead author Daniel Feldman explained in a statement.

“Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect.”

It’s important to be clear that by no means did the Berkeley researchers need to do this in order to prove that carbon dioxide is trapping heat in the atmosphere: as physicist and climate expert Ken Caldeira explained to the San Francisco Chronicle, “the underlying physics is robust and was never in question.” Climate scientist Andrew Dessler told the Associated Press that the work is somewhat similar to using a falling rock to confirm gravity.

But the findings do help validate climate models that depend, in part, on correctly simulating the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Mashable’s Andrew Freedman explains. All of that research warning that human activity is directly contributing to global warming, in other words, and that “substantial and sustained” reductions in emissions are our best hope of avoiding “severe, pervasive and irreversible” consequences, is no longer deniable — not that it ever was.

Or...

Scientists witness carbon dioxide trapping heat in air
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Feb. 25, 2015

See, you have no evidence whatsoever. All you have is logical fallacies.

LOLOLOLOLOL.....your deranged twaddle got thoroughly debunked....now you just are spazzing out over your own ignorance.

Actually it is you who has "no evidence whatsoever" to support your demented denial of reality, MuMu. All you've got is your utter insanity.

It is your doomsday cult that made the claim, therefore the onus is on you to provide evidence, not those who are skeptical.

And so far, the GWC has not provided any evidence.

 

[Weatherman2020]

 

[jc456]

There is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 produced by human activity has caused or will ever cause deleterious global warming in the foreseeable future.
That's the fact of the matter.

There is the science-denying, reality-denying utter insanity of the hard-core denier cult fanatic....laid bare for all to see.
Actually, it's pretty hilarious to watch retards like ol' MuhMuhMuh squirm and twist as reality bitch-slaps them again and again......

Where's the evidence? Where is it you fucking brainwashed dooomsday cult member. C'mon chicken little show us some proof.

Is the science settled?

I might as well 'kill two retards with one stone', so to speak.

Although, I should add one little note to ol' MuMu......if you want to challenge the scientific consensus on the physics of greenhouse gases and the connection of the human caused 43% more CO2 in the atmosphere, I'm not the one you need to talk to....go get some degrees in climate science, do some research, write up your (pre-determined) conclusions, submit your paper to some top scientific journals and try to get them past peer-review and published, and argue with real scientists.....OTHERWISE....you're just blowing hot air about something that you know less than nothing about.

Because scientific understanding and knowledge is always being refined and expanded, and science is always open to considering new data, even findings or research results which perhaps challenge old theories, and committed to arriving at a better understanding of things in order to explain and incorporate any new information into the scientific 'picture' or basic understanding of the Universe....so....it could legitimately be said that science is never 'absolutely' settled.....HOWEVER...in many areas of science, scientists have gained a profound understanding how things work...basic and advanced physics...and their certainty in their understanding of some processes and events approaches a kind of certainty.....which is why scientists often express their findings in terms of how certain they are.

]In the case of human caused global warming, the basic facts about what is happening now with the Earth's warming and climate changes are currently very well understood by the climate scientists who have been studying and researching this field very intensely for many decades now, and they say they have 95% confidence in their conclusions.

Since you two obviously know nothing about science, you very likely have no real idea what that means....

WHAT 95% CERTAINTY OF WARMING MEANS TO SCIENTISTS
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Sep. 24, 2013
WASHINGTON (AP) — Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill.

They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous.

They'll even put a number on how certain they are about climate change. But that number isn't 100 percent. It's 95 percent.

And for some non-scientists, that's just not good enough.

There's a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, specialists say.

That is an issue because this week, scientists from around the world have gathered in Stockholm for a meeting of a U.N. panel on climate change, and they will probably release a report saying it is "extremely likely" — which they define in footnotes as 95 percent certain — that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951.

One climate scientist involved says the panel may even boost it in some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent.

Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed. After all, most people wouldn't get on a plane that had only a 95 percent certainty of landing safely, risk experts say.

But in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty.

"Uncertainty is inherent in every scientific judgment," said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Thomas Burke. "Will the sun come up in the morning?" Scientists know the answer is yes, but they can't really say so with 100 percent certainty because there are so many factors out there that are not quite understood or under control.

