Uh oh! The planet is cooling
- Thread starter tinfoil
- Start date
Yes. Do you agree that the worldwide scientific and governmental consensus, is that it is 90% certain that human CO2 emissions are warming the planet?
Or, are you sticking with the we don't know one way or the other argument?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Good boy Cypress... now you see that it is beneficial to talk about eliminating our dependency on fossil fuels. Because it reduces CO2 emissions on top of being good for our health and national security. So if you expand your talking points to include health and national security, you are more likely to get people to pay more attention than you would by simply shouting "Consensus or CO2".
For the 10000000000th time.... yes, as I have stated, I do not argue with the fact that CO2 contributes to warming. The thing I have a problem with is idiots who insist upon knowing "did man cause 80% of the change or 30% or 18% or 91% or 100% or 1%"
I could care less. Trying to find out how "much man is to blame" is pointless. Quit wasting time, money and other resources trying to find out how much man is to blame. Use that time, money and resources to find solutions.
In other words Cypress.... be PROGRESSIVE.
I do not argue with the fact that CO2 contributes to warming
Nicely done. I don't think will ever know with precision and accuracy if man causes 90% of it, or 50% of it. I'm pretty sure science has concluded we contribute to far more than 1% of the warming.
Good to see you on my team. I guess it was Damo and Tinfoil who were pushing the dubious and spurios argument that this one graph debunked the concept of global warming.
WC Grouch
New member
You're an evil witch because Global Warming is a religion and heresy will not be tolerated.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
1) I am not on your team. You are an idiot only capable of parroting what you are told.
2) Damo is of the same mindset I am.... that we should think in much broader terms when discussing how to improve going forward. YOU are the one too ignorant to understand or comprehend. Instead you continue to pretend that those who don't shout CO2 must somehow be against you.
3) To my knowledge, 1998 remains the warmest year on record (globally). Correct me on that if I am wrong.
So are you.
However, I don't say you are wrong. I say that there are more reasons that JUST that to promote alternate energy. While you religiously repeat and repeat the only reason you think should have any merit without regard to logic or reason beyond what you want everybody to think.
I don't argue against the consensus, I say, "That isn't the only good reason to do this. There are, in fact, so many reasons that even without this one I would still say we should be concentrating on this."
Your argument is weak and insists everybody believes exactly as you do. Mine does not and still works toward the same goal. Yours is limited, mine is not. Yours can change with one information shift, mine does not and will not.
You are just shocked that logic can be overwhelming even when not religiously relying on CO2 to be the 'sole' reason for 'salvation'.
And I predict that you are so disingenuous that you will again not listen to the part where I say "I don't argue that CO2 can't contribute to this..."
You know, I tried to be civil and refrained from insults. But you are an angry little man. You just can't control yourself.
I can see through the ruse quite easily. Everytime some hack posts something that allegedly "debunks" global warming, predicitably there's always a couple of republicans who come along to cheerlead it.
And then when the science is brought into play, the backtracking begins I never said I was against global warming.
Disingenuous.You know, I tried to be civil and refrained from insults. But you are an angry little man. You just can't control yourself.
I can see through the ruse quite easily. Everytime some hack posts something that allegedly "debunks" global warming, predicitably there's always a couple of republicans who come along to cheerlead it.
And then when the science is brought into play, the backtracking begins I never said I was against global warming.
We have stated that to you throughout the thread. You just can't hear because we keep talking about the fact that MORE THAN THAT ONE REASON exists, in fact there are so many that even if it was found that global warming was a modern myth I would still promote alternate energy and working towards emissionless energy sources.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
You know, I tried to be civil and refrained from insults. But you are an angry little man. You just can't control yourself.
I can see through the ruse quite easily. Everytime some hack posts something that allegedly "debunks" global warming, predicitably there's always a couple of republicans who come along to cheerlead it.
And then when the science is brought into play, the backtracking begins I never said I was against global warming.
I tell you what Cypress.... since you have been so civil and refrained. Please point to the post that either Damo or I put forth that stated CO2 has no effect. Point to the post where we said that Cypress. Then, once you realize that YOU are the only one of us to have made that claim (in your interpretation of what your fantasy world told you we were saying), THEN perhaps I will stop calling you a moron.
Side note: the little "oh you are angry" thing, is really rather ignorant. I am not in the least angry right now. I am laughing at your stupidity. You are quite comical.
Hmmm.. "primary"... And the challenge was:
Please point to the post that either Damo or I put forth that stated CO2 has no effect.
The consensus is:
You lose!
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
So moron.... can you tell the difference between these two comments....
