The Forum > Article Comments > Can we sue our government over 'climate change'? > Comments
Can we sue our government over 'climate change'? : Comments
By Don Aitkin, published 15/9/2015The court decided that the IPCC's AR5 was, as it were, the scientific Bible, and based its resort to science on what it found there.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Page 9
- 10
-
- All
Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 27 September 2015 4:13:05 PM
| |
Still no science or rational assertion, Rusty, so you revert to irrelevance by counting words.
Do you think that your pointless comment, in any way, ameliorates your dishonest fraud-backing? Have you counted the number of times you have supported climate fraud, with no science on which to base your assertion? The IPCC presented proof of the “hot spot” predicted by their computer model, which I mentioned above. Here is what an independent scientist commented on their dishonest effort: “. There should be no detectable hot spot from 1997 to 2013 because there has been no net surface warming. If the analysis shows a hot spot between Jan 1997 and Dec 2013, they are making it up, literally, because if the physical model is right, there should be none. And there should be none because we know there has been no net change in the surface temperature. If there exists a hot spot up there which created no change on the surface, then a CO2 increase is nothing to be alarmed about. Which is it: Not there or no surface effect?” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/14/claim-climate-scientists-find-elusive-tropospheric-hot-spot-over-the-southern-ocean/ You can be in no doubt, now, of the dishonesty of the fraud-backing IPCC. Any more irrelevant comments, Rusty? Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 27 September 2015 6:47:28 PM
| |
Actually Leo, the VW car company is not a victim of what you cal the climate 'fraud'.
It is in fact in breach of pollution regulations, what you would call 'actual' pollution, not carbon emissions. The emissions in question were actually the nitrogen dioxide emissions that contribute significantly to smog pollution and are estimated to contribute to thousands of pollution related deaths each year. Ironically, this breach of non-carbon emission pollution laws are actually what you people are saying are not getting enough attention because of some focus on carbon emissions and climate change. Jesus, you're ignorant. Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 27 September 2015 7:12:28 PM
| |
Bugsy,I should have considered the matter more closely before commenting, because I assumed that the emissions were of carbon dioxide, a wrong assumption.
It invalidates my example of damage which can be incurred as a consequence of the climate fraud. I will simply have to find another example as an illustration of the principle, which, of course, is valid, and is the substantial point of my post.Or I could say "If, for example, VW were the victim of the climate fraud...." You have a most suitable mind for nitpicking, Bugsy. You are almost as irrelevant as Reflux Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 27 September 2015 9:00:15 PM
| |
Bugsy, the wording of your post of 27 September was strange in that you used the phrase “what you cal the climate 'fraud'.”. Are you aware of references to the climate fraud, where it is called something else? What did you have in mind, to prompt this strange reference?
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 29 September 2015 10:33:57 PM
| |
Geez, you are an odd duck Leo.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 29 September 2015 11:45:58 PM
|
Lol.
Amazing. You have managed to spew out the word 'fraud' 11 times in a single short post.
At some stage one progresses from repetition to affliction. You have well and truly made that leap my friend.
“Tourette syndrome ... is an inherited neuropsychiatric disorder with onset in childhood, characterized by multiple physical (motor) tics and at least one vocal (phonic) tic.”
Wikipedia