Climate Change Deniers Are Lying

[bripat9643]

First, I am not sure I believe they don't. I think I've stated that.

Second, I asked him to take his debate to a venue where just his facts and his single opponents facts could be evaluated. That way we could see what both sides have to present and what information they feel is the most meaningful. I grow tired of having certain organizations held up as "the standard". Or if your doctor tells you he needs to cut off your balls do you just march in and have it done without really trying to understand why (but he is the expert....what could you possibly know). It's a legitimate suggestion.

Third, your request is silly. If you had said, prove humans have inconsequential impact on climate or consequential impact, then the question would have turned to a matter of metrics (which is probably where this whole disagreement resides anyway). After all some "deniers" would claim that volcanos have more impact than humans. And "alarmists" would argue that "rising ocean levels are a real concern. What is impact and why be concerned.

Lastly, is there a reason he shouldn't go there. Or do we continue with the proliferation of meaningless threads (which the OP starts) which all end with the same name calling, appeal to authority riddled, selective data plastered...goop ?

You criticism is spot on, it is a queston of metrics. That said, my question was loaded for emphasis, in fact some deniers are simply kooks who don't have any specialized knowledge. As for the alarmists, their concern isn't based on a fallacy but on data such as this:

NOAA s Ten Signs of a Warming World Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere

Why do you call those who disagree with you "deniers".

Would you call me a "denier" if I disagreed with the theory that the moon is made of cheese?

Of course you wouldn't. You and your ilk are merely resorting to a logical fallacy because you have no reasonable and logical argument to back up your fear-mongering claims that humans are causing catastrophic global warming via CO2 emissions.

I recall comparing you to CrusaderFrank, the archetype of the Idiot-Gram, and you may or may not be a denier. A denier believes little or no human activity has any effect on the climate, or even if some change is human related the earth is able to repair it self miraculously.

Remember when leaded gas, acid rain, burning rivers and clear cutting forests were a cause for "alarmists"?

So question, do you, or have you seen that evidence? Just curious what it is you working off of.

Have I seen the evidence of burning rivers?
Google

Have I seen the evidence of leaded gas?
Photo s of Smog LA Basin - Google Search

Love Canal
10 Superfund sites Love Canal New York MNN - Mother Nature Network

Clear cutting, not only mudslides but less trees to eat CO2
Photos of mudslides do to clear cutting of forests - Google Search

He's referring to the climate, numskull.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And which one of your Zealots was it that stated the polar ice caps would all be melted and our children wouldn't know what snow is... You fucking moron..

Uh huh, I wonder why it is then that you simpletons and liars rely so much on a minority of opinions rather than actual evidence.

AGWCult "Evidence" = turning on the Weather Channel and shrieking, "MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING YOU FUCKING DENIER!!! DIE!!!!"

For those who don't know CrusaderFrank, he's a member of the 1% who believes said bowling ball dropped off the Golden Gate Bridge won't hit the water. He'll spin the argument into dropping the ball on the part of the bridge not spanning the bay waters, or suggest a ship will intercept the ball. All of which miss the point, but make him feel relevant.

who are you talking to?

Those who don't know CrusaderFrank.

Tiny Universe that

 

[jc456]

And which one of your Zealots was it that stated the polar ice caps would all be melted and our children wouldn't know what snow is... You fucking moron..

Uh huh, I wonder why it is then that you simpletons and liars rely so much on a minority of opinions rather than actual evidence.

AGWCult "Evidence" = turning on the Weather Channel and shrieking, "MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING YOU FUCKING DENIER!!! DIE!!!!"

For those who don't know CrusaderFrank, he's a member of the 1% who believes said bowling ball dropped off the Golden Gate Bridge won't hit the water. He'll spin the argument into dropping the ball on the part of the bridge not spanning the bay waters, or suggest a ship will intercept the ball. All of which miss the point, but make him feel relevant.

who are you talking to?

Those who don't know CrusaderFrank.

i don't think so, I think you are broadcasting for attention. Hmmmmmmmm

 

[jc456]

You criticism is spot on, it is a queston of metrics. That said, my question was loaded for emphasis, in fact some deniers are simply kooks who don't have any specialized knowledge. As for the alarmists, their concern isn't based on a fallacy but on data such as this:

NOAA s Ten Signs of a Warming World Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere

Why do you call those who disagree with you "deniers".

Would you call me a "denier" if I disagreed with the theory that the moon is made of cheese?

