Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Questions on Global Warming

JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 7:38:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is the argument that a majority of global warming is man caused "indisputable"?

If so, is the evidence that this will have disasterous effects "indisputable"?

If so, how does this imply that governmental action is needed/required?

If it is, would it be enough for the west to go it alone in stopping carbon? After all, many companies would simply move to India and China. Last time I checked, they call it "global warming" not "America warming".

If not, would we be able to get China and India among others to agree to join us in fighting carbon?

If so, would we be able to make sure they are ACTUALLY enforcing the fight on carbon?

Is it possible that the existence of externalities don't imply that governmental force can necessarily do a better job?

Given the many incorrect scientific consensuses in history, could it be unwise to pursue polices that would decrease our standard of living based on a supposed scientific consensus, especially given that there is little evidence these polices would do much to stop global emissions?
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 7:39:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 7:38:32 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is the argument that a majority of global warming is man caused "indisputable"?

No.

If so, is the evidence that this will have disasterous effects "indisputable"?

If so, how does this imply that governmental action is needed/required?

If it is, would it be enough for the west to go it alone in stopping carbon? After all, many companies would simply move to India and China. Last time I checked, they call it "global warming" not "America warming".

If not, would we be able to get China and India among others to agree to join us in fighting carbon?

If so, would we be able to make sure they are ACTUALLY enforcing the fight on carbon?

Is it possible that the existence of externalities don't imply that governmental force can necessarily do a better job?

Given the many incorrect scientific consensuses in history, could it be unwise to pursue polices that would decrease our standard of living based on a supposed scientific consensus, especially given that there is little evidence these polices would do much to stop global emissions?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 8:04:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 7:39:22 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:38:32 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is the argument that a majority of global warming is man caused "indisputable"?

No.

If so, is the evidence that this will have disasterous effects "indisputable"?

If so, how does this imply that governmental action is needed/required?

If it is, would it be enough for the west to go it alone in stopping carbon? After all, many companies would simply move to India and China. Last time I checked, they call it "global warming" not "America warming".

If not, would we be able to get China and India among others to agree to join us in fighting carbon?

If so, would we be able to make sure they are ACTUALLY enforcing the fight on carbon?

Is it possible that the existence of externalities don't imply that governmental force can necessarily do a better job?

Given the many incorrect scientific consensuses in history, could it be unwise to pursue polices that would decrease our standard of living based on a supposed scientific consensus, especially given that there is little evidence these polices would do much to stop global emissions?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 10:11:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 7:38:32 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is the argument that a majority of global warming is man caused "indisputable"?

No.

If so, is the evidence that this will have disasterous effects "indisputable"?

Even if it was, no.

If so, how does this imply that governmental action is needed/required?

Uh, if something was going to kill us all, then it would make sense for government to try and save us...

If it is, would it be enough for the west to go it alone in stopping carbon? After all, many companies would simply move to India and China. Last time I checked, they call it "global warming" not "America warming".

No.

If not, would we be able to get China and India among others to agree to join us in fighting carbon?

Currently, China laughs at us as they devalue their currency, and spend their money on production instead of limiting the 'toxic' chemical CO2.

If so, would we be able to make sure they are ACTUALLY enforcing the fight on carbon?

Uh, yeah. If they didn't comply, we could like, invade. That would work well.

Is it possible that the existence of externalities don't imply that governmental force can necessarily do a better job?

What?

Given the many incorrect scientific consensuses in history, could it be unwise to pursue polices that would decrease our standard of living based on a supposed scientific consensus, especially given that there is little evidence these polices would do much to stop global emissions?

Given the inconsistencies in the GW alarmist(pseudo-scientific) community, why would you take their word on anything?

For fun, go look at Hansen's projections for Global Warming from the 90s. He projected that even if we cut our CO2 production in half, we would be, today, a full degree c HIGHER than we are today, EVEN taking NASA's 'temperature' of +0.8 or whatever as correct.

Every report, the projections are lowered/extended. Every. Single. Time.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 10:19:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 10:11:22 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:38:32 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is the argument that a majority of global warming is man caused "indisputable"?

No.

If so, is the evidence that this will have disasterous effects "indisputable"?

Even if it was, no.

If so, how does this imply that governmental action is needed/required?

Uh, if something was going to kill us all, then it would make sense for government to try and save us...

If it is, would it be enough for the west to go it alone in stopping carbon? After all, many companies would simply move to India and China. Last time I checked, they call it "global warming" not "America warming".

No.

If not, would we be able to get China and India among others to agree to join us in fighting carbon?

