England Court PROVES "climate change" is a FARCE

[ClosedCaption]

The simple fact that the earth has cycled through numerous ice ages and warm periods, and has done so before man ever entered the picture, is pretty much all the "good science" that you need. There is no evidence that what we have found, is any more than another spike in that long range history. Nor, do I dispute the idea that greenyhouse gasses can lead to global heating to some insignificant degree. What I do dispute is that pollution and greenhouse gasses have any more effect on climate change, than a rock in the river has effect on total water flow in that river.

You not disputing anything. You are just saying it and pretending its a dispute. But you lack...yanno...evidence, proof etc to dispute anything.

The evidence for numerous cycles of ice ages and warming periods is pretty well documented in your high school ecology text. How much more proof do you need? The earth gets warmer, and then the earth gets colder again. Some day the earth will cease to get warmer, and begin to cool toward the next ice age. No dispute there.

The earth does not warm, nor cool, in a straight line fashion. It has warm spikes, and it has cold spikes. Evidence of this is demonstrated by the mini-ice age, and the preceeding warm period when Greenland was actually green. Very significant spikes, and very unlikely that man had anything to do with either event. No dispute there.

Finally, there is no proof that global climate change, beyond natural variation, is even occurring, let alone is being caused by man. The "concurrence" of scientific thought leaves the "may be occurring", in the theory. Opinion, regardless of how strongly held, is proof of nothing.

Consequently, my dispute of significant man made climate change, is as good as your assertions that it has to be true.

Like wheres your links and stuff? This is really hard for you huh?

 

[Pogo]

Your logic is beyond belief. Speaking the truth is not evading anything. You want a clean house, clean up the sandwich. Don't try to blame the neighborhoods rat problem on your neighbor's dropped sandwich.

Not to mention, the discussion here is about the science of global climate change, not your desire for a cleaner environment.

Actually it's your logic. I just took it to a familiar circumstance to demonstrate how silly it is to bend over backward looking for forced excuses to not clean up.

I'll revert to the usual boiled-down question: whether we can 'prove' that pollutant X is causing climate impact Y or not .... what the fuck is the harm in cleaning it up?

I already told you what the harm is, moron: spending $76 trillion and consigning the bulk of humanity to abject poverty. The fact that you think that result is "harmless" proves once again that you're a moron.

Whether that dropped sandwich goes on to attract a rat or not -- what the fuck is the harm in cleaning it up?

It won't matter if it attracts a rat because the people who were living in the house got evicted and are now living in a land fill scavenging through the garbage for a meal.

Let me know when this analogy begins to sink in like carbon dioxide acidifying the sea wiping out mollusks by the millions.
Until then, keep looking for a way out.

Here's what sinks in: you're a moron who doesn't care about the human cost of your schemes.

Once again Finger-boy tries to answer somebody else's question, having failed to answer his own, and comes up with nothing but ad hominem and fantasies of pretend people "evicted".

Poster please. If you can't think of an argument then go find a thread on what kind of jelly is best to smear on your face.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually it's your logic. I just took it to a familiar circumstance to demonstrate how silly it is to bend over backward looking for forced excuses to not clean up.

I'll revert to the usual boiled-down question: whether we can 'prove' that pollutant X is causing climate impact Y or not .... what the fuck is the harm in cleaning it up?

I already told you what the harm is, moron: spending $76 trillion and consigning the bulk of humanity to abject poverty. The fact that you think that result is "harmless" proves once again that you're a moron.



It won't matter if it attracts a rat because the people who were living in the house got evicted and are now living in a land fill scavenging through the garbage for a meal.

Let me know when this analogy begins to sink in like carbon dioxide acidifying the sea wiping out mollusks by the millions.
Until then, keep looking for a way out.

Here's what sinks in: you're a moron who doesn't care about the human cost of your schemes.

Once again Finger-boy tries to answer somebody else's question, having failed to answer his own, and comes up with nothing but ad hominem and fantasies of pretend people "evicted".

Poster please. If you can't think of an argument then go find a thread on what kind of jelly is best to smear on your face.

You're the one who contrived the fantasy of a house where someone dropped a sandwich, moron.

Let me know when you post something that isn't almost entirely ad hominems.

 

[Erand7899]

All this ^^ to evade the simple responsibility to clean up after ourselves.

