[Pants-of-dog]

Please quote the text that supports your claim.

[One Degree]

Please quote the text that supports your claim.

If you had bothered to click on the link, you would see ‘my’ claim is the title. The whole story supports the claim.

[jimjam]

A new analysis shows US greenhouse gas levels are increasing as the Trump administration unravels efforts to slow climate change.

Carbon emissions rose sharply last year, increasing 3.4%, according to new estimates from the economic firm Rhodium Group. That year’s jump in emissions is the biggest since the bounce back from the recession in 2010. It is the second largest gain in more than two decades.

[Pants-of-dog]

If you had bothered to click on the link, you would see ‘my’ claim is the title. The whole story supports the claim.

Not only did I read the article, but I also read the actual study.

Since you are unable or unwilling to quote the text that supposedly supports your claim, I am not going to bother addressing it.

[One Degree]

Not only did I read the article, but I also read the actual study.

Since you are unable or unwilling to quote the text that supposedly supports your claim, I am not going to bother addressing it.

If you read the study, then you know their claim and their evidence. My claim was we don’t understand how the global system works yet and this article is evidence of why I say that.

[Pants-of-dog]

And my point was that if you are too lazy to actually source and support your arguments, there is no reason for me to act as if you actually made an argument.

[One Degree]

And my point was that if you are too lazy to actually source and support your arguments, there is no reason for me to act as if you actually made an argument.

What are you on about? I gave you a source for my argument. Your flailing around because you can’t think of a counter argument is rather amusing. Does it create a dilemma for you when science counteres your science?

[Pants-of-dog]

You never made an argument.

You just made a claim and porivided a link.

You never read the link, not quoted it, nor showed how it supports your claim.

Since it is not my job to do your work for you, I am simply ignoring it.

[One Degree]

You never made an argument.

You just made a claim and porivided a link.

You never read the link, not quoted it, nor showed how it supports your claim.

Since it is not my job to do your work for you, I am simply ignoring it.

I supplied very recent research indicating what we thought was happening may not be accurate. They even told you how much colder the deep ocean is getting. This is evidence to support my claim we don’t know how the global system functions yet. What else did you specifically have in mind for me to say? What exactly is lacking in my comment? Your vague requests don’t mean anything.

[Pants-of-dog]

Again, you never quoted any text to supoort your claim.

You seem to think that you are entitled to a certain laziness about not supporting arguments, and that the rest if us will do your work for you.

Make a claim.

Provide a link.

Quote the text.

Show how the text supoorts your claim.

Until then, you can be ignored.

[One Degree]

Again, you never quoted any text to supoort your claim.

You seem to think that you are entitled to a certain laziness about not supporting arguments, and that the rest if us will do your work for you.

Nonsense.

Make a claim.

I did and I have repeated it for you.

Provide a link.

I did.

Quote the text.

Why do I need to provide a quote from something you already admit you have read?

Show how the text supoorts your claim.

The existence of the article itself supports my claim.

Until then, you can be ignored.

Since you can see I have already complied with all your requests, you are ignoring me because you have nothing else to say. Requesting information already provided is not an argument.

[Pants-of-dog]

If you are not going to support your claims, then I am not going to reward your laziness by pretending that you did.

[jimjam]

There are about 7.6 billion people on the planet today and, according to the United Nations, there will be 8.6 billion in 2030. A billion more people driving, flying, eating protein, building homes and drinking water in just over a decade.

If they all adopt the per-capita consumption habits of today’s Americans, we’re going to burn up, heat up, eat up, plow up, choke up and smoke up the planet, whether the climate changes or not. That means that clean power, clean cars, clean manufacturing, clean water and energy efficiency have to be the next great global industries — otherwise, we humans are going to be a bad biological experiment, whether the climate changes or not.

[jimjam]

Americans’ concerns about climate change have surged to record levels, new polling shows, following a year marked by devastating storms, wildfires and increasingly dire warnings from scientists.


A total of 72% of polled Americans now say global warming is personally important to them, according to the Yale program on climate change communication. This is the highest level of concern since Yale starting polling the question in 2008.

Overall, 73% of Americans accept that global warming is happening, outnumbering those who don’t by five to one. This acceptance has strengthened in recent years, rising by 10% since March 2015. The proportion that grasps that humans are the primary cause of warming is smaller, with 62% understanding this to be the case.

[Sivad]

But, overall, majorities of Americans appear skeptical of climate scientists. No more than a third of the public gives climate scientists high marks for their understanding of climate change; even fewer say climate scientists understand the best ways to address climate change. And, while Americans trust information from climate scientists more than they trust that from other groups, fewer than half of Americans have “a lot” of trust in information from climate scientists (39%).
http://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016 ... cientists/

[Sivad]

That is obviously alluding to how developing countries are going to develop an industrial base without fossil fuels.

It is not evidence that the measures needed will involve a draconian control over all necessary reaources for human development.

These two things are not the same.

You don't know what you're Noemon Edit: redacted talking about, regulating land use is in all the international accords and that in addition to [selective] emission pricing does give technocrats draconian control over human development.

