Thread: Al Gore, Global Warming, And The Burden Of Proof

Originally Posted by raycarey

why hasn't john l answered these very simple questions...

because he is a coward and a poor debater, he is like a super Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Butterfly

because he is a coward and a poor debater

Somewhat hypocritical Butterfly. I wont make you look small for the moment but I'm sure you know what I'm about.

^ what's wrong ? you felt this described you as well ? I agree

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^ what's wrong ? you felt this described you as well ? I agree

No, you were describing yourself in that I was having a debate with you on another matter when you suddenly went off line and redded me. Redded me not because of what I wrote but you told me "to get a brain, some education or both". This comes from a man that accuses others of "being a coward and a poor debater". Really shows what you are.

Originally Posted by raycarey

why hasn't john l answered these very simple questions...

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

1) Do greenhouse gases contribute to global warming?
2) Has human activity dramatically increased the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
3) Are the poles melting?
4) Are sea levels rising?
5) Is desertification increasing?

Yeah? So what? The climate is changing and will continue to do so as it has for the past 4.5 Billion (that's billion with a B) years. There's no scientific proof that MMGW exists...

That's cleared that up then - good work, BM.

I suspect they'll start bouncing up & down over saving the sky, or something, by next week.

I expect Bono will milk a concert out of it, too.

Originally Posted by Ivor Biggun

No, you were describing yourself in that I was having a debate with you on another matter when you suddenly went off line and redded me.

surely you are joking, debating with you is like debating with a monkey, pointless, you don't have the mental capacity to even grasp the concept being discussed. Stick to picture threads or jokes, at least you will know what your are talking about.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

surely you are joking, debating with you is like debating with a monkey, pointless, you don't have the mental capacity to even grasp the concept being discussed. Stick to picture threads or jokes, at least you will know what your are talking about.

I live in Non Suwan 10 k off of route 24 you're quite welcome to come and debate with a monkey if you like. Please ask for directions as I wouldn't want you to not arrive. I hope to see you soon.

^ sorry I have other things to do than watching you in your cage eating your feces,

Originally Posted by Butterfly

sorry I have other things to do than watching you in your cage eating your feces

What like, learning to spell ?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

sorry I have other things to do than watching you in your cage eating your feces,

Perhaps I could come round to your place for a debate ? Please send your address. Obviously you'll find some excuse as to why you can't give it ?

Originally Posted by Ivor Biggun

Perhaps I could come round to your place for a debate ? Please send your address. Obviosly you'll find some excuse as to why you cant give it ?

Why would I give my address to a chimpanzee in a cage ? this is so bizarre,

what zoo are you in ? maybe I will stop by and throw you a few bananas for you to choke on

Originally Posted by Shitman

^

I love watching people more intelligent than me tearing those climate change racket merchants apart.

Now you just need to learn whether anything is actually being torn apart or not.

In this instance, it's just a remark which isn't particularly 'intelligent':
"Because they aren't proof of human caused climate change."
If greenhouse gases contribute to climate change and human activity has increased their presence dramatically, then climate change is indeed human caused, unless you can show that greenhouse gases are insignificant compared with other factors.

Shall I repeat this slowly?

Next:
"The climate is changing and will continue to do so as it has for the past 4.5 Billion (that's billion with a B) years."
Of course, nobody is disputing this - this is an argument which deliberately misses the points in question.

"There's no scientific proof that MMGW exists..."
The smilie indicates already this isn't a serious assertion, but for your benefit let me clarify why not: Stating something does not exist does not mean that it really doesn't.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

maybe I will stop by and throw you a few bananas for you to choke on

You're a coward Butterfly and every post you now make, varifies it. Now do what you say and "stop by and throw a few bananas". I do not resort to insults easily but I think you are very immature and your posts show this.

Originally Posted by stroller

codswallop

Answer me this then, Stroll - when the world going to end because of so-called 'climate change'?

The simple answer is that it's not.

Unless, some of these 'scientists' can give us a rough date when the end will be then the simple fact is that they don't really know what they're talking about & are just guessing.

And if they're guessing - that's just making things up.

Then passing it off as 'proof' in exchange for a fat cheque.

Originally Posted by Ivor Biggun

I do not resort to insults easily but I think you are very immature and your posts show this.