By this logic when I drop a sandwich on the floor I should just leave it there. Because rats already exist and they're going to exist whether they have that sandwich to eat or not. Therefore I have nothing to do with their arrival. It's the cycle of nature. And I'm off the hook.

Your logic is beyond belief. Speaking the truth is not evading anything. You want a clean house, clean up the sandwich. Don't try to blame the neighborhoods rat problem on your neighbor's dropped sandwich.

Not to mention, the discussion here is about the science of global climate change, not your desire for a cleaner environment.

Actually it's your logic. I just took it to a familiar circumstance to demonstrate how silly it is to bend over backward looking for forced excuses to not clean up.

I'll revert to the usual boiled-down question: whether we can 'prove' that pollutant X is causing climate impact Y or not .... what the fuck is the harm in cleaning it up?

Whether that dropped sandwich goes on to attract a rat or not -- what the fuck is the harm in cleaning it up?

Let me know when this analogy begins to sink in like carbon dioxide acidifying the sea wiping out mollusks by the millions.
Until then, keep looking for a way out.

There are very few people in this world who are advocates of a dirty environment, dirty air, or dirty water. That makes your strawman a non starter. Even those who leave their dropped sandwich on the ground, are unlikely to advocate that everyone should do so. Your anology is still a fail.

There are well over 6 billion people living on this planet. They all want a house to live in, food on the table, heat in the winter and air conditioning in the summer. It would be virtually impossible to supply those needs without creating some pollution in the air and in the water. That means that a common sense balance must be achieved between pollution and the needs of all these people.

Secondly, we have little control over the major polluters of the world. India, China, and other emerging nations are not inclined to stunt their growing economies just to satisfy your desire for a pristine planet. The idea that the United States of America should commit economic suicide in an unworkable plan to reduce air pollution is so stupid as to be comical.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The simple fact that the earth has cycled through numerous ice ages and warm periods, and has done so before man ever entered the picture, is pretty much all the "good science" that you need. There is no evidence that what we have found, is any more than another spike in that long range history. Nor, do I dispute the idea that greenyhouse gasses can lead to global heating to some insignificant degree. What I do dispute is that pollution and greenhouse gasses have any more effect on climate change, than a rock in the river has effect on total water flow in that river.

You not disputing anything. You are just saying it and pretending its a dispute. But you lack...yanno...evidence, proof etc to dispute anything.

The evidence for numerous cycles of ice ages and warming periods is pretty well documented in your high school ecology text. How much more proof do you need? The earth gets warmer, and then the earth gets colder again. Some day the earth will cease to get warmer, and begin to cool toward the next ice age. No dispute there.

The earth does not warm, nor cool, in a straight line fashion. It has warm spikes, and it has cold spikes. Evidence of this is demonstrated by the mini-ice age, and the preceeding warm period when Greenland was actually green. Very significant spikes, and very unlikely that man had anything to do with either event. No dispute there.

Finally, there is no proof that global climate change, beyond natural variation, is even occurring, let alone is being caused by man. The "concurrence" of scientific thought leaves the "may be occurring", in the theory. Opinion, regardless of how strongly held, is proof of nothing.

Consequently, my dispute of significant man made climate change, is as good as your assertions that it has to be true.

Again, the burden of proof is on the proponents that Man, in particular, MAN from the US and other Western Civilizations, are impacting Global Climate Change. Consensus, one way or another, means little as Science is absolute. It is not a popularity contest The University of East Anglia researchers who conspired to forge results not to their liking, further put the Man-Made Climate Change Proponents behind the 8 ball. It is a worthy debate but let's not confuse science with the politics. It is way too soon to start punitive taxing such as carbon footprints.

 

[ClosedCaption]

99% of the money is going to the members of the AGW cult.

Pease do follow the money. It leads to the conclusion that AGW is a giant con.

99% of what money? I'm sure you have a link that backs up your claims, no?

Maybe Bripat didnt see this. I'll tag him to be sure this time [MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]

So after tagging Bripat its obvious that he has no proof. Perfect Ignorance often cannot be traced back to its source

 

[bripat9643]

99% of what money? I'm sure you have a link that backs up your claims, no?

