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

[BrianH]

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.

What a deusch...once again you have fulfilled your goal of posting by making shit up.

First off: Your Quote:
"I]who hasn't written a peer-reviewed study published in a scientific climate science journal in many years[/I]."

Your statement denied an existance of them... So if you want to follow the route that my sources are "bad". Then we'll still say that you're wrong and they do exist...no matter how much you disagree with them...they exists. You pompus windbag.

Second quote:
"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."

Everytime you adress one of my many sources that I've posted...you refer to it as if it is the only one I have posted. Another rediculous fallacy that you would like to believe....makin shit up again. Who's the liar?

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

Another example of your misguided discussion "techiniques".

I never claimed to have proof of anything. You are trying to convince us that human caused GW is real and that you have PROOF of it. Which in fact, you don't havn't convinced anyone that's posted in this thread. I wonder why no one's come to your rescue???? Because you can't prove shit.

You can't simply spew turds from your mouth and expect people to believe that its ice cream and full of flavorsome goodness. You my friend are a terrible debater...but most certainly a masterbator. Come back when you can read the posts correctly without attempting to make up crap and pass it off as if other people said them.

And as far as sources go...once again, just because you and your fallacy followers don't agree, doesn't mean your right. You can't prove it's man-made anymore than I can prove that it's not...which is exactly what this is about. I have not claimed that I have proof for anything...while you on the other hand, have....and failed to produce. I hope you do a better job of this on your college papers. Big words don't get you good grades.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Your statement denied an existance of them... So if you want to follow the route that my sources are "bad". Then we'll still say that you're wrong and they do exist...no matter how much you disagree with them...they exists. You pompus windbag.

Second quote:
"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."

Everytime you adress one of my many sources that I've posted...you refer to it as if it is the only one I have posted. Another rediculous fallacy that you would like to believe....makin shit up again. Who's the liar?

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

Another example of your misguided discussion "techiniques".

I never claimed to have proof of anything. You are trying to convince us that human caused GW is real and that you have PROOF of it. Which in fact, you don't havn't convinced anyone that's posted in this thread. I wonder why no one's come to your rescue???? Because you can't prove shit.

You can't simply spew turds from your mouth and expect people to believe that its ice cream and full of flavorsome goodness. You my friend are a terrible debater...but most certainly a masterbator. Come back when you can read the posts correctly without attempting to make up crap and pass it off as if other people said them.

.

You're the one who used Singer's 'work' as credible research.

And now you're blaming me, as if I'm somehow responsible for you having to backtrack and distance yourself from Singer and his 'studies'.

It is not my fault you do not check your sources, it is not my fault you do not do your homework.

It is not my fault you cite a guy who doesn't think smoking causes cancer and has a history of accepting large donations from the Tobacco and oil industry.

 

[BrianH]

You're the one who used Singer's 'work' as credible research.

And now you're blaming me, as if I'm somehow responsible for you having to backtrack and distance yourself from Singer and his 'studies'.

It is not my fault you do not check your sources, it is not my fault you do not do your homework.

It is not my fault you cite a guy who doesn't think smoking causes cancer and has a history of accepting large donations from the Tobacco and oil industry.

I'll make this short and sweet for you....

I never claimed his source was credible. You said nothing about finding a credible peer-reviewed journal. You said they didn't exist period.

I checked the source, found that it was a peer-reviewed journal (which you challenged).

You are making outlandish assumptions of my claims. I'll make a list for you:

1. I never claimed to have proof of anything.
2. I never claimed Singers review was credible... as well as the rest...but they were peer-reviewed journals that debated human-caused GW. (something you said didn't exist)
3. You claimed you had proof that GW was human caused. You haven't proven it. You've given scientific research that humans may cause it. Even scientists agree that it can't be proven, but it's speculation/theory based on observation and information.
4. I'm not blaming you for anything except not being able to prove your claim, but claiming you can. Making shit up that nobody said. And assume crap that nobody claimed.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

I'll make this short and sweet for you....

I never claimed his source was credible.

Keep on backtracking from Singer. I enjoy you pretending to pass of his work as properly 'peer-reviewed' and 'credible' research one minute, and a second later distancing yourself from Singer by claiming "I never claimed his source was credible."