George Gray, director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University, said that demanding absolute proof on things such as climate doesn't make sense.

"There's a group of people who seem to think that when scientists say they are uncertain, we shouldn't do anything," said Gray, who was chief scientist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration. "That's crazy. We're uncertain and we buy insurance."

With the U.N. panel about to weigh in on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of oil, coal and gas, The Associated Press asked scientists who specialize in climate, physics, epidemiology, public health, statistics and risk just what in science is more certain than human-caused climate change, what is about the same, and what is less.

They said gravity is a good example of something more certain than climate change. Climate change "is not as sure as if you drop a stone it will hit the Earth," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. "It's not certain, but it's close."

Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss said the 95 percent quoted for climate change is equivalent to the current certainty among physicists that the universe is 13.8 billion years old.

The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly.

"What is understood does not violate any mechanism that we understand about cancer," while "statistics confirm what we know about cancer," said Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist. Add to that a "very high consensus" among scientists about the harm of tobacco, and it sounds similar to the case for climate change, he said.

But even the best study can be nitpicked because nothing is perfect, and that's the strategy of both tobacco defenders and climate deniers, said Stanton Glantz, a medicine professor at the University of California, San Francisco and director of its tobacco control research center.

George Washington's Gray said the 95 percent number the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will probably adopt may not be realistic. In general, regardless of the field of research, experts tend to overestimate their confidence in their certainty, he said. Other experts said the 95 percent figure is too low.

Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. And because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.

But the role of nature and all sorts of other factors bring the number down to 95 percent when you want to say that the majority of the warming is human-caused, he said.

Then why are you here?

 

[jc456]

There is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 produced by human activity has caused or will ever cause deleterious global warming in the foreseeable future.
That's the fact of the matter.

There is the science-denying, reality-denying utter insanity of the hard-core denier cult fanatic....laid bare for all to see.
Actually, it's pretty hilarious to watch retards like ol' MuhMuhMuh squirm and twist as reality bitch-slaps them again and again......

Where's the evidence? Where is it you fucking brainwashed dooomsday cult member. C'mon chicken little show us some proof.

Is the science settled?

I might as well 'kill two retards with one stone', so to speak.

Although, I should add one little note to ol' MuMu......if you want to challenge the scientific consensus on the physics of greenhouse gases and the connection of the human caused 43% more CO2 in the atmosphere, I'm not the one you need to talk to....go get some degrees in climate science, do some research, write up your (pre-determined) conclusions, submit your paper to some top scientific journals and try to get them past peer-review and published, and argue with real scientists.....OTHERWISE....you're just blowing hot air about something that you know less than nothing about.

Because scientific understanding and knowledge is always being refined and expanded, and science is always open to considering new data, even findings or research results which perhaps challenge old theories, and committed to arriving at a better understanding of things in order to explain and incorporate any new information into the scientific 'picture' or basic understanding of the Universe....so....it could legitimately be said that science is never 'absolutely' settled.....HOWEVER...in many areas of science, scientists have gained a profound understanding how things work...basic and advanced physics...and their certainty in their understanding of some processes and events approaches a kind of certainty.....which is why scientists often express their findings in terms of how certain they are.

]In the case of human caused global warming, the basic facts about what is happening now with the Earth's warming and climate changes are currently very well understood by the climate scientists who have been studying and researching this field very intensely for many decades now, and they say they have 95% confidence in their conclusions.

Since you two obviously know nothing about science, you very likely have no real idea what that means....

WHAT 95% CERTAINTY OF WARMING MEANS TO SCIENTISTS
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Sep. 24, 2013
WASHINGTON (AP) — Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill.

They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous.

They'll even put a number on how certain they are about climate change. But that number isn't 100 percent. It's 95 percent.

And for some non-scientists, that's just not good enough.

There's a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, specialists say.

That is an issue because this week, scientists from around the world have gathered in Stockholm for a meeting of a U.N. panel on climate change, and they will probably release a report saying it is "extremely likely" — which they define in footnotes as 95 percent certain — that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951.

One climate scientist involved says the panel may even boost it in some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent.

Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed. After all, most people wouldn't get on a plane that had only a 95 percent certainty of landing safely, risk experts say.

But in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty.

"Uncertainty is inherent in every scientific judgment," said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Thomas Burke. "Will the sun come up in the morning?" Scientists know the answer is yes, but they can't really say so with 100 percent certainty because there are so many factors out there that are not quite understood or under control.

George Gray, director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University, said that demanding absolute proof on things such as climate doesn't make sense.

"There's a group of people who seem to think that when scientists say they are uncertain, we shouldn't do anything," said Gray, who was chief scientist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration. "That's crazy. We're uncertain and we buy insurance."

With the U.N. panel about to weigh in on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of oil, coal and gas, The Associated Press asked scientists who specialize in climate, physics, epidemiology, public health, statistics and risk just what in science is more certain than human-caused climate change, what is about the same, and what is less.

They said gravity is a good example of something more certain than climate change. Climate change "is not as sure as if you drop a stone it will hit the Earth," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. "It's not certain, but it's close."

Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss said the 95 percent quoted for climate change is equivalent to the current certainty among physicists that the universe is 13.8 billion years old.

The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly.

"What is understood does not violate any mechanism that we understand about cancer," while "statistics confirm what we know about cancer," said Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist. Add to that a "very high consensus" among scientists about the harm of tobacco, and it sounds similar to the case for climate change, he said.

But even the best study can be nitpicked because nothing is perfect, and that's the strategy of both tobacco defenders and climate deniers, said Stanton Glantz, a medicine professor at the University of California, San Francisco and director of its tobacco control research center.

George Washington's Gray said the 95 percent number the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will probably adopt may not be realistic. In general, regardless of the field of research, experts tend to overestimate their confidence in their certainty, he said. Other experts said the 95 percent figure is too low.

Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. And because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.

But the role of nature and all sorts of other factors bring the number down to 95 percent when you want to say that the majority of the warming is human-caused, he said.

In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever.

In other words, moron, scientists have an enormous amount of evidence supporting their conclusions. Your insane denier cult assumption that all those scientists have no evidence supporting the heating effects of increasing CO2 is incredibly stupid. Your ignorance is your problem. I'm not your teacher and I don't have to assemble the evidence and show it to a deranged denier cult retard who couldn't understand it anyway, and would just deny its reality even if I showed it to you. Your denial of the existence of Greenhouse Gases, such as carbon dioxide, is evidence of a pathological distrust of science and very probably, the kind of crackpot conspiracy theory ideation common to your cult.

If you want the 'evidence', little retard, why don't you just google 'evidence that increased CO2 causes global warming', and read what comes up?

Or, you could read this, if you dare (fair warning - could cause your head to explode)....

Scientists stick it to climate deniers: Study provides direct evidence that human activity is causing global warming
For the first time, researchers directly observed carbon dioxide trapping heat in the atmosphere
Salon, com
LINDSAY ABRAMS
FEB 26, 2015
People who continue to deny that human activity is directly impacting climate change (looking at you, Inhofe) had better pay attention to this one: scientists, for the first time, have provided direct observational evidence that carbon dioxide is trapping heat in the atmosphere.

In a study published in the journal Nature, researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory used eleven years of measurements from specialized instruments at sites in Alaska and Oklahoma to analyze the source of energy fluctuations, confirming that it’s carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels that’s causing warming — and not water vapor, changes in the sun or someone tampering with the data to make it look like global warming is worse than it is, as some have claimed.

“We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation,” lead author Daniel Feldman explained in a statement.

“Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect.”

It’s important to be clear that by no means did the Berkeley researchers need to do this in order to prove that carbon dioxide is trapping heat in the atmosphere: as physicist and climate expert Ken Caldeira explained to the San Francisco Chronicle, “the underlying physics is robust and was never in question.” Climate scientist Andrew Dessler told the Associated Press that the work is somewhat similar to using a falling rock to confirm gravity.

But the findings do help validate climate models that depend, in part, on correctly simulating the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Mashable’s Andrew Freedman explains. All of that research warning that human activity is directly contributing to global warming, in other words, and that “substantial and sustained” reductions in emissions are our best hope of avoiding “severe, pervasive and irreversible” consequences, is no longer deniable — not that it ever was.

