Weather Channel Owner Suing Al Gore For Fraud....

[BrianH]

You are a waste of time. And I will not do homework for a lying internet personality who says he will not stray from his beliefs no matter the overwhelming evidence.

lying internet personality? Well that means I have many talents then. Dude, I am more educated than you will ever be with your attitude. Education is not following a movement in which there is not any proof, or spewing large words in a failed attempt to make someone else look stupid. Being intelligent and educated is being able to think for yourself and not follow the teaches of mad scientists who want your money. You can call me a liar all you want, but this "liar" is more educated and more intelligent than you.

LIAR LIAR

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

You are still not providing anything that hasn't been said before while still dismission the Ice Age FACT. Let me quote a statement you embolded.

"the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities"

No one here is claiming that humans do not affect the globe or global warming. You should read the posts before going off on a biased rant of which you have no credentials of either. You're a 19 year-old who's in love with Al Gore and his fallacy.

Second quote of yours:

"What you are is an idealogue offering political theories based on fraudulent science conducted by paid scientists on the behalf of a non-academic lobby"

Are you frickin kidding me. Politicians are paying scientists to advocate global warming numnuts...they're not going to make any money of of paying science to disprove global warming. You're fresh...and it makes me laugh.

Since you're such a peer-reviewed study nut...here are just a few that go the other way. Dude, you make it too easy. And make yourself look like more of a liar than I will ever be. Liar Liar pants on fire.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d87f58c3-be16-4959-88e2-906b7c291fd6

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/200...ntific-studies-defy-global-warming-consensus/

All the links you provided are hoax's or are a result of you not comprehending the studies. They are not - I repeat - not peer-reviewed by working climate scientists. If you consider "peer-reviewed" to mean reviewed by the private political think tank that sponsored the research, than you are a bigger idiot than I thought. Take the first you link provide as an example of your gross stupidity. "Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age." What that has to do with anthropogenic global warming today, I do not know.

Your second link makes many false claims. Chief among them is that the study by Shwartz has discredited AGW "in one fell swoop." Great. One study that debunks over 2000 lines of independent evidence. Not only impossible, but incredibly stupid assumption that one study would destroy hundreds upon hundreds of studies is laughable.

And here's the kicker. I know Stephen Schwartz. You do not.

You, like many others, misrepresent his beliefs and conclusions because you, in fact, are liars and simpletons. Schwartz is an anthropogenist who simply performed an analysis based on a rather oversimplified model which concluded that the planet is not as responsive to atmospheric CO2 increases as most other studies have found.

For this reason the skeptics like to claim Schwartz as one of their own - he is not. Schwartz has continued to state that he is concerned about AGW. A report on Fox News introduced the study by saying, "Skeptics are increasingly certain the [global warming] scare is vastly overblown," and other news sources said Mr. Schwartz's study debunked the notion that global warming is a force with which humanity needs to contend. (http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/news/NorthShoreSun.html)

This, he said, was not what he was trying to prove at all. Global warming is a very real reality, he said, and his study spells that out -- though in a different manner than those carried out by other scientists and organizations.

You are one of the world's biggest idiots Brian. And you prove it everyday. The latest example is you trying to put words in Schwartz's mouth that he did not say. In fact, what happened was that Schwartz was so sick of idiots using his study as an example that AGW was not happening, he had to go on the record to put the issue to rest.

"We want the research to be at hand that says this greenhouse effect is real, and that would allow better-informed decision making," he said.

Indeed, the greenhouse effect is real, Mr. Schwartz said, and humanity needs to curb their own actions or the children living today could be facing a very dire situation by the time they're seniors.

"People have to realize that decisions being made today will affect their lives, their children's lives and their grandchildren's lives," Mr. Schwartz said. "It's our responsibility to think of these things now to turn things around."

