Copenhagen Treaty

[Guest]

Mate it is about providing debate.
Something you have not done, as you do not provide your side of the debate just denial of anything which casts doubt on the so called Climate change come Global warming school of though, further, as nothing has actually happened yet all this is purely conjecture on the part of the Pro warming lobby. Do you have compelling evidence that the planet is in dour trouble due to warming?

Providing debate and a realistic viewpoint is exactly what I have done. If it wasn't for me, you lot would be jumping overselves to grasp the next pile in a long line of piles of bullshit that has been posted here to do with with this topic. And I will continue to deny bullshit where and when I see it.

All you have done is claim to have seen compelling evidence where there is none.

Chook.

[Guest]

The myths refer to the spin and bullshit put forward by absolute halfwits like Gore.

I see. And what about the spin and utter bullshit put forward by absolute farkwits like Elo?

Do you accept or reject that?

Chook.

[Guest]

Opinion has nothing to do with it, you have not provided any facts to back up your claims, it's that simple. You have attempted to justify your claims with irrelevant conspiracy theory bullshit.

Now admit that and I'll answer your question.

Chook.

You have failed to refute any of my evidence at all

Simply calling each point I make BS IS NOT DEBATE

I think most people who have visited this thread would say that I have beaten you by knockout without you laying a glove on me at this stage.

You cannot even answer what should be a simple question for someone who passionately supports man made global warming.


What evidence can you provide that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will make the world much warmer?

Man or Mouse Chook what are you?

[Kingbilly]

I see. And what about the spin and utter bullshit put forward by absolute farkwits like Elo?

Do you accept or reject that?

Chook.

I believe there there is more truth in the anti global warming arguements, but yes there is its own fair amount of crap.

But my point is that there is too much uneducated bandwagon jumping, and some proper research needs to be done before decisions like this are made

[Guest]

You have failed to refute any of my evidence at all

Simply calling each point I make BS IS NOT DEBATE

I think most people who have visited this thread would say that I have beaten you by knockout without you laying a glove on me at this stage.

You cannot even answer what should be a simple question for someone who passionately supports man made global warming.


What evidence can you provide that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will make the world much warmer?

Man or Mouse Chook what are you?

Are you really this stupid or just willfuly ignorant?

Let me say this so we're clear - YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE to back up your claims!! I've been asking you (4 times now) to provide such evidence, but all you do is keep referring to the irrelevant links you cut and paste and claiming to have the moral high ground. That's not debating, that's jamming your head up your arse and ignoring your lack of facts or evidence.

You know what is so funny about all this. You rcptn, are exactly the same as the AGW believers I have challenged on this topic. Oh yeah, comes a shock to learn I am not an advocate eh?

You make outlandish claims, you post irrelevant bullshit and when challeneged to provide actual evidence to back up what you claim, you run and hide behind the "you've already done that" excuse. You then claim victory in a debate that never actually took place because you never provided any evidence/facts to debate, However that doesn't stop you from rushing to ensure anyone else who saw this thread sides with you. Oh and you leap to half arse assumptions about the one challenging you.

Sound familiar?

You, like the true believers rcptn, are the precisely same in how you react and interact with those that challenge you viewpoint. You're completely full of factless shit!!

And to answer your question, none. I cannot provide you with categorical evidence that CO2 will warm the Earth. But then I never claimed I could.

I also find it highly amusing that whilst all I've ever asked you to provide is facts and evidence to back up YOUR claims, you have failed in that regard. But yet while I freely admit I cannot categoricaly prove AGW (a claim I never made by the way), I'm the loser according to you?

Just like the true believers rcptn, you are deluded into believing your own bullshit.

Chook.

[Guest]

I believe there there is more truth in the anti global warming arguements, but yes there is its own fair amount of crap.

But my point is that there is too much uneducated bandwagon jumping, and some proper research needs to be done before decisions like this are made

I don't believe in arguments, I believe in facts and evidence!

You would be well advised to do the same or else you'll start believing bullshit like rcptn and his ilk.

Chook.

[Guest]

Are you really this stupid or just willfuly ignorant?