"I am skeptical about man being the PRIMARY cause"
and
"I don't think CO2 has any effect on warming" (which is what you continue to act like we are saying)
Being skeptical as to the percentage of responsibility assisgned to man is not the same as saying that CO2 emissions have no effect. Moron.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Hmmm.. "primary"... And the challenge was:
Please point to the post that either Damo or I put forth that stated CO2 has no effect.
The consensus is:
You lose!
CONSENSUS!!!!
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [human-caused] greenhouse gas concentrations"
This is WHY I am skeptical Cypress..... the key words are "most" and "is very likely"... it means they are guesses, educated guesses to be sure, but still guesses.
Also... IS 1998 the warmest year on record for the globe or was that just the US?
This is WHY I am skeptical Cypress..... the key words are "most" and "is very likely"... it means they are guesses, educated guesses to be sure, but still guesses.
Also... IS 1998 the warmest year on record for the globe or was that just the US?
Your on record on this board saying that you don't think humans are primarily responsible for global climate change. In fact, on this thread, you stipulated that human contributions to climate change could be as little as 1%.
One, your statement is not supported by the global scientific consensus. Your assertion is in fact, the opposite of the scientific consensus.
Two, your substituting your armchair scientific judgement, for the judgement of most of the world's eminently qualified climate scientists.
Three, your repreating and promoting rightwing talking points: that its doubtful that humans are primarily responsible for global warming. That, in fact, we may be as little as "1%" responsible. Maybe its all due to volcanoes or solar activilty.
Four, your assertions that your MO isn't to debunk the global warming consensus and promote rightwing talking points, is about as crebile as BushCo claming that they never "technically" tried to tie al qaeda to 9/11. Its a ruse.
One, your statement is not supported by the global scientific consensus. Your assertion is in fact, the opposite of the scientific consensus.
Two, your substituting your armchair scientific judgement, for the judgement of most of the world's eminently qualified climate scientists.
Three, your repreating and promoting rightwing talking points: that its doubtful that humans are primarily responsible for global warming. That, in fact, we may be as little as "1%" responsible. Maybe its all due to volcanoes or solar activilty.
Four, your assertions that your MO isn't to debunk the global warming consensus and promote rightwing talking points, is about as crebile as BushCo claming that they never "technically" tried to tie al qaeda to 9/11. Its a ruse.
Jesus Cypress, you have to be the thickest poster on this subject in a Century.
Nobody rejected the science, they have just said that there are more reasons, enough to give people reason even if it was wrong.
Now being skeptical about the level of surety in a statement full of qualifiers like "very likely" isn't the same thing as saying it has no effect at all.
You are displaying a religious fervor beyond any reason at this point.
Nobody rejected the science, they have just said that there are more reasons, enough to give people reason even if it was wrong.
Now being skeptical about the level of surety in a statement full of qualifiers like "very likely" isn't the same thing as saying it has no effect at all.
You are displaying a religious fervor beyond any reason at this point.
ThreadDirector
Lights, Camera, Action!
Enter Cypress, Stage Left:
Setting. A group of people giving logical reasons to impress on people the importance of working towards emissionless power and reduction of pollutants.
Cypress enters, wild-eyed, repeating the line "CO2!" while handing out tracts and talking to himself under his breath while others bring forward points that are strong reasons to promote alternate energy.
Okay, Cypress! Remember your line! ("CO2!" just in case you forgot it.)
I know this is method acting without a strict script but lets keep it on target. Cypress, no matter if people agree, if they promote any reason other than CO2 you must talk about them being "neanderthals" who don't understand science!
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Action!
Setting. A group of people giving logical reasons to impress on people the importance of working towards emissionless power and reduction of pollutants.
Cypress enters, wild-eyed, repeating the line "CO2!" while handing out tracts and talking to himself under his breath while others bring forward points that are strong reasons to promote alternate energy.
Okay, Cypress! Remember your line! ("CO2!" just in case you forgot it.)
I know this is method acting without a strict script but lets keep it on target. Cypress, no matter if people agree, if they promote any reason other than CO2 you must talk about them being "neanderthals" who don't understand science!
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Action!
good work Damo.
Next time tinfoil puts up a thread, implying that - LOL! - global warming is debunked, I expect you to respond that human CO2 emissions are indeed detrimentally impacting the climate, and that it is both neccessary and urgent, that we immediately start taking drastic action to reduce CO2 emissions.
Next time tinfoil puts up a thread, implying that - LOL! - global warming is debunked, I expect you to respond that human CO2 emissions are indeed detrimentally impacting the climate, and that it is both neccessary and urgent, that we immediately start taking drastic action to reduce CO2 emissions.
It is far more fun to poke at the truly religious on the subject then promote other reasons for alternatives to fossil fuels and a plan that is not punitive towards the society that is most likely to find a solution.
Do you admit that there are other good reasons to work towards emissionless sources of energy?