Total Posts:103|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why are Republicans against GW?

lannan13
Posts: 23,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 7:43:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why are Republicans against GW? I'm just woundering and I mean their is evidense. I believe in it.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 8:24:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hes moderate
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 8:24:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Economic liberal
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 9:09:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
what does GW stand for
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 9:12:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 9:09:00 AM, imabench wrote:
what does GW stand for

George Washington? Bush???
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 9:35:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 7:43:12 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Why are Republicans against GW? I'm just woundering and I mean their is evidense. I believe in it.

Several reason.
1) They care more about oil/coal companies then people
2) They hate science
3) They are ignorant
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 9:37:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 9:35:13 AM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/15/2012 7:43:12 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Why are Republicans against GW? I'm just woundering and I mean their is evidense. I believe in it.

Several reason.
1) They care more about oil/coal companies then people
2) They hate science
3) They are ignorant

Ohh, Global Warming......yeah Good luck with this mate. I give my fellow conservatives/Republicans/ect. leave to tear you apart.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 9:37:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 7:43:12 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Why are Republicans against GW? I'm just woundering and I mean their is evidense. I believe in it.

The right is against "George W. Bush" because he is economicly progressive

The right is against "man-made Global Warming" theories, because the model fails to predict the present climate when past data is entered.
http://wattsupwiththat.com...

The data used by theorists are surface tempature readings, and only 7.9% of the CRN stations are not corrupted from the Heat Island effect. 70.6% of the stations have an average Error of over 2°C
A more accurate
http://surfacestations.org...

According to the UN, the Ozone has stopped depleting, and given the lifespan of CFCs that indicates CFCs are not the cause of the ozone hole.
http://www.wmo.int...

CO2 is not a polutant, it's one of the most important nutriants on earth.

Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased 25% between May, 2008 and May, 2010 The blink comparator of U.S. Navy PIPS sea ice forecast data, shows a large increase in the area of ice more than two metres thick
http://wattsupwiththat.com...

The Greenland ice-sheet is increasing by ~5cm per year , while decreasing in area due to warm coastal waters.

In 2010 NASA said, "According to scientists' models of Earth's orbit and orientation toward the Sun indicate that our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age…"
http://tucsoncitizen.com...

According to many scientists, Earth is in a current "cold mode" and will see temperatures fall over the next 30 years as the world enters a "mini ice age." and "A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent. They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer. The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling."
http://digitaljournal.com...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 9:40:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 9:37:34 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/15/2012 7:43:12 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Why are Republicans against GW? I'm just woundering and I mean their is evidense. I believe in it.

The right is against "George W. Bush" because he is economicly progressive

The right is against "man-made Global Warming" theories, because the model fails to predict the present climate when past data is entered.
http://wattsupwiththat.com...

The data used by theorists are surface tempature readings, and only 7.9% of the CRN stations are not corrupted from the Heat Island effect. 70.6% of the stations have an average Error of over 2°C
A more accurate measurement would be use weather balloons and satellites: http://surfacestations.org...

According to the UN, the Ozone has stopped depleting, and given the lifespan of CFCs that indicates CFCs are not the cause of the ozone hole.
http://www.wmo.int...

CO2 is not a polutant, it's one of the most important nutriants on earth.

Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased 25% between May, 2008 and May, 2010 The blink comparator of U.S. Navy PIPS sea ice forecast data, shows a large increase in the area of ice more than two metres thick
http://wattsupwiththat.com...

The Greenland ice-sheet is increasing by ~5cm per year , while decreasing in area due to warm coastal waters.

In 2010 NASA said, "According to scientists' models of Earth's orbit and orientation toward the Sun indicate that our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age…"
http://tucsoncitizen.com...

According to many scientists, Earth is in a current "cold mode" and will see temperatures fall over the next 30 years as the world enters a "mini ice age." and "A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent. They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer. The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling."
http://digitaljournal.com...



forgot part of the sentence, bolded the part added
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 10:25:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
GW was FDR on steroids

