gwydion

tallest skil said:

gwydion said:

But you can start showing the data that disproves that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it doesn't makes temperature grow.

A lot of absdolutely debunked denialist nonsense

So no, you don't have any data, you only regurgugate the same old denialist bullshit that has been debunked for decades.

The funny thing is that the graphs you show doesn't prove what you say, just the contrary. As you said, denialists like you are completely full of shit.

[quote] Because geologic processes spanning millions of years are responsible for tremendous amounts of variation in global temperatures, an appropriate baseline must necessarily include millions of years of data to account for this variation[/quote]

Just this quote show what you know about5r science, absolutely nothing.

Time to move on.

tallest skil said:

gwydion said:

When even the DoD and ExxonMobil agree that we should lower Greenhouse emissions, perhaps it is a real problem

No, CO2 is long proven not to be any kind of “problem” with the climate.

I would like to know the sources you use to claim that

When even the DoD and ExxonMobil agree that we should lower Greenhouse emissions, perhaps it is a real problem

uroshnor said:

gatorguy said:

sog35 said:

gwydion said:

sog35 said:

gwydion said:

Shocking, an advisor for one of the interested parts says that the ruling could be overturned in benefit of the part he is advisor.

or it could be common sense that you can't change laws on things that happenned 10 years ago

No law was changed

Yes it was. If it wasn't the EU would have charged Apple 10 years ago

No, it really wasn't. The Irish agreement was an exception to the standard corporate tax laws even if it was an allowable one. and while the EU's interpretation of the competition laws to deem them applicable to Apple's tax situation might be new, the laws themselves aren't. 

There is no agreement between Apple & Ireland.

No, there was an agreement between Apple and the Irish government about the amount of revenues that could be alocated to Ireland

sog35 said:

gwydion said:

sog35 said:

gwydion said:

Shocking, an advisor for one of the interested parts says that the ruling could be overturned in benefit of the part he is advisor.

or it could be common sense that you can't change laws on things that happenned 10 years ago

No law was changed

Yes it was. If it wasn't the EU would have charged Apple 10 years ago

It is good to know about the case before commenting on it.
The EU knew about that deal in 2014 when Tim Cook testified before the congress.