If AGW were on trial for its life..it would lose

[westwall]

The header explains it all.


Legal verdict: Manmade global warming science doesn?t withstand scrutiny | FP Comment | Financial Post

 

[konradv]

The header explains it all.


Legal verdict: Manmade global warming science doesn?t withstand scrutiny | FP Comment | Financial Post

Luckily science doesn't depend on lawyers' tricks and hoodwinking jurors.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bet that lawyer was paid a significant amount of money from the likes of BP and Exxon for that little peice of shit.

Won't stand up in a 'legal' court, but has every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world stating in their policy statements that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger. So whom are we to believe? Lawyers, that make a living by being paid to lie, or scientists whose work must pass peer review?

 

[konradv]

Bet that lawyer was paid a significant amount of money from the likes of BP and Exxon for that little peice of shit.

Won't stand up in a 'legal' court, but has every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world stating in their policy statements that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger. So whom are we to believe? Lawyers, that make a living by being paid to lie, or scientists whose work must pass peer review?

They have to go the political/legal route, having lost the scientific debate.

 

[Old Rocks]

Exactly.

 

[westwall]

Bet that lawyer was paid a significant amount of money from the likes of BP and Exxon for that little peice of shit.

Won't stand up in a 'legal' court, but has every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world stating in their policy statements that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger. So whom are we to believe? Lawyers, that make a living by being paid to lie, or scientists whose work must pass peer review?

I'll bet you plenty more that at 26.5 million of your tax dollars that Phil Jones has gotten more old fraud!

 

[westwall]

Bet that lawyer was paid a significant amount of money from the likes of BP and Exxon for that little peice of shit.

Won't stand up in a 'legal' court, but has every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world stating in their policy statements that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger. So whom are we to believe? Lawyers, that make a living by being paid to lie, or scientists whose work must pass peer review?

They have to go the political/legal route, having lost the scientific debate.

The only people that have lost are AL Gore and his cronies konrad. In the UK where "An Inconvenient Truth" was placed on trial as propaganda it lost. Badly. And what is more important is that unlike here in the states where any jackass can sue you and walk away with minimal cost if he loses...in the UK if the plaintiffs had lost THEY would have had to pay so they were looking at a loss of millions of dollars...but they won....so you lose.

 

[Oddball]

The header explains it all.


Legal verdict: Manmade global warming science doesn?t withstand scrutiny | FP Comment | Financial Post

Luckily science doesn't depend on lawyers' tricks and hoodwinking jurors.

Right...It only depends upon the tricks of academic elites, hoodwinking alumni associations, politicians, the media and gullible fools like you.

 

[konradv]

What does a lawyer know about science? Their main job is to stack juries with know nothings. Seems like they've got quite a pool here. If the science isn't settled, why are you being forced to take the legal/political route? Do you think this lawyer has the answer to what the trapped energy is doing that the deniers always conveniently forget about, as if Conservation of Energy was merely an inconvenient truth.

 

[konradv]

The header explains it all.


Legal verdict: Manmade global warming science doesn?t withstand scrutiny | FP Comment | Financial Post

Luckily science doesn't depend on lawyers' tricks and hoodwinking jurors.

Right...It only depends upon the tricks of academic elites, hoodwinking alumni associations, politicians, the media and gullible fools like you.

If you read posts instead of just making things up as you go, you'd know I don't base my opinion on what others say. It's the logic. If mCo2 traps heat, where's it going? Got an answer. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

 

[Oddball]

What does a lawyer know about science? Their main job is to stack juries with know nothings. Seems like they've got quite a pool here. If the science isn't settled, why are you being forced to take the legal/political route? Do you think this lawyer has the answer to what the trapped energy is doing that the deniers always conveniently forget about, as if Conservation of Energy was merely an inconvenient truth.

Who's taking the political route?...It's the moonbats who want everyone in the whole damned world to re-arrange their lives, by force of law, to fall in line with a hoax that makes Piltdown man look like a carnival sideshow attraction, that's who.

Best clean up your own backyard, komrade.

If you read posts instead of just making things up as you go, you'd know I don't base my opinion on what others say. It's the logic. If mCo2 traps heat, where's it going? Got an answer. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

It's been unquestionably proven that CO2 concentrations follow increases in ambient temperatures, rather precede/cause them.

Maybe you could do some 'splaining as to where the heat has gone, professor.

 

[westwall]

What does a lawyer know about science? Their main job is to stack juries with know nothings. Seems like they've got quite a pool here. If the science isn't settled, why are you being forced to take the legal/political route? Do you think this lawyer has the answer to what the trapped energy is doing that the deniers always conveniently forget about, as if Conservation of Energy was merely an inconvenient truth.

Lawyers in general know nothing about science (though there are some very notable exceptions. A good friend of mine is a intellectual property attorney specialising in biomedical patents and she has a Masters in Biology so you better not try and pull any BS with her) but they do hire Expert Witnesses who are experts in their respective fields.
In the battle of the experts (which is where the science part comes in) the AGW proponents have allways lost. That my good man is not a good record. You would think that at some point they could get a least one victory.

Also lawyers and judges do have degrees and are versed in the discipline known as logic.
Something you may want to study in the future.