England Court PROVES "climate change" is a FARCE

[Redfish]

Ok, warmers. lets assume that AGW is real.

What specifically do you want the people of the world to do about it?

no generalities, specifically what do you want done?

 

[nodoginnafight]

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

Has he produced any peer-reviewed science on the subject?

 

[Redfish]

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

Has he produced any peer-reviewed science on the subject?

I don't know, ask him. what I do know is that everything in algore's fantasy book and movie has been proven false. that its been proven that the east anglia clowns falsified data, and that the whole AGW fantasy is a poorly veiled attempt by a few elites to get richer.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

Is he a scientist? Has his info been reviewed for accuracy? No to both right?

Which makes him the perfect guy to listen too.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests.

But I oppose a carbon tax.

We'd best learn to adapt.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Ok, warmers. lets assume that AGW is real.

What specifically do you want the people of the world to do about it?

no generalities, specifically what do you want done?

I wouldn't support any drastic action immediately - especially since only a few nations would probably be participating. We can't control China who was building an average of one coal-fired generation plant a day a few years ago.

While our liquid oil on the planet will probably be gone (at current rates of consumption) in about 65 years or so, coal is much more plentiful. I wouldn't toss it out of the electricity generation mix.

I'd like to see some good R & D on cleaner coal, and I'd like to see us shifting the mix toward more nuclear and less coal.

But I think we need a public-private R&D partnership close to what we saw during the space race focused on energy.

(btw - I don't like Al Gore. I think his hyperbole in "An Inconvenient Truth" politicized the issue, opened the door for legitimate refutation of HIS presentation, and is probably responsible for a lot of the AGW skepticism. He's not a scientist either and he fudged the data and leapt to worst-case scenarios that the science doesn't support.)

 

[Redfish]

Ok, warmers. lets assume that AGW is real.

What specifically do you want the people of the world to do about it?

no generalities, specifically what do you want done?

I wouldn't support any drastic action immediately - especially since only a few nations would probably be participating. We can't control China who was building an average of one coal-fired generation plant a day a few years ago.

While our liquid oil on the planet will probably be gone (at current rates of consumption) in about 65 years or so, coal is much more plentiful. I wouldn't toss it out of the electricity generation mix.

I'd like to see some good R & D on cleaner coal, and I'd like to see us shifting the mix toward more toward nuclear and less coal.

But I think we need a public-private R&D partnership close to what we saw during the space race focused on energy.

Good sensible ideas that we should be working on regardless of climate change. The problem is that the libs do not support your ideas on clean coal, nuclear, or natural gas. The also do not support solar panel farms since they might disturb the habitat of some frog or lizard.

If we stop using coal, the price of energy will rise drastically and there will be shortages because currently there is no substitute in sufficient quantities.

But I appreciate your sensible response. Don't expect similar from the resident libs.

 

[Redfish]

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

Is he a scientist? Has his info been reviewed for accuracy? No to both right?

Which makes him the perfect guy to listen too.

I think you need to google Greenpeace.

 

[Meister]

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

Has he produced any peer-reviewed science on the subject?

He did bail from the green movement when it became a political agenda and not a scientific agenda.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

ROFL! Your belief that government funded science is automatically valid is charming. When you pay for research that demonstrates 'X,' then you are going to get research that demonstrates 'X.' Scientists who don't support the AGW mumbo-jumbo don't get funding.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Ok, warmers. lets assume that AGW is real.

What specifically do you want the people of the world to do about it?

no generalities, specifically what do you want done?

I wouldn't support any drastic action immediately - especially since only a few nations would probably be participating. We can't control China who was building an average of one coal-fired generation plant a day a few years ago.

While our liquid oil on the planet will probably be gone (at current rates of consumption) in about 65 years or so, coal is much more plentiful. I wouldn't toss it out of the electricity generation mix.

I'd like to see some good R & D on cleaner coal, and I'd like to see us shifting the mix toward more toward nuclear and less coal.

But I think we need a public-private R&D partnership close to what we saw during the space race focused on energy.