1. Largest increase in fed ever
2. War w/o declaration
3. Increase in social programs
4. Bail out
5. Torture
6. Largest debt in History
7. China
8. Neo Cons
et cetera
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 11:06:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 9:37:34 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/15/2012 7:43:12 AM, lannan13 wrote:
The right is against "man-made Global Warming" theories, because the model fails to predict the present climate when past data is entered.
http://wattsupwiththat.com...
So according to you because we can't predict what the temperature will be each day it means climate change/GW is not happening. That is ridiculous.
When you look at trends you find that climate models created by climatologists are spot on. In fact in 1975 a model using CO2 has accurately predicted global temperatures
http://thinkprogress.org...
At 2/15/2012 9:37:34 AM, DanT wrote:: : The data used by theorists are surface tempature readings, and only 7.9% of the CRN stations are not corrupted from the Heat Island effect. 70.6% of the stations have an average Error of over 2°C
A more accurate measurement would be use weather balloons and satellites: http://surfacestations.org...
There are 4 different originations that gather temperature data half of which are from satellites and weather balloons. Those temperature readings find the same conclusion as the surface data.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Also If you look at the stations that your source claims are not bad they still conclude that the earth is warming. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...
So we find that all the data shows the same thing, that the earth is warming. Considering that your sources good and bad data show the same thing and that satellite and all other data show the same thing an intelligent person would conclude that your source is bogus

At 2/15/2012 9:37:34 AM, DanT wrote:: : According to the UN, the Ozone has stopped depleting, and given the lifespan of CFCs that indicates CFCs are not the cause of the ozone hole.
http://www.wmo.int...
I read most of your source and its conclusion was that the reduction in CFC resulted in the Ozone depletion to reverse. Nowhere did it state that CFC did not cause the ozone hole, in fact it states the opposite.

At 2/15/2012 9:37:34 AM, DanT wrote::
CO2 is not a polutant, it's one of the most important nutriants on earth.
Incorrect. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses emitted by fossil fuels cause a wide variety of health problems including increases in hay fever, lung ailments, mental illness, appendicitis, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesity, inflammation, cancer, autism, lower IQ's, and organ damage. Also rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere are causing bodies of waters to become more acidic which is starting to kill off fish species.

At 2/15/2012 9:37:34 AM, DanT wrote::
Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased 25% between May, 2008 and May, 2010 The blink comparator of U.S. Navy PIPS sea ice forecast data, shows a large increase in the area of ice more than two metres thick
http://wattsupwiththat.com...
Your source claims that artic ice has increased by 25% since 2008. However when you go to look at the actually data you find that artic ice is at its lowest point ever.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com...

Also the trend is clear since the 1970 artic ice has been steadily declining
http://nsidc.org...

At 2/15/2012 9:37:34 AM, DanT wrote:: :
The Greenland ice-sheet is increasing by ~5cm per year , while decreasing in area due to warm coastal waters.
…. Um do you realize that you're contradicting yourself in your sentence?

At 2/15/2012 9:37:34 AM, DanT wrote:
In 2010 NASA said, "According to scientists' models of Earth's orbit and orientation toward the Sun indicate that our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age…"
http://tucsoncitizen.com...
Did you happen to read the article or did you just copy and paste it?
"By driving up carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (by about 30 percent), humans have increased its capacity to trap warmth near the surface."
The article then goes to say that irradiance form the sun has entered a phase were less energy is sent to the earth meaning that if the sun were the only factor the earth should be cooling, yet the earth is warming.

At 2/15/2012 9:37:34 AM, DanT wrote:
According to many scientists, Earth is in a current "cold mode" and will see temperatures fall over the next 30 years as the world enters a "mini ice age." and "A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent. They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer. The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling."
http://digitaljournal.com...
2005 and 2010 were tied for the hottest years on record follower by 2009/2007, 2002, 2003, 2001/2004, 2011 and 2008. The 10 hottest years on record all occurred during the last decade. You are cherry picking data; when you look at all the data there is a clear warming trend and the earth has been warming for 100+ years
http://data.giss.nasa.gov...
http://www.nasa.gov...
Second your source claims that artic ice has increased by 26% since 2007. However when you go to look at the actually data you find that artic ice is at its lowest point ever.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com...

Also the trend is clear since the 1970 artic ice has been steadily declining
http://nsidc.org...
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 11:40:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 7:43:12 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Why are Republicans against GW? I'm just woundering and I mean their is evidense. I believe in it.

you mean global warming? because the wrong people own them right now....:(

I am republican and I believe in it. I also think recycling should go hand in hand with being 'Conservative' and it baffles me how the waistfull spending librals are the ones who are better known for supporting eco-friendly stuff.

I also think it should be considered the real base of republicans that want to protect the environment, even if Corperations dont like it as one of every republicans favorite heros, Teddy Rosevelt was the first to start reserving vast tracks of land in national parks, knowing we have to preserve our forest just cause if for any reason to let our children enjoy what we got to see out in the woods.

