Uh oh! The planet is cooling

Damocles said:
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?
Click to expand...


I've never denied they weren't. Obviously there are.

I would prefer that those who claim they allegedly recognize the detrimental impact of CO2 emissions, don't reinforce hacks like Tinfoil, instead of cheering his posts on.

But, that's your choice. :)
 
Cypress said:
I've never denied they weren't. Obviously there are.

I would prefer that those who claim they allegedly recognize the detrimental impact of CO2 emissions, don't reinforce hacks like Tinfoil, instead of cheering his posts on.

But, that's your choice. :)
Click to expand...
What you said was, "There would be no reason to work for it if CO2 weren't an issue! And because you said they exist you don't believe in CO2, you heretic! CO2 will strike thee down and science will burn you at the stake for not promoting the only reason that we should work towards an emissionless source of energy!"

At least that is what it certainly appeared that you were saying. People suggest a growth in the argument, not such a conservative uber-CO2 version that promotes all of the reasons for such research instead of artificially limiting it to the consensus must be religiously followed truncated and repetitive version that you promote.
 
Ya really have to...........

Cypress said:
I've never denied they weren't. Obviously there are.

I would prefer that those who claim they allegedly recognize the detrimental impact of CO2 emissions, don't reinforce hacks like Tinfoil, instead of cheering his posts on.

But, that's your choice. :)
Click to expand...


give up sniffing your co2 cartridges...they are intended for pellet guns/soda dispensers not wisdom!
 
Damocles said:
What you said was, "There would be no reason to work for it if CO2 weren't an issue! And because you said they exist you don't believe in CO2, you heretic! CO2 will strike thee down and science will burn you at the stake for not promoting the only reason that we should work towards an emissionless source of energy!"

At least that is what it certainly appeared that you were saying.
Click to expand...


There would be no reason to work for it if CO2 weren't an issue!

In the pollution context. Superfreaks post that I responded to, was refering to the pollution aspect.
 
Cypress said:
There would be no reason to work for it if CO2 weren't an issue!

In the pollution context. Superfreaks post that I responded to, was refering to the pollution aspect.
Click to expand...
And we both shut you down on that pretense.

Geez! It's like arguing with the Gumbys. No matter what you say they still beat their heads with the pans in the kitchen.
 
Damo, do you agree that all of the world's governments, and major scientific bodies have concluded that it is likely that human emissions of CO2 are mostly responsible for the global warming trend? Its a simple yes or no question.
 
Cypress said:
Damo, do you agree that all of the world's governments, and major scientific bodies have concluded that it is likely that human emissions of CO2 are mostly responsible for the global warming trend? Its a simple yes or no question.
Click to expand...
And it has already been answered. This is just one more Admiral Stockdale answer from the current registered "Reform" candidate.

Yes, we all think gridlock is bad, now can we extend beyond this one-dimensional argument and expose more reasons that might convince others regardless of CO2. And can we understand that the Kyoto Protocol wouldn't help so we should work towards other solutions that do not include punitive actions towards one particular group that probably will find the solution if they aren't hamstrung?
 
Damocles said:
And it has already been answered. This is just one more Admiral Stockdale answer.

Yes, we all think gridlock is bad, now can we extend beyond this one-dimensional argument and expose more reasons that might convince others regardless of CO2. And can we understand that the Kyoto Protocol wouldn't help so we should work towards other solutions that do not include punitive actions towards one particular group that probably will find the solution?
Click to expand...

I guess that's sort of a yes.

I'll remember that you agreed that, based on science, it appears that humans are most likely responsible for most of the global warming trend we've been seeing for decades.

Thanks.
 
Cypress said:
I guess that's sort of a yes.

I'll remember that you agreed that, based on science, it appears that humans are most likely responsible for most of the global warming trend we've been seeing for decades.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Gumby!!!

LOL. Thread Director is right. I thank the little gods that I am not so limited in scope as this.
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...


1) Show where I stated that I didn't think humans were primarily responsible Cypress. Because I think you will find (if you are able to pull your head out of your ass) that I stated I was SKEPTICAL about humans being the primary cause. The reason I am SKEPTICAL is that they continue to give all these vague qualifiers when the Consensus speaks.

