England Court PROVES "climate change" is a FARCE

[nodoginnafight]

Edgetho:

I don't favor a carbon tax either.

But I also realize that AGW is happening.

So linking to others who don't favor a carbon is not a claim against the science. Again, you are trying to use political arguments in a scientific discussion. But since deniers have NO science, I understand why they have to resort to political arguments.

I'm certainly not going to put any weight on any political arguments (from EITHER side) when it comes to debating the science.

 

[westwall]

Patrick Moore:



Oh now I see. He's one of the people who say "Its not going to be that bad." But doesnt deny GW is happening.

No one "denies" that global warming is happening. We dispute (with loads of empirical evidence) the computer generated fiction of human causation.

Typical of you libtards though..... attack the messenger....ignore the message.

Actually the human causation calculation doesn't take a computer model.

C02 in the atmosphere warms the planet.

Humans are dumping extraordinary amounts of C02 into the atmosphere.

Do you really need a computer model to figure that out.

NOW, what is the overall impact of that going to be over the next 50 years - yeah, that takes a computer model and I agree that I don't find any of them really compelling.

Honestly, I think Al Gore and his racing to the worst possible scenarios that are not scientifically supported was a real disservice to the issue. The fact that he was a very divisive political figure, presenting scientific data (and not real accurately at that) didn't help at all either.

And to date there is ZERO empirical evidence to show that mans paltry contribution of 5% of the global CO2 budget has had any effect. In fact, based on the 17 year lag in temp increase (all while CO2 levels have skyrocketed) show that that theory is a failed one.

 

[westwall]

Edgetho:

I don't favor a carbon tax either.

But I also realize that AGW is happening.

So linking to others who don't favor a carbon is not a claim against the science. Again, you are trying to use political arguments in a scientific discussion. But since deniers have NO science, I understand why they have to resort to political arguments.

I'm certainly not going to put any weight on any political arguments (from EITHER side) when it comes to debating the science.

Then why can't you present any measurable impact?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Your right, I'm sure it's not about Al Gore profiting from his global warming rhetoric. Mr Gore couldn't possibly have any self interests associated with the funding of Fisker Automotive, or Harry Reed's name with the self interests parties of Nevada Geothermal Power and Sun Power, or Democrat financial contributors George Kaiser, Steven Spinner & David Prend linked to Solyndra. It's all about bringing awareness to a global crisis through the attention of Global Warming, not lining a politician's pockets or the bread and butter of campaign contributions (you won't find any evidence of that I'm sure, it's COMPLETELY legit and trustworthy).

When you cant prove the information wrong you have to do something. I KNOW!! Belittle a man and hope that no one notices you didnt touch the subject at hand.


Saul ALinsky and the Heritage Foundation would be very proud

The thing about playing poker, you have to be holding a better hand when you decide to call a bluff. I got plenty of links and facts that prove the Democrats and Al Gore's self interest motives behind their cause. How are you looking?

So when I talk about science you think I'm talking about Al Gore!

Once again you cant prove the information wrong so you make speculative leaps and bounds about the people and never mention the science. Because you cant.

 

[westwall]

When you cant prove the information wrong you have to do something. I KNOW!! Belittle a man and hope that no one notices you didnt touch the subject at hand.


Saul ALinsky and the Heritage Foundation would be very proud

The thing about playing poker, you have to be holding a better hand when you decide to call a bluff. I got plenty of links and facts that prove the Democrats and Al Gore's self interest motives behind their cause. How are you looking?

So when I talk about science you think I'm talking about Al Gore!

Once again you cant prove the information wrong so you make speculative leaps and bounds about the people and never mention the science. Because you cant.

You have it wrong.....you MUST show that your theory is correct. For thirty years you have tried and failed. Now, the warmists have had to resort to data falsification to try and continue their attempt. Now it's fraud.

 

[nodoginnafight]

No one "denies" that global warming is happening. We dispute (with loads of empirical evidence) the computer generated fiction of human causation.

Typical of you libtards though..... attack the messenger....ignore the message.