You know how I know you're either lying or lazy? Because no rational being would refer another person to an article that they do not know to be discredited or not.

The person who chooses such a course is either lying, lazy or both.

You thought Singer and his work was credible until the facts - that you did not bother to check - said otherwise.

And now you're rapidly distancing yourself. It's quite pathetic yet apparently obvious what you're doing.

This is even a bigger screwup than the failed attempt by you to paint Schwartz as a global warming denier.

 

[BrianH]

Keep on backtracking from Singer. I enjoy you pretending to pass of his work as properly 'peer-reviewed' and 'credible' research one minute, and a second later distancing yourself from Singer by claiming "I never claimed his source was credible."

You know how I know you're either lying or lazy? Because no rational being would refer another person to an article that they do not know to be discredited or not.

The person who chooses such a course is either lying, lazy or both.

You thought Singer and his work was credible until the facts - that you did not bother to check - said otherwise.

And now you're rapidly distancing yourself. It's quite pathetic yet apparently obvious what you're doing.

This is even a bigger screwup than the failed attempt by you to paint Schwartz as a global warming denier.

I posted those articles strictly for the purpose of making you look stupid. Because you said they didn't exists. That's all. If you choose to believe otherwise...that's your own faulty comprehension skills.

I'll tell you what. I'll paypal you 100 bucks if you can find anywhere in this entire thread, that I directly stated that Singers' or Schwartz' peer-reviewed journals were credible and that they disproved human caused global warming. (A little hint for you...not gonna happen. Cause I never said it.) Your challenge was not to find a "credible" source. It was that such sources debating global warming did not exist. Which makes you look like even more of a dumbass.

It's not called laziness smartass...it's called capitalizing on a dumbass claim that you had that peer-reviewed journals debating human caused GW did not exist. Simple as that.

I'll tell you what happened in this entire thread.

We all were discussing the owner of the weather channel suing all gore for a fallacy. Then some of us lightly stated our opinions, and you came barging onto the thread claiming we were all ignorant and had no clue of the subject.

Then claimed to have proof of human caused GW. You posted and posted and posted...I gave a chuck-norris delivered round-house kick to your so called "proof". Then you posted some more. Then I posted several articles and sites that suggested that GW could be naturally caused and you got all huffy puffy, discredited my sources and started posting more. When you failed to convice anyone on the thread of your proof, you got mad and started calling me a liar. Even though I never claimed to have proof of anything. Amidst your ranting about me being a liar, you claimed that peer-reviewed journals debating human induced GW did not exist, and challenged me to find one. So I found several and posted them. Never claimed that they were a credible source or that I followed the "preachings" of these individuals. So you pick one and try to pass of a lie that it was the only one I posted and that I was basing my "position" on that one particular post. Then you assume that I said the sources were credible without acknowledging that you were wrong, and that peer-reviewed journals debating human caused GW in fact DO EXIST. Then you start ranting about me being a liar and that I'm lazy and crying like a little baby. Then you try to save the last ounce of dignity that you have by trying to turn it around and saying that I'm backtracking cause I know I'm stupid. That's about the extent of of it. Take from it what you will. But you are the one that is over the top on this Thread...I'm simply reiterating the fact that you cannot prove your position.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

I posted those articles strictly for the purpose of making you look stupid. Because you said they didn't exists. That's all. If you choose to believe otherwise...that's your own faulty comprehension skills.

Then I posted several articles and sites that suggested that GW could be naturally caused and you got all huffy puffy, discredited my sources and started posting more. When you failed to convice anyone on the thread of your proof, you got mad and started calling me a liar. Even though I never claimed to have proof of anything. Amidst your ranting about me being a liar, you claimed that peer-reviewed journals debating human induced GW did not exist, and challenged me to find one. So I found several and posted them. Never claimed that they were a credible source or that I followed the "preachings" of these individuals. So you pick one and try to pass of a lie that it was the only one I posted and that I was basing my "position" on that one particular post. Then you assume that I said the sources were credible without acknowledging that you were wrong, and that peer-reviewed journals debating human caused GW in fact DO EXIST. Then you start ranting about me being a liar and that I'm lazy and crying like a little baby. Then you try to save the last ounce of dignity that you have by trying to turn it around and saying that I'm backtracking cause I know I'm stupid. That's about the extent of of it. Take from it what you will. But you are the one that is over the top on this Thread...I'm simply reiterating the fact that you cannot prove your position.

