Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Responding to Global Warming

Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 8:55:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here are some questions for this debate. Is global warming happening? Are we the main cause? What should our government do about it?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 9:03:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You forgot the most important question, will global warming make the Earth a more or less hostile place to live as a human? That question never gets seriously discussed. (we only get to hear stupid references of California libbies tumbling into the sea....)
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 9:21:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 9:03:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
You forgot the most important question, will global warming make the Earth a more or less hostile place to live as a human? That question never gets seriously discussed. (we only get to hear stupid references of California libbies tumbling into the sea....)

One thing we are seeing are these massive droughts in the mid-west.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 9:47:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 9:21:17 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/11/2013 9:03:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
You forgot the most important question, will global warming make the Earth a more or less hostile place to live as a human? That question never gets seriously discussed. (we only get to hear stupid references of California libbies tumbling into the sea....)

One thing we are seeing are these massive droughts in the mid-west.

Great! Let's now use our mighty technology and attempt to turn the global thermostat down a few degrees and cool the planet Earth. Absolutely no bad things could possibly happen. Why? Because I feel it.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 10:24:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 9:21:17 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/11/2013 9:03:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
You forgot the most important question, will global warming make the Earth a more or less hostile place to live as a human? That question never gets seriously discussed. (we only get to hear stupid references of California libbies tumbling into the sea....)

One thing we are seeing are these massive droughts in the mid-west.

Global warming caused the potato famine.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 10:51:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Global warming is happening, but the causes are not clear. CO2 is likely to be part of the cause, but not the major cause.

Temperatures rose dramatically from about 1982 to 1997. Scientist could not identify any cause other than the rise of CO2 over the period. From 1998 to the present, temperatures have bounced around the high level, but have not increased, while C02 has continued to rise as it did. It's clear that something other than CO2 is going on.

One identified factor is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a natural variation with a period of around 60 or 70 years. the cause of the PDO is not known.

Global warming hurts in some places and helps in others. Europe prospered during the Medieval Warm Period, back when Greenland was proclaimed green. Changes in weather patterns change rainfall plus and minus depending upon where you are. In a past warm period, the Sahara Desert was a fertile area.

The government should fund research to identify the causes of climate change and make a reliable climate model.

I think they should also fund research in climate engineering. Climate engineering comprises methods that control temperature no matter the cause. Opposition to climate engineering follows the false logic of "if man was meant to fly, God would have given him wings." climate models are claimed to be so perfect that they unerringly predict CO2 effects, but so unreliable as to be useless for climate engineering. In fact, the most reliable parts of climate models, the amount of solar energy, are what's used for climate engineering.

Other than R&D, government should do nothing about global warming. If they do anything, the cost and claimed benefit should be revealed. EPA rules imposed on power plants in 2010 will cost $7 trillion, with a claimed benefit of 0.001 degree of reduced global warming over 90 years. People should judge if they want that deal.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 10:59:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 10:51:31 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Global warming is happening, but the causes are not clear. CO2 is likely to be part of the cause, but not the major cause.

Temperatures rose dramatically from about 1982 to 1997. Scientist could not identify any cause other than the rise of CO2 over the period. From 1998 to the present, temperatures have bounced around the high level, but have not increased, while C02 has continued to rise as it did. It's clear that something other than CO2 is going on.

One identified factor is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a natural variation with a period of around 60 or 70 years. the cause of the PDO is not known.

Global warming hurts in some places and helps in others. Europe prospered during the Medieval Warm Period, back when Greenland was proclaimed green. Changes in weather patterns change rainfall plus and minus depending upon where you are. In a past warm period, the Sahara Desert was a fertile area.

The government should fund research to identify the causes of climate change and make a reliable climate model.

I think they should also fund research in climate engineering. Climate engineering comprises methods that control temperature no matter the cause. Opposition to climate engineering follows the false logic of "if man was meant to fly, God would have given him wings." climate models are claimed to be so perfect that they unerringly predict CO2 effects, but so unreliable as to be useless for climate engineering. In fact, the most reliable parts of climate models, the amount of solar energy, are what's used for climate engineering.