Maybe Bripat didnt see this. I'll tag him to be sure this time [MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]

So after tagging Bripat its obvious that he has no proof. Perfect Ignorance often cannot be traced back to its source

The figures for the amount of money the government spends in the global warming abracadabra are public. It's in the tens of billions.

 

[Erand7899]

You not disputing anything. You are just saying it and pretending its a dispute. But you lack...yanno...evidence, proof etc to dispute anything.

The evidence for numerous cycles of ice ages and warming periods is pretty well documented in your high school ecology text. How much more proof do you need? The earth gets warmer, and then the earth gets colder again. Some day the earth will cease to get warmer, and begin to cool toward the next ice age. No dispute there.

The earth does not warm, nor cool, in a straight line fashion. It has warm spikes, and it has cold spikes. Evidence of this is demonstrated by the mini-ice age, and the preceeding warm period when Greenland was actually green. Very significant spikes, and very unlikely that man had anything to do with either event. No dispute there.

Finally, there is no proof that global climate change, beyond natural variation, is even occurring, let alone is being caused by man. The "concurrence" of scientific thought leaves the "may be occurring", in the theory. Opinion, regardless of how strongly held, is proof of nothing.

Consequently, my dispute of significant man made climate change, is as good as your assertions that it has to be true.

Like wheres your links and stuff? This is really hard for you huh?

Links to what? Someone else's opinion is not necessary to the validity of my opinion.

If you are in doubt as to the reality of ice age cycles, the mini-ice age, or the previous warm period, look them up yourself. That is high school science, not opinion.

 

[Redfish]

99% of what money? I'm sure you have a link that backs up your claims, no?

Maybe Bripat didnt see this. I'll tag him to be sure this time [MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]

So after tagging Bripat its obvious that he has no proof. Perfect Ignorance often cannot be traced back to its source

amazing, you warmers are the ones with no proof, only debunked theories. The actual climate data refutes your arguments. your prophet algore predicted that half of Fla would be under water by now, last time I checked Miami was still on land.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The evidence for numerous cycles of ice ages and warming periods is pretty well documented in your high school ecology text. How much more proof do you need?

And the evidence of AGW is also documented in science texts. So are you just picking and choosing WHICH science you hang your hat on, based on political convenience?

Again, the burden of proof is on the proponents that Man, in particular, MAN from the US and other Western Civilizations, are impacting Global Climate Change.

And that proof has been provided.

Don't like it - show me some good science to refute it?

 

[Redfish]

The evidence for numerous cycles of ice ages and warming periods is pretty well documented in your high school ecology text. How much more proof do you need?

And the evidence of AGW is also documented in science texts. So are you just picking and choosing WHICH science you hang your hat on, based on political convenience?

Again, the burden of proof is on the proponents that Man, in particular, MAN from the US and other Western Civilizations, are impacting Global Climate Change.

And that proof has been provided.

Don't like it - show me some good science to refute it?

bullshit, there has been no proof. only theories put forth by "scientists" who have been paid to do a "study" and been told what the result will be.

its junk science, the actual climate data refutes it completely.

but if you believe this crap, how did the acts of man cause the last ice age? I can't wait-------or was it dinosaur farts?

 

[Pogo]

Your logic is beyond belief. Speaking the truth is not evading anything. You want a clean house, clean up the sandwich. Don't try to blame the neighborhoods rat problem on your neighbor's dropped sandwich.

Not to mention, the discussion here is about the science of global climate change, not your desire for a cleaner environment.

Actually it's your logic. I just took it to a familiar circumstance to demonstrate how silly it is to bend over backward looking for forced excuses to not clean up.

I'll revert to the usual boiled-down question: whether we can 'prove' that pollutant X is causing climate impact Y or not .... what the fuck is the harm in cleaning it up?

Whether that dropped sandwich goes on to attract a rat or not -- what the fuck is the harm in cleaning it up?

Let me know when this analogy begins to sink in like carbon dioxide acidifying the sea wiping out mollusks by the millions.
Until then, keep looking for a way out.

There are very few people in this world who are advocates of a dirty environment, dirty air, or dirty water. That makes your strawman a non starter.

There are a few, who advocate such because evading their own responsibilities keeps their bottom line fat. But they will at least spend some of that responsibility money on the same denialist propagandists that resisted the link between tobacco and cancer. And that makes you their sycophant. Why do they pay these tobacco-whore people? Because it's cheaper to create myths about Al Gore making $100 than it is to clean up their act.

