Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Your Argument is Invalid-Climate Change

ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2013 9:45:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
With love, from Hank Greene of the vlogbrothers
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2017 6:43:48 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 3/4/2017 1:20:12 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/5/2013 10:31:13 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
I like this guy:

Yeah he keeps it real

Yeah, he does keep it real. But, as Brenda Johnson found out, you need to know when to keep it real...and when to turn around and go back to watching Teletubbies reruns:

http://www.cc.com...

This is -- When keeping it real -- goes wrong!

Let's step back and respond to each of John's points:

1) John -- Global warming is a thing

Me -- It is a thing! ...and so is global cooling! Just look at that chart you're gonna show us in about 10 seconds; the liney things gooo UP and the liney things gooo down.

2) John -- Global warming is caused by humans

Me -- Let's pretend that's a true statement for a second here. From the chart you're gonna show in about 8 seconds, oscillation between warming and cooling periods occurs within almost perfect cyclical patterns; each cycle completing right around 100,000 years. So if humans are the cause of global warming as you assert; that would mean around 400,000 years ago the Denisovans and Neanderthals worked up a nice sweat smacking rocks together to make a fire. Then they blew off steam cruising the flat lands in their gas guzzling Hummers and forced their kids to toil away 90 hours a week in unregulated sweatshops? How about that corresponding temperature fall? Did they invent solar panels and go green?

3) John -- "Climate change is natural, it happened before. Yes it has because CO2 levels rose which raised the temperature' Here's the Vostok graph proving it."

Me -- HEY! Where's the rest of that chart? You left out the other significant gas they found an abundance of and in the same pattern...Methane. What the heck would produce those extreme levels of CO2 and CH4 in the same exact modulating levels for over 400,000 years? Volcanoes! Or those progressive cavemen and their gluttonous lifestyles.

What's the deal with that completely vertical blue line flying off the page at the modern edge of your graph? Did you have a stroke there or something? That is definitely NOT in the original graph. Here, see for yourself, it's at the bottom of this site:

http://history.aip.org...

4) John -- "Temperature controls atmospheric CO2 levels, not the other way around. It is true that many warming events occurred without elevated CO2 levels first. However, once the warming happened, CO2 levels increased, greatly amplifying the warming."

Me -- John. Hey John. Listen friend, here's what we need you to do. Very simple task, nothing complex - no moon landings here or anything of the sort. What all 7 billion people on the planet need you to do, is pause your recording. Then rewind back and listen closely to what you just said.

I mean FFS John! You literally just read verbatim, the abstract of the relationship between oceanic temperatures and levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

And what is this next graph you show? What study is it from? There is literally ZERO DATA there! What are all those yellow dots? Are they supposed to be data points? WHY ON EARTH DOES ONLY ONE OF THE LINES HAVE DATA POINTS JOHN? HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY GRAPH THE SECOND LINE WITHOUT DATA POINTS JOHN? It looks like something you threw together on Microsoft freaking paint -- for cripes sake John. And John...John....the graph you opened the video with was a 400,000 year timeline; this new graph is 22,000 years long. 400,000 years vs 22,000 years. Do you think that is a good comparison.

AND JOHN -- JOHN!! You just said, of the warming events we have record of, 90% happened AFTER CO2 levels had risen...and posted this 22,000 year graph. John, listen to me John... You presented us with a 400,000 year climate to CO2 rate graph as record of evidence for warming events from the start. You are now giving this 90% number and provided a 22,000 year timeline as your evidence. JOHN!! 22,000 divided by 400,000 equals 5.5% YOU HAVE PROVIDED LESS THAN 6% OF RECORDED EVENTS TO US AND CLAIM IT IS 90%!!! ARE YOU TRYING TO TRICK US JOHN? OR WERE YOU SERIOUSLY DUMB ENOUGH TO LET SOMEBODY HAND YOU TWO COMPLETELY INCOMPARABLE GRAPHS AND A BUNCH OF BS TALKING POINTS AND NEVER EVEN LOOK AT THEM?

JOHN!!! ARE YOU THAT STUPID? If you are that stupid John, I need you to watch your e-mail account because...listen John...my uncle, the King of Kenya has an AMAZING offer for you.

5) John -- "The sun is getting hotter"

Me -- The fact that you even humor this argument is ASTOUNDING John. You know what...no. I'm out...I'm done. This is my stop. JOHN!!! DID YOU REALLY JUST.....no....you did not just introduce an increase in temperature of the Sun as a topic that you have, at some point in time, SERIOUSLY participated in legitimate debate over. Even you aren't that stupid John.

Monday morning John, find your way to your local elementary school, find the classroom with the rainbows and hand-shaped paper turkeys. Walk inside that classroom, put on a smock, and start finger painting with the 5 year old kids. THAT is where you belong John. I can't go any further on this right now. It is just too much stupid stuffed into a 3 minute and 40 second video....and I have only made it through 1 minute and 15 seconds John! FFS.... what an absolute moron.