Of course you wouldn't. You and your ilk are merely resorting to a logical fallacy because you have no reasonable and logical argument to back up your fear-mongering claims that humans are causing catastrophic global warming via CO2 emissions.

I recall comparing you to CrusaderFrank, the archetype of the Idiot-Gram, and you may or may not be a denier. A denier believes little or no human activity has any effect on the climate, or even if some change is human related the earth is able to repair it self miraculously.

Remember when leaded gas, acid rain, burning rivers and clear cutting forests were a cause for "alarmists"?

So question, do you, or have you seen that evidence? Just curious what it is you working off of.

Have I seen the evidence of burning rivers?
Google

Have I seen the evidence of leaded gas?
Photo s of Smog LA Basin - Google Search

Love Canal
10 Superfund sites Love Canal New York MNN - Mother Nature Network

Clear cutting, not only mudslides but less trees to eat CO2
Photos of mudslides do to clear cutting of forests - Google Search

He's referring to the climate, numskull.

Holy crap right? What's with these agitators. OMG his response was flippin hilarious and so typical who he represents. Again providing nothing to the discussion, nothing.

 

[Liminal]

And YOU know. Well, aren't we fortunate to have someone on this forum who really knows.

I think I am, at least, willing to qualify my response.

Your total lack of information or analysis (despite being the OP making a rather acrid statement about those you disagree with) is wearing thin. You can either put up or shut up.

And posting links does not cut it. Bring the information from the link you wish to highlite and state why you think it is relevant.

You can qualify your responses with all the opinions you want; try refuting the content of the link with something besides more opinions.

It's not an opinion.

I know scientists, not employed by anyone close to your hit list, who don't agree with your global warming claims.

What link are you making reference to ?

Please don't tell me the link in the OP. A year old article that essentially says nothing.

Here's an interesting link for you, an extensive list of prominent global climate change deniers. Some fascinating connections these people have, looks like some deep pockets.
Global Warming Deniers Database

AGW cult members have connections with the biggest pockets of all. They are connected with the federal government.

Let's have another look at that list of deniers. Interesting qualifications and connections these people have.
Global Warming Deniers Database

 

[jc456]

First, I am not sure I believe they don't. I think I've stated that.

Second, I asked him to take his debate to a venue where just his facts and his single opponents facts could be evaluated. That way we could see what both sides have to present and what information they feel is the most meaningful. I grow tired of having certain organizations held up as "the standard". Or if your doctor tells you he needs to cut off your balls do you just march in and have it done without really trying to understand why (but he is the expert....what could you possibly know). It's a legitimate suggestion.

Third, your request is silly. If you had said, prove humans have inconsequential impact on climate or consequential impact, then the question would have turned to a matter of metrics (which is probably where this whole disagreement resides anyway). After all some "deniers" would claim that volcanos have more impact than humans. And "alarmists" would argue that "rising ocean levels are a real concern. What is impact and why be concerned.

Lastly, is there a reason he shouldn't go there. Or do we continue with the proliferation of meaningless threads (which the OP starts) which all end with the same name calling, appeal to authority riddled, selective data plastered...goop ?

You criticism is spot on, it is a queston of metrics. That said, my question was loaded for emphasis, in fact some deniers are simply kooks who don't have any specialized knowledge. As for the alarmists, their concern isn't based on a fallacy but on data such as this:

NOAA s Ten Signs of a Warming World Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere

Why do you call those who disagree with you "deniers".

Would you call me a "denier" if I disagreed with the theory that the moon is made of cheese?

Of course you wouldn't. You and your ilk are merely resorting to a logical fallacy because you have no reasonable and logical argument to back up your fear-mongering claims that humans are causing catastrophic global warming via CO2 emissions.

I recall comparing you to CrusaderFrank, the archetype of the Idiot-Gram, and you may or may not be a denier. A denier believes little or no human activity has any effect on the climate, or even if some change is human related the earth is able to repair it self miraculously.

Remember when leaded gas, acid rain, burning rivers and clear cutting forests were a cause for "alarmists"?

So question, do you, or have you seen that evidence? Just curious what it is you working off of.

Have I seen the evidence of burning rivers?
Google

Have I seen the evidence of leaded gas?
Photo s of Smog LA Basin - Google Search

Love Canal
10 Superfund sites Love Canal New York MNN - Mother Nature Network

Clear cutting, not only mudslides but less trees to eat CO2
Photos of mudslides do to clear cutting of forests - Google Search

Son, when you go to order a hamburger and they ask if you like ketchup, do you give them this response? I mean, that makes just as much sense as your reply to me. Now do you have any information regarding my posed statement, yes or no?

