England Court PROVES "climate change" is a FARCE

[ClosedCaption]

Do the Denier Dance...

Say some shit...Cant prove that shit

Say some shit...then Al Gore Money

Say some shit...Cant prove that shit

Say some shit...then Al Gore Money

uh uh uh

 

[Mathbud1]

Antarctic ice has been growing record high FOR YEARS.

and now when the Arctic one INCREASED (instead of alarmist "it is disappearing") more than half - they are going to play the game "oh, more than half, it is not much, if that would be three times, than it is much, but 60% I don't know, that's nothing, because my masters said so in the talking points memo today"

Still going on about how you can't do fractions

I got an idea. You give me your paycheck, and I'll give you back over half.

Increase my paycheck by 60%? Sure!

Now who can't do math? An increase of 60% would not be to "give you back over half." It would be to give you 60% of your paycheck IN ADDITION TO the whole paycheck you already had. I'll take that any day bucko. That sounds great!

 

[Erand7899]

Good to see you agree that the global warming alarmists have such an agenda, and their big spokespeople have a huge financial stake in the game... I bet Gore will be sad that you left his fold, but he will get over it

You notice Dave never talks about the science. He spends a ton of time talking about the motivations of people.

Even Dave cant touch the science so he talks about Al Gore hoping no one notices he only has zingers and no facts

I've never seen a denier produce any good science to back up their claims. It's ALWAYS something political.

The simple fact that the earth has cycled through numerous ice ages and warm periods, and has done so before man ever entered the picture, is pretty much all the "good science" that you need. There is no evidence that what we have found, is any more than another spike in that long range history. Nor, do I dispute the idea that greenyhouse gasses can lead to global heating to some insignificant degree. What I do dispute is that pollution and greenhouse gasses have any more effect on climate change, than a rock in the river has effect on total water flow in that river.

Science is demonstratable evidence, not concurrence. According to the climate change worshipers, every weather event that occurs is evidence of global climate change. It gets hot, that is evidence of climate change. It gets cold, that is evidence of climate change. A bad storm is evidence of climate change. No storms, is evidence of climate change. Drought is evidence of climate change, but rain is also evidence of climate change. Go figure! You can't lose with that kind of logic train.

 

[Pogo]

You notice Dave never talks about the science. He spends a ton of time talking about the motivations of people.

Even Dave cant touch the science so he talks about Al Gore hoping no one notices he only has zingers and no facts

I've never seen a denier produce any good science to back up their claims. It's ALWAYS something political.

The simple fact that the earth has cycled through numerous ice ages and warm periods, and has done so before man ever entered the picture, is pretty much all the "good science" that you need. There is no evidence that what we have found, is any more than another spike in that long range history. Nor, do I dispute the idea that greenyhouse gasses can lead to global heating to some insignificant degree. What I do dispute is that pollution and greenhouse gasses have any more effect on climate change, than a rock in the river has effect on total water flow in that river.

Science is demonstratable evidence, not concurrence. According to the climate change worshipers, every weather event that occurs is evidence of global climate change. It gets hot, that is evidence of climate change. It gets cold, that is evidence of climate change. A bad storm is evidence of climate change. No storms, is evidence of climate change. Drought is evidence of climate change, but rain is also evidence of climate change. Go figure! You can't lose with that kind of logic train.

All this ^^ to evade the simple responsibility to clean up after ourselves.

By this logic when I drop a sandwich on the floor I should just leave it there. Because rats already exist and they're going to exist whether they have that sandwich to eat or not. Therefore I have nothing to do with their arrival. It's the cycle of nature. And I'm off the hook.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You notice Dave never talks about the science. He spends a ton of time talking about the motivations of people.

Even Dave cant touch the science so he talks about Al Gore hoping no one notices he only has zingers and no facts

I've never seen a denier produce any good science to back up their claims. It's ALWAYS something political.

The simple fact that the earth has cycled through numerous ice ages and warm periods, and has done so before man ever entered the picture, is pretty much all the "good science" that you need. There is no evidence that what we have found, is any more than another spike in that long range history. Nor, do I dispute the idea that greenyhouse gasses can lead to global heating to some insignificant degree. What I do dispute is that pollution and greenhouse gasses have any more effect on climate change, than a rock in the river has effect on total water flow in that river.