Currently, China laughs at us as they devalue their currency, and spend their money on production instead of limiting the 'toxic' chemical CO2.

If so, would we be able to make sure they are ACTUALLY enforcing the fight on carbon?

Uh, yeah. If they didn't comply, we could like, invade. That would work well.

Is it possible that the existence of externalities don't imply that governmental force can necessarily do a better job?

What?

Given the many incorrect scientific consensuses in history, could it be unwise to pursue polices that would decrease our standard of living based on a supposed scientific consensus, especially given that there is little evidence these polices would do much to stop global emissions?

Given the inconsistencies in the GW alarmist(pseudo-scientific) community, why would you take their word on anything?

For fun, go look at Hansen's projections for Global Warming from the 90s. He projected that even if we cut our CO2 production in half, we would be, today, a full degree c HIGHER than we are today, EVEN taking NASA's 'temperature' of +0.8 or whatever as correct.

Every report, the projections are lowered/extended. Every. Single. Time.

I agree. The entire point of this line of questioning was to expose how silly GW alarmism is.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 10:23:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 7:38:32 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is the argument that a majority of global warming is man caused "indisputable"?

Pretty much.

If so, is the evidence that this will have disasterous effects "indisputable"?

Pretty much.

If so, how does this imply that governmental action is needed/required?

Dumbass question is dumbass. I'm not even going to answer this.

If it is, would it be enough for the west to go it alone in stopping carbon? After all, many companies would simply move to India and China. Last time I checked, they call it "global warming" not "America warming".

No, but it would be a start.

If not, would we be able to get China and India among others to agree to join us in fighting carbon?

Nobody can look into the future. Maybe yes, or maybe no.

If so, would we be able to make sure they are ACTUALLY enforcing the fight on carbon?

No, but that doesn't justify us not enacting legislation.

Is it possible that the existence of externalities don't imply that governmental force can necessarily do a better job?

Possible, but in such an issue, unless you were to implement strict property rights on every single piece of land and air, government is the only pragmatist solution.

Given the many incorrect scientific consensuses in history, could it be unwise to pursue polices that would decrease our standard of living based on a supposed scientific consensus, especially given that there is little evidence these polices would do much to stop global emissions?

1. A solution, such as Fee and Dividend, would not decrease the standard of living.

2. Scientific consensus, at least now-a-days where our methods of gathering information are many times exponentially greater than before, is based on evidence. If there is a scientific consensus, then the evidence is overwhelming (evolution). Similarly, don't invoke the "science was sometimes" wrong mantra- it just makes you seem retarded.
"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
8/20/2012 10:40:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 7:38:32 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is the argument that a majority of global warming is man caused "indisputable"?

If so, is the evidence that this will have disastrous effects "indisputable"?

No. Its evidence is based on mere climate models. All of these models are poor at predicting things. They are only as accurate as the formula put into them. When AGW theory is put into them, it gets the wrong results.


If so, how does this imply that governmental action is needed/required?

If it is, would it be enough for the west to go it alone in stopping carbon? After all, many companies would simply move to India and China. Last time I checked, they call it "global warming" not "America warming".

CO2's effect would eventually be zero. How it works is when X doubles Y decreases by half. So if X (CO2) increases enough Y is zero, and carbon is no threat in the future.

Also, things such as agriculture seem to be a larger component, though still small compared to other things.


If not, would we be able to get China and India among others to agree to join us in fighting carbon?

If so, would we be able to make sure they are ACTUALLY enforcing the fight on carbon?

Is it possible that the existence of externalities don't imply that governmental force can necessarily do a better job?

Given the many incorrect scientific consensuses in history, could it be unwise to pursue polices that would decrease our standard of living based on a supposed scientific consensus, especially given that there is little evidence these polices would do much to stop global emissions?

A few scientific facts:

Science is never certain.
Consensus fails. We used to think the continents never moved etc. etc. 50% of what you learn in science will be proved wrong. We need to find the right 50%... I forgot where I got that analogy btw.
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
8/20/2012 10:41:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 10:23:57 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:38:32 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is the argument that a majority of global warming is man caused "indisputable"?

Pretty much.

On your profile it seems you follow a consensus mind set.


If so, is the evidence that this will have disasterous effects "indisputable"?

Pretty much.

If so, how does this imply that governmental action is needed/required?

Dumbass question is dumbass. I'm not even going to answer this.

If it is, would it be enough for the west to go it alone in stopping carbon? After all, many companies would simply move to India and China. Last time I checked, they call it "global warming" not "America warming".