Less dependance on foreign oil
less power companies expenses in coal at peak hours so a drop in power rates
less hurt on the public when gas prices change when they are driving hybrids
its a long term investment, dave ramesy style slow and stedy payout

all reasons a republican of any kind should be pro-environment polices, even if they dont believe in global warming yet.

also I dont think Europe, or Russia, or China, or Japan, or Canada, or anywhere for that matter should be ahead of us in our advancing the alternative clean energy industries. Canada's advancing in putting flying electric generators in the sky on blimps getting the always windy high altitude winds. China is starting to look into advancing helium gas cooled nuclear reactors wich natural shut down not melt down. They should not be the first to get the patent on all this high-tech-clean energy stuff, we should, AMERICA.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
lannan13
Posts: 23,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 12:15:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Thanks for the info. I'm a Conservative but that is the only thing I disagree with my party about.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 1:07:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
George Bush:

He was a good president but I understand where all these people that don't like him are coming from. First of all, the bailouts were necessary. I hated them but without them, we would have launched into a recession worse than the Great Depression.

Second of all, it is ludicrous to assume that the government will ever decrease. This is NEVER going to happen. The government has no incentive other than to increase and what you small-government conservatives preach will never come true. Government will steadily continue to increase their presence in every day lives, especially socially. I hate is as much as everybody, but it is the cold hard truth.

Third, he is not an economic liberal as 16k stated. GWB decreased taxes and tried to decrease federal spending (but failed for the aforementioned reasons).

On Global Warming:

False.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 1:26:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 1:07:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
George Bush:

He was a good president but I understand where all these people that don't like him are coming from. First of all, the bailouts were necessary. I hated them but without them, we would have launched into a recession worse than the Great Depression.

Second of all, it is ludicrous to assume that the government will ever decrease. This is NEVER going to happen. The government has no incentive other than to increase and what you small-government conservatives preach will never come true. Government will steadily continue to increase their presence in every day lives, especially socially. I hate is as much as everybody, but it is the cold hard truth.

Third, he is not an economic liberal as 16k stated. GWB decreased taxes and tried to decrease federal spending (but failed for the aforementioned reasons).

On Global Warming:

False.

Bush's economic liberalism

1. Regulations
2. Stimulus
3. Increased spending
4. Signed the minimum wage increase ---------------------------------------------> all of that = liberal
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 1:31:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 9:35:13 AM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/15/2012 7:43:12 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Why are Republicans against GW? I'm just woundering and I mean their is evidense. I believe in it.

Several reason.
1) They care more about oil/coal companies then people

Being pro economic growth + energy dependency =\= anti people

2) They hate science

I am athiest...

3) They are ignorant

This makes you sound ignorant yourself. Many conservatives are educated. Also the more economics classes you take the more likely you are to be republican... http://www.newyorkfed.org...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 1:59:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 1:26:36 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/15/2012 1:07:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
George Bush:

He was a good president but I understand where all these people that don't like him are coming from. First of all, the bailouts were necessary. I hated them but without them, we would have launched into a recession worse than the Great Depression.

Second of all, it is ludicrous to assume that the government will ever decrease. This is NEVER going to happen. The government has no incentive other than to increase and what you small-government conservatives preach will never come true. Government will steadily continue to increase their presence in every day lives, especially socially. I hate is as much as everybody, but it is the cold hard truth.

Third, he is not an economic liberal as 16k stated. GWB decreased taxes and tried to decrease federal spending (but failed for the aforementioned reasons).

On Global Warming:

False.

Bush's economic liberalism

1. Regulations
After the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.
2. Stimulus
After the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.
3. Increased spending
Tried to stop but was opposed.
4. Signed the minimum wage increase ---------------------------------------------> all of
Adjusted for inflation.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 2:06:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 1:31:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/15/2012 9:35:13 AM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/15/2012 7:43:12 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Why are Republicans against GW? I'm just woundering and I mean their is evidense. I believe in it.

Several reason.
1) They care more about oil/coal companies then people


Being pro economic growth + energy dependency =\= anti people
I don't see how hurricanes, and lung diseases are pro growth. Mind explaining that?

At 2/15/2012 1:31:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
2) They hate science

I am athiest...
who hates science.

At 2/15/2012 1:31:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
3) They are ignorant

This makes you sound ignorant yourself. Many conservatives are educated. Also the more economics classes you take the more likely you are to be republican... http://www.newyorkfed.org...