Let me say this so we're clear - YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE to back up your claims!! I've been asking you (4 times now) to provide such evidence, but all you do is keep referring to the irrelevant links you cut and paste and claiming to have the moral high ground. That's not debating, that's jamming your head up your arse and ignoring your lack of facts or evidence.

You know what is so funny about all this. You rcptn, are exactly the same as the AGW believers I have challenged on this topic. Oh yeah, comes a shock to learn I am not an advocate eh?

You make outlandish claims, you post irrelevant bullshit and when challeneged to provide actual evidence to back up what you claim, you run and hide behind the "you've already done that" excuse. You then claim victory in a debate that never actually took place because you never provided any evidence/facts to debate, However that doesn't stop you from rushing to ensure anyone else who saw this thread sides with you.

Sound familiar?

You, like the true believers rcptn, are the precisely same in how you react and interact with those that challenge you viewpoint. You're completely full of factless shit!!

And to answer your question, none. I cannot provide you with categorical evidence that CO2 will warm the Earth. But then I never claimed I could.

I also find it highly amusing that whilst all I've ever asked you to provide is facts and evidence to back up YOUR claims, you have failed in that regard. But yet while I freely admit I cannot categoricaly prove AGW (a claim I never made by the way), I'm the loser according to you?

Just like the true believers rcptn, you are deluded into believing your own bullshit.

Chook.

I am not a true believer on this topic at all mate I could be wrong on this and hopefully I am. My opinion is not based on any conspiracy websites, it is based on my own thoughts given the evidence I have consumed from both sides of the argument along with a healthy dose of common sense. A few years back I'd be changing my mind on this matter all the time as weighed evidence from both sides. And as I said earlier in this thread as you can see below.

"Fossil fuels are still abundant as far as I know, they will just keep on getting more and more expensive to produce and therefore more and more expensive too consume. Alternatives will then become economicly viable and fill some of the void. As I said previously resource depletion is likely the main reason the powers that be want a communist system where they control everything so that there standard of living is maintained at everybody elses expense.

The UN IPPC report that claims to have around 2000 prominent climatoligists is a farce because in reality there were heaps beaurucrats and others listed who were no more scientits than you or me. Also of the ones who in reality climatoligists only a few signed off on the report.

I can understand how somebody can be undecided because up until a few years ago I was undecided myself. But these days I only have about a 5% doubt."

I still can be persuaded the other way as I have a 5% doubt. I challenge you to turn the tide if you can?

What evidence can you provide that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will make the world much warmer?

[Kingbilly]

I don't believe in arguments, I believe in facts and evidence!

You would be well advised to do the same or else you'll start believing bullshit like rcptn and his ilk.

Chook.

But this is the big point Chook, the facts and evidence are missing and or corrupted on the pro global warming side as well. There is mostly scare mongering and hot wind. There is NO conclusive pure evidence overwhelmingly supporting either case.

So why are we rushing ahead implementing a strategy which is not guarranteed to do anything based on an arguement or theory which is not conclusively proven.

The arguement that you are using debunking the other side due to lack of facts and evidence is exactly the same arguement that applies to the case against pro global warming.

[Kingbilly]

What evidence can you provide that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will make the world much warmer?

But the issue is greater than that.
What are all the implications of increased CO2, what are the implications of not increasing but remaing steady on the CO2 being released.
What is the implications are a reduced amount of CO2.

What is the cause of CO2 being emmited, whats the %s of these causes.

What REAL effect with a carbon tax have, not only on the economy, but the companies that are affected, the countries that are or are not affected.

Why is the carbon tax being pushed through quickly, when things like Fossil fuels and deforestation are probably more important and not alot seems to be getting done about these more specific issues.

[Guest]

But the issue is greater than that.
What are all the implications of increased CO2, what are the implications of not increasing but remaing steady on the CO2 being released.
What is the implications are a reduced amount of CO2.

What is the cause of CO2 being emmited, whats the %s of these causes.

What REAL effect with a carbon tax have, not only on the economy, but the companies that are affected, the countries that are or are not affected.

Why is the carbon tax being pushed through quickly, when things like Fossil fuels and deforestation are probably more important and not alot seems to be getting done about these more specific issues.