 

[jc456]

I think I am, at least, willing to qualify my response.

Your total lack of information or analysis (despite being the OP making a rather acrid statement about those you disagree with) is wearing thin. You can either put up or shut up.

And posting links does not cut it. Bring the information from the link you wish to highlite and state why you think it is relevant.

You can qualify your responses with all the opinions you want; try refuting the content of the link with something besides more opinions.

It's not an opinion.

I know scientists, not employed by anyone close to your hit list, who don't agree with your global warming claims.

What link are you making reference to ?

Please don't tell me the link in the OP. A year old article that essentially says nothing.

Here's an interesting link for you, an extensive list of prominent global climate change deniers. Some fascinating connections these people have, looks like some deep pockets.
Global Warming Deniers Database

AGW cult members have connections with the biggest pockets of all. They are connected with the federal government.

Let's have another look at that list of deniers. Interesting qualifications and connections these people have.
Global Warming Deniers Database

Son, we're still waiting on that list of those who deny climate on here, like I said we know you do, but who else?

 

[jc456]

I think I am, at least, willing to qualify my response.

Your total lack of information or analysis (despite being the OP making a rather acrid statement about those you disagree with) is wearing thin. You can either put up or shut up.

And posting links does not cut it. Bring the information from the link you wish to highlite and state why you think it is relevant.

You can qualify your responses with all the opinions you want; try refuting the content of the link with something besides more opinions.

It's not an opinion.

I know scientists, not employed by anyone close to your hit list, who don't agree with your global warming claims.

What link are you making reference to ?

Please don't tell me the link in the OP. A year old article that essentially says nothing.

Here's an interesting link for you, an extensive list of prominent global climate change deniers. Some fascinating connections these people have, looks like some deep pockets.
Global Warming Deniers Database

AGW cult members have connections with the biggest pockets of all. They are connected with the federal government.

Let's have another look at that list of deniers. Interesting qualifications and connections these people have.
Global Warming Deniers Database

Whoa son, your list is so full of bunk I smelt it as it opened up. Whew, you need a new life. That list shows Judith Curry, now sir I respectfully ask you to post one line from her where she ever made a statement that was in that list. come now big man on campus, where's that tiny thing you work with daily at.

 

[bripat9643]

I think I am, at least, willing to qualify my response.

Your total lack of information or analysis (despite being the OP making a rather acrid statement about those you disagree with) is wearing thin. You can either put up or shut up.

And posting links does not cut it. Bring the information from the link you wish to highlite and state why you think it is relevant.

You can qualify your responses with all the opinions you want; try refuting the content of the link with something besides more opinions.

It's not an opinion.

I know scientists, not employed by anyone close to your hit list, who don't agree with your global warming claims.

What link are you making reference to ?

Please don't tell me the link in the OP. A year old article that essentially says nothing.

Here's an interesting link for you, an extensive list of prominent global climate change deniers. Some fascinating connections these people have, looks like some deep pockets.
Global Warming Deniers Database

AGW cult members have connections with the biggest pockets of all. They are connected with the federal government.

Let's have another look at that list of deniers. Interesting qualifications and connections these people have.
Global Warming Deniers Database

As I already noted, all the AGW cult priests are on the government payroll, which has bigger pockets than any corporation. Cult members keep trying to pretend that only private money corrupts. Those receiving government cash have only the purest of motives.

The funny part is that you think we're all supposed to be as naive as you.

 

[Liminal]

You criticism is spot on, it is a queston of metrics. That said, my question was loaded for emphasis, in fact some deniers are simply kooks who don't have any specialized knowledge. As for the alarmists, their concern isn't based on a fallacy but on data such as this:

NOAA s Ten Signs of a Warming World Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere

Why do you call those who disagree with you "deniers".

Would you call me a "denier" if I disagreed with the theory that the moon is made of cheese?

Of course you wouldn't. You and your ilk are merely resorting to a logical fallacy because you have no reasonable and logical argument to back up your fear-mongering claims that humans are causing catastrophic global warming via CO2 emissions.

I recall comparing you to CrusaderFrank, the archetype of the Idiot-Gram, and you may or may not be a denier. A denier believes little or no human activity has any effect on the climate, or even if some change is human related the earth is able to repair it self miraculously.

Remember when leaded gas, acid rain, burning rivers and clear cutting forests were a cause for "alarmists"?