You're a moron, that much is clear. In fact, you are so stupid and so ignorant you use someone else's work as a political launching pad for your beliefs; even though the author of the very same study you source vehemently disagrees with the claims you have made concerning his research. Nice tactic there Brian. You're a real "genius"

You are a joke, a liar and are getting more desperate and more bizarre by the hour.

 

[BrianH]

All the links you provided are hoax's or are a result of you not comprehending the studies. They are not - I repeat - not peer-reviewed by working climate scientists. If you consider "peer-reviewed" to mean reviewed by the private political think tank that sponsored the research, than you are a bigger idiot than I thought. Take the first you link provide as an example of your gross stupidity. "Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age." What that has to do with anthropogenic global warming today, I do not know.

Uh...the fact that the earth warmed and melted the ice without human contribution dumbass. Like I said, the earth has warmed and cooled much longer than man has been around. Your argument doesn't have too feet to stand on.B]

Your second link makes many false claims. Chief among them is that the study by Shwartz has discredited AGW "in one fell swoop." Great. One study that debunks over 2000 lines of independent evidence. Not only impossible, but incredibly stupid assumption that one study would destroy hundreds upon hundreds of studies is laughable.

Here you are picking on Schwarts and not mentioning the other links I posted, which means that you didn't read them. As far as discrediting things, all it takes is one fell swoop of one study to disprove thousands. That's how history is kept. Thousands of historians believed that mankind only went back so far, but some kept up the search and proved the majority wrong. Things are disproved everyday.

And here's the kicker. I know Stephen Schwartz. You do not. And you are misrepresenting his beliefs because you, in fact, a liar. Schwartz is an anthropogenist who simply performed an analysis based on a rather oversimplified model which concluded that the planet is not as responsive to atmospheric CO2 increases as most other studies have found.

It's amazing how you discredit everyone who has different information than you, even if they are right. I posted several excerpts out of peer-review journals that you're so highly drawn to.

For this reason the skeptics like to claim Schwartz as one of their own. However, Schwartz has continued to state that he is concerned about AGW.

This is why you have a thinking/speaking disfunction. Like I've said a thousand times already, No one on this thread is saying that global warming isn't real or that it isn't happening. You just can't think of anything better to say because you know that you're wrong, and CO2 is not the sole factor in GW.

A report on Fox News introduced the study by saying, "Skeptics are increasingly certain the [global warming] scare is vastly overblown," and other news sources said Mr. Schwartz's study debunked the notion that global warming is a force with which humanity needs to contend. (http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/news/NorthShoreSun.html)

This, he said, was not what he was trying to prove at all. Global warming is a very real reality, he said, and his study spells that out -- though in a different manner than those carried out by other scientists and organizations.

You are one of the world's biggest idiots Brian. And you prove it everyday. The latest example is you trying to put words in Schwartz's mouth that he did not say. In fact, what happened was that Schwartz was so sick of idiots using his study as an example that AGW was not happening, he had to go on the record to put the issue to rest.

You know, you're doing worse in this thread than you did in the other thread where everyone blew your claim out of the water because it was misguided and totally irrelevant to your "evidence." this thread is no different
You're a moron, that much is clear.

You're a hack and everyone sees it.

You are a joke and are getting more desperate by the hour.

I may be able to joke better than you, but you are the desperate one...I have come up with counter-angle to everything you have come up with. The fact remains, you have yet to prove your position.


This argument started over the fact that you claimed CO2 was the culprit behind global warming and that humans were causing global warming.
Now you're getting your my little pony panties in a wad because you can't prove it. So you revert to incinuating that we're all arguing about the existance of global warming, which is most certainly not the case.


THE FACT THAT THE GLOBE HAS WARMED AND COOLED RAPIDLY BEFORE HUMANS EXISTED MEANS THAT YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT HUMAN EMISSIONS ARE CAUSING A WARMING NOW. THERE ARE BIGGER THINGS THAN CO2 THAT HEAT AND COOL THE EARTH....THE SUN BEING ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT.