Other than R&D, government should do nothing about global warming. If they do anything, the cost and claimed benefit should be revealed. EPA rules imposed on power plants in 2010 will cost $7 trillion, with a claimed benefit of 0.001 degree of reduced global warming over 90 years. People should judge if they want that deal.

The reason that the earth has not been warming recently is because co2 is not the only factor in earth's climate. If you remove the cooling effect of volcanoes and the effects of the sun, and the climate patterns caused by el ninos and la ninas, we see a much more positive climate graph as shown in the video below.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 11:18:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
skepticalscience.com is a garbage blog devoted to global warming pseudoreligion. If you take the data up to 1997 and put a line through it, it trends upward. Take the data since 1997 and put a line through it and it's level. The nonsense with corrections upon corrections is simply forcing the desired answer.

Remember Climategate, the scandal in which e-mails revealed that global warming scientists expressed a desire to punch out skeptics and revent them from being published? That was at HadCRU, the British outfit that tracks global warming, and as hard over a bunch of global warming advocates as you will find (well, outside of NASA). Give HadCRU credit for their scientific fundamentals overcoming their passion. They issued a press release recently admitting there has been no global warming for the past fifteen years.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 11:37:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 11:18:01 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
skepticalscience.com is a garbage blog devoted to global warming pseudoreligion.

Ad hominems against my source is not a great way of invalidating my evidence.

If you take the data up to 1997 and put a line through it, it trends upward. Take the data since 1997 and put a line through it and it's level. The nonsense with corrections upon corrections is simply forcing the desired answer.

I explained that earlier. Nobody is claiming CO2 is the only driver of climate. Short-term variations because of natural variations can hide the effect CO2 is having on climate at least when we look at short-term trends.

Remember Climategate, the scandal in which e-mails revealed that global warming scientists expressed a desire to punch out skeptics and revent them from being published? That was at HadCRU, the British outfit that tracks global warming, and as hard over a bunch of global warming advocates as you will find (well, outside of NASA). Give HadCRU credit for their scientific fundamentals overcoming their passion. They issued a press release recently admitting there has been no global warming for the past fifteen years.

That was not a scandal. Eight committees investigated what happened and found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. Its right there in the wiki page.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 12:03:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 11:37:17 PM, Dan4reason wrote:

Ad hominems against my source is not a great way of invalidating my evidence.

Do you deny it is a blog? that the blogger has no scientific credentials? Or that the blog uniformly 100% disputes any criticism of global warming crisis theory? It's your job to prove it is a credible source, against, say, HadCRU that disagrees.

I explained that earlier. Nobody is claiming CO2 is the only driver of climate. Short-term variations because of natural variations can hide the effect CO2 is having on climate at least when we look at short-term trends.

The skepticalscience corrections are bogus. There hasn't been significant vulcanism since Mt. Pinatubo in the early 90s, for example. The trick is to accept as valid the corrections that help your case, and ignore the ones that don't. Global warming advocates argued in 2000 that they had accounted for every possible other cause, so CO2 clearly driving a hockey-stick rise in temperatures that would finish us off by 2010.

Remember Climategate, the scandal in which e-mails revealed that global warming scientists expressed a desire to punch out skeptics and revent them from being published? That was at HadCRU, the British outfit that tracks global warming, and as hard over a bunch of global warming advocates as you will find (well, outside of NASA). Give HadCRU credit for their scientific fundamentals overcoming their passion. They issued a press release recently admitting there has been no global warming for the past fifteen years.

That was not a scandal. Eight committees investigated what happened and found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. Its right there in the wiki page.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

What they found was that HadCRU did not deliberately fudge the climate data. There is no doubt that the e-mails expressed a desire to punch out Michaels and that they talked about preventing skeptics from getting published by controlling the scientific journals. That's plainly evident in the e-mails. You are free to consider that acceptable, but I think that's scandalous behavior for scientists.