Sure the issue is greater Peak Oil, Peak Gas, Peak Grain and Peak everything if not already upon us. Comming down the pipeline really soon in the next decade.

[Guest]

The UN IPPC report that claims to have around 2000 prominent climatoligists is a farce because in reality there were heaps beaurucrats and others listed who were no more scientits than you or me. Also of the ones who in reality climatoligists only a few signed off on the report.

How do you know it is a farce? You say in reality, but how do you know that is the reality? Can you provide the name of the 2000 prominent climatoligists?

For the record, I am still undecided

[Guest]

But this is the big point Chook, the facts and evidence are missing and or corrupted on the pro global warming side as well. There is mostly scare mongering and hot wind. There is NO conclusive pure evidence overwhelmingly supporting either case.

So why are we rushing ahead implementing a strategy which is not guarranteed to do anything based on an arguement or theory which is not conclusively proven.

The arguement that you are using debunking the other side due to lack of facts and evidence is exactly the same arguement that applies to the case against pro global warming.

Agreed, both sides are replete with irrelevant shit, that’s why I challenge both sides. However I have an entirely different perspective on that as I have found many pro-lobbyists to be open minded about the cause and effect, whilst the anti-lobby mobs accept any other explanation (other than man made) of the why without any form of critical analysis. And my case in point is in this thread.

“let’s reject Copenhagen cause it will cause a third world war through the formation of a world communist government…I mean Jesus H farkin Christ!

Can we take the computers away from all the stupid people please!!

Chook.

[Guest]

I am not a true believer on this topic at all mate I could be wrong on this and hopefully I am. My opinion is not based on any conspiracy websites, it is based on my own thoughts given the evidence I have consumed from both sides of the argument along with a healthy dose of common sense. A few years back I'd be changing my mind on this matter all the time as weighed evidence from both sides. And as I said earlier in this thread as you can see below.

"Fossil fuels are still abundant as far as I know, they will just keep on getting more and more expensive to produce and therefore more and more expensive too consume. Alternatives will then become economicly viable and fill some of the void. As I said previously resource depletion is likely the main reason the powers that be want a communist system where they control everything so that there standard of living is maintained at everybody elses expense.

The UN IPPC report that claims to have around 2000 prominent climatoligists is a farce because in reality there were heaps beaurucrats and others listed who were no more scientits than you or me. Also of the ones who in reality climatoligists only a few signed off on the report.

I can understand how somebody can be undecided because up until a few years ago I was undecided myself. But these days I only have about a 5% doubt."

I still can be persuaded the other way as I have a 5% doubt. I challenge you to turn the tide if you can?

What evidence can you provide that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will make the world much warmer?

I see! So you've gone from someone declaring Copenhagen a complete waste of time and effort to someone wanting to hear more about Copenhagen bringing about the end of the world through a world communist government to someone who has doubts, hopes he's wrong and welcomes someone to change his mind?

My work here is done.

Chook.

[Kingbilly]

Agreed, both sides are replete with irrelevant shit, that’s why I challenge both sides. However I have an entirely different perspective on that as I have found many pro-lobbyists to be open minded about the cause and effect, whilst the anti-lobby mobs accept any other explanation (other than man made) of the why without any form of critical analysis. And my case in point is in this thread.

“let’s reject Copenhagen cause it will cause a third world war through the formation of a world communist government…I mean Jesus H farkin Christ!

Can we take the computers away from all the stupid people please!!

Chook.

Its funny itsn't because most of the "pro" people I have read or spoken to are narrow minded, but alot of the "against" are similarly narrow minded too.
But I think that comes with being outspoken about something like that.

But I think we can agree that it needs to be done right, I just don't think that there is enough information for the right decision to be made now.

[Guest]

Al Gore to become 1st 'Carbon' billionaire?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...llionaire.html

Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire
Al Gore, the former US vice president, could become the world's first carbon billionaire after investing heavily in green energy companies.
Last year Mr Gore's venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient
The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.

The move means that venture capital company Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy as Mr Gore. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.

Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming sceptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world's first "carbon billionaire," profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.

Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, has claimed that Mr Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt.

Mr Gore had said that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.

"Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?" Mr. Gore said. "I am proud of it. I am proud of it."