Yuuuuup and another fuel too but you knew that the oil & gas sector is poised to make out like bandits with the CO2 scam didn't you?
AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
No, I mean if you have something like this:
(1,2), (1,4), (1,-2), (1,5), (1, 3), (1,1), (1,4)
Only with thousands more of the same, the independent variable is not responsible for the response of the dependent variable.
Yet you maintain it's there. Contrary to the laws which govern the scientific method.
Here's a prediction:
Continuously adding more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means that the temperature of the troposphere will rise above land and above the oceans, the stratosphere will cool, the temperature in the surface waters of the oceans will rise, the oceans will store more heat, the atmosphere will hold more water vapour, glaciers will melt, sea ice will melt, the sea level will rise, and the oceans will acidify.
Hmm, all have come true. Can you make all of that happen with any other single factor? Nope.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yet they lobby against it.
To bad the science isn't on the side of lobbyists.
still like to see responses tom y earlier comments about China and facts...but denialists and conspiracy loons avoid such things.:lol:
Good for China. With the US unable to shop at dollar-rama anymore they'll need to create a few jobs. Beside the suspended particulate over China is starting to piss off the proletariat. They last thing the party in Beijing needs is a pissed off proletariat.
Like the others have said it's the most widely supported scientific view and I'm pretty much a slave to the science. I will sway toward what can show to be the most reasonable assessment to date. And of course we all have our subjective views, so I enjoy hearing all sides.
But, yea, so far the C02 explanation has scientific clout and every other theory meant to replace it, has either been refuted or has not proven itself. In addition to that, there has been no real criticism of the C02 explanation that has actually succeeded.
I try to observe these threads as an impartial party, and it's pretty obvious that the skeptics are losing the argument, badly. It usually goes something like morgan and petros jumping to conclusions, then getting proven wrong with ease by Anna or Tonington - and then two pages later, they forget the argument and regurgitate their former script as if it never occurred.
I was once a skeptic as well - and believe me, I'd love to be wrong - but the science has been pretty convincing. Again, I'd love for a skeptic to have a complete replacement theory or a very convincing abject denial of the existing theory, such that I don't have any objections. Please, do actually win this argument as I'd rather not have to worry about the upcoming ramifications. I'm rooting for ya skeptics!
No matter where we live in the world we all have to pay through the ass for something that is merely a "we tried and were noble with our one world commie assed govt ...SUCKERS".
Pay through the ass for something that is meaningless when pestilence will conveniently reduce the population in 20 years anyway before the temperature plummets once again like it has repeatedly over billions of years taking out even more of the "evil carbon consumers".
That's reality.
Yep, good for China in it's embrace of capitalism, perhaps democracy and freedom of information is right around the corner.
No it's not.
Seems like your real motivation on this issue is based on its effect on your wallet.
Where is this mythical proof?
Certainly you're not keeping it only to yourself, but I don't mind telling you that it would have been really helpful to realizing your goal had you provided this conclusive info to those representatives in Copenhagen. Hell, we wouldn't be having this conversation today had you released the info.
Add in one important omission... There is never anything provided that actually proves the point. The reason that the arguments must be revisited is because the real questions are never addressed you , Tonnington, Avro, et al... (See above request).
I hate to be the one to tell you, but just 'cause you truly believe it in your soul, that just ain't good enough.
Again, where is the science?
Here's a 10 part series that makes a really good assessment of everything said so far..
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/0/52KLGqDSAjo
You have scroll down on the side menu and check out the 'climate change' playlist. Watch the whole series. Get back to me with your critcisms, and then we'll talk.
Clive Crook: Atlantic columnist libels Michael Mann - again
The Atlantic columnist Clive Crook has taken yet another unconscionable swipe at Penn State climatologist Michael Mann, throwing evidence to the wind in a column that Crook himself might describe as "splenetic hyperventilation" or even "operatic ranting."
Crook's principal crime is to accuse Mann "of groupthink, a preference for data that point in the right direction, efforts to deflect or neutralize opposing points of view, and the selective packaging of findings for public consumption ...." In trying to justify that accusation, the "senior editor" at The Atlantic has patched together an unconvincing and (as Joe Romm of ClimeProgress demonstrates here) inaccurate batch of quotes and other clumsy misinformation.
Crook's secondary crime is his effort to pass himself off as someone who is "open-minded," who stands with the "sensible critics" and who is "of moderate opinion." Alas for what passes as moderation at The Atlantic these days. Crook painted himself into a corner with an untenable position and an incorrect accusation against Mann. If he had any grace, he would have apologized and corrected the record. His immoderate and increasingly desperate campaign to malign Michael Mann surely excuses him from the ranks of the sensible.
The Atlantic columnist Clive Crook has taken yet another unconscionable swipe at Penn State climatologist Michael Mann, throwing evidence to the wind in a column that Crook himself might describe as "splenetic hyperventilation" or even "operatic ranting."
Crook's principal crime is to accuse Mann "of groupthink, a preference for data that point in the right direction, efforts to deflect or neutralize opposing points of view, and the selective packaging of findings for public consumption ...." In trying to justify that accusation, the "senior editor" at The Atlantic has patched together an unconvincing and (as Joe Romm of ClimeProgress demonstrates here) inaccurate batch of quotes and other clumsy misinformation.
Crook's secondary crime is his effort to pass himself off as someone who is "open-minded," who stands with the "sensible critics" and who is "of moderate opinion." Alas for what passes as moderation at The Atlantic these days. Crook painted himself into a corner with an untenable position and an incorrect accusation against Mann. If he had any grace, he would have apologized and corrected the record. His immoderate and increasingly desperate campaign to malign Michael Mann surely excuses him from the ranks of the sensible.
Experts know best. :roll:
YouTube - More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette
:lol::lol::lol::lol:
YouTube - The Seven Dwarves: I believe that nicotine is not addictive
Heck, the scientists who have denied the negative effects of tobacco passed on their methods to climate deniers.:lol:
Heck, the scientists who have denied the negative effects of tobacco passed on their methods to climate deniers.:lol:
Not know best, have the most experience and know the context.
I don't imagine you go to your mechanic for heart problems, and I doubt you go to see a cardiac specialist when your engines knocking.
You should give more weight to the experts...the word expert does have a specific meaning after all.
I suspect the sort of "scientific" proof Captain Morgan wants is of the sort supplied by the tobacco companies many of whom still maintain that smoking is harmless. In other words he ignores any evidence that does not agree with his point of view and jumps on any evidence, no matter how weak, that supports it.