1. there is no such thing as clean energy. its a fantasy
2. attempts to artificially reduce carbon emissions are economic and all involve lowering our living standard via either taxes or raising the cost of fuel

whenever you significantly raise the cost of living, people at the lower end die.
whenever you destroy an economy, more people die

to put it simply because i'm tired of arguing this crap with morons on this forum

Mind if I ask a question, specifically related to the part I have bolded?

How exactly is people wanting to reduce emissions and find clean sources of energy going to "Fuck up the world"?

Now I have made the assumption that "this crap" you speak of is, due to the title of this thread and the conversation related therein, is infact the idea that we need to move to clean forms of energy to save the world.

So again, why, even if we acknowledge that the world doesn't need saving, is the move towards clean energy and away from coal and fossil fuels a bad thing?

Of course it won't meet the high standards set by our esteemed resident 442 climate scientist, namely a mister R Crackers, as it was only published in the journal nature but here's an interesting article for perusing.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-models-on-the-mark-australianled-research-finds-20140720-zuuoe.html

-PB

Skip to around 55 minutes. Carlson doesn't really sit on either view. An interesting listen to say the least.

[youtube]R31SXuFeX0A[/youtube]

case in point ^

on reflection I see that RedKat's responses are very much like those that would be accepted in a school project of a government school.
like around grade 4 to 9 level.

no discernment, critical thought or actual proper research required. just paste some links and attribute sources.

it makes sense that quite a few here would be able to identify on that level

you're being a weasel about this.

your models were wrong. not just a bit wrong, but very wrong.

and now you're telling me that all the evidence wasnt taken into account.

that sounds like a problem for the alarmists, not mine

er no, error on your part and your attempt has backfired rather embarrassingly for you
you've pasted a wikipedia article that specifically refers to a time period

prior to the ancient greeks what do you think the consensus was?

Rookie error on your part but understandable given most people believe that those in the past believed the earth was flat.

Nice try at wriggling out of your ignorant statement though, not that I sledged you for it in any case, by referring to cavemen of all people.

what do you think the consensus among the cavemen was?

did I say anything about the middle ages?

you make a lot of assumptions you know. not very scientific, but carry on.

...waits for the copy and paste expert to copy and past something else

i'm not the one with an agenda, you are. you cultists are going to fuck up the world with all of this crap.

again I put a direct question to you, how could your models be so wrong?

are you going to avoid that issue too?

but there is no scientific evidence

there is no warming. its stopped when your models predicted otherwise.

how could your models be so wrong?

they are computer models you know, thats what all this fantasy is based on. models

got it?

you never will.

you'll spend your whole life worrying about the sky falling when it wont happen. what a wasted life.

Bunch of Commie Marxists!

-PB

Not for the first time.

Just to jump in for a minute here. No one seriously believed the world to be flat. It was a construct of the secular movement in the late 1800's used to discredit religious fundamentalists opposed to evolution.

Just thought I'd point that out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

But anyway, carry on.

Crackers, holding others to account on standards he refuses to meet himself.

ricey getting destroyed :lol:

-PB

you never answered my question

why would i bother to do anything you say?

what are you some kind of dictator?

they're rhetorical by the way as it appears you're a little authoritarian trying to impose your will upon anyone who doesnt follow your cult doctrine

=;

science isnt about taking someone else's word, particularly when that word is nothing more than a theory

what I dont understand is why you have such an interest in this topic when you've clearly demonstrated that you dont even know what science is let alone have any authority to discuss this issue why is it so important to you?
what is your agenda here?

you keep calling me ignorant. i'm well aware of the hundreds of papers that have been written. i've read more than you know and dont need to read more of the same.

what fascinates me is your belligerent fanaticism

its NOT YOUR scientific literature.
they're articles you've copied and pasted. get that through to your head.

you dont even question them. I've already exposed you as scientifically illiterate

now can you answer my question on peak oil? do you believe in that conspiracy or not?

RedKat = the copy and paste expert with no scientific knowledge at all

RedKat thinks science is a vote

imagine if all the scientific discoveries man as ever made were settled without evidence, but by a vote
we'd still be under the impression the earth was flat

and that is what this climate alarmism is tantamount too. trying to convince us of a flat earth

I've asked you some direct questions which you cannot answer because your script doesnt provide you the answers and your brain is incapable of formulating them

See, no warming in 17 years!!!!
#SSTfax

RedKat would be banned under my new "don't feed the troll" regime.

Boom boom! Mining tax also repealed

I know you are but what am I comes to mind with that comeback. primary school stuff.

you want argue science you only want to copy and paste other people's opinions and you call that evidence.

you people move the goalposts constantly, you have no credibility left at all

you've already forgotten climategate, and the other cover up of how they formulate the 97% lie.
you've forgotten they used to call it global warming then changed the name to "climate change"
you've forgotten they originally said "weather isnt climate" then whenever a weather event happened they blamed it on climate change
now we have weather events and a lack of weather events, ie benign weather and all of a sudden you're back to weather isnt climate again

you've discarded the fact there has been no warming for 17 years despite all your models suggesting significant warming would occur

you've disregarded the fact that the man who invented the global warming scare actually backed away from his predictions before his death

you've disregarded that Al Gore was a pupil in his class and actually got a 'D'. (on the US scale of A to F)
you've disregarded that Al Gore denounced his mentor's opinion in 1988 and called him senile

you wont answer my question regarding "peak oil" as I suspect its beyond your year 3 level science education to be able to do so. I can only guess google didnt provide you with an answer.

you've forgotten that a bunch of climate alarmists traveled to Antarctica in the summer to highlight the effects of climate change and ended up getting stuck in pack ice. not to mention Antarctica has more ice than ever currently and thats apparently the fault of humans.

do you even know what a greenhouse gas is? can you name all of them?
can you tell me which ones we need to stop producing and how?

do you think carbon is a pollutant? do you think carbon dioxide is a pollutant?

Edited by ricecrackers: 17/7/2014 11:47:45 PM

another reminder of Redkat's massive fail moment

thats where you're wrong, Redkat researches nothing
just copies and pastes the google results without even reading or understanding them