Actually the human causation calculation doesn't take a computer model.

C02 in the atmosphere warms the planet.

Humans are dumping extraordinary amounts of C02 into the atmosphere.

Do you really need a computer model to figure that out.

NOW, what is the overall impact of that going to be over the next 50 years - yeah, that takes a computer model and I agree that I don't find any of them really compelling.

Honestly, I think Al Gore and his racing to the worst possible scenarios that are not scientifically supported was a real disservice to the issue. The fact that he was a very divisive political figure, presenting scientific data (and not real accurately at that) didn't help at all either.

And to date there is ZERO empirical evidence to show that mans paltry contribution of 5% of the global CO2 budget has had any effect. In fact, based on the 17 year lag in temp increase (all while CO2 levels have skyrocketed) show that that theory is a failed one.

There's an avalanche of data on the effect. You can't claim the failure of a theory until you produce some good science refuting it.

Not POLITICAL rhetoric .... peer-reviewed science. AGW has about 25,000 peer-reviewed papers and studies supporting it. What do the deniers have?

 

[ClosedCaption]

The thing about playing poker, you have to be holding a better hand when you decide to call a bluff. I got plenty of links and facts that prove the Democrats and Al Gore's self interest motives behind their cause. How are you looking?

So when I talk about science you think I'm talking about Al Gore!

Once again you cant prove the information wrong so you make speculative leaps and bounds about the people and never mention the science. Because you cant.

You have it wrong.....you MUST show that your theory is correct. For thirty years you have tried and failed. Now, the warmists have had to resort to data falsification to try and continue their attempt. Now it's fraud.

They have, you havent shown how its incorrect. Because you cant. They gave their theory to the scientific community for scrutiny.

The deniers have provided nothing to anyone for scrutiny. Because they cant provide nothing...which is what they have.

 

[westwall]

Actually the human causation calculation doesn't take a computer model.

C02 in the atmosphere warms the planet.

Humans are dumping extraordinary amounts of C02 into the atmosphere.

Do you really need a computer model to figure that out.

NOW, what is the overall impact of that going to be over the next 50 years - yeah, that takes a computer model and I agree that I don't find any of them really compelling.

Honestly, I think Al Gore and his racing to the worst possible scenarios that are not scientifically supported was a real disservice to the issue. The fact that he was a very divisive political figure, presenting scientific data (and not real accurately at that) didn't help at all either.

And to date there is ZERO empirical evidence to show that mans paltry contribution of 5% of the global CO2 budget has had any effect. In fact, based on the 17 year lag in temp increase (all while CO2 levels have skyrocketed) show that that theory is a failed one.

There's an avalanche of data on the effect. You can't claim the failure of a theory until you produce some good science refuting it.

Not POLITICAL rhetoric .... peer-reviewed science. AGW has about 25,000 peer-reviewed papers and studies supporting it. What do the deniers have?

No, you are absolutely, 100% WRONG. The "peer reviewed science" is based on computer models and they predict NOTHING. They say GW can both warm and cool the world. Cause more or less rain. End or increase snow in winter, etc. etc. etc.

Had you a scientific bent, you would know that any time you make claims that are untestable you have devolved into a pseudo science. No politics, just a strict adherence to the scientific method. You should look it up sometime and tell us what it says about "untestable hypothesis".

I do find it amusing that you claim the sceptics are "political" when we merely wish to maintain the status quo. It's YOU who demand political action on a "problem" that you can't quantify and can't test.

And you say we're the silly ones....

 

[westwall]

So when I talk about science you think I'm talking about Al Gore!

Once again you cant prove the information wrong so you make speculative leaps and bounds about the people and never mention the science. Because you cant.

You have it wrong.....you MUST show that your theory is correct. For thirty years you have tried and failed. Now, the warmists have had to resort to data falsification to try and continue their attempt. Now it's fraud.

They have, you havent shown how its incorrect. Because you cant. They gave their theory to the scientific community for scrutiny.