What I said did not exist are credible peer-reviewed articles found in academic scientific journals arguing against or debunking "in one fell swoop" anthropogenic global warming.

You have not found any credible articles that cement or solidify your claims. Zilch, zero, nada.

You did, however, manage to 'accomplish' confusing Schwartz as a global warming skeptic; and source out a long debunked article co-authored by a paid tobacco lobbyist (Fred Singer) posing as an objective scientist. Not to mention, you yourself admitted you don't find the articles credible.

Yea. Great work Brian. Exhibit an obvious ignorance of the issue by confusing the conclusions of the Schwartz study, followed by sourcing out a stale debunked article co-written by a self-admitted paid tobacco lobbyist. The kicker is that you admitted the study was not 'credible' while at the same time claiming you met the "challenge".

The rest of your post is nonsense suited for animal zoo feed, than serious discussion.

 

[BrianH]

What I said did not exist are credible peer-reviewed articles found in academic scientific journals arguing against or debunking "in one fell swoop" anthropogenic global warming.

You have not found any credible articles that cement or solidify your claims. Zilch, zero, nada.

You did, however, manage to 'accomplish' confusing Schwartz as a global warming skeptic; and source out a long debunked article co-authored by a paid tobacco lobbyist (Fred Singer) posing as an objective scientist. Not to mention, you yourself admitted you don't find the articles credible.

Yea. Great work Brian. Exhibit an obvious ignorance of the issue by confusing the conclusions of the Schwartz study, followed by sourcing out a stale debunked article co-written by a self-admitted paid tobacco lobbyist. The kicker is that you admitted the study was not 'credible' while at the same time claiming you met the "challenge".

The rest of your post is nonsense suited for animal zoo feed, than serious discussion.

Animal zoo feed? LOL...I guess my animal zoo feed turns into the elephant shit that comes out of your mouth.

You despairity shows...you're still harping on two sources that I posted with out admiting that you've been beaten at your own game with your own words. I tell you what...you go back and and read you're childish "challenge" and find where it says you challenge me to find supposed "credible" sources. Even when you claimed that peer-reviewed journals debating human caused climate change did not exist...you never said credible either. I don't even have to bother quoting it because I already have so many times.

It doesn't matter what I think about my sources, because you won't bother to read them or give them credit simply because you do not agree. This is the same shit you did in the other thread about the military doing a bad job. Claiming your evidence proves anything.

You keep talking about a "claim" that I had....what would this be? Did I ever claim that I had proof of anything? That's a big negative TGS.

You're upset like a 5-year old who's lost his toy. I've Socratic Methodized your ass into oblivion.

You, however, did have claim that all of the "evidence" you posted was proof that humans are causing global warming. Well I've got news for you bud...it didn't prove shit, except that your not any smarter on this thread than you are on the other.

You're a camel...now does that make you a camel? No....This is your assumption when you post your shit...Humans are causing global warming cause I say it is. What turd. I've officially come in contact with the first person who literally has shit in his brains, and brains in his ass. You've got to do better than that to stay alive on these boards "smart" stuff.

No matter which way you look at it, you don't have proof.
And you still suck off goats in my book...of course, I'm sure it wouldn't matter to you because it's not a scientific peer-reviewed journal.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Animal zoo feed? LOL...I guess my animal zoo feed turns into the elephant shit that comes out of your mouth.

You despairity shows...you're still harping on two sources that I posted with out admiting that you've been beaten at your own game with your own words. I tell you what...you go back and and read you're childish "challenge" and find where it says you challenge me to find supposed "credible" sources. Even when you claimed that peer-reviewed journals debating human caused climate change did not exist...you never said credible either. I don't even have to bother quoting it because I already have so many times.

It doesn't matter what I think about my sources, because you won't bother to read them or give them credit simply because you do not agree. This is the same shit you did in the other thread about the military doing a bad job. Claiming your evidence proves anything.

You keep talking about a "claim" that I had....what would this be? Did I ever claim that I had proof of anything? That's a big negative TGS.