Or...

Scientists witness carbon dioxide trapping heat in air
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Feb. 25, 2015

See, you have no evidence whatsoever. All you have is logical fallacies.

LOLOLOLOLOL.....your deranged twaddle got thoroughly debunked....now you just are spazzing out over your own ignorance.

Actually it is you who has "no evidence whatsoever" to support your demented denial of reality, MuMu. All you've got is your utter insanity.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

 

[RollingThunder]

There is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 produced by human activity has caused or will ever cause deleterious global warming in the foreseeable future.
That's the fact of the matter.

There is the science-denying, reality-denying utter insanity of the hard-core denier cult fanatic....laid bare for all to see.
Actually, it's pretty hilarious to watch retards like ol' MuhMuhMuh squirm and twist as reality bitch-slaps them again and again......

Where's the evidence? Where is it you fucking brainwashed dooomsday cult member. C'mon chicken little show us some proof.

Is the science settled?

I might as well 'kill two retards with one stone', so to speak.

Although, I should add one little note to ol' MuMu......if you want to challenge the scientific consensus on the physics of greenhouse gases and the connection of the human caused 43% more CO2 in the atmosphere, I'm not the one you need to talk to....go get some degrees in climate science, do some research, write up your (pre-determined) conclusions, submit your paper to some top scientific journals and try to get them past peer-review and published, and argue with real scientists.....OTHERWISE....you're just blowing hot air about something that you know less than nothing about.

Because scientific understanding and knowledge is always being refined and expanded, and science is always open to considering new data, even findings or research results which perhaps challenge old theories, and committed to arriving at a better understanding of things in order to explain and incorporate any new information into the scientific 'picture' or basic understanding of the Universe....so....it could legitimately be said that science is never 'absolutely' settled.....HOWEVER...in many areas of science, scientists have gained a profound understanding how things work...basic and advanced physics...and their certainty in their understanding of some processes and events approaches a kind of certainty.....which is why scientists often express their findings in terms of how certain they are.

]In the case of human caused global warming, the basic facts about what is happening now with the Earth's warming and climate changes are currently very well understood by the climate scientists who have been studying and researching this field very intensely for many decades now, and they say they have 95% confidence in their conclusions.

Since you two obviously know nothing about science, you very likely have no real idea what that means....

WHAT 95% CERTAINTY OF WARMING MEANS TO SCIENTISTS
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Sep. 24, 2013
WASHINGTON (AP) — Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill.

They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous.

They'll even put a number on how certain they are about climate change. But that number isn't 100 percent. It's 95 percent.

And for some non-scientists, that's just not good enough.

There's a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, specialists say.

That is an issue because this week, scientists from around the world have gathered in Stockholm for a meeting of a U.N. panel on climate change, and they will probably release a report saying it is "extremely likely" — which they define in footnotes as 95 percent certain — that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951.

One climate scientist involved says the panel may even boost it in some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent.

Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed. After all, most people wouldn't get on a plane that had only a 95 percent certainty of landing safely, risk experts say.

But in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty.

"Uncertainty is inherent in every scientific judgment," said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Thomas Burke. "Will the sun come up in the morning?" Scientists know the answer is yes, but they can't really say so with 100 percent certainty because there are so many factors out there that are not quite understood or under control.

George Gray, director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University, said that demanding absolute proof on things such as climate doesn't make sense.

"There's a group of people who seem to think that when scientists say they are uncertain, we shouldn't do anything," said Gray, who was chief scientist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration. "That's crazy. We're uncertain and we buy insurance."

With the U.N. panel about to weigh in on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of oil, coal and gas, The Associated Press asked scientists who specialize in climate, physics, epidemiology, public health, statistics and risk just what in science is more certain than human-caused climate change, what is about the same, and what is less.

They said gravity is a good example of something more certain than climate change. Climate change "is not as sure as if you drop a stone it will hit the Earth," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. "It's not certain, but it's close."

Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss said the 95 percent quoted for climate change is equivalent to the current certainty among physicists that the universe is 13.8 billion years old.

The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly.