The deniers have provided nothing to anyone for scrutiny. Because they cant provide nothing...which is what they have.

The past seventeen and half years have shown their statements to be incorrect. Don't you know how science works? Are you a science denier? Look up the scientific method and explain, in your own words what it means and how it should be applied to climate science....but isn't.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

When you cant prove the information wrong you have to do something. I KNOW!! Belittle a man and hope that no one notices you didnt touch the subject at hand.


Saul ALinsky and the Heritage Foundation would be very proud

The thing about playing poker, you have to be holding a better hand when you decide to call a bluff. I got plenty of links and facts that prove the Democrats and Al Gore's self interest motives behind their cause. How are you looking?

So when I talk about science you think I'm talking about Al Gore!

Once again you cant prove the information wrong so you make speculative leaps and bounds about the people and never mention the science. Because you cant.

You act as if Al Gore has nothing to gain and isn't profiting from his "Inconvenient Truth" speeches. The point of my post is that Obama administration stands a lot to gain from democrat donors behind this push for green jobs. Don't tell me this is your first rodeo in the "behind the scenes political favors" and lobbyists that goes on in Washington? Keep trying to convince yourself these Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain from all these green job donors behind this push to continue this global warming trend, you're not going to convince anyone there's no profit behind it.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So when I talk about science you think I'm talking about Al Gore!

Once again you cant prove the information wrong so you make speculative leaps and bounds about the people and never mention the science. Because you cant.

You have it wrong.....you MUST show that your theory is correct. For thirty years you have tried and failed. Now, the warmists have had to resort to data falsification to try and continue their attempt. Now it's fraud.

They have, you havent shown how its incorrect. Because you cant. They gave their theory to the scientific community for scrutiny.

The deniers have provided nothing to anyone for scrutiny. Because they cant provide nothing...which is what they have.

That's why they changed their approach from calling it "Global Warming" to Climate Change, because they have complete confidence in what their message had implied. In fact if they were SO certain their research was irrefutable, a little ridicule and mockery associated with the term shouldn't have bothered them in the least (If they were confident the science involved could stand on its own merits, instead of looking to change their overall perspective view into one of "climate change").

It doesn't appear they have the confidence and boldness through their research to stand on their original message, THAT much is obvious. What will the new phrase 10 years from now, Global Cooling like we found to explain the sightings of icebergs that claimed titanic and against the cold temperatures of the 70s? Let me give you a clue, the earth has been experiencing reported trends of warming and cooling associated with the sun for hundreds of years, this kind of climate change is nothing new and is proven scientific FACT.

 

[Pogo]

You get what you give bucko.

What in the blue fuck are you talking about?

What exactly did I "give" here? You've got your own hypocrisy staring you in the face -- complaining about ad hominem by using ad hominem, and then doubling down with a blanket generalization fallacy.

You pointed out a logical fallacy in my use of the term libtard. The poster is not a messenger, he is a parrot. The messengers sre those who contribute original information to whatever scientific discussion is going on. Moncton is a messenger as are the warmists.

Monckton however has presented information which shows the warmist message to be incorrect. Instead of attacking his message, they attack him. It's analogous to a rapist in court attacking his victim....it's deplorable in that situation, and ridiculous in this one. Yet you all resort to it ad infinitum.

Bullshit.

Your hypocrisy using ad hominem to point out ad hominem wasn't the only fallacy. Your fatal flaw is the blanket generalization. And you're still doing it right here.

Ergo you're full of shit.

 

[P@triot]

Thats like asking how long is a piece of string. There is no answer for that question. Even if the answer was 0%, 2% or 100% it still wouldnt have any change on whether AGW is real or not.

Because I'm sure that once edge doesnt get an answer he's going to go "AHA! PROOF AGW ISNT REAL" without explaining how he makes such a speculative leap

It is fall down hilarious watching CC trip all over himself to defend the ignorant and failed liberal ideology he was so brainwashed with.

In the face of all facts, his best response is literally putting his finger in his ears and screaming "nah, nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you" like a child.