YOU HAVE LOST THIS ARGUMENT WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IT OR NOT. I MAY BE A LIAR IN YOUR EYES, BUT YOU CERTAINLY ARE A DEUSCH AS WELL AS A HARD-HEADED NERD.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

I may be able to joke better than you, but you are the desperate one...I have come up with counter-angle to everything you have come up with. The fact remains, you have yet to prove your position.


This argument started over the fact that you claimed CO2 was the culprit behind global warming and that humans were causing global warming.
Now you're getting your my little pony panties in a wad because you can't prove it. So you revert to incinuating that we're all arguing about the existance of global warming, which is most certainly not the case.


THE FACT THAT THE GLOBE HAS WARMED AND COOLED RAPIDLY BEFORE HUMANS EXISTED MEANS THAT YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT HUMAN EMISSIONS ARE CAUSING A WARMING NOW. THERE ARE BIGGER THINGS THAN CO2 THAT HEAT AND COOL THE EARTH....THE SUN BEING ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT.

YOU HAVE LOST THIS ARGUMENT WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IT OR NOT. I MAY BE A LIAR IN YOUR EYES, BUT YOU CERTAINLY ARE A DEUSCH AS WELL AS A HARD-HEADED NERD.

This is not a "game" no matter how hard you try to make it into one. What this is, is an exhibition of the rambling, claims and lies of a ignorant, immature twit who thinks there is something to win or lose via this message board.

Is this the part where you lie again and try to make everyone believe Schwartz agrees with you - even though in his own words Schwartz dismisses the claims you and other idiot skeptics have made regarding his conclusions?

Or is this the part where you fail to comprehend the conclusions of the studies you link the group to?

Or, better yet, is this the part where your total ignorance concerning the difference a forcing and a feedback is exhibited?

Or maybe this is the part where you lie and say no peer-reviewed studies pointing to human emissions for AGW exist?

Which lie is it going to be this time Brian?

There are three claims supported by overwhelming evidence no credible work has been able to discredit or disprove. One, the earth is warming, two the cause is humans, three the reason is human emissions.

In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical. It is supported by sophisticated, refined global climate models that can successfully reproduce the climate's behavior over the last century. It is in this evidence that scientists know that Co2 is the culprit.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Here you are picking on Schwarts and not mentioning the other links I posted, which means that you didn't read them. As far as discrediting things, all it takes is one fell swoop of one study to disprove thousands. That's how history is kept. Thousands of historians believed that mankind only went back so far, but some kept up the search and proved the majority wrong. Things are disproved everyday.

Link bombing is a tactic of the stupid.

I do not know what you're trying to say. Posting a bunch of links and expecting me to know what it is you're trying to highlight is usually a sign that you haven't a clue or a grasp of what the hell you're trying to argue.

It's also a sign of laziness.

 

[BrianH]

This is not a "game" no matter how hard you try to make it into one. What this is, is an exhibition of the rambling, claims and lies of a ignorant, immature twit who thinks there is something to win or lose via this message board.

What the hell are you talking about, you're middle brain has taken over and you're talking nonsense. Wait...you've already been doing that. No one has mentioned a game or winning anything.

Is this the part where you lie again and try to make everyone believe Schwartz agrees with you - even though in his own words Schwartz dismisses the claims you and other idiot skeptics have made regarding his conclusions?
I never said Schwartz agreed with me. I don't even know the man.


Or is this the part where you fail to comprehend the conclusions of the studies you link the group to?

I understand them perfectly, they're very literal.
For example:

"Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates in activity as shown in Figure 3; by the greenhouse effect, largely caused by atmospheric water vapor (H2O); and by other phenomena that are more poorly understood. While major greenhouse gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 have little effect, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature or on the trend in glacier length"

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
(Petition Project) Check the numerous scientists...I'm sure you'll just assume that their all idiots becasue you don't agree with them...and not because they've countered the entire CO2 boogeyman theory.


