Prosecuting Those Making Wild Claims in Support of The Alleged Anthropomorphic Global Warming Climate Change Hypothesis As They Have NOT Shown Causation Conclusively In Four Decades of Trying

I beat you to it David Brin. I called for the prosecution of Al Gore on fraud charges way back on August 28th, 2009. I’m sure I’m not the first either.

Ocean acidification doesn’t scare me that much… it is relatively linear. And thus ought to be reversible.

“What frightens me are the vast stores of methane locked in permafrost or hydrate ices, in arctic seas. Those might see a sudden tipping point, as the planet heats up, abruptly releasing megatons of the stuff into the atmosphere, causing yet faster, accelerated warming. This kind of runaway effect is nonlinear and cannot be reversed by any conceivable kind of geoengineering.” – David Brin[1] (plus all subsequent block quotes in this article).

You’re really funny David Blin, I mean seriously you’re kidding right? You must be kidding because that is so sad.

Those Alleging The Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis Need To Either Show Conclusive Proof of Causality Or Shut Up

The AAGWCCH Challenge:

“Those that are proponents of the alleged AGW hypothesis need to either to put up and show hard conclusive evidence that humans are causing global warming climate change, or shut up if they can’t.

The best anyone has been able to do is to produce nothing but the hot air of a weak statistical correlation that can’t even withstand basic scrutiny.

Those making the claims must show the evidence. Those making extraordinary claims – as those alleging the AGW hypothesis are – must show extraordinary evidence. So far not even ordinary evidence. That is a failure by the proponents to put up.“

So put up or shut up.

Now to David Brin’s silly political claim that isn’t supportable.

“They see 100% of scientists as corrupt… while the oilcos are all sweet reason innocents.” – David Brin [1]

David Brin, that is utter nonsense. David, you’ve got some weird conspiracy nutter chatter going on upstairs if you actually believe that. Where the heck do you David get the idea that people “see 100% of scientists as corrupt”?

David set aside your whacked in the head beliefs that allow you to create generalized falsisms like that and embrace actual science rather than slosh political dialog.

I don’t deny anything that is actually real. I do deny made up crap because, well, it’s made up or doesn’t reflect the objective reality of Nature.

Prove to me the alleged AGW hypothesis is real in the actual objective reality of Nature were we exist and there can be no way that I’d deny it once I’m convinced. In the process I will certainly challenge any proof or evidence, that is the scientific method after all. If it doesn’t stand up to challenges then the alleged AGW hypothesis should fall (as it looks like it has).