But fine. Now tell me why you think HadCRU scientists should not be trusted in their conclusion that there has been 15 years without global warming, but a random blogger should be trusted?
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 12:05:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
One thing is that can we please get over the polar ice caps scare? First, it wouldn't make California sink if ever big of ice in the world melted. Second, it's not like suddenly one day everyone in the areas that wold go under would die. It would be VERY gradual.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

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

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 12:09:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 10:51:31 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Global warming is happening, but the causes are not clear. CO2 is likely to be part of the cause, but not the major cause.

Temperatures rose dramatically from about 1982 to 1997. Scientist could not identify any cause other than the rise of CO2 over the period. From 1998 to the present, temperatures have bounced around the high level, but have not increased, while C02 has continued to rise as it did. It's clear that something other than CO2 is going on.

One identified factor is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a natural variation with a period of around 60 or 70 years. the cause of the PDO is not known.

Global warming hurts in some places and helps in others. Europe prospered during the Medieval Warm Period, back when Greenland was proclaimed green. Changes in weather patterns change rainfall plus and minus depending upon where you are. In a past warm period, the Sahara Desert was a fertile area.

The government should fund research to identify the causes of climate change and make a reliable climate model.

I think they should also fund research in climate engineering. Climate engineering comprises methods that control temperature no matter the cause. Opposition to climate engineering follows the false logic of "if man was meant to fly, God would have given him wings." climate models are claimed to be so perfect that they unerringly predict CO2 effects, but so unreliable as to be useless for climate engineering. In fact, the most reliable parts of climate models, the amount of solar energy, are what's used for climate engineering.

Other than R&D, government should do nothing about global warming. If they do anything, the cost and claimed benefit should be revealed. EPA rules imposed on power plants in 2010 will cost $7 trillion, with a claimed benefit of 0.001 degree of reduced global warming over 90 years. People should judge if they want that deal.

Surely you mean $7 billion? O.o
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
slo1
Posts: 4,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 5:14:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 10:51:31 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

Global warming hurts in some places and helps in others. Europe prospered during the Medieval Warm Period, back when Greenland was proclaimed green. Changes in weather patterns change rainfall plus and minus depending upon where you are. In a past warm period, the Sahara Desert was a fertile area.


The world is a very different place than it was in the Medieval times. Sustained global warming today means millions of displaced individuals and where do you think those people would go. We have already seen what happens when the city of New Orleans was displaced and what it meant to Houston. Multiply that by hundreds and even all the "good" places get over populated and are not so "good".

Which still leads to the same point you made that it is important to make climate engineering a priority.

My only concern with climate engineering is that we still really don't know enough to not know whether we are going to over do it or not. Let's say we paint everyone's roof with a reflective paint. Next thing one knows is that we trigger global cooling with no way to stop it. Instead of talking a rise of 3 degrees we begin talking a decrease of 30 degrees and even more hardships than global warming.

Thus the overall plan needs to be balanced. 1. make some plans for areas which may become inhabitable around the close and of migrations of people. 2. Continued funding on alternative energy solutions, carbon capture and other areas with goal of reducing co2, methane, water in the atmosphere. 3. Continued funding to understand climate and how we can ultimately control it.

It may require some attitude changes as well. 4. Raising the cost of behaviors which contribute to increasing co2 levels in the atmosphere maybe needed in lock step with alternate energy solutions to accelerate development and acceptance. This could mean a lower standard of living and we just need to suck it up and deal with it.

It all goes back to whether this last 80 year golden age of abundance will continued. We in the US have been spoiled and may simply may not have the fortitude to deal with a forced living standard change. It will be fought every step of the way if leadership is the one doing the forcing, but if mother nature is the enforcer it is just misery all around.

If one thing is for certain, humankind is very opinionated and there will never be agreement on what should be done if anything. Anyway I look at this one, if the world continues warming, there is going to be a lower standard of life unless technology can be found and used to mitigate all the change. I also know that we are not going to find any solutions until the costs of how we operate today gets greater. IE: more hunger, more unemployment, higher energy costs, etc.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 6:54:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 10:51:31 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Global warming is happening, but the causes are not clear. CO2 is likely to be part of the cause, but not the major cause.

