Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 4/9

This is the Australian Broadcasting Corporations presentation and debate of Martin Durkins documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• ABC
• GREAT
• global
• warming
• swindle
• debate

[seraphs123]

06:10

Question Evasion Skill +10  : |

[aaroneous76]

This movie is bullshit. If they're such experts, where are the scientific arguments? All they say is rhetoric and character assassination.

[mwhearn1]

@ronwandell

his points maybe fine, but his facts are wrong. that's why he can't stand up a little harder for himself.

[shawso7]

CASE CLOSED!!

In Part 7/9 of this video @1:50 & 2:49 Global Warming Scientist ADMITS ice core data proves TEMPERATURE LEADS CO2 INCREASES & the ICEAGE & WARM PERIOD CYCLE is CAUSED BY THE EARTH's ORBIT AROUND THE SUN. Then the sun's warmth releases additional planetary CO2 which exponentially adds atmospheric warmth. SO FIRST CAUSE of WARMING is SUN! Then@8:12 & 8:35 GW Scientist also admitted HIGHER CO2 levels DURING THE JURRASIC PERIOD 55 million yrs ago! So much for "MANMADE" global warming.

[ronwandell]

Not a really thought out response is it?

Just a bunch of name calling.

[bubbah]

@ronwandell Durkin can't stand up for himself because he knows he's a lying cunt.

[bubbah]

@shawso7 Stop being an ignorant little cunt.

He didn't say that ALL temperature increases start before the CO2 increase. He said that in that specific time period, that happened. But he also pointed out that without the CO2 increase, the warming would not have been what it was.

He SPECIFICALLY says that CO2 causes warming, and the ice core data shows that.

You are nothing but an ignorant little cunt.

[bubbah]

@MikkkkyB Linguistic? Are you insane?? You made a VERY specific claim. "32 significant errors" allegedly pointed out by a UK judge. You have FAILED to provide evidence of this, and have instead tried to modify your claims, and change the subject.

You are a lying bastard. Fuck you.

[bubbah]

@MikkkkyB I can't find any reference to the word "reservations" from the judge in the ruling or the transcript either. Which document and page number are you looking at? Or are you lying again?

And either way, "reservations" is far from you initial lie about "serious concerns."

In fact, you started out making claims about "32 significant errors," which turned out to be pure BS. Now you are desperately trying to save face by changing your argument.

Typical denialist cunt.

[MikkkkyB]

@MikkkkyB your bellicose linguistic nature also tells me u r cozen, manipulative and will even "argue the man" rather than the argument; it is a fallacy called Ad Hominen....it's been around for a while. I simply refuse to argue with someone who resorts to the "C word" but I take great joy in the fact that I have won and you have lost the moral ground; a bit like Climategate. Thank you sincerely. God bless you child. (If I see a reply in my inbox I shall simply delete it rather than read it).

[MikkkkyB]

@bubbah So he didn't use the word "serious?" Ouch sorry! Maybe in an oh-so British way he used the word "reservations" which is a way (if you've ever watched Yes Minister) is a way of saying "serious." R u really saying the judgement contained no contention whatsoever bout Al Gore's film? If you r, then go figure; but I don't resort 2 name calling - I suppose that's all u've got left once the evidence deserts you? I work in satellite remote sensing - google it (i'm sure u don't know what it is)

[bubbah]

@MikkkkyB You are a lying bastard.

I can't find the phrase "serious concerns" ANYWHERE in the ruling or the transcript. What page of the transcript are you saying it is on?

And why would I read idiot propaganda by right-wing science deniers?

Stop being an idiot. Stop lying. Stop being ignorant.

Start educating yourself. Start looking at the science, you ignorant cunt.