So question, do you, or have you seen that evidence? Just curious what it is you working off of.

Have I seen the evidence of burning rivers?
Google

Have I seen the evidence of leaded gas?
Photo s of Smog LA Basin - Google Search

Love Canal
10 Superfund sites Love Canal New York MNN - Mother Nature Network

Clear cutting, not only mudslides but less trees to eat CO2
Photos of mudslides do to clear cutting of forests - Google Search

He's referring to the climate, numskull.

You certainly are a very nasty little man....aren't you.

 

[bripat9643]

You criticism is spot on, it is a queston of metrics. That said, my question was loaded for emphasis, in fact some deniers are simply kooks who don't have any specialized knowledge. As for the alarmists, their concern isn't based on a fallacy but on data such as this:

NOAA s Ten Signs of a Warming World Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere

Why do you call those who disagree with you "deniers".

Would you call me a "denier" if I disagreed with the theory that the moon is made of cheese?

Of course you wouldn't. You and your ilk are merely resorting to a logical fallacy because you have no reasonable and logical argument to back up your fear-mongering claims that humans are causing catastrophic global warming via CO2 emissions.

I recall comparing you to CrusaderFrank, the archetype of the Idiot-Gram, and you may or may not be a denier. A denier believes little or no human activity has any effect on the climate, or even if some change is human related the earth is able to repair it self miraculously.

Remember when leaded gas, acid rain, burning rivers and clear cutting forests were a cause for "alarmists"?

So question, do you, or have you seen that evidence? Just curious what it is you working off of.

Have I seen the evidence of burning rivers?
Google

Have I seen the evidence of leaded gas?
Photo s of Smog LA Basin - Google Search

Love Canal
10 Superfund sites Love Canal New York MNN - Mother Nature Network

Clear cutting, not only mudslides but less trees to eat CO2
Photos of mudslides do to clear cutting of forests - Google Search

Son, when you go to order a hamburger and they ask if you like ketchup, do you give them this response? I mean, that makes just as much sense as your reply to me. Now do you have any information regarding my posed statement, yes or no?

What you are seeing here is the proof that the AGW cult isn't capable of rational thought. They have a grab bag of canned responses. No matter what you ask them, you'll get one of those canned responses. They aren't capable of thinking up anything original.

 

[bripat9643]

Why do you call those who disagree with you "deniers".

Would you call me a "denier" if I disagreed with the theory that the moon is made of cheese?

Of course you wouldn't. You and your ilk are merely resorting to a logical fallacy because you have no reasonable and logical argument to back up your fear-mongering claims that humans are causing catastrophic global warming via CO2 emissions.

I recall comparing you to CrusaderFrank, the archetype of the Idiot-Gram, and you may or may not be a denier. A denier believes little or no human activity has any effect on the climate, or even if some change is human related the earth is able to repair it self miraculously.

Remember when leaded gas, acid rain, burning rivers and clear cutting forests were a cause for "alarmists"?

So question, do you, or have you seen that evidence? Just curious what it is you working off of.

Have I seen the evidence of burning rivers?
Google

Have I seen the evidence of leaded gas?
Photo s of Smog LA Basin - Google Search

Love Canal
10 Superfund sites Love Canal New York MNN - Mother Nature Network

Clear cutting, not only mudslides but less trees to eat CO2
Photos of mudslides do to clear cutting of forests - Google Search

He's referring to the climate, numskull.

You certainly are a very nasty little man....aren't you.

I treat idiots the way they deserve to be treated, especially the kind that are congenitally incapable of committing logic.

 

[Liminal]

I recall comparing you to CrusaderFrank, the archetype of the Idiot-Gram, and you may or may not be a denier. A denier believes little or no human activity has any effect on the climate, or even if some change is human related the earth is able to repair it self miraculously.

Remember when leaded gas, acid rain, burning rivers and clear cutting forests were a cause for "alarmists"?

So question, do you, or have you seen that evidence? Just curious what it is you working off of.

Have I seen the evidence of burning rivers?
Google

Have I seen the evidence of leaded gas?
Photo s of Smog LA Basin - Google Search

Love Canal
10 Superfund sites Love Canal New York MNN - Mother Nature Network

Clear cutting, not only mudslides but less trees to eat CO2
Photos of mudslides do to clear cutting of forests - Google Search

He's referring to the climate, numskull.

You certainly are a very nasty little man....aren't you.