There is a difference from having an education and begin ignorant; the reason some is a conservative is because they are ignorant.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 3:05:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 11:06:32 AM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
So according to you because we can't predict what the temperature will be each day it means climate change/GW is not happening. That is ridiculous.
When you look at trends you find that climate models created by climatologists are spot on. In fact in 1975 a model using CO2 has accurately predicted global temperatures
http://thinkprogress.org...

Not really. We're nowhere near the trend that is shown in that article. On top of that, temperatures haven't climbed since 2000, even though CO2 has climbed. We should be between +1 and +2 by that 'accurate prediction'.

There are 4 different originations that gather temperature data half of which are from satellites and weather balloons. Those temperature readings find the same conclusion as the surface data.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Satellites don't find the same conclusion at all.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu...

Here is the satellite data over-layed on my approximate representation of that wonderful prediction:

http://i44.tinypic.com...

It's not even close.

At 2/15/2012 9:37:34 AM, DanT wrote::
CO2 is not a polutant, it's one of the most important nutriants on earth.
Incorrect. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses emitted by fossil fuels cause a wide variety of health problems including increases in hay fever, lung ailments, mental illness, appendicitis, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesity, inflammation, cancer, autism, lower IQ's, and organ damage. Also rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere are causing bodies of waters to become more acidic which is starting to kill off fish species.

Dan said CO2 is not a pollutant. You said 'Incorrect, co2 and other gasses...'

CO2 is not a pollutant! We breathe it out, plants and algae use it up. Next thing you will say O2 is a pollutant.

CO2 has been 10x more abundant than it is now, and nature still survived.
Did you happen to read the article or did you just copy and paste it?
"By driving up carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (by about 30 percent), humans have increased its capacity to trap warmth near the surface."
The article then goes to say that irradiance form the sun has entered a phase were less energy is sent to the earth meaning that if the sun were the only factor the earth should be cooling, yet the earth is warming.

Not really, if you look at satellite data we've been in a slight downtrend since 2000.

Are you going to jump on the 'Global cooling' bandwagon in 10 years when GW no longer has any credibility?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 3:23:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 3:05:15 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 2/15/2012 11:06:32 AM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
So according to you because we can't predict what the temperature will be each day it means climate change/GW is not happening. That is ridiculous.
When you look at trends you find that climate models created by climatologists are spot on. In fact in 1975 a model using CO2 has accurately predicted global temperatures
http://thinkprogress.org...

Not really. We're nowhere near the trend that is shown in that article. On top of that, temperatures haven't climbed since 2000, even though CO2 has climbed. We should be between +1 and +2 by that 'accurate prediction'.
That's because he overestimated future CO2 emissions. When you include the actually numbers the prediction is near 100% accurate.

At 2/15/2012 3:05:15 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:: :
At 2/15/2012 11:06:32 AM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
There are 4 different groups that gather temperature data half of which are from satellites and weather balloons. Those temperature readings find the same conclusion as the surface data.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Satellites don't find the same conclusion at all.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu...

Here is the satellite data over-layed on my approximate representation of that wonderful prediction:

http://i44.tinypic.com...

It's not even close.
Well duh. There's not going to be a warming trend when you cherry pick the data. When you look at all the data there is a clear warming trend. All groups that collect temperature data show the same thing that the earth has been steadily warming.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
At 2/15/2012 3:05:15 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:: :
At 2/15/2012 9:37:34 AM, DanT wrote::
At 2/15/2012 11:06:32 AM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
CO2 is not a polutant, it's one of the most important nutriants on earth.
Incorrect. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses emitted by fossil fuels cause a wide variety of health problems including increases in hay fever, lung ailments, mental illness, appendicitis, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesity, inflammation, cancer, autism, lower IQ's, and organ damage. Also rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere are causing bodies of waters to become more acidic which is starting to kill off fish species.

Dan said CO2 is not a pollutant. You said 'Incorrect, co2 and other gasses...'

CO2 is not a pollutant! We breathe it out, plants and algae use it up. Next thing you will say O2 is a pollutant.
CO2 has been 10x more abundant than it is now, and nature still survived.
As I already stated CO2 emission are already starting to kill off fish, and cause various lung ailments, hay fever and a bunch of other diseases. Possibly the reason you don't think it's a pollutant is because you don't know what the definition of pollutant is.
http://dictionary.reference.com...
2.
any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.