You're upset like a 5-year old who's lost his toy. I've Socratic Methodized your ass into oblivion.

You, however, did have claim that all of the "evidence" you posted was proof that humans are causing global warming. Well I've got news for you bud...it didn't prove shit, except that your not any smarter on this thread than you are on the other.

You're a camel...now does that make you a camel? No....This is your assumption when you post your shit...Humans are causing global warming cause I say it is. What turd. I've officially come in contact with the first person who literally has shit in his brains, and brains in his ass. You've got to do better than that to stay alive on these boards "smart" stuff.

Confusing Schwartz as a global warming skeptic is as unforgivable as presenting a debunked article co-authored by a paid tobacco lobbyist as serious work.

There exists mountains of credible peer-reviewed independent lines evidence listing C02 as the main culprit. Over 2000, in fact. I have posted many of those lines of evidence in this thread which you have ignored.

One, two or five articles written by paid tobacco or oil lobbyists and peer-reviewed by conservative think-tanks will never - I repeat - never negate over 2000 lines of independently peer-reviewed studies from the world's most prestigious academic bodies.

You totally confused one paper and failed to check the sources of the other.

And now you want a pass?

Unreal.

 

[PpleLOSINGpower]

BrianH, thought you would like this report.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/hctools/imprimis_archive/2007/08/2007_08_Imprimis.pdf

 

[BrianH]

BrianH, thought you would like this report.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/hctools/imprimis_archive/2007/08/2007_08_Imprimis.pdf

That's pretty good. Thanks. While I agree with this stand-point. TGS will dismiss it and discredit the person and say that he doesn't know what he's talking about. What do you believe PLP?

 

[BrianH]

Confusing Schwartz as a global warming skeptic is as unforgivable as presenting a debunked article co-authored by a paid tobacco lobbyist as serious work.

There exists mountains of credible peer-reviewed independent lines evidence listing C02 as the main culprit. Over 2000, in fact. I have posted many of those lines of evidence in this thread which you have ignored.

One, two or five articles written by paid tobacco or oil lobbyists and peer-reviewed by conservative think-tanks will never - I repeat - never negate over 2000 lines of independently peer-reviewed studies from the world's most prestigious academic bodies.

You totally confused one paper and failed to check the sources of the other.

And now you want a pass?

Unreal.

Pass? what the hell are you talking about. I don't need a "pass" from an assinine college-sophomore who thinks he's Galileo. Galileo said : "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." Which something you have failed to provide in this thread. You have not provided proof. You have provided speculation based on information/observation. Not Proof.

You can ignore the fact that your an idiot by "making fun" of sources I post. But the fact remains the same, you said that they did not exist--and they did. Which reiterates the fact that you make outlandish assumptions based on jack-shit. You make claimes like peer reviewed journals debating human caused GW don't exist (and not to mention bolded the DO NOT), when in fact they do exist. Whether you agree with them or not, is a different story.

1.You've claimed to have proof-you don't; and haven't posted any yet.
2.You've made up false statements and claimed that I said them.
3.You've discredited sources that you claimed didn't exist in the first place.

Just face the fact that you're a hack and cannot prove your position. "The first step to solving a problem, is admitting you have one." ---a couple of your problems are arrogance and a lack of intelligence.

"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't
learn something from him."--Galileo

 

[PpleLOSINGpower]

"Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor)."


"Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this."


"Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!"

"To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below".

Mathmatical science from occomplished reputable scientists.


http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

You can ignore the fact that your an idiot by "making fun" of sources I post. But the fact remains the same, you said that they did not exist--and they did.

1.You've claimed to have proof-you don't; and haven't posted any yet.
2.You've made up false statements and claimed that I said them.
3.You've discredited sources that you claimed didn't exist in the first place.

Just face the fact that you're a hack and cannot prove your position. "The first step to solving a problem, is admitting you have one." ---a couple of your problems are arrogance and a lack of intelligence.

"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't
learn something from him."--Galileo

Wrong again, as per usual. I do not 'make fun' of Fred Singer or his work for its own sake.

You are taking it personally, because you carry self-esteem issues and bouts of bizarre narcissism into a science discussion. You flat-out refuse to engage in a scientific debate with me.