There have been not one but two rounds of "Climategate" in which scientists were found falsifying their data because the data proves there is no such thing as "global warming". Quite the contrary, the earth has just come off of a 10+ year cooling period. And that cooling period was not the result of man, but rather a natural cycle which was predicted (based on that cycle) long before it started. That is simply an undeniable fact.

But people like CC can't accept fact because they can't leave their radical left-wing propaganda cites long enough to learn anything. And when they come across it by accident (such as this thread here), the best they can do is go "nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you".

In a court of law, under the penalty of perjury, the Al Gore idiots were forced to admit they lied through out the entire movie. So much so that they were force to submit 77 freaking pages worth of corrections for their lies. And two rounds of Climategate to that and you can't help but laugh at people like CC who claim the earth is flat, the sun doesn't exist, and gravity is fiction...

 

[ClosedCaption]

You have it wrong.....you MUST show that your theory is correct. For thirty years you have tried and failed. Now, the warmists have had to resort to data falsification to try and continue their attempt. Now it's fraud.

They have, you havent shown how its incorrect. Because you cant. They gave their theory to the scientific community for scrutiny.

The deniers have provided nothing to anyone for scrutiny. Because they cant provide nothing...which is what they have.

The past seventeen and half years have shown their statements to be incorrect. Don't you know how science works? Are you a science denier? Look up the scientific method and explain, in your own words what it means and how it should be applied to climate science....but isn't.

Statements? I'm asking where is the proof that their peer reviewed research is incorrect. Not some statements.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You have it wrong.....you MUST show that your theory is correct. For thirty years you have tried and failed. Now, the warmists have had to resort to data falsification to try and continue their attempt. Now it's fraud.

They have, you havent shown how its incorrect. Because you cant. They gave their theory to the scientific community for scrutiny.

The deniers have provided nothing to anyone for scrutiny. Because they cant provide nothing...which is what they have.

That's why they changed their approach from calling it "Global Warming" to Climate Change, because they have complete confidence in what their message had implied.

Yeah, they've been using both for 2 decades and because you just learned about it doesnt mean its real or a gotcha.

In fact if they were SO certain their research was irrefutable, a little ridicule and mockery associated with the term shouldn't have bothered them in the least (If they were confident the science involved could stand on its own merits, instead of looking to change their overall perspective view into one of "climate change").

It doesnt bother them. Which according to your logic means their research is irrecfutable. Again just because you say something doesnt mean its true

It doesn't appear they have the confidence and boldness through their research to stand on their original message, THAT much is obvious. What will the new phrase 10 years from now, Global Cooling like we found to explain the sightings of icebergs that claimed titanic and against the cold temperatures of the 70s? Let me give you a clue, the earth has been experiencing reported trends of warming and cooling associated with the sun for hundreds of years, this kind of climate change is nothing new and is proven scientific FACT.

Again, they've used Global Warming and Global Climate Change for the last 2 or 3 decades. Just because you are just finding out about it doesnt change that. Even "inadvertent climate modification".

NASA - What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change

To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"1

Broecker's term was a break with tradition. Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it "inadvertent climate modification."2 This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate?

For most of the 1970s, nobody knew. So "inadvertent climate modification," while clunky and dull, was an accurate reflection of the state of knowledge.

Of course since you dont believe anyone but yourself you'll deny that even NASA knows what they are talking about.

 

[BlindBoo]

Thats like asking how long is a piece of string. There is no answer for that question. Even if the answer was 0%, 2% or 100% it still wouldnt have any change on whether AGW is real or not.

Because I'm sure that once edge doesnt get an answer he's going to go "AHA! PROOF AGW ISNT REAL" without explaining how he makes such a speculative leap

It is fall down hilarious watching CC trip all over himself to defend the ignorant and failed liberal ideology he was so brainwashed with.

In the face of all facts, his best response is literally putting his finger in his ears and screaming "nah, nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you" like a child.