I treat idiots the way they deserve to be treated, especially the kind that are congenitally incapable of committing logic.

......so you can then get people to treat you the way you deserve. I see how it works now.

 

[bripat9643]

So question, do you, or have you seen that evidence? Just curious what it is you working off of.

Have I seen the evidence of burning rivers?
Google

Have I seen the evidence of leaded gas?
Photo s of Smog LA Basin - Google Search

Love Canal
10 Superfund sites Love Canal New York MNN - Mother Nature Network

Clear cutting, not only mudslides but less trees to eat CO2
Photos of mudslides do to clear cutting of forests - Google Search

He's referring to the climate, numskull.

You certainly are a very nasty little man....aren't you.

I treat idiots the way they deserve to be treated, especially the kind that are congenitally incapable of committing logic.

......so you can then get people to treat you the way you deserve. I see how it works now.

Yeah, because we all know that you're such a polite respectful forum troll.

 

[Liminal]

Have I seen the evidence of burning rivers?
Google

Have I seen the evidence of leaded gas?
Photo s of Smog LA Basin - Google Search

Love Canal
10 Superfund sites Love Canal New York MNN - Mother Nature Network

Clear cutting, not only mudslides but less trees to eat CO2
Photos of mudslides do to clear cutting of forests - Google Search

He's referring to the climate, numskull.

You certainly are a very nasty little man....aren't you.

I treat idiots the way they deserve to be treated, especially the kind that are congenitally incapable of committing logic.

......so you can then get people to treat you the way you deserve. I see how it works now.

Yeah, because we all know that you're such a polite respectful forum troll.

Manners and common courtesy wouldn't hurt you. Personal attacks are always your first option.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And which one of your Zealots was it that stated the polar ice caps would all be melted and our children wouldn't know what snow is... You fucking moron..

Uh huh, I wonder why it is then that you simpletons and liars rely so much on a minority of opinions rather than actual evidence.

AGWCult "Evidence" = turning on the Weather Channel and shrieking, "MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING YOU FUCKING DENIER!!! DIE!!!!"

I've asked Liminal...he's not responding...so I'll ask you.

Why don't you issue a challenge in the Bullring to an "alarmist" (like Liminal) and let the rest of us watch you go at it.

You get to pick three judges who'll decide who won.

You interested ?

it's a really simple request, and one that hasn't been answered for over a year now for me on this forum. That is, show me evidence that adding 120 PPM of CO2 increases warming. It's that simple. the warmer deniers response, already gave it, thousands of pieces, mountains of evidence, and to date as Frank and others on here will, that evidence has never, never been provided. I do have one, Herr Koch 1901, proved that it wouldn't. Ask old rock, he likes to post it up weekly on about every thread, by the way, I think violates the rules here, but I enjoy getting to point to my guy Herr for my counter argument that he or any other have ever been able to counter back.So, get someone on the warmer denier list to supply that evidence. Let's go.

Let's look at some predicted consequences:

Southern Ocean acidification A tipping point at 450-ppm atmospheric CO2

Discovering the Effects of Carbon Dioxide Levels on Marine Life and Global Climate

 

[Liminal]

Why do you call those who disagree with you "deniers".

Would you call me a "denier" if I disagreed with the theory that the moon is made of cheese?

Of course you wouldn't. You and your ilk are merely resorting to a logical fallacy because you have no reasonable and logical argument to back up your fear-mongering claims that humans are causing catastrophic global warming via CO2 emissions.

I recall comparing you to CrusaderFrank, the archetype of the Idiot-Gram, and you may or may not be a denier. A denier believes little or no human activity has any effect on the climate, or even if some change is human related the earth is able to repair it self miraculously.

Remember when leaded gas, acid rain, burning rivers and clear cutting forests were a cause for "alarmists"?

So question, do you, or have you seen that evidence? Just curious what it is you working off of.

Have I seen the evidence of burning rivers?
Google

Have I seen the evidence of leaded gas?
Photo s of Smog LA Basin - Google Search

Love Canal
10 Superfund sites Love Canal New York MNN - Mother Nature Network

Clear cutting, not only mudslides but less trees to eat CO2
Photos of mudslides do to clear cutting of forests - Google Search

Son, when you go to order a hamburger and they ask if you like ketchup, do you give them this response? I mean, that makes just as much sense as your reply to me. Now do you have any information regarding my posed statement, yes or no?

What you are seeing here is the proof that the AGW cult isn't capable of rational thought. They have a grab bag of canned responses. No matter what you ask them, you'll get one of those canned responses. They aren't capable of thinking up anything original.