Or, better yet, is this the part where your total ignorance concerning the difference a forcing and a feedback is exhibited?

What a dumbass, there are studies that show that negative feedbacks have more affect than forcing.

Or maybe this is the part where you lie and say no peer-reviewed studies pointing to human emissions for AGW exist?

Um....WTF??? YOU WERE THE ONE THAT SAID...wait I'll quote it for youYour words: "No papers - I repeat - no peer-reviewed papers published in scientific academic journals arguing against Anthropogenic global warming exist.". This claim is completely abusrd....nice try though.

Which lie is it going to be this time Brian?

You're intelligent.....

There are three claims supported by overwhelming evidence no credible work has been able to discredit or disprove. One, the earth is warming, two the cause is humans, three the reason is human emissions.

Uh, nobody agreed with the first, and you havn't proven the latter.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Or maybe this is the part where you lie and say no peer-reviewed studies pointing to human emissions for AGW exist?

Um....WTF??? YOU WERE THE ONE THAT SAID...wait I'll quote it for youYour words: "No papers - I repeat - no peer-reviewed papers published in scientific academic journals arguing against Anthropogenic global warming exist.". This claim is completely abusrd....nice try though.

Wow. You have terrible reading comprehension. Try reading your own post above over again. Here's a hint - "against"

And no, you still do not know the difference between a forcing and a feedback. You're so stupid, you thought water vapour was a forcing.

Get your ass to the library and try not to source out authors who disagree with your claims as evidence for your "claims".

 

[BrianH]

Wow. You have terrible reading comprehension. Try reading your own post above over again. Here's a hint - "against"

And no, you still do not know the difference between a forcing and a feedback. You're so stupid, you thought water vapour was a forcing.

Get your ass to the library.

You posted:
"No papers - I repeat - no peer-reviewed papers published in scientific academic journals arguing against Anthropogenic global warming exist. I challenge you at least post one (not that one would matter or discredit over 2000 lines of evidence.)"

I never claimed that PRJ advocating GW didn't exist. And I even met your challenge by posting a something that did exist. What a pus. You posted a make-believe, emotion-based response:

"Or maybe this is the part where you lie and say no peer-reviewed studies pointing to human emissions for AGW exist?"

Considering that this was never a claim of mine, nor did I ever mentioned the fact, you seem to be the one that is lying.

And I'll tell you what...if you can find anywhere in this entire thread, where I mentioned the water vapor was a "Forcing" I'll paypal you a 100 dollars...good luck finding it, cause I never said it.

Get your ass out of the library and into the world.

 

[BrianH]

I enjoy this graph.

This one too.

Notice how a majority believe the earth is warming, but only half believe it's human caused. So much for your whole.. "THere is no 'both' sides" theory.

Like I said, come back when you grow a brain. The fact is, I'm just making fun of you for not knowing what you're talking about. Then you respons by making remarks that have no base or background. Just emotion-driven statements that don't make any sense.

"I hate your stinking guts. You make me vomit. You're scum between my toes! Love," BrianH

(Little Rascals)

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

You posted:
"No papers - I repeat - no peer-reviewed papers published in scientific academic journals arguing against Anthropogenic global warming exist. I challenge you at least post one (not that one would matter or discredit over 2000 lines of evidence.)"

Are you stupid....are you really that stupid? The one peer-reviewed study that you thought 'met my challenge' was Schwartz's study that you misrepresented and misunderstood.

You have not - I repeat have not - posted a single peer-reviewed article found in a scientific academic journal arguing against anthropogenic warming. You tried, and failed miserably with the Schwartz article.

Does your next step involve using Catholic Church dogma as evidence that God does not exist?

You are a total moron.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Notice how a majority believe the earth is warming, but only half believe it's human caused. So much for your whole.. "THere is no 'both' sides" theory.

Like I said, come back when you grow a brain. The fact is, I'm just making fun of you for not knowing what you're talking about. Then you respons by making remarks that have no base or background. Just emotion-driven statements that don't make any sense.