No. Fossil fuel companies are actually fighting action on climate change.

Therefore, the people who supposedly are tricking everyone into thinking climate change is real are not controlling fossil fuels and are actually opposing them.

The IPCC was created by a big oil oligarch. Maurice Strong was the Rockefeller connected oil man from Canada that launched this hysteria. He's the guy that got Al Gore in on the act. Al Gore himself comes from big oil money, he had a close lifelong personal, political, and financial association with the owner of Occidental Petroleum, Armand Hammer.

if these shadow people existed

See above for why this is nothing but inane Noemon Edit: redacted bullshit. There are no "shadow people", we know exactly who these Noemon Edit: redacted people are.

You ignored my point again.

You don't have a point, all you have is invincible ignorance.

[Pants-of-dog]

regulating land use is in all the international accords and that in addition to [selective] emission pricing does give technocrats draconian control over human development.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

The IPCC was created by a big oil oligarch. Maurice Strong was the Rockefeller connected oil man from Canada that launched this hysteria. He's the guy that got Al Gore in on the act. Al Gore himself comes from big oil money, he had a close lifelong personal, political, and financial association with the owner of Occidental Petroleum, Armand Hammer.

Please provide evidence for this claim, and show how this has anything to do with anthropogenic climate change theory.

See above for why this is nothing but inane babbitt bullshit. There are no "shadow people", we know exactly who these fuckers are.

If you have any evidence that Al Gore is trying to take over the world by perpetrating the hoax of climate change theory, please provide it.

[Sivad]

Please provide evidence for this claim.

you kill me dude. You go check it out, I've already read over the agreements. How is it that you never know what you're talking about?

Please provide evidence for this claim, and show how this has anything to do with anthropogenic climate change theory.

How does the IPCC have anything to do with ACC theory? Is that really what you're asking me here?

If you have any evidence that Al Gore is trying to take over the world by perpetrating the hoax of climate change theory, please provide it.

Please not that the guy who likes to lecture people on the finer points logic has just fallaciously appealed to ridicule.

[Pants-of-dog]

you kill me dude. You go check it out, I've already read over the agreements. How is it that you never know what you're talking about?

How does the IPCC have anything to do with ACC theory? Is that really what you're asking me here?

Please not that the guy who likes to lecture people on the finer points logic has just fallaciously appealed to ridicule.

So no evidence.

And there is no attempt at ridicule.

My criticism of climate change conspiracy theories is currently focused on the conspiracy theory that anthropogenic climate change theory is a hoax designed to help its supporters take over the world.

Did you forget that?

Mind you, I also think the conspiracy theory is ridiculous.

[Hindsite]

Princeton Physics Professor Discredits Anthropogenic Climate Change Theory
Published on Jan 3, 2017

Physics Professor William Happer discredits the negative effects of CO2 on the planet and whether or not climate change is man-made. He also goes into detail of why the United Nation’s models are incorrect despite their overwhelming confidence that significant warming is taking place due to human activity.

Published on Sep 27, 2013

Telegraph columnist James Delingpole says Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a "political organisation rather than a scientific one which uses the science to its own ends".

Leading climate scientists said this morning they were more certain than ever before that mankind was the main culprit for global warming and warned the impact of greenhouse gas emissions would linger for centuries.

A report, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), played down the fact temperatures have risen more slowly in the past 15 years, saying there were substantial natural variations that masked a long-term warming trend.

Commenting on the report, Telegraph columnist James Delingpole said: "All the computer models the IPCC has used in its 25 years have predicted global warming much greater than has been observed.

"This represents a problem because what it means is all these insistent claims they have been making that we need to take urgent measures now to deal with this unprecedented problem seem to be based on junk science.

"The IPCC stands or falls on its computer models. There is no other evidence out there that global warming is any kind of problem. That it exists only in the imagination of the people who programme those computer models and the scientists who contribute to the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is a problem.

"What we see in this report is that the models aren't working, which suggests the entirety of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) theory is flawed."

CBS
Published on Dec 5, 2009
A series of leaked e-mails between climate scientists is casting a cloud over the Climate Change Summit. Kimberly Dozier reports whether scientists fudged numbers to over-exaggerate climate change.

Climate Change Researcher Describes Challenge Of Pulling Off Worldwide Global Warming Conspiracy
Published on Sep 8, 2017

WHY I SAID GLOBAL WARMING IS THE BIGGEST FRAUD IN HISTORY - Dan Pena | London Real
Published on Jul 31, 2018

Stossel: Why climate change alarmists get it wrong
Published on Sep 18, 2017

Climate Change: The New Religion of the Left

Published on Jan 2, 2017

KUSI News
Published on Mar 12, 2014

A great scientist named Roger Revelle had Al Gore in his class at Harvard and the Global Warming campaign was born. Revelle tried to calm things down years later, but Gore said Revelle was Senile and refused to debate. John Coleman documents the entire story and shows how our tax dollars are perpetuating the Global Warming alarmist campaign even though temperatures have not risen in years and years.

Professor Emeritus Don Easterbrook's eye-opening talk to the Washington State Senate committee on Climate Change 26/3/2013.