You not disputing anything. You are just saying it and pretending its a dispute. But you lack...yanno...evidence, proof etc to dispute anything.

 

[bripat9643]

He told me Al Gore made $100 with a TV station.

If Gore took 99%, you know what that means....

Somebody made off with a dollar. Who is it??? Follow the money!

he left off some zeroes, everyone knows it was 100 million.

Ah, "everybody knows". Great, nothing like backing up an empty unlinked claim with argumentum ad populum from a third party who didn't even make the original claim. This is just getting better and better.

Do you always have to prove you're a ******* moron? It was a typo. Any sensible person could see that. Only A-holes with an axe to grind would make an issue of it.

 

[bripat9643]

Cause and effect is not always clear, the cause may not be clear, the effect can be well known and obvious via panoptic study.

We do known that Acid Rain and SMOG were the product of man's actions, and both have been mitigated via responsible science, technology and political activity. We know that any single observation or measurement is not conclusive of cause and that many factors are in play including the impact of coal and oil, much to the dismay of those who support industries which profit greatly from their procurement, processing and sale. Hence their efforts to discredit science and technology which threatens the Golden Geese.

That's a lot of blabber signifying nothing. Acid rain turned out to be a hoax, so it's rather embarrassing that you attempted to use it to defend your global warming abracadabra.

 

[bripat9643]

Good to see you agree that the global warming alarmists have such an agenda, and their big spokespeople have a huge financial stake in the game... I bet Gore will be sad that you left his fold, but he will get over it

You notice Dave never talks about the science. He spends a ton of time talking about the motivations of people.

Even Dave cant touch the science so he talks about Al Gore hoping no one notices he only has zingers and no facts

I've never seen a denier produce any good science to back up their claims. It's ALWAYS something political.

Of course, your conception of "good science" is merely to refer to one of the propagandists on the government payroll who calls himself a "climate scientist." That's all you know about science.

 

[Erand7899]

I've never seen a denier produce any good science to back up their claims. It's ALWAYS something political.

The simple fact that the earth has cycled through numerous ice ages and warm periods, and has done so before man ever entered the picture, is pretty much all the "good science" that you need. There is no evidence that what we have found, is any more than another spike in that long range history. Nor, do I dispute the idea that greenyhouse gasses can lead to global heating to some insignificant degree. What I do dispute is that pollution and greenhouse gasses have any more effect on climate change, than a rock in the river has effect on total water flow in that river.

Science is demonstratable evidence, not concurrence. According to the climate change worshipers, every weather event that occurs is evidence of global climate change. It gets hot, that is evidence of climate change. It gets cold, that is evidence of climate change. A bad storm is evidence of climate change. No storms, is evidence of climate change. Drought is evidence of climate change, but rain is also evidence of climate change. Go figure! You can't lose with that kind of logic train.

All this ^^ to evade the simple responsibility to clean up after ourselves.

By this logic when I drop a sandwich on the floor I should just leave it there. Because rats already exist and they're going to exist whether they have that sandwich to eat or not. Therefore I have nothing to do with their arrival. It's the cycle of nature. And I'm off the hook.

Your logic is beyond belief. Speaking the truth is not evading anything. You want a clean house, clean up the sandwich. Don't try to blame the neighborhoods rat problem on your neighbor's dropped sandwich.

Not to mention, the discussion here is about the science of global climate change, not your desire for a cleaner environment.

 

[bripat9643]

I've never seen a denier produce any good science to back up their claims. It's ALWAYS something political.

The simple fact that the earth has cycled through numerous ice ages and warm periods, and has done so before man ever entered the picture, is pretty much all the "good science" that you need. There is no evidence that what we have found, is any more than another spike in that long range history. Nor, do I dispute the idea that greenyhouse gasses can lead to global heating to some insignificant degree. What I do dispute is that pollution and greenhouse gasses have any more effect on climate change, than a rock in the river has effect on total water flow in that river.

Science is demonstratable evidence, not concurrence. According to the climate change worshipers, every weather event that occurs is evidence of global climate change. It gets hot, that is evidence of climate change. It gets cold, that is evidence of climate change. A bad storm is evidence of climate change. No storms, is evidence of climate change. Drought is evidence of climate change, but rain is also evidence of climate change. Go figure! You can't lose with that kind of logic train.