I thought it was too obvious to point out earlier. Clearly I was wrong as I underestimated just how stupid you are.

There is no 'both sides' of credible scientific debate.

I do not care, nor am I interested in what laymen think, or do not think of global warming. That is a political matter, that I do not find interesting in the least.

There is no great debate in the halls of academia occurring between working climate scientists.There are no two sides. The verdict and evidence is already in. There is a consensus among credible working climate scientists. One, the earth is warming, two the cause is humans, and three, the reason is human emissions.

 

[BrianH]

Are you stupid....are you really that stupid? The one peer-reviewed study that you thought 'met my challenge' was Schwartz's study that you misrepresented and misunderstood.

You have not - I repeat have not - posted a single peer-reviewed article found in a scientific academic journal arguing against anthropogenic warming. You tried, and failed miserably with the Schwartz article.

Does your next step involve using Catholic Church dogma as evidence that God does not exist?

Once again, totally off topic and out of no where....and I'm not Catholic....so once again, out of no where. And by the way, if you were really as smart as you think you are, you would know that you can't prove that God exists, that's where the word FAITH comes into play...it's the whole concept of the Bible...but I guess you knew that already.

You are a total moron.

You are so full of shit your breath stinks.
I posted several articles about several different peer-review journals that refute CO2-human emissions as the main cause of global warming.

One them included: Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia.(The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia)

You fail to read....you read one article and assume all are the same. I just found that off the top without looking into the other articles I've posted, that all exceprts from the real journals.

The fact is, you said they didn't exist and challenged me to find one...I found you several and you still dismiss.

This shows you for the hack that you are.
Like I said, come back when you have all your shit together. You have still not proven that the earth is warming because of CO2 and human emissions. If you were half the scientist you thought you were , you would (like the others) at least acknowledge that it cannot be proven. They're mature enough to know that there is not enough evidence out there to prove it.

This is why you are unable to win 150,000, because you ahve no proof.

 

[BrianH]

I thought it was too obvious to point out earlier. Clearly I was wrong as I underestimated just how stupid you are.

There is no 'both sides' of credible scientific debate.

uh yeah there is, it's called self proclaimed scientists (such as yourself) discrediting the works of other scientist. No matter how many ways you look at it, there are different groups of scientists debating two different causes for global warming.

I do not care, nor am I interested in what laymen think, or do not think of global warming. That is a political matter, that I do not find interesting in the least.

Speaking of laymen, I thought I'd make a joke and say that you are a man, I mean boy, that needs to get laid....judging by your "uptightness". Good Luck with that mountain of a feat.

There is no great debate in the halls of academia occurring between working climate scientists.There are no two sides. The verdict and evidence is already in. There is a consensus among credible working climate scientists. One, the earth is warming, two the cause is humans, and three, the reason is human emissions.

Two sides, however you look at it.

 

[BrianH]

Here is the fact...if it was PROVEN without a doubt that CO2/Human emissoins cause global warming...there would have been a national statement and most people would have already been told that there is prooof, and the proof would be shown.

Why has this not come to light...? If this is such an emergency, why hasn't the PROOF come out? Why hasn't someone come out on national TV and say: "We have proven without a doubt, that CO2 is causing the earth to warm and it's because of human emissions."?

And AL GORE doesn't count....

Ummmm, the fact that there is no proof, and still speculation.

The fact is, the earth experienced an Ice Age, then a warming trend and then a small ice age....and even something in more recent times that is called the Little Ice Age....which peaked about the time that Washington and his men were at valley forge. The earth has rapidly cooled and heated before, without an industrialized world, and without human emissions...this is the sole reason why scientists cannot prove that CO2 and human emissions are causing this one now. By the way, 2006 went to fourth place in the hottest years on record because of mis-used and mis-printed data by NASA. just FYI

 

[TopGunna]

This has spun a little out of control into more of a name-calling spat than a real debate.

