Three Big Supporters Throw Climate Hoaxers Overboard

[SpidermanTuba]

The science is available for all to read if you live in Europe that is.

I'm not sure WTF you're talking about. Try this:

Google Scholar

tons of free science.

Our state run media is saying virtually nothing of the new evidence that we are not warming and Glaciers in the southern hemisphere are increasing at an almost alarming rate.

I'm not sure what the media has to do this. I'd like to stick solely to the scientific literature if you don't mind.

 

[Oddball]

Only approx. 10% of the papers submitted to the IPCC were used to prove the global warming fraud. Ever wonder why the other 90% submitted weren't used?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000

Seriously, who cares what courts and films say? Isn't this a debate about science?

So lets talk about the science. Like there is any scientist here anyways,how is this explained?

How is what explained? Science doesn't need to explain legal rulings, that's not its job. Hire a lawyer if you want that.

 

[Rambunctious]

The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000

Seriously, who cares what courts and films say? Isn't this a debate about science?

So lets talk about the science. Like there is any scientist here anyways,how is this explained?

How is what explained? Science doesn't need to explain legal rulings, that's not its job. Hire a lawyer if you want that.

Did you know that warming water gives off a shitload of carbon. Not one single scientist anywhere in the world can definitively say or will definitively say that man produced carbon amounts are greater than "organic" forms of carbon that is unleashed into the atmosphere everyday. The high levels of carbon in the atmosphere may be completely innocuous and totally natural. Don't be fooled, snake oil has been around for a very long time. You can't tax global warming unless you can measure it, carbon gives them something to measure.

 

[Oddball]

Don't be fooled, snake oil has been around for a very long time. You can't tax global warming unless you can measure it, carbon gives them something to measure.

Funny thing there is that none of the "scientists" can quantify (i.e. measure) how much CO2 will cause X amount of temperature increase, nor can they nail down how much of the total ambient CO2 is natural and how much is anthropogenic.

Since we're speaking of science here.....If you cannot definitively quantify it, you don't have science.

 

[Rambunctious]

Don't be fooled, snake oil has been around for a very long time. You can't tax global warming unless you can measure it, carbon gives them something to measure.

Funny thing there is that none of the "scientists" can quantify (i.e. measure) how much CO2 will cause X amount of temperature increase, nor can they nail down how much of the total ambient CO2 is natural and how much is anthropogenic.

Since we're speaking of science here.....If you cannot definitively quantify it, you don't have science.

Dude,
That's exactly right unproven science is theory, not science. I hope everyone will step back and take a deeper look at this issue regardless of any political concerns you may have.

 

[Oddball]

Don't bet on it.

The overwhelming majority of the warmists are on the authoritarian left....Hence, the "solution" for their hobgoblin "problem" is oriented toward more centralized technocratic control over the general population, whom are considered to be a bunch of provincial bumpkins.

 

[code1211]

The American right wing is the only political party on earth that uses partisan ideology only to define what is and what isn't science.
Scientific research is no where to be found.
Ideology over practice. A way of life for the modern day "conservative".

And the "moderate" left wing pushes an agenda to ruin the world economy, even more than it already has done, because the worlds's climate has risen by only 0.7 degrees in 2000 years, because we are 1 degree cooer than we were 8000 years a ago and because we are 1 to 2 degrees cooler now than at the peak of any previous interglacial.

What is it about science that causes the left wing to ignor facts in favor of conclusions?

 

[chikenwing]

How is what explained? Science doesn't need to explain legal rulings, that's not its job. Hire a lawyer if you want that.


The court arrived at their ruling based on the SCIENTIFIC evidence presented to them.

co2 lagged not leading global temp increases.The science is far from settled,stating that it is hardly a scientific approach,but then some like being led by the noses.

 

[CMike]

Pardon me, I thought you actually checked into the sources you used, instead of blindly accepting them as truth like some dumb sheep. You can't even link me to the report they are referring to - which is their ONLY source in that pamphlet - which means you did absolutely nothing to verify the validity of what was stated in that pamphlet. Why should anyone believe anything you say? The truth is clearly irrelevant to you.

Then you are perfectly free to find the study and challenge it.

I'll help.

Google

There's nothing to challenge. There's no page numbers cited. Its not possible to check the source. The pamphlet is thus utterly useless.

What an idiot

Have fun.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/aqrs/reports/napapreport05.pdf

 

[CMike]

No, the above is part of a ruling of a judge of a British Court.

That's great. When you're ready to talk about the science, let me know.

This was already said.

The court made it's ruling based on the scientific evidence presented to them.

The court doesn't generate it's own scientific evidence.

 

[CMike]

No Gore's not a scientist but he's a fraud.

Who gives a fuck? Do you want to talk about science or about Al Gore?

Al Gore is the leader of the global warming cult.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Did you know that warming water gives off a shitload of carbon.

Yes, I did.

Not one single scientist anywhere in the world can definitively say or will definitively say that man produced carbon amounts are greater than "organic" forms of carbon that is unleashed into the atmosphere everyday.

That's because that wouldn't be a true statement.

The high levels of carbon in the atmosphere may be completely innocuous and totally natural.

Wrong, its certain the source of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic in origin. We know this because we know about how much carbon we've burned over the past 150 years or so, and we know its more than enough to account for the rise in CO2 levels.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Funny thing there is that none of the "scientists" can quantify (i.e. measure) how much CO2 will cause X amount of temperature increase,

Yes they can. In fact the very first paper published on AGW in the late 19th century did this.

nor can they nail down how much of the total ambient CO2 is natural and how much is anthropogenic.

We know we've produced more than enough to account for the rise.

If you cannot definitively quantify it, you don't have science.

Wrong. You do not have to "definitively" quantify anything, in fact it isn't even possible. All measurements come with errors and all calculations based on measurements have accuracy ranges, there is no "definitive" quantity in science.

 

[Meister]

only approx. 10% of the papers submitted to the ipcc were used to prove the global warming fraud. Ever wonder why the other 90% submitted weren't used?

bump

 

[SpidermanTuba]

That's exactly right unproven science is theory, not science.

Actually, all of science is theory, and there isn't proven and unproven science - only tested, untested, and disproven scientific theories

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The court arrived at their ruling based on the SCIENTIFIC evidence presented to them.

That's awesome, good for them. I still fail to see the relevance.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Then you are perfectly free to find the study and challenge it.

I'll help.

Google

There's nothing to challenge. There's no page numbers cited. Its not possible to check the source. The pamphlet is thus utterly useless.

What an idiot

Have fun.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/aqrs/reports/napapreport05.pdf

Why did you link to the 2005 report? Its the 1991 report they are referring to. Are you a moron?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Then you are perfectly free to find the study and challenge it.

I'll help.

Google

There's nothing to challenge. There's no page numbers cited. Its not possible to check the source. The pamphlet is thus utterly useless.

What an idiot

Have fun.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/aqrs/reports/napapreport05.pdf

Why did you link to the 2005 report? Its the report published in 1991 that they are referring to. Are you a moron?

 

[Oddball]

We know we've produced more than enough to account for the rise.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

If you cannot definitively quantify it, you don't have science.

Wrong. You do not have to "definitively" quantify anything, in fact it isn't even possible. All measurements come with errors and all calculations based on measurements have accuracy ranges, there is no "definitive" quantity in science.

I can quantify both gravity and electricity, even though I cannot prove how they happen at the molecular level...Your favored science fiction can't come anywhere near clearing that hurdle.