All this ^^ to evade the simple responsibility to clean up after ourselves.

By this logic when I drop a sandwich on the floor I should just leave it there. Because rats already exist and they're going to exist whether they have that sandwich to eat or not. Therefore I have nothing to do with their arrival. It's the cycle of nature. And I'm off the hook.

Cleaning up a sandwich is hardly in the same class as spending $76 trillion dollars and consigning most of humanity to abject poverty, moron.

One of the main reasons no one respects what the members of the AGW cult have to say is the fact that they treat their solutions for the supposed problem as if they were utterly painless. They are far from painless. They would impose an enormous cost on the human race, and only a true ******* moron would approve of doing that without being absolutely certain that it was required.

 

[Pogo]

he left off some zeroes, everyone knows it was 100 million.

Ah, "everybody knows". Great, nothing like backing up an empty unlinked claim with argumentum ad populum from a third party who didn't even make the original claim. This is just getting better and better.

Do you always have to prove you're a ******* moron? It was a typo. Any sensible person could see that. Only A-holes with an axe to grind would make an issue of it.

You posted $100, Finger-boy. And you brought it up in the first place; when I asked for details that's what I got. So your own post is my fault. Considering the historical depth of your perception I have to assume that's as deep as you thought it out.

Fuckin' denialists. Everything is somebody else's fault.

 

[ClosedCaption]

99% of the money is going to the members of the AGW cult.

Pease do follow the money. It leads to the conclusion that AGW is a giant con.

99% of what money? I'm sure you have a link that backs up your claims, no?

Maybe Bripat didnt see this. I'll tag him to be sure this time [MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]

 

[Pogo]

The simple fact that the earth has cycled through numerous ice ages and warm periods, and has done so before man ever entered the picture, is pretty much all the "good science" that you need. There is no evidence that what we have found, is any more than another spike in that long range history. Nor, do I dispute the idea that greenyhouse gasses can lead to global heating to some insignificant degree. What I do dispute is that pollution and greenhouse gasses have any more effect on climate change, than a rock in the river has effect on total water flow in that river.

Science is demonstratable evidence, not concurrence. According to the climate change worshipers, every weather event that occurs is evidence of global climate change. It gets hot, that is evidence of climate change. It gets cold, that is evidence of climate change. A bad storm is evidence of climate change. No storms, is evidence of climate change. Drought is evidence of climate change, but rain is also evidence of climate change. Go figure! You can't lose with that kind of logic train.

All this ^^ to evade the simple responsibility to clean up after ourselves.

By this logic when I drop a sandwich on the floor I should just leave it there. Because rats already exist and they're going to exist whether they have that sandwich to eat or not. Therefore I have nothing to do with their arrival. It's the cycle of nature. And I'm off the hook.

Your logic is beyond belief. Speaking the truth is not evading anything. You want a clean house, clean up the sandwich. Don't try to blame the neighborhoods rat problem on your neighbor's dropped sandwich.

Not to mention, the discussion here is about the science of global climate change, not your desire for a cleaner environment.

Actually it's your logic. I just took it to a familiar circumstance to demonstrate how silly it is to bend over backward looking for forced excuses to not clean up.

I'll revert to the usual boiled-down question: whether we can 'prove' that pollutant X is causing climate impact Y or not .... what the **** is the harm in cleaning it up?

Whether that dropped sandwich goes on to attract a rat or not -- what the **** is the harm in cleaning it up?

Let me know when this analogy begins to sink in like carbon dioxide acidifying the sea wiping out mollusks by the millions.
Until then, keep looking for a way out.

 

[Pogo]

99% of the money is going to the members of the AGW cult.

Pease do follow the money. It leads to the conclusion that AGW is a giant con.

99% of what money? I'm sure you have a link that backs up your claims, no?

Maybe Bripat didnt see this. I'll tag him to be sure this time [MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]

It's true. Every time Koch has to clean up its industrial fart, they have to pay Al Gore a dollar fine. He's made a hundred bucks already.