Goodshepherd, there are indeed two sides of the climate change debate, and if you fail to recognize that, then it is you who has his head in the ground. The Mann Hockey stick graph has been thoroughly discredited for its manipulation of data. The 10,000 year ice core data showing a link between CO2 and temperature increase has been refined, and with improved measurement techniques, we can see that temperature has historically increased BEFORE CO2 levels increase. But when these incongruencies are found, they magically disappear from the IPCC reports.... hmm...

The greenhouse effect is real - that aspect of global warming theory is settled science. What is not settled is the net effect of the feedbacks of increased CO2. ALL CLIMATE MODELS that forecast temperature runaways ASSUME a strong net positive feedback. If they all spew out the same catastrophic story, then there's a "consensus" among them, I suppose. But a consensus means very little when everyone is making the same questionable assumption about feedbacks - this is called a systematic error in statistics.

If such a positive feedback mechanism exists in our climate system, then WHY are temperatures believed to have been so stable in the past 1000 years? (For starters, the proxy data that implies long-term stable temperatures has in fact DIVERGED from actual measurements since 1990... makes you question the credibility of those proxies). A stong positive feedback mechanism would predict HUGE temperature volatility in the past - but according to the IPCC, temperatures were incredibly stable. It's a pretty big catch-22 for climate change alarmists.

Why, oh why have temperatures decreased since 1998? Remember, we've reached the supposed "tipping point," where strong positive feedbacks mask any natural negative feedbacks and lead to temperature runaway. Should we be worried that there's a new man-made climate forcing that's pushing temperatures downward?

Or perhaps we're within the regular "noise" of climate variation, and in fact opposing negative feedbacks are allowing temperatures to fluctuate within the normal range of variation.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Goodshepherd, there are indeed two sides of the climate change debate, and if you fail to recognize that, then it is you who has his head in the ground.

The Mann Hockey stick graph has been thoroughly discredited for its manipulation of data.

...temperatures decreased since 1998?

There is not two sides of the credible climate debate. There is the science and there internet lunatics. Guess which side you are on.

You make two very serious claims in this post. Both of which are undeniably false. Let's examine the first claim: "The Mann Hockey stick graph has been thoroughly discredited for its manipulation of data."

As an objective observer, one must ask is this indeed true?

The first order of business here is to correct the mischaracterization of this single paleoclimate study as the "foundation" of global warming theory.

The "Hockey Stick" graph was featured prominently in the IPCC TAR Summary for Policymakers. It has been reviewed time and time again.

It was important in that it cast serious doubt on the notion both of a global Medieval Warm Period warmer than the 20th century and of a global Little Ice Age, both long-time (cautiously) accepted features of the last 1,000 years of climate history. It seems these periods were regional, not globally synchronized -- though the LIA seems to have been more widely experienced.

Paleoclimate evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth's surface.

Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this conclusion is the evidence from so-called "Detection and Attribution Studies".

Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations and industrial aerosol increases).http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/440.htm


Another thing. False claims of the existence of errors in the Mann reconstruction were traced to spurious allegations made by two Canadian individuals, McIntyre and McKitrick. McIntyre works in the mining industry, while McKitrick is an economist. It's a good thing they're 'experts' huh?

By the way, the false claims were first made in an article (McIntyre and McKitrick, 2003) published in a non-scientific social science journal named "Energy and Environment."

It was rejected by Nature based on negative appraisals by reviewers and editor.

So, the Mann hockey stick was never, has never been debunked. And it certainly was not discredited by a study conducted by a 'miner' and an 'economist' and published in a social science journal.

Furthermore, the claims of McIntyre and McKitrick were totally discredited in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Look it up yourself. The paper was published in the American Meteorological Society journal, "Journal of Climate" by Rutherford and colleagues (2004)

Try actually knowing what you're talking about before you make outrageous claims based on non-scientific, non-peer reviewed studies published in social science journals.