There have been not one but two rounds of "Climategate" in which scientists were found falsifying their data because the data proves there is no such thing as "global warming". Quite the contrary, the earth has just come off of a 10+ year cooling period. And that cooling period was not the result of man, but rather a natural cycle which was predicted (based on that cycle) long before it started. That is simply an undeniable fact.

But people like CC can't accept fact because they can't leave their radical left-wing propaganda cites long enough to learn anything. And when they come across it by accident (such as this thread here), the best they can do is go "nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you".

In a court of law, under the penalty of perjury, the Al Gore idiots were forced to admit they lied through out the entire movie. So much so that they were force to submit 77 freaking pages worth of corrections for their lies. And two rounds of Climategate to that and you can't help but laugh at people like CC who claim the earth is flat, the sun doesn't exist, and gravity is fiction...

Human activity continues to warm the planet over the past 16 years

 

[Pogo]

In a court of law, under the penalty of perjury, the Al Gore idiots were forced to admit they lied through out the entire movie. So much so that they were force to submit 77 freaking pages worth of corrections for their lies. And two rounds of Climategate to that and you can't help but laugh at people like CC who claim the earth is flat, the sun doesn't exist, and gravity is fiction...

Once again Buttsoiler, since you ran away when it was pointed out before, where the fuck do you get this "perjury" horseshit? Do you have any clue what the word means?

Or is your position so bereft of any legitimacy that you just continue to make it up as you go along?

This seven-year-old story was not a criminal trial, Dickhead.

 

[Edgetho]

The lying cocksucker in chief has been holding Canada hostage with the Keystone XL project because Canada wants to walk away from the lunacy of Carbon Taxes..... Just like every other idea ever conceived by the sick minds of dimocrap scum, it's an abysmal failure.

Even the uber-liberal Aussies are getting away from it.

But not the communists in the dimocrap scum party.

Canada reveals climate stance with praise for Australian carbon tax repeal | Environment | theguardian.com

Canada has dropped any remaining pretences of supporting global action on climate change by urging other countries to follow Australia's example in gutting its climate plan.

In a formal statement, the Canadian government said it "applauds" the move by Australia this week to repeal a carbon tax on the country's 300 biggest polluters.

"Canada applauds the decision by prime minister Abbott to introduce legislation to repeal Australia's carbon tax. The Australian prime minister's decision will be noticed around the world and sends an important message," the formal statement from Paul Calandra, parliamentary secretary to Canada's prime minister, Stephen Harper, said.

And this pisses the lying cocksucker in chief and his communist cronies off to no end.

When/if Canada gives in to the lying cocksucker in chief and keeps or strengthens its Carbon Tax and fraudulent Global Warming (which also causes Global Cooling, in case you didn't know) then maybe the lying cocksucker in chief will approve the pipeline.

Whenever dimocrap scum are involved, there is ALWAYS corruption and deception at the heart of the matter.

ALWAYS.

Brad Wall says small carbon levy might help get Keystone XL approval - Politics - CBC News

dimocraps are lying scum. All of them.

Every last one of them.

And it starts at the top

 

[Pete7469]

Do you ignorant fucks on the left think that, maybe... Just maybe the Earth is warming a little bit because we just emerged from a "Little Age" in just over an eye blink ago, geologically speaking?

Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you ignorant fucks even bother to think at all?

Maybe there is Global Warming. Maybe it's because compared to a FUCKING ICE AGE we think it's warmer. Maybe human ARE contributing to GW.

Maybe pollution of the air, rivers, streams and oceans of the world are having an adverse effect on our environment and everything in it.

But before I'd let stupid motherfuckers like leftist scum have any more control over us, I'd rather see us implode in a ball of fire.

You people just simply lie too much. In fact, it's about all you're capable of doing.

I hate liars

I agree.

You give these bed wetters anymore power and the quick death of imploding in a fireball will be preferable to starving to death in a frozen prison labor camp.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Suddenly [MENTION=26151]ShaklesOfBigGov[/MENTION]t disappears when his main talking point is shown to be bullshit. Roaches always run when the lights come on anyway