 

[bripat9643]

Ah, "everybody knows". Great, nothing like backing up an empty unlinked claim with argumentum ad populum from a third party who didn't even make the original claim. This is just getting better and better.

Do you always have to prove you're a ******* moron? It was a typo. Any sensible person could see that. Only A-holes with an axe to grind would make an issue of it.

You posted $100, Finger-boy. And you brought it up in the first place; when I asked for details that's what I got. So that's my fault. Considering the historical depth of your perception I have to assume that's as deep as you thought it out.

Fuckin' denialists. Everything is somebody else's fault.

You proved you're a moron in your previous post, and then you doubled down.

 

[Erand7899]

I've never seen a denier produce any good science to back up their claims. It's ALWAYS something political.

The simple fact that the earth has cycled through numerous ice ages and warm periods, and has done so before man ever entered the picture, is pretty much all the "good science" that you need. There is no evidence that what we have found, is any more than another spike in that long range history. Nor, do I dispute the idea that greenyhouse gasses can lead to global heating to some insignificant degree. What I do dispute is that pollution and greenhouse gasses have any more effect on climate change, than a rock in the river has effect on total water flow in that river.

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.

 

[Redfish]

I didn't mention "warming", nor can a complex ecology be reduced to a single verb. I'm asking why the pH in the sea is dropping drastically.

.... Well, answer man?

pollution. already answered.

Then how come your own post says the opposite right above?
Let's see it again in slow motion:

pollution ... does ... not ... cause ... climate ... change

You understand what the word "not" means?

yes, do you? you asked why the PH of the oceans was changing, I correctly answered, due to pollution.

there is no proven link between pollution and climate change.

pollution is bad, we need to stop polluting our planet. we need to find ways to stop india and china from polluting it.

you lefties make an unproven link between pollution and climate change. Sorry, it ain't there.

 

[bripat9643]

All this ^^ to evade the simple responsibility to clean up after ourselves.

By this logic when I drop a sandwich on the floor I should just leave it there. Because rats already exist and they're going to exist whether they have that sandwich to eat or not. Therefore I have nothing to do with their arrival. It's the cycle of nature. And I'm off the hook.

Your logic is beyond belief. Speaking the truth is not evading anything. You want a clean house, clean up the sandwich. Don't try to blame the neighborhoods rat problem on your neighbor's dropped sandwich.

Not to mention, the discussion here is about the science of global climate change, not your desire for a cleaner environment.

Actually it's your logic. I just took it to a familiar circumstance to demonstrate how silly it is to bend over backward looking for forced excuses to not clean up.

I'll revert to the usual boiled-down question: whether we can 'prove' that pollutant X is causing climate impact Y or not .... what the **** is the harm in cleaning it up?

I already told you what the harm is, moron: spending $76 trillion and consigning the bulk of humanity to abject poverty. The fact that you think that result is "harmless" proves once again that you're a moron.

Whether that dropped sandwich goes on to attract a rat or not -- what the **** is the harm in cleaning it up?

It won't matter if it attracts a rat because the people who were living in the house got evicted and are now living in a land fill scavenging through the garbage for a meal.

Let me know when this analogy begins to sink in like carbon dioxide acidifying the sea wiping out mollusks by the millions.
Until then, keep looking for a way out.

Here's what sinks in: you're a moron who doesn't care about the human cost of your schemes.

 

[Pogo]

pollution. already answered.

Then how come your own post says the opposite right above?
Let's see it again in slow motion:

pollution ... does ... not ... cause ... climate ... change

You understand what the word "not" means?

yes, do you? you asked why the PH of the oceans was changing, I correctly answered, due to pollution.

there is no proven link between pollution and climate change.

pollution is bad, we need to stop polluting our planet. we need to find ways to stop india and china from polluting it.

you lefties make an unproven link between pollution and climate change. Sorry, it ain't there.

So you want to play both sides. OK, way to take a stand. You could be a politician.

 

[bripat9643]

99% of the money is going to the members of the AGW cult.

Pease do follow the money. It leads to the conclusion that AGW is a giant con.

99% of what money? I'm sure you have a link that backs up your claims, no?

Maybe Bripat didnt see this. I'll tag him to be sure this time [MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]

99% of the money to convince the public "yeah or neah" that global warming is real.