When it comes to science, I'm not the least bit interested in the original thinking of people who aren't scientists.

 

[jc456]

I recall comparing you to CrusaderFrank, the archetype of the Idiot-Gram, and you may or may not be a denier. A denier believes little or no human activity has any effect on the climate, or even if some change is human related the earth is able to repair it self miraculously.

Remember when leaded gas, acid rain, burning rivers and clear cutting forests were a cause for "alarmists"?

So question, do you, or have you seen that evidence? Just curious what it is you working off of.

Have I seen the evidence of burning rivers?
Google

Have I seen the evidence of leaded gas?
Photo s of Smog LA Basin - Google Search

Love Canal
10 Superfund sites Love Canal New York MNN - Mother Nature Network

Clear cutting, not only mudslides but less trees to eat CO2
Photos of mudslides do to clear cutting of forests - Google Search

Son, when you go to order a hamburger and they ask if you like ketchup, do you give them this response? I mean, that makes just as much sense as your reply to me. Now do you have any information regarding my posed statement, yes or no?

What you are seeing here is the proof that the AGW cult isn't capable of rational thought. They have a grab bag of canned responses. No matter what you ask them, you'll get one of those canned responses. They aren't capable of thinking up anything original.

When it comes to science, I'm not the least bit interested in the original thinking of people who aren't scientists.

And someone who doesn't even know science behavior or what it actually does. You go in eyes closed tight.

 

[jc456]

And which one of your Zealots was it that stated the polar ice caps would all be melted and our children wouldn't know what snow is... You fucking moron..

Uh huh, I wonder why it is then that you simpletons and liars rely so much on a minority of opinions rather than actual evidence.

AGWCult "Evidence" = turning on the Weather Channel and shrieking, "MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING YOU FUCKING DENIER!!! DIE!!!!"

I've asked Liminal...he's not responding...so I'll ask you.

Why don't you issue a challenge in the Bullring to an "alarmist" (like Liminal) and let the rest of us watch you go at it.

You get to pick three judges who'll decide who won.

You interested ?

it's a really simple request, and one that hasn't been answered for over a year now for me on this forum. That is, show me evidence that adding 120 PPM of CO2 increases warming. It's that simple. the warmer deniers response, already gave it, thousands of pieces, mountains of evidence, and to date as Frank and others on here will, that evidence has never, never been provided. I do have one, Herr Koch 1901, proved that it wouldn't. Ask old rock, he likes to post it up weekly on about every thread, by the way, I think violates the rules here, but I enjoy getting to point to my guy Herr for my counter argument that he or any other have ever been able to counter back.So, get someone on the warmer denier list to supply that evidence. Let's go.

Let's look at some predicted consequences:

Southern Ocean acidification A tipping point at 450-ppm atmospheric CO2

Discovering the Effects of Carbon Dioxide Levels on Marine Life and Global Climate

So, I know that reading comprehension is last on your list, but still haven't seen anything regarding temperatures and CO2.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why do you call those who disagree with you "deniers".

Would you call me a "denier" if I disagreed with the theory that the moon is made of cheese?

Of course you wouldn't. You and your ilk are merely resorting to a logical fallacy because you have no reasonable and logical argument to back up your fear-mongering claims that humans are causing catastrophic global warming via CO2 emissions.

I recall comparing you to CrusaderFrank, the archetype of the Idiot-Gram, and you may or may not be a denier. A denier believes little or no human activity has any effect on the climate, or even if some change is human related the earth is able to repair it self miraculously.

Remember when leaded gas, acid rain, burning rivers and clear cutting forests were a cause for "alarmists"?

So question, do you, or have you seen that evidence? Just curious what it is you working off of.

Have I seen the evidence of burning rivers?
Google

Have I seen the evidence of leaded gas?
Photo s of Smog LA Basin - Google Search

Love Canal
10 Superfund sites Love Canal New York MNN - Mother Nature Network

Clear cutting, not only mudslides but less trees to eat CO2
Photos of mudslides do to clear cutting of forests - Google Search

He's referring to the climate, numskull.

Holy crap right? What's with these agitators. OMG his response was flippin hilarious and so typical who he represents. Again providing nothing to the discussion, nothing.

You're both too biased or not bright enough to understand inductive reasoning. It's all related. The polluters pollute, the air, the water, the soil, and the sole of those President Lincoln singled out: "...you can fool some of the people, all of the time".