Now the only way that CO2 is not a pollutant is if you think lung disease, and cancers aren't harmful. Do you think cancer and lung disease is harmful?

Did you happen to read the article or did you just copy and paste it?
"By driving up carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (by about 30 percent), humans have increased its capacity to trap warmth near the surface."
The article then goes to say that irradiance form the sun has entered a phase were less energy is sent to the earth meaning that if the sun were the only factor the earth should be cooling, yet the earth is warming.

Not really, if you look at satellite data we've been in a slight downtrend since 2000.

Are you going to jump on the 'Global cooling' bandwagon in 10 years when GW no longer has any credibility?
Come back when you have something intelligent to say
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 3:38:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 3:23:32 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
That's because he overestimated future CO2 emissions. When you include the actually numbers the prediction is near 100% accurate.

Adjusted, we should be at +0.8. We are ranging between -0.1 and +0.4. That's not 100%, and it is going to continue getting worse and worse as temperatures continue to drop.

Well duh. There's not going to be a warming trend when you cherry pick the data. When you look at all the data there is a clear warming trend. All groups that collect temperature data show the same thing that the earth has been steadily warming.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

I'm not cherry picking. That's all the data from the UAH satellite data set, and it doesn't even come CLOSE to agreeing.

As I already stated CO2 emission are already starting to kill off fish, and cause various lung ailments, hay fever and a bunch of other diseases. Possibly the reason you don't think it's a pollutant is because you don't know what the definition of pollutant is.
http://dictionary.reference.com...
2.
any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.

Oxygen is a pollutant then. Too much oxygen makes the air unsuitable for a specific purpose(keeping plants alive).

Now the only way that CO2 is not a pollutant is if you think lung disease, and cancers aren't harmful. Do you think cancer and lung disease is harmful?

Nature, all by itself, has pushed CO2 ten times higher than it is now. As for cancer and diseases, you can find a study that will show anything causes almost any ailment.

Come back when you have something intelligent to say

Are you just going to ignore satellite data?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 3:42:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The issue, in my opinion, is not whether or not global warming exists. It is to what level humans have contributed to it and if we can curb it. We also do not know if the current warming trends are natural or not. Another point would be whether or not global warming has an overall negative effect on the world.

Even so, the Republican Party does not have a set position on this issue. Making blanket statements about a group of people when they are split on an issue is not right.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 3:52:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 3:42:51 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
The issue, in my opinion, is not whether or not global warming exists. It is to what level humans have contributed to it and if we can curb it. We also do not know if the current warming trends are natural or not. Another point would be whether or not global warming has an overall negative effect on the world.

Even so, the Republican Party does not have a set position on this issue. Making blanket statements about a group of people when they are split on an issue is not right.
It is pretty obvious that the warming is due to human activity, given that other things that effect temperatures such as the sun are cooling the earth.
It is also pretty obvious that warming has negative effects. It increases floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes lowers crop yields, increases mosquito and grasshopper populations.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 4:01:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Calling George W. Bush an economic progressive is just sick. Major tax cuts, especially for the rich, is not progressive. Under-funding programs is not progressive. De-regulation is not progressive.

The only grain of evidence of George W. Bush's progressive economic policy is the increase on spending on welfare and I believe the Earned Income Tax Credit. Otherwise, George W. Bush is a conservative. Face it.

Global warming is undeniably real. Global warming causes heating and ocean currents to go out of wack as well, so some areas experience radical temperature differences, and more weather events (e.g. hurricanes, etc.), and other areas increase.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 4:04:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 4:01:03 PM, Contra wrote:
Calling George W. Bush an economic progressive is just sick. Major tax cuts, especially for the rich, is not progressive. Under-funding programs is not progressive. De-regulation is not progressive.

The only grain of evidence of George W. Bush's progressive economic policy is the increase on spending on welfare and I believe the Earned Income Tax Credit. Otherwise, George W. Bush is a conservative. Face it.

Global warming is undeniably real. Global warming causes heating and ocean currents to go out of wack as well, so some areas experience radical temperature differences, and more weather events (e.g. hurricanes, etc.), and other areas increase.

Bush was liberal on a few things like Medicare, No Child Left Behind and the bank bailouts ... all things that made me dislike him greatly.

However, there is no evidence supporting global warming. Temperatures change, weather is finicky. In the 50s it was global cooling and now its global warming. If you look at the numbers we're adding .4% more CO2 to the air every year and CO2 is like .04% of the total atmosphere so....

The numbers are microscopic! I doubt that they are affecting the climate.