Instead, you choose an easy route that soothes your ego and satisfies your laziness. You link bomb, and in your haste, fail to check or read your sources.

You got caught with your hands in the cookie jar. Wriggling out of it will not work this time. Not with me.

Furthermore, what is ridiculous, what is a joke is the methodology Singer approaches his studies with. Believe me, these claims have nothing to do with you.

Singer is not a climate scientist. He is not an expert in the field and it is obvious. More importantly the study Singer co-authored - which you cited - has been rebutted in full by multiple peer-reviewed scholarly studies published in scientific journals authored by accomplished working climate scientists.

What you're doing now is akin to googling and hastily citing the first questionable study you come across claiming the Earth is flat, as credible skepticism against a scholarly study arguing that the Earth is round. Then claiming "victory".

I've given my lines of proof. Not the least of which answers your questions regarding C02 being the culprit. You ignorantly responded with " No amount of evidence will ever convince me!"

Ever since then, you have done anything but stick to the science issues. Link bombing this thread to 'studies' peer-reviewed by think-tanks and authored by paid tobacco or oil industry scientists is what you have done.

Like I said, I provided evidence to your Co2 and your response to it was "No amount of evidence will ever convince me!"

Shall I start again? Shall I explain why climate scientists know Co2 is the main bad guy?

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

"Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor)."


"Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this."


"Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!"

"To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below".

Mathmatical science from occomplished reputable scientists.


http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

LOL...you call this guy accomplished?

I hope you're not serious about Monte Heib as a credible source. He is not a climate scientist and has no authority to speak scientifically on the matter. He is another fraud. Posters really need to check their sources.

By the way, you know what Monte Heib does? He works for the coal mining industry as the health and safety guy.

Has Heib even published a climate science study in a peer-reviewed academic journal before?

This "study" if you can call it that, also makes a large unforgivable error. I'm surprised one would dare to reference it as a source.

Can you guess what it is?

 

[BrianH]

Wrong again, as per usual. I do not 'make fun' of Fred Singer or his work for its own sake.

You are taking it personally, because you carry self-esteem issues and bouts of bizarre narcissism into a science discussion. You flat-out refuse to engage in a scientific debate with me.

Instead, you choose an easy route that soothes your ego and satisfies your laziness. You link bomb, and in your haste, fail to check or read your sources.

You got caught with your hands in the cookie jar. Wriggling out of it will not work this time. Not with me.

Furthermore, what is ridiculous, what is a joke is the methodology Singer approaches his studies with. Believe me, these claims have nothing to do with you.

Singer is not a climate scientist. He is not an expert in the field and it is obvious. More importantly the study Singer co-authored - which you cited - has been rebutted in full by multiple peer-reviewed scholarly studies published in scientific journals authored by accomplished working climate scientists.

What you're doing now is akin to googling and hastily citing the first questionable study you come across claiming the Earth is flat, as credible skepticism against a scholarly study arguing that the Earth is round. Then claiming "victory".

I've given my lines of proof. Not the least of which answers your questions regarding C02 being the culprit. You ignorantly responded with " No amount of evidence will ever convince me!"

Ever since then, you have done anything but stick to the science issues. Link bombing this thread to 'studies' peer-reviewed by think-tanks and authored by paid tobacco or oil industry scientists is what you have done.

Like I said, I provided evidence to your Co2 and your response to it was "No amount of evidence will ever convince me!"

Shall I start again? Shall I explain why climate scientists know Co2 is the main bad guy?

"I do not 'make fun' of Fred Singer or his work for its own sake"
"what is a joke is the methodology Singer approaches his studies with"

Well which is it, you're not making fun, or you think his methods are a joke?

The reason, while any amount of evidence will not convince me, is that all of the evidence as of now will not prove without a doubt that GLobal warming is man-made. Until you can provide a smoking gun on the issue, then your "evidence" is no good. Someone doesn't go to jail just because someone says he's a murderer, they've got to prove it without a doubt....something you have failed to accomplish.

Your head is so big, I'd bet you flip over when you tie your shoes. Get over yourself. You assume I'm wriggling out of this discussion when in fact, I'm digging deeper into the pile of bull shit that you've late out on this thread.
YOU HAVE NO PROOF.