Temperatures rose dramatically from about 1982 to 1997. Scientist could not identify any cause other than the rise of CO2 over the period. From 1998 to the present, temperatures have bounced around the high level, but have not increased, while C02 has continued to rise as it did. It's clear that something other than CO2 is going on.

You're kidding, right? '98 being a particularly hot year, and 15 years being nothing in the Earth's meteorological cycle, you're taking a small subset of data that supports a position you want to support and ignores the remainder of the data.

If you place '98-now with the rest of the data, IT ALL TRENDS upward.

http://www.nasa.gov...

(is NASA.gov acceptable as a source for you, or is it just a front for the global warming supporting, radical leftist environmentalists?)

One identified factor is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a natural variation with a period of around 60 or 70 years. the cause of the PDO is not known.

1910 through to now is 103 year...is the length of PDO also not known? (see previously posted chart).

Global warming hurts in some places and helps in others. Europe prospered during the Medieval Warm Period, back when Greenland was proclaimed green. Changes in weather patterns change rainfall plus and minus depending upon where you are. In a past warm period, the Sahara Desert was a fertile area.

Who needs the polar ice caps when there's all that new oceanfront real estate to dream about owning, eh?

Global warming is going to make the middle 60% of the planet , where it just so happens to have most of its land located, uninhabitable.

Currently, the northern and southern 10% (20% total) are uninhabitable due to the extreme cold temperatures.

So, seriously, you think that gaining 20% in exchange for losing 60% is a good deal? Really? REALLY!?!?!?!?

Wanna buy a car?

The government should fund research to identify the causes of climate change and make a reliable climate model.

99% of people who have studied this phenomenon are fully convinced of the cause, and you wanna waste this money for what reason?

(here's 1810 - 1910 just in case the decade that came after it didn't convince you...and what possibly could have kicked into high gear in 1810 that might have some correlation on the temperature of the planet and the CO2 that we've been tossing out into the atmosphere???)

http://www.americanthinker.com...

And, of course, here's the most important part which you have failed to consider - the ocean. Just like when you pour cold water over a hot pan, the oceans on earth cool the planet, and absorb 93% of the effects of global warming...

http://www.realclimate.org...

I think they should also fund research in climate engineering. Climate engineering comprises methods that control temperature no matter the cause. Opposition to climate engineering follows the false logic of "if man was meant to fly, God would have given him wings." climate models are claimed to be so perfect that they unerringly predict CO2 effects, but so unreliable as to be useless for climate engineering. In fact, the most reliable parts of climate models, the amount of solar energy, are what's used for climate engineering.

Other than R&D, government should do nothing about global warming. If they do anything, the cost and claimed benefit should be revealed. EPA rules imposed on power plants in 2010 will cost $7 trillion, with a claimed benefit of 0.001 degree of reduced global warming over 90 years. People should judge if they want that deal.

http://clisec.zmaw.de...

Reading is fundamental.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 11:39:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Global warming is going to make the middle 60% of the planet , where it just so happens to have most of its land located, uninhabitable.

What is this... comedy hour?
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 1:37:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 10:24:53 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/11/2013 9:21:17 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/11/2013 9:03:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
You forgot the most important question, will global warming make the Earth a more or less hostile place to live as a human? That question never gets seriously discussed. (we only get to hear stupid references of California libbies tumbling into the sea....)

One thing we are seeing are these massive droughts in the mid-west.

Global warming caused the potato famine.

what hasn't global warming caused?

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 1:50:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 11:39:32 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Global warming is going to make the middle 60% of the planet , where it just so happens to have most of its land located, uninhabitable.

What is this... comedy hour?

What is this... a response?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 2:05:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Global warming is going to make the middle 60% of the planet , where it just so happens to have most of its land located, uninhabitable.

And people used to make fun of Glenn Beck for his apocalyptic predictions.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 2:27:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 2:05:45 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Global warming is going to make the middle 60% of the planet , where it just so happens to have most of its land located, uninhabitable.


And people used to make fun of Glenn Beck for his apocalyptic predictions.

This isn't the prediction of one person. It's not even competently disputed by any scientist. It just is.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 2:51:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 2:45:59 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
....Glen Beck apocolysm isn't funny....
New material plox.