No, but it would be a start.

If not, would we be able to get China and India among others to agree to join us in fighting carbon?

Nobody can look into the future. Maybe yes, or maybe no.

If so, would we be able to make sure they are ACTUALLY enforcing the fight on carbon?

No, but that doesn't justify us not enacting legislation.

Is it possible that the existence of externalities don't imply that governmental force can necessarily do a better job?

Possible, but in such an issue, unless you were to implement strict property rights on every single piece of land and air, government is the only pragmatist solution.

Given the many incorrect scientific consensuses in history, could it be unwise to pursue polices that would decrease our standard of living based on a supposed scientific consensus, especially given that there is little evidence these polices would do much to stop global emissions?

1. A solution, such as Fee and Dividend, would not decrease the standard of living.

2. Scientific consensus, at least now-a-days where our methods of gathering information are many times exponentially greater than before, is based on evidence. If there is a scientific consensus, then the evidence is overwhelming (evolution). Similarly, don't invoke the "science was sometimes" wrong mantra- it just makes you seem retarded.
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
8/20/2012 11:15:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 10:41:57 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/20/2012 10:23:57 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:38:32 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is the argument that a majority of global warming is man caused "indisputable"?

Pretty much.

On your profile it seems you follow a consensus mind set.

?


If so, is the evidence that this will have disasterous effects "indisputable"?

Pretty much.

If so, how does this imply that governmental action is needed/required?

Dumbass question is dumbass. I'm not even going to answer this.

If it is, would it be enough for the west to go it alone in stopping carbon? After all, many companies would simply move to India and China. Last time I checked, they call it "global warming" not "America warming".

No, but it would be a start.

If not, would we be able to get China and India among others to agree to join us in fighting carbon?

Nobody can look into the future. Maybe yes, or maybe no.

If so, would we be able to make sure they are ACTUALLY enforcing the fight on carbon?

No, but that doesn't justify us not enacting legislation.

Is it possible that the existence of externalities don't imply that governmental force can necessarily do a better job?

Possible, but in such an issue, unless you were to implement strict property rights on every single piece of land and air, government is the only pragmatist solution.

Given the many incorrect scientific consensuses in history, could it be unwise to pursue polices that would decrease our standard of living based on a supposed scientific consensus, especially given that there is little evidence these polices would do much to stop global emissions?

1. A solution, such as Fee and Dividend, would not decrease the standard of living.

2. Scientific consensus, at least now-a-days where our methods of gathering information are many times exponentially greater than before, is based on evidence. If there is a scientific consensus, then the evidence is overwhelming (evolution). Similarly, don't invoke the "science was sometimes" wrong mantra- it just makes you seem retarded.
"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
8/20/2012 11:18:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 11:15:59 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 10:41:57 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/20/2012 10:23:57 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:38:32 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is the argument that a majority of global warming is man caused "indisputable"?

Pretty much.

On your profile it seems you follow a consensus mind set.

?

You support it based on the widely cited 97% figure. Or at least thats what I gathered from "trust the scientists".



If so, is the evidence that this will have disasterous effects "indisputable"?

Pretty much.

If so, how does this imply that governmental action is needed/required?

Dumbass question is dumbass. I'm not even going to answer this.

If it is, would it be enough for the west to go it alone in stopping carbon? After all, many companies would simply move to India and China. Last time I checked, they call it "global warming" not "America warming".

No, but it would be a start.

If not, would we be able to get China and India among others to agree to join us in fighting carbon?

Nobody can look into the future. Maybe yes, or maybe no.

If so, would we be able to make sure they are ACTUALLY enforcing the fight on carbon?

No, but that doesn't justify us not enacting legislation.

Is it possible that the existence of externalities don't imply that governmental force can necessarily do a better job?

Possible, but in such an issue, unless you were to implement strict property rights on every single piece of land and air, government is the only pragmatist solution.

Given the many incorrect scientific consensuses in history, could it be unwise to pursue polices that would decrease our standard of living based on a supposed scientific consensus, especially given that there is little evidence these polices would do much to stop global emissions?

1. A solution, such as Fee and Dividend, would not decrease the standard of living.

2. Scientific consensus, at least now-a-days where our methods of gathering information are many times exponentially greater than before, is based on evidence. If there is a scientific consensus, then the evidence is overwhelming (evolution). Similarly, don't invoke the "science was sometimes" wrong mantra- it just makes you seem retarded.
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
8/20/2012 11:31:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 11:18:00 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/20/2012 11:15:59 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 10:41:57 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/20/2012 10:23:57 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:38:32 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is the argument that a majority of global warming is man caused "indisputable"?