Even those who leave their dropped sandwich on the ground, are unlikely to advocate that everyone should do so. Your anology is still a fail.

"Fail" is a verb. If you mean failure, no actually it isn't. See, a Koch (just using this as a convenient example, not limited to them) doesn't care who else has to clean up after himself, as long as HE doesn't have to. Because that's all that affects Numero Uno. That's how greed works; it's self-centreed. Me me me, and fuck everybody else. Matter of fact, it would benefit this example Koch if his competitors have to clean themselves up and he doesn't.

There are well over 6 billion people living on this planet. They all want a house to live in, food on the table, heat in the winter and air conditioning in the summer. It would be virtually impossible to supply those needs without creating some pollution in the air and in the water.

OK ... prove it's impossible to do so without a harmful, unsustainable level. Oh wait, we know this because Koch said so. And what possible motivation would he have to be less than honest.... Jeepers, I sure can't think of one, can you?

That means that a common sense balance must be achieved between pollution and the needs of all these people.

Exactly. Now you're actually starting to get it. Enough with this "we can't pick up the sandwich off the floor because it would affect our profits" bullshit.

Secondly, we have little control over the major polluters of the world. India, China, and other emerging nations are not inclined to stunt their growing economies just to satisfy your desire for a pristine planet. The idea that the United States of America should commit economic suicide in an unworkable plan to reduce air pollution is so stupid as to be comical.

Wha?

What the fuck does this have to do with the United States of America? The "question", if one exists, is whether humans are influencing climate change. I'm pretty sure there are humans living outside the U.S., 6 billion somebody just said.

But now we've moved the goalposts to U.S. politics. Guess the old goalpost wasn't scoring much.

 

[Redfish]

Actually it's your logic. I just took it to a familiar circumstance to demonstrate how silly it is to bend over backward looking for forced excuses to not clean up.

I'll revert to the usual boiled-down question: whether we can 'prove' that pollutant X is causing climate impact Y or not .... what the fuck is the harm in cleaning it up?

Whether that dropped sandwich goes on to attract a rat or not -- what the fuck is the harm in cleaning it up?

Let me know when this analogy begins to sink in like carbon dioxide acidifying the sea wiping out mollusks by the millions.
Until then, keep looking for a way out.

There are very few people in this world who are advocates of a dirty environment, dirty air, or dirty water. That makes your strawman a non starter.

There are a few, who advocate such because evading their own responsibilities keeps their bottom line fat. But they will at least spend some of that responsibility money on the same denialist propagandists that resisted the link between tobacco and cancer. And that makes you their sycophant. Why do they pay these tobacco-whore people? Because it's cheaper to create myths about Al Gore making $100 than it is to clean up their act.

Even those who leave their dropped sandwich on the ground, are unlikely to advocate that everyone should do so. Your anology is still a fail.

"Fail" is a verb. If you mean failure, no actually it isn't. See, a Koch (just using this as a convenient example, not limited to them) doesn't care who else has to clean up after himself, as long as HE doesn't have to. Because that's all that affects Numero Uno. That's how greed works.



OK ... prove it's impossible.



Exactly. Now you're actually starting to get it. Enough with this "we can't pick up the sandwich off the floor because it would affect our profits" bullshit.

Secondly, we have little control over the major polluters of the world. India, China, and other emerging nations are not inclined to stunt their growing economies just to satisfy your desire for a pristine planet. The idea that the United States of America should commit economic suicide in an unworkable plan to reduce air pollution is so stupid as to be comical.

Wha?

What the fuck does this have to do with the United States of America? The "question", if one exists, is whether humans are influencing climate change. I'm pretty sure there are humans living outside the U.S., 6 billion somebody just said.

But now we've moved the goalposts to U.S. politics. Guess the old goalpost wasn't scoring much.

time to hop off on your stick, pogo. you are really getting defeated here.

 

[bripat9643]

The evidence for numerous cycles of ice ages and warming periods is pretty well documented in your high school ecology text. How much more proof do you need?

And the evidence of AGW is also documented in science texts. So are you just picking and choosing WHICH science you hang your hat on, based on political convenience?

Again, the burden of proof is on the proponents that Man, in particular, MAN from the US and other Western Civilizations, are impacting Global Climate Change.