As far as taking it personally, this is an internet message board. If you assume that I could take something personally from a 19 year-old dipshit with a retard complex, you're sadly mistaken. The only reason I stick around on this thread, is because it's fun helping you make yourself look like a dumbass. You do most of the work I must say.

You've done more to attack sources than you have disproving them with facts. You've attacked PLP's source that he posted without attempting to disprove it from your research. You just automatically discredit his sources...typical behavior from you though. And you also discredit all of my sources instead of answering questions that I've asked you.

What ended the last ice age? (Industrialized burning of fossil fuels?)
What ended the big Ice Age?
What caused the Ice Age?
What casued the little Ice age that peaked in the 1700s?

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

"I do not 'make fun' of Fred Singer or his work for its own sake"
"what is a joke is the methodology Singer approaches his studies with"

Well which is it, you're not making fun, or you think his methods are a joke?

The reason, while any amount of evidence will not convince me, is that all of the evidence as of now will not prove without a doubt that GLobal warming is man-made. Until you can provide a smoking gun on the issue, then your "evidence" is no good. Someone doesn't go to jail just because someone says he's a murderer, they've got to prove it without a doubt....something you have failed to accomplish.

Your head is so big, I'd bet you flip over when you tie your shoes. Get over yourself. You assume I'm wriggling out of this discussion when in fact, I'm digging deeper into the pile of bull shit that you've late out on this thread.
YOU HAVE NO PROOF.

As far as taking it personally, this is an internet message board. If you assume that I could take something personally from a 19 year-old dipshit with a retard complex, you're sadly mistaken. The only reason I stick around on this thread, is because it's fun helping you make yourself look like a dumbass. You do most of the work I must say.

You've done more to attack sources than you have disproving them with facts. You've attacked PLP's source that he posted without attempting to disprove it from your research. You just automatically discredit his sources...typical behavior from you though. And you also discredit all of my sources instead of answering questions that I've asked you.

What ended the last ice age? (Industrialized burning of fossil fuels?)
What ended the big Ice Age?
What caused the Ice Age?
What casued the little Ice age that peaked in the 1700s?

Like I said, I provided evidence to your Co2 and your response to it was "No amount of evidence will ever convince me!"

Shall I start again? Shall I explain why climate scientists know Co2 is the main bad guy?

 

[BrianH]

Like I said, I provided evidence to your Co2 and your response to it was "No amount of evidence will ever convince me!"

Shall I start again? Shall I explain why climate scientists know Co2 is the main bad guy?

Why on earth would you want to "start" again...you've already posted an enormous amount of bull-shit. I've read through your "proof", and have not been convinced, among other posters on this thread. The only evidence that could prove global warming is caused by man does not exist at this day and time. And because scientist cannot go back in time and measure the rate of the earth's climate change, it cannot be proven that the current warming trend, which ended a few years ago, is man-made.

Until you can prove that it was CO2 that caused/ended the Ice Age, then you have no case. If this warming trend was caused by humans, how come the earth has warmed and cooled long before humans existed and/or began burning fossil fuels? How come all of the planets, including Pluto has warmed over the last decade? Are our emissions going all of the way to Pluto??? Are their extra-terrestrials burning fossil fuels over there? CO2 is not the main culprit behind the warming of the globe. Assisting, yes, but not causing.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Why on earth would you want to "start" again...you've already posted an enormous amount of bull-shit. I've read through your "proof", and have not been convinced, among other posters on this thread. The only evidence that could prove global warming is caused by man does not exist at this day and time. And because scientist cannot go back in time and measure the rate of the earth's climate change, it cannot be proven that the current warming trend, which ended a few years ago, is man-made.

1. Until you can prove that it was CO2 that caused/ended the Ice Age, then you have no case.

2. If this warming trend was caused by humans, how come the earth has warmed and cooled long before humans existed and/or began burning fossil fuels?

3. How come all of the planets, including Pluto has warmed over the last decade? Are our emissions going all of the way to Pluto??? Are their extra-terrestrials burning fossil fuels over there?

You do not want to 'start again' because you do not - I repeat - do not want to get into a science debate.