Who's Glen Beck?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 2:53:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 2:27:34 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/13/2013 2:05:45 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Global warming is going to make the middle 60% of the planet , where it just so happens to have most of its land located, uninhabitable.


And people used to make fun of Glenn Beck for his apocalyptic predictions.

This isn't the prediction of one person. It's not even competently disputed by any scientist. It just is.

Show me these crazed studies please.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 3:37:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 2:53:30 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/13/2013 2:27:34 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/13/2013 2:05:45 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Global warming is going to make the middle 60% of the planet , where it just so happens to have most of its land located, uninhabitable.


And people used to make fun of Glenn Beck for his apocalyptic predictions.

This isn't the prediction of one person. It's not even competently disputed by any scientist. It just is.

Show me these crazed studies please.

http://climate.nasa.gov...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 3:38:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 2:53:30 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/13/2013 2:27:34 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/13/2013 2:05:45 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Global warming is going to make the middle 60% of the planet , where it just so happens to have most of its land located, uninhabitable.


And people used to make fun of Glenn Beck for his apocalyptic predictions.

This isn't the prediction of one person. It's not even competently disputed by any scientist. It just is.

Show me these crazed studies please.

http://dsc.discovery.com...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 3:39:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 2:53:30 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/13/2013 2:27:34 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/13/2013 2:05:45 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Global warming is going to make the middle 60% of the planet , where it just so happens to have most of its land located, uninhabitable.


And people used to make fun of Glenn Beck for his apocalyptic predictions.

This isn't the prediction of one person. It's not even competently disputed by any scientist. It just is.

Show me these crazed studies please.

https://www2.ucar.edu...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 3:40:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I know...I know...NASA is "science" and science has a liberal bias, but when everything has a liberal bias, maybe YOU'RE WRONG.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 3:42:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 3:39:33 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/13/2013 2:53:30 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/13/2013 2:27:34 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/13/2013 2:05:45 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Global warming is going to make the middle 60% of the planet , where it just so happens to have most of its land located, uninhabitable.


And people used to make fun of Glenn Beck for his apocalyptic predictions.

This isn't the prediction of one person. It's not even competently disputed by any scientist. It just is.

Show me these crazed studies please.

https://www2.ucar.edu...

I looked at the link, it's interesting and I am in no way or form a global warming denier, but it doesn't say that any land is going to become uninhabitable in the near future.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 3:46:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 3:42:50 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/13/2013 3:39:33 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/13/2013 2:53:30 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/13/2013 2:27:34 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/13/2013 2:05:45 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Global warming is going to make the middle 60% of the planet , where it just so happens to have most of its land located, uninhabitable.


And people used to make fun of Glenn Beck for his apocalyptic predictions.

This isn't the prediction of one person. It's not even competently disputed by any scientist. It just is.

Show me these crazed studies please.

https://www2.ucar.edu...

I looked at the link, it's interesting and I am in no way or form a global warming denier, but it doesn't say that any land is going to become uninhabitable in the near future.

What happens to humans when they don't have potable water available to them?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 3:50:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 3:46:36 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/13/2013 3:42:50 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/13/2013 3:39:33 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/13/2013 2:53:30 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/13/2013 2:27:34 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/13/2013 2:05:45 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Global warming is going to make the middle 60% of the planet , where it just so happens to have most of its land located, uninhabitable.


And people used to make fun of Glenn Beck for his apocalyptic predictions.

This isn't the prediction of one person. It's not even competently disputed by any scientist. It just is.

Show me these crazed studies please.

https://www2.ucar.edu...

I looked at the link, it's interesting and I am in no way or form a global warming denier, but it doesn't say that any land is going to become uninhabitable in the near future.

What happens to humans when they don't have potable water available to them?

Water can be artificially created and recycled, apparently Mr.Scientist wasn't aware of this?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 3:52:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yah looking at those links, not one of them show such a ridiculous claim as "60% of the land will be uninhabitable"

Apparently those sites don't have a well developed sense of humor on par with Malcolm.