Pretty much.

On your profile it seems you follow a consensus mind set.

?

You support it based on the widely cited 97% figure. Or at least thats what I gathered from "trust the scientists".

Sure.



If so, is the evidence that this will have disasterous effects "indisputable"?

Pretty much.

If so, how does this imply that governmental action is needed/required?

Dumbass question is dumbass. I'm not even going to answer this.

If it is, would it be enough for the west to go it alone in stopping carbon? After all, many companies would simply move to India and China. Last time I checked, they call it "global warming" not "America warming".

No, but it would be a start.

If not, would we be able to get China and India among others to agree to join us in fighting carbon?

Nobody can look into the future. Maybe yes, or maybe no.

If so, would we be able to make sure they are ACTUALLY enforcing the fight on carbon?

No, but that doesn't justify us not enacting legislation.

Is it possible that the existence of externalities don't imply that governmental force can necessarily do a better job?

Possible, but in such an issue, unless you were to implement strict property rights on every single piece of land and air, government is the only pragmatist solution.

Given the many incorrect scientific consensuses in history, could it be unwise to pursue polices that would decrease our standard of living based on a supposed scientific consensus, especially given that there is little evidence these polices would do much to stop global emissions?

1. A solution, such as Fee and Dividend, would not decrease the standard of living.

2. Scientific consensus, at least now-a-days where our methods of gathering information are many times exponentially greater than before, is based on evidence. If there is a scientific consensus, then the evidence is overwhelming (evolution). Similarly, don't invoke the "science was sometimes" wrong mantra- it just makes you seem retarded.
"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."
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 11:32:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 10:23:57 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:38:32 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is the argument that a majority of global warming is man caused "indisputable"?

Pretty much.

Would you care to explain, if the science and models behind global warming and its effects are so 'indisputable'... Why do the projections for future warming keep getting reduced and delayed, even though carbon emissions continue to increase?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 11:32:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 11:31:23 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 11:18:00 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/20/2012 11:15:59 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 10:41:57 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/20/2012 10:23:57 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:38:32 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is the argument that a majority of global warming is man caused "indisputable"?

Pretty much.

On your profile it seems you follow a consensus mind set.

?

You support it based on the widely cited 97% figure. Or at least thats what I gathered from "trust the scientists".

Sure.

I was just sorting that out. No further questions.




If so, is the evidence that this will have disasterous effects "indisputable"?

Pretty much.

If so, how does this imply that governmental action is needed/required?

Dumbass question is dumbass. I'm not even going to answer this.

If it is, would it be enough for the west to go it alone in stopping carbon? After all, many companies would simply move to India and China. Last time I checked, they call it "global warming" not "America warming".

No, but it would be a start.

If not, would we be able to get China and India among others to agree to join us in fighting carbon?

Nobody can look into the future. Maybe yes, or maybe no.

If so, would we be able to make sure they are ACTUALLY enforcing the fight on carbon?

No, but that doesn't justify us not enacting legislation.

Is it possible that the existence of externalities don't imply that governmental force can necessarily do a better job?

Possible, but in such an issue, unless you were to implement strict property rights on every single piece of land and air, government is the only pragmatist solution.

Given the many incorrect scientific consensuses in history, could it be unwise to pursue polices that would decrease our standard of living based on a supposed scientific consensus, especially given that there is little evidence these polices would do much to stop global emissions?

1. A solution, such as Fee and Dividend, would not decrease the standard of living.

2. Scientific consensus, at least now-a-days where our methods of gathering information are many times exponentially greater than before, is based on evidence. If there is a scientific consensus, then the evidence is overwhelming (evolution). Similarly, don't invoke the "science was sometimes" wrong mantra- it just makes you seem retarded.
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
8/20/2012 11:37:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 11:32:00 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/20/2012 10:23:57 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:38:32 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is the argument that a majority of global warming is man caused "indisputable"?

Pretty much.

Would you care to explain, if the science and models behind global warming and its effects are so 'indisputable'... Why do the projections for future warming keep getting reduced and delayed, even though carbon emissions continue to increase?

I don't want to get into a battle of whether the statistics match up by a minuscule amount, 'cause I frankly don't care. What I do care about is that pretty much every science magazine and committee has concluded an anthropogenic cause of global warming.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

http://www.ucsusa.org...