And that proof has been provided.

Don't like it - show me some good science to refute it?

It isn't "documented," nimrod. That's just some warmist cult member stating an opinion.

Proof hasn't been provided. There is some evidence to support it. However, there is tons of evidence that disputes it. At best, the case is undecided. However, given the ideological agenda of the people who support it, it's more than likely a con. At the very least, there is not sufficient evidence to justify any kind of massive government spending or regulations to control it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Maybe Bripat didnt see this. I'll tag him to be sure this time [MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]

So after tagging Bripat its obvious that he has no proof. Perfect Ignorance often cannot be traced back to its source

The figures for the amount of money the government spends in the global warming abracadabra are public. It's in the tens of billions.

Of course it is...I'm waiting for you to link to the conspiracy that shows fake science being put forward for funding. Do you have that or nah?

 

[nodoginnafight]

The evidence for numerous cycles of ice ages and warming periods is pretty well documented in your high school ecology text. How much more proof do you need?

And the evidence of AGW is also documented in science texts. So are you just picking and choosing WHICH science you hang your hat on, based on political convenience?

Again, the burden of proof is on the proponents that Man, in particular, MAN from the US and other Western Civilizations, are impacting Global Climate Change.

And that proof has been provided.

Don't like it - show me some good science to refute it?

It isn't "documented," nimrod. That's just some warmist cult member stating an opinion.

Proof hasn't been provided. There is some evidence to support it. However, there is tons of evidence that disputes it. At best, the case is undecided. However, given the ideological agenda of the people who support it, it's more than likely a con. At the very least, there is not sufficient evidence to justify any kind of massive government spending or regulations to control it.

LOL - it has been proven. More than 1,350 peer-reviewed articles.

And how many do the deniers have?

oh yeah - zero

 

[nodoginnafight]

AGW is not disputed scientifically. There is a legitimate political debate over what our response should be.

 

[Redfish]

And the evidence of AGW is also documented in science texts. So are you just picking and choosing WHICH science you hang your hat on, based on political convenience?



And that proof has been provided.

Don't like it - show me some good science to refute it?

It isn't "documented," nimrod. That's just some warmist cult member stating an opinion.

Proof hasn't been provided. There is some evidence to support it. However, there is tons of evidence that disputes it. At best, the case is undecided. However, given the ideological agenda of the people who support it, it's more than likely a con. At the very least, there is not sufficient evidence to justify any kind of massive government spending or regulations to control it.

LOL - it has been proven. More than 1,350 peer-reviewed articles.

And how many do the deniers have?

oh yeah - zero

Is this guy nobody?

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

 

[Redfish]

AGW is not disputed scientifically. There is a legitimate political debate over what our response should be.

the CO2 greenhouse effect has been proven. whats unproven is whether it is happening on earth and whether it would cause climate change if it was.

 

[Pogo]

There are very few people in this world who are advocates of a dirty environment, dirty air, or dirty water. That makes your strawman a non starter.

There are a few, who advocate such because evading their own responsibilities keeps their bottom line fat. But they will at least spend some of that responsibility money on the same denialist propagandists that resisted the link between tobacco and cancer. And that makes you their sycophant. Why do they pay these tobacco-whore people? Because it's cheaper to create myths about Al Gore making $100 than it is to clean up their act.

Even those who leave their dropped sandwich on the ground, are unlikely to advocate that everyone should do so. Your anology is still a fail.

"Fail" is a verb. If you mean failure, no actually it isn't. See, a Koch (just using this as a convenient example, not limited to them) doesn't care who else has to clean up after himself, as long as HE doesn't have to. Because that's all that affects Numero Uno. That's how greed works.



OK ... prove it's impossible.



Exactly. Now you're actually starting to get it. Enough with this "we can't pick up the sandwich off the floor because it would affect our profits" bullshit.



Wha?

What the fuck does this have to do with the United States of America? The "question", if one exists, is whether humans are influencing climate change. I'm pretty sure there are humans living outside the U.S., 6 billion somebody just said.

But now we've moved the goalposts to U.S. politics. Guess the old goalpost wasn't scoring much.

time to hop off on your stick, pogo. you are really getting defeated here.

Once again you forgot your link to back up this point. Here it is. Try to come up with something tangible and stop leaning on ipse dixit, K?