England Court PROVES "climate change" is a FARCE

[itfitzme]

Then you won't have any problem having an actual conversation that includes science basics. And, if it's so much as what you say, then you should be pretty damned tired of the diatribe that passes for posts on the forum.

The difference can be seen in examining posts by the likes of Abraham3, which include actual science.

Well, your opinion that man isn't responsible isn't worth the bits that posted it.

What is relevant is that CO2 correlates statistically significant with temp and that CO2 is demonstrated as a GHG. If you so good at the science, tell me, have you downloaded the data and run a regression? What did you get?

Would that be the raw data sets that have disappeared or the "corrected" data?

I have no more reason to assume the data released is any more credible than you are.

If you look back, you will find that I never mentioned education until some asshat threw up theirs to prove how smart they are. Unfortunately, I have at least as much as him and yourself, so using education as an appeal to authority doesn't mean shit.

It is interesting, though, how so many ass hat authoritative con clowns quickly fall to using neg reps, the digital equivalent of hitting, when they fail any other manner of authoritative claims. Typical. That was the test here, to see who really are just pussies that can't respond with actual intelligence. "Oh, my feelings are so hurt.... boo hoo hoo...l."

It is funny, though, how when they attempt to throw up education fails, the thread changes to "how dare you arrogantly bring up education..

Someone is right, it doesn't take a fucking Einstein to figure it out.

It would be great to have a discussion about the derivation of the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, too bad they are not even a fucking Dr. Seuss.

 

[itfitzme]

That is perhaps the most arrogant statement ever made at USMB.

It isn't arrogance when it is true. And as it is true, then I get to be as fucking arrogant as I like. What is the problem, it makes you feel bad? Oh, did I hurt your feelings? You want me to buy you candy, flowers, and tell you how pretty you are?

And the more you post, the clearer it is that you haven't got shit. I should be arrogant. You should grow a pair.

And, I see you still haven't demonstrated anything with regard to the temperature record. Faced with a direct and specific question that you can leverage to show that you actually know what you are talking about, you choke and decide to go with the emotional bullshit.

Figures. Guess your off the list of potential intelligent respondents.

The statement: "My knowledge prevents me from looking at the links." is so unbelievably arrogant. You assume you know everything worth knowing and seem to be saying that any evidence of a conflicting position is somehow beneath you.
Of course you buy the AGW crap! You refuse to read anything that doesn't support it.

And you DARE to cross me off your list of potential intelligent respondents?

Really How fucked up can you get?

You criticize me for not responding to your questions???? Fuck off, asshole! I'm done with you!

Yes, I know everything worth knowing. That you are confused is your own problem.

That you get your panties all in a bunch just because I don't give a crap about your appeal to authority is your problem.

 

[itfitzme]

Harrumph. Bachelor's in Electrical Engineering and a Master's in Business Administration qualifies YOU to speak on climate science?
My background in Science is at least as strong as yours. I am likely as well read on climate as you. The difference being, I read both sides of the argument. I don't deny that for the last 40 years or so, the trend has been upward. My informed opinion is that man is responsible for little, if any of that change.

Oh! You completely missed my left side of the bell curve statement. I thought you were a statistics whiz.

Then you won't have any problem having an actual conversation that includes science basics. And, if it's so much as what you say, then you should be pretty damned tired of the diatribe that passes for posts on the forum.

The difference can be seen in examining posts by the likes of Abraham3, which include actual science.

Well, your opinion that man isn't responsible isn't worth the bits that posted it.

What is relevant is that CO2 correlates statistically significant with temp and that CO2 is demonstrated as a GHG. If you so good at the science, tell me, have you downloaded the data and run a regression? What did you get?

Would that be the raw data sets that have disappeared or the "corrected" data?

I have no more reason to assume the data released is any more credible than you are.

That is always the convenient fallback position of people wearing tin foil hats, that the data is wrong, that people are lying, that the CIA is beaming microwaves into their room at night and trying to control their mind.

 

[Vox]

Just had to pull this out...it has so much to do with the reason for the deniers in the first place...

In the US, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003.During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion.

and it is 26billion too much

 

[westwall]

I've got a BA and a BS, neither of which are in sciences but it doesn't take a fucking Einstein to figure out: quit polluting the air we breathe, start planting some fucking trees instead of cutting them all down, and quit fucking assuming we have another planet to go to if we fuck this one up.

I DO have a PhD in geology and not one of the sceptics refutes those points. How about instead of squandering countless trillions of dollars to try and lower the global temperature by one degree we instead spend that money doing exactly what you say.

Hmm, how about that instead.

Indeed. Perhaps if we start spending money on those things, the global temperature would go down.

The temperature will do what it will do, but a cleaner world is always a good thing.

 

[westwall]

It isn't arrogance when it is true. And as it is true, then I get to be as fucking arrogant as I like. What is the problem, it makes you feel bad? Oh, did I hurt your feelings? You want me to buy you candy, flowers, and tell you how pretty you are?

And the more you post, the clearer it is that you haven't got shit. I should be arrogant. You should grow a pair.

And, I see you still haven't demonstrated anything with regard to the temperature record. Faced with a direct and specific question that you can leverage to show that you actually know what you are talking about, you choke and decide to go with the emotional bullshit.

Figures. Guess your off the list of potential intelligent respondents.

The statement: "My knowledge prevents me from looking at the links." is so unbelievably arrogant. You assume you know everything worth knowing and seem to be saying that any evidence of a conflicting position is somehow beneath you.
Of course you buy the AGW crap! You refuse to read anything that doesn't support it.

And you DARE to cross me off your list of potential intelligent respondents?