"What is understood does not violate any mechanism that we understand about cancer," while "statistics confirm what we know about cancer," said Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist. Add to that a "very high consensus" among scientists about the harm of tobacco, and it sounds similar to the case for climate change, he said.

But even the best study can be nitpicked because nothing is perfect, and that's the strategy of both tobacco defenders and climate deniers, said Stanton Glantz, a medicine professor at the University of California, San Francisco and director of its tobacco control research center.

George Washington's Gray said the 95 percent number the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will probably adopt may not be realistic. In general, regardless of the field of research, experts tend to overestimate their confidence in their certainty, he said. Other experts said the 95 percent figure is too low.

Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. And because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.

But the role of nature and all sorts of other factors bring the number down to 95 percent when you want to say that the majority of the warming is human-caused, he said.

In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever.

In other words, moron, scientists have an enormous amount of evidence supporting their conclusions. Your insane denier cult assumption that all those scientists have no evidence supporting the heating effects of increasing CO2 is incredibly stupid. Your ignorance is your problem. I'm not your teacher and I don't have to assemble the evidence and show it to a deranged denier cult retard who couldn't understand it anyway, and would just deny its reality even if I showed it to you. Your denial of the existence of Greenhouse Gases, such as carbon dioxide, is evidence of a pathological distrust of science and very probably, the kind of crackpot conspiracy theory ideation common to your cult.

If you want the 'evidence', little retard, why don't you just google 'evidence that increased CO2 causes global warming', and read what comes up?

Or, you could read this, if you dare (fair warning - could cause your head to explode)....

Scientists stick it to climate deniers: Study provides direct evidence that human activity is causing global warming
For the first time, researchers directly observed carbon dioxide trapping heat in the atmosphere
Salon, com
LINDSAY ABRAMS
FEB 26, 2015
People who continue to deny that human activity is directly impacting climate change (looking at you, Inhofe) had better pay attention to this one: scientists, for the first time, have provided direct observational evidence that carbon dioxide is trapping heat in the atmosphere.

In a study published in the journal Nature, researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory used eleven years of measurements from specialized instruments at sites in Alaska and Oklahoma to analyze the source of energy fluctuations, confirming that it’s carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels that’s causing warming — and not water vapor, changes in the sun or someone tampering with the data to make it look like global warming is worse than it is, as some have claimed.

“We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation,” lead author Daniel Feldman explained in a statement.

“Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect.”

It’s important to be clear that by no means did the Berkeley researchers need to do this in order to prove that carbon dioxide is trapping heat in the atmosphere: as physicist and climate expert Ken Caldeira explained to the San Francisco Chronicle, “the underlying physics is robust and was never in question.” Climate scientist Andrew Dessler told the Associated Press that the work is somewhat similar to using a falling rock to confirm gravity.

But the findings do help validate climate models that depend, in part, on correctly simulating the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Mashable’s Andrew Freedman explains. All of that research warning that human activity is directly contributing to global warming, in other words, and that “substantial and sustained” reductions in emissions are our best hope of avoiding “severe, pervasive and irreversible” consequences, is no longer deniable — not that it ever was.

Or...

Scientists witness carbon dioxide trapping heat in air
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Feb. 25, 2015

See, you have no evidence whatsoever. All you have is logical fallacies.

LOLOLOLOLOL.....your deranged twaddle got thoroughly debunked....now you just are spazzing out over your own ignorance.

Actually it is you who has "no evidence whatsoever" to support your demented denial of reality, MuMu. All you've got is your utter insanity.

It is your doomsday cult that made the claim, therefore the onus is on you to provide evidence, not those who are skeptical.

And you've been shown all kinds of evidence and you moronically deny the reality of all of it. You are a braindead troll.

I just showed you scientific evidence of the CO2 greenhouse effect.....are you ever going to address THAT?

Scientists witness carbon dioxide trapping heat in air
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Feb. 25, 2015

And so far, the GWC has not provided any evidence.

That's your very insane denier cult delusion...disproven right on this thread.....and in hundreds of other places....you will never see the obvious evidence if you keep your head tucked so far up your ass, MuMu.

For a change, try not maintaining the standard denier cult position on human caused global warming...