Good sensible ideas that we should be working on regardless of climate change. The problem is that the libs do not support your ideas on clean coal, nuclear, or natural gas. The also do not support solar panel farms since they might disturb the habitat of some frog or lizard.

If we stop using coal, the price of energy will rise drastically and there will be shortages because currently there is no substitute in sufficient quantities.

But I appreciate your sensible response. Don't expect similar from the resident libs.

These days we just can't get by without electricity and gasoline. And I hate to see energy costs eat up so much of every family's budget. Lower income folks are especially hard hit because they can't afford to make energy-efficiency improvements to their homes or pay the high upfront costs for electric vehicles or solar panels or so many of the things that might help keep their energy costs down. Energy costs chew up a really high percentage of their household income.

I wouldn't support anything that would drive those costs and those hardships even higher.

 

[bripat9643]

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

They aren't "peer reviewed." They are PAL reviewed. The population of so-called "climate scientists" is a small incestuous community of colleagues who all know each other and socialize with each other. They review each other's papers and attend each other's seminars, and as the Climategate emails demonstrated, they conspire with each other to ensure that any papers stating a conclusion contrary to the AGW dogma doesn't get published.

The constant drumbeat by AGW cult members about "peer reviewed" papers is nothing more than a sleazy tactic to put a con over on the public. Peer review doesn't mean all the much, especially when the process has been corrupted as it has been in this case.

 

[bripat9643]

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

ROFL! You just proved that you're a low grade moron.

 

[nodoginnafight]

ROFL! Your belief that government funded science is automatically valid is charming. When you pay for research that demonstrates 'X,' then you are going to get research that demonstrates 'X.' Scientists who don't support the AGW mumbo-jumbo don't get funding.

So what you are hanging your hat on is that scientists who produced 25,000 peer-reviewed studies and who represent 34 different countries all got together and decided to perpetrate a hoax. And that 34 different countries all DEMANDED that their scientists gin up outcomes that are going to cost them money if their populations demand that the government undertake mitigation.

That makes the "Bush was in on 9-11" people look relatively sane in comparison.

 

[bripat9643]

Ok, warmers. lets assume that AGW is real.

What specifically do you want the people of the world to do about it?

no generalities, specifically what do you want done?

I wouldn't support any drastic action immediately - especially since only a few nations would probably be participating. We can't control China who was building an average of one coal-fired generation plant a day a few years ago.

While our liquid oil on the planet will probably be gone (at current rates of consumption) in about 65 years or so, coal is much more plentiful. I wouldn't toss it out of the electricity generation mix.

I'd like to see some good R & D on cleaner coal, and I'd like to see us shifting the mix toward more toward nuclear and less coal.

But I think we need a public-private R&D partnership close to what we saw during the space race focused on energy.

Good sensible ideas that we should be working on regardless of climate change. The problem is that the libs do not support your ideas on clean coal, nuclear, or natural gas. The also do not support solar panel farms since they might disturb the habitat of some frog or lizard.

If we stop using coal, the price of energy will rise drastically and there will be shortages because currently there is no substitute in sufficient quantities.

But I appreciate your sensible response. Don't expect similar from the resident libs.

None of those ideas are good. When AGW cult members refer to "clean coal," they mean coal plants that remove the CO2 from the effluent. In addition to the fact that there aren't sufficient places to put the CO2 removed, the process drives down the efficiency of the power plant to the point where it's not economically viable.

 

[bripat9643]

ROFL! Your belief that government funded science is automatically valid is charming. When you pay for research that demonstrates 'X,' then you are going to get research that demonstrates 'X.' Scientists who don't support the AGW mumbo-jumbo don't get funding.

So what you are hanging your hat on is that scientists who produced 25,000 peer-reviewed studies and who represent 34 different countries all got together and decided to perpetrate a hoax. And that 34 different countries all DEMANDED that their scientists gin up outcomes that are going to cost them money if their populations demand that the government undertake mitigation.

That makes the "Bush was in on 9-11" people look relatively sane in comparison.