 

[BrianH]

Yeah, who's the one who can't have a serious discussion?
Someone else has posted their view, research on the topic, and you shoot it down because you don't agree with it. What a pus....go craw into bed with your best friend.......AL GORE.

There are two sides to this debate whether you will admit to it or not. You are not the "knower" of all things whether you think so or not.
First, you made an attempt to say that peer-review journals (that discredits human caused GW) did not exist. (YOU WERE WRONG).
If you want to spend all of your money on carbon credits and donate to a fallacy...go right ahead. But you have not proven that CO2 and humans have caused GW, no two ways about it.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

First, you made an attempt to say that peer-review journals (that discredits human caused GW) did not exist. (YOU WERE WRONG).

They do not exist. You made one serious attempt. The result was the author of the study (Schwartz) himself distanced himself from the conclusions you and a couple other zealots incorrectly assumed about his work.

You have an embarrassing track record of comprehending the articles you present.

 

[BrianH]

They do not exist. You made one serious attempt. The result was the author of the study (Schwartz) himself distanced himself from the conclusions you and a couple other zealots incorrectly assumed about his work.

You have an embarrassing track record of comprehending the articles you present.

For the last time...why are you stuck on Schwartz?
I posted excerpts from a peer-review journal written by three professors from three different universities....Anyway you cut it, it's a peer-review journal that is debating human caused GW. Just because you disgree with it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You mind as well say that 2% milk isn't made from milk.

I have a track record of making you look like a complete dumbass...take a consesus and you'll discover that quickly. Basic Fact: You deny existence of a peer-review journal that debates human caused GW...I found several...one of which was authored by several university professors...and you deny that I found anything other than the Scwartz one.

You are compiling a track record for not reading the posts, being biased, not proving your case, being an dumbass, sucking off goats....(ask the Mods what that's all about), and being an 19 year-old ass to anyone who opposes your warped point-of-view. Get an education and come back when you have Proof of your fallacy.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

I posted excerpts from a peer-review journal written by three professors from three different universities....

What you did was post an article that has been long debunked by credible voices via peer-reviewed studies in the climate science community.

You did not read the study published by Douglas/Singer. What you did do, was rely on Dr. Fred Singer, man who hasn't written a peer-reviewed study published in a scientific climate science journal in many years.

Singer, is a longtime paid tobacco and oil goofball who does not think second-hand smoke causes cancer among his many other 'beliefs'. For example, a memo in which an official from the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution solicits $20,000 from the Tobacco Institute for the preparation of a “research” paper challenging the health effects of second-hand smoke, and suggesting that Dr. Singer be retained to write the report can be found here...http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s3/TI10841120.html

He is also not a working climate scientist by the way. What Singer is, is simple. He is member of a conservative think-tank who spends his time denying second-hand smoke causes cancer while accepting huge monetary gifts from big oil.

In fact his credentials are so weak, climate scientists from NASA, Stanford University and Princeton dismissed Singer and his 'reports' on global warming as 'fabricated nonsense.'

The goof has also admitted accepting $10,000 from Exxon. In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association It is in the public record for all to see.

Furthermore, resting your entire case on one paper is like relying on a second-quarter interception in a football game as an indicator of the final score.

I find it hilarious that you would even use Singer's work as 'proof' of anything.

On one hand you have the world's most accomplished and reputable scientists - more than 2,000 of whom have submitted research to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - carefully weighing every pronouncement for accuracy and subjecting all of their research to peer-review before announcing it publicly.

On the other hand, you have a huge and expensive public relations campaign denying that scientific consensus. A campaign largely financed with money from energy companies like ExxonMobil, which is then lightly laundered through "think tanks" like the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution or the 'Competitive Enterprise Institute' or through industry front groups like Dr. Singer's own Science & Environmental Policy Project.

Just another case of you exhibiting your profound ignorance of the topic and not knowing your sources or their history.