Do you have any evidence that that is the case?

I'm not having a go. I'm genuinely interested.

no evidence of increasing erratic weather.
even if there were, climate is not weather...the warmists have been telling us this for years...changing your story again?

yes,
now remind me again about whether the carbon tax was placed upon petroleum?

evidence of what specifically?

That the warming is natural or typical as opposed to "unusual and rapid" if you know what I mean.

And that it will end and begin cooling again. I know the Earth has warmed and cooled many times in the past. What I'm saying is, is there evidence that this warming is just a typical warming period? How does it compare with previous warming periods?

Average annual cyclone occurrences are increasing, extreme cold weather is getting more extreme (ie, record low temperatures), global average temperatures are on the increase.

"climate is not weather"... What?

Do you even speak english?

The carbon tax was placed on all companies be it petroleum related or otherwise based around their specific individual carbon emissions above a certain threshold.

Please stop posting, you're embarrassing yourself.

actually, i'm embarrassing YOU, and you know it

can you supply evidence of any of the claims you have made?

the warmists have been telling us climate is not weather.
regardless, re check the definition, it states "....over a long period"

comprehension fail for AfroDopeGT

its not out of the bounds of historical averages dating back thousands of years.
i'd call that better evidence than the 30 or so years of slight warming between 1970 and 2000, which has since halted as there as been no warming for the past 15 years

i'll re-iterate, the oil and gas industry actually support the carbon tax. it benefits their industry by destroying the coal energy industry.
look at all the increases in Australia of coal seam gas permits as evidence to who is winning out here

edit: no AfrodopeGT, coal seam gas is not coal mining

Edited by ricecrackers: 19/3/2014 12:20:26 PM

What about this website for example?

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Now, I'm going to assume that you think this website's "evidence" is wrong.

But what evidence do you have that this website's evidence, as an example, is wrong? Where do you get your information about climate change?

Again. Genuinely interested.

all thats evidence of is there is more CO2 in the atmosphere
so what?

furthermore, read the references...these are not NASA findings, they merely published it on their website
this is IPCC

Edited by ricecrackers: 19/3/2014 12:34:51 PM

Ironic that yesterday you were swift to cry foul over name calling and today you instigate it.

"In a specific area OR over a long period". Don't quote selectively to change the meaning and then tell me that I can't comprehend.
Average global temperature increases
Increase in hurricanes and cyclones
Increase in brutally cold winters

Carbon emissions increase steadily from 1940's until late 1990's where emission levels remain steady for c. last 20 years. Global climate warns from 1940's until early 2000's where it remains steady for last c. 15 years.

Clearly there's no correlation here and we're all wrong.

It's amazing, I haven't even responded to your post and you're already putting words in my mouth.

The Oil and natural gas industry ARE policed by the carbon tax, just like the coal energy sector. All of these are responsible for carbon emissions.

Seriously, take a day or two off before you write your next post. Go and google what the fuck you're talking about and study up because you have absolutely no idea. You haven't made a single post that's factually correct in the last 2 days in any form. I've met 8th grade students who have a better global understanding than you do. My mate's six year old sister understands global warming better than you do.

http://whatweknow.aaas.org/

Not all of the references were from IPCC.

What about this?

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Why do 97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends are very likely due to human activities?

"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."

Are all of these organisations wrong, or part of a conspiracy?

Obviously the entire world is wrong. Y'know, like wit who shot Mr Burns.

where policed? what are you talking about?
i mentioned nothing about being policed, i told you who benefits

the oil & gas industry have come out to support the scare with their sponsorship dollars because they have determined a method to capitalise on it. and its bearing fruit, look at President Obama as an example. he's supporting taxes on carbon emissions with one hand and promoting expansion of gas exploration and production with another. do you really have your head so far up your arse not to see that?

now are you trying to tell me that carbon emissions have been reduced over the past 15 years and thats why we havent seen any warming? please are you really trying to tell me that? just want clarification is all?

and yes of course 6 year olds and 8th graders would agree with you, because that's your level of understanding of this entire fraud

you dont sound very educated at all to be quite honest.

now lets look at your references above...
"center for climate and energy solutions"....are you seriously using that as a credible source?

and for the EPA document, would you like to highlight where it concludes that increasing carbon (dioxide) emissions are contributing to an increase in extreme weather events across the world?

finally, the 97% meme. i expected it earlier to be quite honest.

do you really think that 97% of climate scientists in the entire world agree that humans are causing climate change?
do you have any idea how that survey was compiled?

and furthermore, answer me this... in the absence of scientific proof, does science now become vote?
is that how we should verify a "scientific fact"? by a democratic vote?

You aren't even reading my posts with any of the relevant context. You've failed comprehension at a first grade level. Don't apply your own context to suit your argument and then conclude that I'm the one who's wrong.

So on the topic of Natural gas vs other fossil fuels, here's some pretty neat information:
Natural Gas emissions are just 53 per cent of that of coal emissions. Which is cool, except the primary output of natural gas is methane, which has TWENTY ONE TIMES more impact than carbon dioxide.

So uh...half the emissions, ten times the damage. Cool stuff.

It's been great arguing with you, it really has. But now I'm off to argue with this rock which is far more stimulating, intelligent and coherent than you.

cool stats bro

now tell me, where do they get the methane from?

that link :lol: you've just shot yourself in the face
Conoco Phillips are one of the largest Oil and Gas companies in the world and that article proved they're supporting the carbon dioxide = climate change scare

OH

MY

GOD

AfroDopeGT you've done it again :lol: :lol: :lol:

Edited by ricecrackers: 19/3/2014 01:20:37 PM

Its pretty hard to get 100% of people to agree on anything. For example, I would be surprised if 100% of theoretical physicists agreed with Einstein's theories on general and special relativity despite how revolutionary and useful they are and despite the evidence to support them. But does that mean we shouldn't trust GPS satellites for example, despite the fact they rely on Einstein's general relativity to work? Its also encouraging to have dissenters as this is often what drives science onto something new and we should encourage the 3% of climate scientists who disagree to find more evidence to support their claims.

What we are debating here, is whether the evidence in favour of human-induced climate change is more compelling than the evidence against it, and whether we should do something about it given its consequences.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. It's the rock's turn to speak.

just in case you missed it

so can you answer my questions or not?

The rock has spoken.

Many would argue that the scientific proof is established and that it is a scientific fact.

Some just choose to ignore it.

](*,)

conoco phillips... seriously
you're never going to live this down

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Step 1) argue that climate change science disagrees with reality because consensus because it's biased. Argues pro-natural gas.
Step 2) argues that pro-natural gas page is pro-oil and thus invalid.
Step 3) calls everyone else an idiot.

Ok fuckface.