Really How fucked up can you get?

You criticize me for not responding to your questions???? Fuck off, asshole! I'm done with you!

Yes, I know everything worth knowing. That you are confused is your own problem.

That you get your panties all in a bunch just because I don't give a crap about your appeal to authority is your problem.

Only a loon would make such a statement. You need not be taken seriously any longer. And insane person can contribute nothing useful..

 

[westwall]

Just had to pull this out...it has so much to do with the reason for the deniers in the first place...

In the US, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003.During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion.

and it is 26billion too much

No, so long as it is legit research, it isn't. The problem is when they give money to companies like Solyndra which had already been vetted by the government and their systems and technology found lacking.

 

[itfitzme]

The statement: "My knowledge prevents me from looking at the links." is so unbelievably arrogant. You assume you know everything worth knowing and seem to be saying that any evidence of a conflicting position is somehow beneath you.
Of course you buy the AGW crap! You refuse to read anything that doesn't support it.

And you DARE to cross me off your list of potential intelligent respondents?

Really How fucked up can you get?

You criticize me for not responding to your questions???? Fuck off, asshole! I'm done with you!

Yes, I know everything worth knowing. That you are confused is your own problem.

That you get your panties all in a bunch just because I don't give a crap about your appeal to authority is your problem.

Only a loon would make such a statement. You need not be taken seriously any longer. And insane person can contribute nothing useful..

Walleyed, you have yet to contribute anything useful. Last I looked, you have absolutely no concept of the basics of science.

You can lived in your own fantasy land all you like, but you cannot present the basics of physics, mathematics, statistics, or economics.

Don't kid yourself. The only thing you have is denial and avoidance.

 

[Vox]

Just had to pull this out...it has so much to do with the reason for the deniers in the first place...

In the US, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003.During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion.

and it is 26billion too much

No, so long as it is legit research, it isn't. The problem is when they give money to companies like Solyndra which had already been vetted by the government and their systems and technology found lacking.

It is a waste. Because it will be inevitable solyndra
The best cost-effective and environmentally friendly is nuclear power. Yet we still want to reinvent the wheel

 

[P@triot]

[ame=http://youtu.be/g6Zswes9TsY]Charles Krauthammer on Climate Change - YouTube[/ame]

 

[P@triot]

A co-founder of Greenpeace told a Senate panel on Tuesday that there is no scientific evidence to back claims that humans are the "dominant cause" of climate change.

Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist who was a member of Greenpeace from 1971-86, told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee environmental groups like Greenpeace use faulty computer models and scare tactics in further promoting a political agenda, Fox News reported.

Greenpeace co-founder says 'no scientific proof' humans cause climate change - Washington Times

 

[BlackSand]

But the polar ice caps aren't "nothing", stupid. They not only exist, they have expanded by 60%...

How dumb are you exactly?

like any random leftard parrot operative

Oh why even argue with the poster?

First they tell you that if the polar ice caps melt Colorado will have oceanfront property ... Then they tell you that the ice caps aren't that big anyway.
It is more of the same old Global Climate Warming Change crap ... They just support whatever hair-brained excuse comes to mind.

.

 

[francoHFW]

So, enjoy all the 100 year floods, hurricanes, and droughts every 2 years, losing a bit of coastline and the Maldives...hell, Fox won't cover it anyway....it's all part of the Pub downward spiral...lol.

 

[francoHFW]

All together- Protect pollution.

 

[BlackSand]

So, enjoy all the 100 year floods, hurricanes, and droughts every 2 years, losing a bit of coastline and the Maldives...hell, Fox won't cover it anyway....it's all part of the Pub downward spiral...lol.

See ... Franco is one that will tell you all about the amount of ice necessary to be melted in order to put the Republic of Maldives an inch deeper in water ... And is going to be excited the ice caps have recovered with a 60% increase.
I mean even Franco can understand that if the Republic of Maldives goes underwater due to ice caps melting ... Then any increase in the polar ice caps would subsequently help the Maldives.

Unless of course Franco lives in a totally Progressive Liberal world where nothing good or bad ever happens unless it is the result of political meddling.

.

 

[P@triot]

So, enjoy all the 100 year floods, hurricanes, and droughts every 2 years, losing a bit of coastline and the Maldives...hell, Fox won't cover it anyway....it's all part of the Pub downward spiral...lol.

See ... Franco is one that will tell you all about the amount of ice necessary to be melted in order to put the Republic of Maldives an inch deeper in water ... And is going to be excited the ice caps have recovered with a 60% increase.
I mean even Franco can understand that if the Republic of Maldives goes underwater due to ice caps melting ... Then any increase in the polar ice caps would subsequently help the Maldives.

Unless of course Franco lives in a totally Progressive Liberal world where nothing good or bad ever happens unless it is the result of political meddling.

Notice how snarky liberals like franco get when the facts prove the propaganda they've gulped down is pure bullshit? It's amazing how the truth pisses them off.

 

[Redfish]

Man is polluting the planet

Pollution does NOT cause climate change

You libs need to learn the difference.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I knew when the title said "proves" there wouldnt be any proof involved.

No one seeks to prove the peer reviewed papers wrong. They keep going after Time Mag, BBC Articles, Al Gore Movies etc

 

[whitehall]

More than half of registered democrats aren't aware that the earth rotates around the sun and about the same percentage believe in global warming. Is there a connection?

 

[ClosedCaption]

More than half of registered democrats aren't aware that the earth rotates around the sun and about the same percentage believe in global warming. Is there a connection?

And neither one of those have anything to do with proving the peer reviewed AGW papers wrong.