You are a retard, I just respond accordingly, but yes you are correct, I shouldn't even bother

Here have another banana

Originally Posted by Shitman

Answer me this then, Stroll - when the world going to end because of so-called 'climate change'?

who said that? i don't remember reading it anywhere on this thread. has al gore (who is mentioned in the thread title), said it?

and btw, why do you feel the need to stretch it to such apocalyptic extremes? and furthermore, why criticize people who are trying to be proactive?

Originally Posted by raycarey

why criticize people who are trying to be proactive?

Cause there's a difference between being proactive and being productive.

Originally Posted by raycarey

has al gore (who is mentioned in the thread title), said it?

What's everybody worried about then, if the world's not going to end?

why do you feel the need to stretch it to such apocalyptic extremes?

When Gore shows videos of polar bears drowing because they can't find ice (which is never going to happen) I am entitled to counter with similar exagguration.

why criticize people who are trying to be proactive?

Because Gore is nothing but a chancer.

Originally Posted by Plan B

Cause there's a difference between being proactive and being productive.

how do you know that what is being suggested by the proponents of addressing the issue of global warming wouldn't be 'productive'?

and by 'productive' i'm going to assume you mean in the sense of addressing the issue, and not increasing capitalist production.

Originally Posted by Shitman

What's everybody worried about then?

so the only time society should address an issue is when the world is about to end?

Originally Posted by Shitman

When Gore shows videos of polar bears drowing because they can't find ice (which is never going to happen) I am entitled to counter with similar exagguration.

never going to happen, eh? where's your 'science' for that?

Originally Posted by Shitman

Because they are wrong

and your 'science' for that?

Originally Posted by Shitman

costing me money when I have to pay so-called 'green' taxes.

i'm confident you're paying loads more for taxes related to 'defense' than you'll ever pay for green taxes. which do you feel is more of a threat to the well being of you and your family.....saddam hussein or the incinerator in your town which belches toxic fumes into the air?

Originally Posted by raycarey

never going to happen, eh? where's your 'science' for that?

Here.

Schools will have to issue a warning before they show pupils Al Gore's controversial film about global warming, a judge indicated yesterday.

The move follows a High Court action by a father who accused the Government of 'brainwashing' children with propaganda by showing it in the classroom. Stewart Dimmock said the former U.S. Vice-President's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, is unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and 'sentimental mush'

Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias | the Daily Mail

I'm not as smart as most of you, so in a debate I will mostly lose, but that doesn't alter the fact that there are smarter men than you that know this climate change racket is a load of bull.

It's easy to call me wrong but not so easy to call a top judge in his court a liar.

Nothing we do (or don't do) is going to make the slghtest bit of difference to whatever it is mother nature's got in store for us.

Originally Posted by Shitman

I'm not as smart as most of you,

now, now. boon mee and chinthee are regular posters here, and you'll have no problem besting them in any debate.

but let's get back to your post....you said 'never'. how do you (or this judge) know this?

Originally Posted by raycarey

you said 'never'. how do you (or this judge) know this?

I forget where I heard it.

Are you saying that it is all going to melt, or are you just guessing (making it up)?

Originally Posted by Shitman

Answer me this then, Stroll - when the world going to end because of so-called 'climate change'?

This also in the category of a "strawman" argument - nobody argues the world is goiong to end.

Originally Posted by Shitman

The simple answer is that it's not.

Of course not. Don't you feel a little stupid attempting to refute something which hasn't been said?

Originally Posted by Shitman

Unless, some of these 'scientists' can give us a rough date when the end will be then the simple fact is that they don't really know what they're talking about & are just guessing.

Hmm. No scientific findings on climate change depend on any date for the end of the world for their veracity.

Originally Posted by Shitman

And if they're guessing - that's just making things up.

I know it is difficult to understand, but "guessing" or "making things up" are different from making a projection of events based on the data and findings available.

Originally Posted by Shitman

Then passing it off as 'proof' in exchange for a fat cheque.

Is this still about Al Gore? He is not a scientist you know.

Ok, sum my post up with a quote saying "cobswallow" again, that reflects nicely what you are able to understand, which is, ahem, concerning my previous effort: NOTHING.