2) "you stipulated that human contributions to climate change could be as little as 1%" ... no retard I did not. I was stating that I do not care what the percentage is.... regardless if it turns out to be 1% or 100% or anywhere in between.

3) you are a moron

4) My MO is to reduce pollution, to promote clean energy. Yours is to chant CO2 and Consensus.

5) You are a moron.
 
Superfreak said:
1) Show where I stated that I didn't think humans were primarily responsible Cypress.
Click to expand...

This statement speaks for itself:

Superfreak: While I am a skeptic of man being the primary cause of global warming, I do believe that we are going through changes.

http://justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=173546&postcount=60
Click to expand...

Because I think you will find (if you are able to pull your head out of your ass) that I stated I was SKEPTICAL about humans being the primary cause. The reason I am SKEPTICAL is that they continue to give all these vague qualifiers when the Consensus speaks.
Click to expand...

The very fact that you stipulated that human contributions could be as low as 1%, indicates you don't know anything about the science, and are comfortable parroting rightwing talking points.

2) "you stipulated that human contributions to climate change could be as little as 1%" ... no retard I did not. I was stating that I do not care what the percentage is.... regardless if it turns out to be 1% or 100% or anywhere in between.
Click to expand...

I understand. You don't care, and are uninformed on the science. We know, with as much certainty as science can provide, that the human contribution is nowhere near 1%. Its much, much higher. You should care. The human contribution is significant, and probably the most likely cause. Proclaiming that you don't care if its 1% or 100% means you don't understand the science.

3) you are a moron
Click to expand...

I accept your surrender.

:igive:

4) My MO is to reduce pollution, to promote clean energy. Yours is to chant CO2 and Consensus.
Click to expand...

CO2, global warming, and human emissions is the consensus. Chanting has nothing to do with it. I fail to see why you want to run away from admitting that a global scientific and govermental consensus has been reached. There are always uncertainties in science. That's the nature of science. But AGW is one of the most studied scientific phenomena in recent history, and the conclusions reached are as robust as the scientific conclusions reached on second hand smoke and cholesteral.

5) You are a moron.
Click to expand...

I accept your surrender.

:igive:
 
Cypress said:
This statement speaks for itself:


The very fact that you stipulated that human contributions could be as low as 1%, indicates you don't know anything about the science, and are comfortable parroting rightwing talking points.

LMAO @ Gumby.... you know quite well I didn't state that. I said that I didn't care where the number fell you fucking moron.


I understand. You don't care, and are uninformed on the science. We know, with as much certainty as science can provide, that the human contribution is nowhere near 1%. Its much, much higher. You should care. The human contribution is significant, and probably the most likely cause. Proclaiming that you don't care if its 1% or 100% means you don't understand the science.

Incorrect again Gumby. I actually care about solving the problem rather than finding out how much man is to blame. Unlike you. You could care less about solutions, all you care about is whether or not you still get to yell consensus. Poor Gumby.

"CO2, global warming, and human emissions is the consensus. Chanting has nothing to do with it. "

Oh Gumby... that is sad. You start your chant again and then say chanting has nothing to do with it? How pathetic of you Gumby.


"I fail to see why you want to run away from admitting that a global scientific and govermental consensus has been reached."

Not once have I claimed that a consensus wasn't reached Gumby. I stated I did not care about the consensus on global warming because having a consensus on global warming doesn't do shit to solve the problems. Running around chanting consensus or CO2 does not inspire people to take action. Showing them that pollution is bad for your health, that dependence on foreign energy is bad for our security... THOSE are more likely to get people to act and push towards clean energy. Which.... again Gumby.... will lead to lower CO2 emissions... which Gumby.... will help with whatever man is contributing to global warming.
QUOTE]

Now Gumby... I think we can all agree that you have been sufficiently owned on this.
Click to expand...
 
Me thinks..............

Cypress smells way to much caca in the kennels...it is having a adverse effect on his reasoning!
 
Superfreak: While I am a skeptic of man being the primary cause of global warming, I do believe that we are going through changes.

http://justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=173546&postcount=60
Click to expand...

-National Science Academies of the G8, Joint Statement 2007: “It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere.”

-Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007: “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,"

-American Geophysical Union: “The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system….are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.

-US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top