Previously you claimed there were 1,300 papers. Now you're claiming there are 25,000.

No, I don't claim they all got together to perpetrate a hoax. They simply acted in their own self interest. And the bureaucrats in those 35 countries act in their self interest. That means justifying more government. that's what makes bureaucrats happy. Research dollars are what make "researchers" happy. The bureaucrats who want more government direct research dollars to those who provide justifications for more government. That's how science is corrupted when government gets involved.

"Solving" global warming isn't going to cost the bureaucrats any money. On the contrary, it will create vast new empires for them to preside over. It will boost their power, prestige and income. There's no such thing as a bureaucrat who worries about saving the taxpayers money.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I wouldn't support any drastic action immediately - especially since only a few nations would probably be participating. We can't control China who was building an average of one coal-fired generation plant a day a few years ago.

While our liquid oil on the planet will probably be gone (at current rates of consumption) in about 65 years or so, coal is much more plentiful. I wouldn't toss it out of the electricity generation mix.

I'd like to see some good R & D on cleaner coal, and I'd like to see us shifting the mix toward more toward nuclear and less coal.

But I think we need a public-private R&D partnership close to what we saw during the space race focused on energy.

Good sensible ideas that we should be working on regardless of climate change. The problem is that the libs do not support your ideas on clean coal, nuclear, or natural gas. The also do not support solar panel farms since they might disturb the habitat of some frog or lizard.

If we stop using coal, the price of energy will rise drastically and there will be shortages because currently there is no substitute in sufficient quantities.

But I appreciate your sensible response. Don't expect similar from the resident libs.

None of those ideas are good. When AGW cult members refer to "clean coal," they mean coal plants that remove the CO2 from the effluent. In addition to the fact that there aren't sufficient places to put the CO2 removed, the process drives down the efficiency of the power plant to the point where it's not economically viable.

Actually, the technology for "capture and store" doesn't exist. So there is no way to determine how it might impact a generation plant's efficiency.

Coal scrubbers (wet scrubbers) are probably a good option for now. I haven't seen any data on how they may impact a generation plant's efficiency. If you'd have a link, I'd love to look at it.

 

[bripat9643]

Good sensible ideas that we should be working on regardless of climate change. The problem is that the libs do not support your ideas on clean coal, nuclear, or natural gas. The also do not support solar panel farms since they might disturb the habitat of some frog or lizard.

If we stop using coal, the price of energy will rise drastically and there will be shortages because currently there is no substitute in sufficient quantities.

But I appreciate your sensible response. Don't expect similar from the resident libs.

None of those ideas are good. When AGW cult members refer to "clean coal," they mean coal plants that remove the CO2 from the effluent. In addition to the fact that there aren't sufficient places to put the CO2 removed, the process drives down the efficiency of the power plant to the point where it's not economically viable.

Actually, the technology for "capture and store" doesn't exist. So there is no way to determine how it might impact a generation plant's efficiency.

Coal scrubbers (wet scrubbers) are probably a good option for now. I haven't seen any data on how they may impact a generation plant's efficiency. If you'd have a link, I'd love to look at it.

Correction: there is currently no economically feasible "capture and store" technology. There never will be. Chemists and engineers can calculate the cost and energy required to remove CO2 from effluent using any of the known processes. None of them would support a commercially viable power plant.

Coal scrubbers don't remove CO2. The remove SO2, which is a solid at room temperature.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Previously you claimed there were 1,300 papers. Now you're claiming there are 25,000.

You are right, my first post cited 13,500. I found newer statistics that now reflect 25,000. I apologize for the inconsistency and any confusion it may have caused.

But I still find your conspiracy theory to be a huge stretch considering the vast diversity of individuals and nations and international organizations involved. In fact, the stretch required to buy into that one is beyond belief. I mean like the moon is made of green cheese kinda stretch.

 

[nodoginnafight]

No - the capture and store technology doesn't exist - at any price.
Now are you going to provide a link about your statement on efficiency of the generation plant or not?