1. You are getting confused as per usual. The short answer to your question is that the Mann hockey stick graph - which has been peer-reviewed in scholarly scientific journals - has debunked this rather absurd and bizarre claim concerning the ice age.

What the Mann graph did was prove - without any doubt - that what is going on with relation to global warming temperatures is man-made and in fact, out of the natural pattern.

2. Because you are confused regarding the claim the climate science community has presented. Climate scientists have never ever once said the Earth has never warmed or cooled before. Not even close. What you are doing, is presenting a strawman argument (The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position).

Anthropogenic global warming instead focuses on the rate of heat acceleration of the Earth over a very short period of time outside the natural occurring cycle of warming and cooling.

3. The answer to your "pluto" question has been answered in full via two peer-reviewed scholarly papers published in prestigious academic jorunals authored by credible working climate scientists. It is a highly technical paper. If you want it, I can provide the link.

 

[BrianH]

You do not want to 'start again' because you do not - I repeat - do not want to get into a science debate.

You should quit repeating yourself, it's a sign of OCD. It doesn't take a scientific debate to understand that CO2 is not the only and main culprit of climate change, or the current warming that was experienced. CO2 may contribute to global warming, but it is not causing it. There are too many other factors that go into this. You're fixed on CO2 while ignoring the other major contributors to global warming. There are too many uncertainties. All of your data is great, and respected, but you're tunnel-vissioned on CO2. The earth started warming in the early 1800s, was it caused by industrialization? No.

1. You are getting confused as per usual. The short answer to your question is that the Mann hockey stick graph - which has been peer-reviewed in scholarly scientific journals - has debunked this rather absurd and bizarre claim concerning the ice age.

Using the word "confused" as many times as you can in a post only makes you look confused. Here's the inconsistency with the Mann Hockey-Stick Graph---even comes from a site that advocates man-made global warming.
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/mann's-hockey-stick-climate-graph.htm

What the Mann graph did was prove - without any doubt - that what is going on with relation to global warming temperatures is man-made and in fact, out of the natural pattern.

2. Because you are confused regarding the claim the climate science community has presented. Climate scientists have never ever once said the Earth has never warmed or cooled before. Not even close. What you are doing, is presenting a strawman argument (The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position).

We've all heard your obsession with the strawman. Get a room.

Anthropogenic global warming instead focuses on the rate of heat acceleration of the Earth over a very short period of time outside the natural occurring cycle of warming and cooling.

They have records of the rate of heat acceleration over the last 300 million years? How about the dust bowl during the depression? Was that man-made also? The earth has been known for rapid climate change. Example: Little Ice age, Dust Bowl, Medeival Warming, etc....unless you have records dating back to the last 300 million years, then you cannot prove that CO2 is the main culprit. Assisting, yes, but by far not the main cause.

3. The answer to your "pluto" question has been answered in full via two peer-reviewed scholarly papers published in prestigious academic jorunals authored by credible working climate scientists. It is a highly technical paper. If you want it, I can provide the link.

Provide as many links as you need.

Still can't prove it without a doubt. Which is my claim. Even expert scientists will agree that it can't be proven without a doubt.

 

[TopGunna]

Brian, most of the text of his posts are cut-and-paste jobs from online journals. This might be why he's doing a fairly poor job of answering your questions.

Climate scientists do not "know" CO2 is the bad guy. They DO know that CO2 can force warming slightly in a controled setting. They DO know that measured temperatures have increased on average over the past 100 years.

They do NOT know, however, how this slight increase in atmospheric CO2 increase resonates in our extremely chaotic climate system. In the models that project runaway warming, they ASSUME a strong net positive feedback mechanism that accelerates/amplifies the initial CO2 input. It is these assumptions about feedback that lead to the catastrophic scenarios.

You can prove that CO2 can cause an initial preturbance, but the response of the climate system to that input CANNOT be proven empirically.

The reality is that when scientists encounter an unknown, but longterm stable system, they assume the system is regulated by NEGATIVE FEEDBACK! Which makes sense of course, since systems dominated by positive feedbacks are not stable over time. Prior irregular inputs to the climate system have not turned the Earth into a Venus-like inferno, or a Mars-like ice rock. It seems like a strong positive feedback mechanism is a pretty dim assumption - but don't tell that to AGW alarmists!