And many more.
"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."
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 11:43:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 11:37:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 11:32:00 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/20/2012 10:23:57 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:38:32 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is the argument that a majority of global warming is man caused "indisputable"?

Pretty much.

Would you care to explain, if the science and models behind global warming and its effects are so 'indisputable'... Why do the projections for future warming keep getting reduced and delayed, even though carbon emissions continue to increase?

I don't want to get into a battle of whether the statistics match up by a minuscule amount, 'cause I frankly don't care. What I do care about is that pretty much every science magazine and committee has concluded an anthropogenic cause of global warming.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

http://www.ucsusa.org...

And many more.

We're not talking about a miniscule amount here.

We are talking about +/- 0.5 degrees over the course of a decade.

We are talking about +/- 5 degrees or more over the course of a century.

That's the problem with alarmism. If you say 'The temperature is going to increase by X degrees over the next 20 years!', and the temperature doesn't do that, you have to change the story to keep the alarmism up.

Over the last 30 years, we have been given these projections, which all have one thing in common: They ALL consistenly project a smaller or delayed effect, compared to the previous.

So why do you think they have it so right, if they are constantly having to change the story?

Why do you think NASA has our temperatures right, when a decade ago they had to admit that they couldn't even correctly tell us the average temperature from the previous year?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 11:51:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 11:37:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 11:32:00 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/20/2012 10:23:57 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:38:32 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is the argument that a majority of global warming is man caused "indisputable"?

Pretty much.

Would you care to explain, if the science and models behind global warming and its effects are so 'indisputable'... Why do the projections for future warming keep getting reduced and delayed, even though carbon emissions continue to increase?

I don't want to get into a battle of whether the statistics match up by a minuscule amount, 'cause I frankly don't care. What I do care about is that pretty much every science magazine and committee has concluded an anthropogenic cause of global warming.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

http://www.ucsusa.org...

And many more.
This is a battle between you and Jaxon but... You insult be for bias but cite the union of concerned fvcking scientists?
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
8/20/2012 11:52:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 11:51:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/20/2012 11:37:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 11:32:00 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/20/2012 10:23:57 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:38:32 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is the argument that a majority of global warming is man caused "indisputable"?

Pretty much.

Would you care to explain, if the science and models behind global warming and its effects are so 'indisputable'... Why do the projections for future warming keep getting reduced and delayed, even though carbon emissions continue to increase?

I don't want to get into a battle of whether the statistics match up by a minuscule amount, 'cause I frankly don't care. What I do care about is that pretty much every science magazine and committee has concluded an anthropogenic cause of global warming.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

http://www.ucsusa.org...

And many more.
This is a battle between you and Jaxon but... You insult me for bias but cite the union of concerned fvcking scientists?

Fixed. On my phone I hit "b" instead of "m".
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
8/21/2012 12:27:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 11:51:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/20/2012 11:37:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 11:32:00 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/20/2012 10:23:57 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:38:32 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is the argument that a majority of global warming is man caused "indisputable"?

Pretty much.

Would you care to explain, if the science and models behind global warming and its effects are so 'indisputable'... Why do the projections for future warming keep getting reduced and delayed, even though carbon emissions continue to increase?

I don't want to get into a battle of whether the statistics match up by a minuscule amount, 'cause I frankly don't care. What I do care about is that pretty much every science magazine and committee has concluded an anthropogenic cause of global warming.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

http://www.ucsusa.org...

And many more.
This is a battle between you and Jaxon but... You insult be for bias but cite the union of concerned fvcking scientists?

It's a collection of scientists, you know.... people who study this stuff. Their opinion is much more valid than any non-scientist.
"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
8/21/2012 7:53:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 12:27:13 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 11:51:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/20/2012 11:37:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 11:32:00 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/20/2012 10:23:57 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:38:32 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is the argument that a majority of global warming is man caused "indisputable"?

Pretty much.

Would you care to explain, if the science and models behind global warming and its effects are so 'indisputable'... Why do the projections for future warming keep getting reduced and delayed, even though carbon emissions continue to increase?

I don't want to get into a battle of whether the statistics match up by a minuscule amount, 'cause I frankly don't care. What I do care about is that pretty much every science magazine and committee has concluded an anthropogenic cause of global warming.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

http://www.ucsusa.org...

And many more.
This is a battle between you and Jaxon but... You insult be for bias but cite the union of concerned fvcking scientists?

It's a collection of scientists, you know.... people who study this stuff. Their opinion is much more valid than any non-scientist.

They have an agenda to push... Oh wait the people I cited in that spar WHERE SCIENTISTS TOO
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