More global warming!

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
More information is needed.
Also need scientists to be neutral, not taking sides. Scientists that take sides are the ones you can bet have an agenda.
no, more information is not needed. we already know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which causes warming, we already know human activities have skyrocketed CO2 levels from 300 PPM to 400 PPM. this is all basic science.

anyone who doesn't recognize this, you can bet has an agenda.
 

TBoneJack

Well-Known Member
I'm a reluctant believer in global warming. I doubted at first, but then realized that most of the smartest scientists in the world believed. And I had to admit that personally, I could see it as a possibility. And I've come to believe that man is responsible or at least partly to blame with all the greenhouse gasses we produce.

But hell, in the end, I don't know for sure. All I can do is try and decide which very smart scientist I should believe: very smart scientist #1 who believes, or very smart scientist #2 who does not.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
All I can do is try and decide which very smart scientist I believe: scientist #1 who believes, or scientist #2 who does not.
it's actually more like scientists 1 through 98 who believe based on the mountain of evidence and peer reviewed data sets, "scientist" 99 who is funded by monied interests to say "we need more info", and "scientist" 100 who is funded by more monied interests to say humans aren't playing much of a role and it will be good for us.

you misrepresent the consensus like the dishonest little shit weasel you are, murdoch.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
What is so difficult to understand?

"Future climate change and associated impacts will be different from region to region around the globe. The effects of an increase in global temperature include a rise in sea levels and a change in the amount and pattern of precipitation, as well as a probable expansion of subtropical deserts. Warming is expected to be strongest in the Arctic, with the continuing retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice. Other likely effects of the warming include more frequent extreme weather events including heat waves, droughts, heavy rainfall, and heavy snowfall; ocean acidification; and species extinctions due to shifting temperature regimes. Effects significant to humans include the threat to food security from decreasing crop yields and the loss of habitat from inundation."

Would you expect record highs/lows to continuously be broken year after year if the current warming was not anthropogenic?

The funny thing is you post shit like this and think it somehow supports your case... All of us and the scientific community have told you this shit would start happening more frequently as more time passes and what-do-ya-know... we were right..

I think it must be all those scientific instruments and shit we use to measure with... tends to work out a lot better than gut instincts and hunches..
The weather changes so that proves you right? "this shit would start happening more frequently as more time passes"....Where have you shown "this shit" is happening more frequently?
 

TBoneJack

Well-Known Member
it's actually more like scientists 1 through 98 who believe based on the mountain of evidence and peer reviewed data sets, "scientist" 99 who is funded by monied interests to say "we need more info", and "scientist" 100 who is funded by more monied interests to say humans aren't playing much of a role and it will be good for us.

you misrepresent the consensus like the dishonest little shit weasel you are, murdoch.
if i wasn't holding my sweet little poodle right now i'd really give you a piece of my mind doodoo head...
 

TBoneJack

Well-Known Member
I wasn't misrepresenting any facts, buckhead. I stated that I believe in global warming. And you took my post out of context and misrepresented what I said.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I wasn't misrepresenting any facts, buckhead.
yes you did.

you tried to present the issue as if scientists were split on it. they are not. the consensus is beyond overwhelming. there no deniers in the scientific community, only a fleeting bunch of skeptics who are laughed at and who have very shady or outright conflicted funding sources.

this is fact, murdoch.
 

TBoneJack

Well-Known Member
yes you did.

you tried to present the issue as if scientists were split on it. they are not. the consensus is beyond overwhelming. there no deniers in the scientific community, only a fleeting bunch of skeptics who are laughed at and who have very shady or outright conflicted funding sources.

this is fact, murdoch.
You're such a "misrepresenter" buck. how do you sleep at night, i mean, during the day?
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
You're such a "misrepresenter" buck.
nope, that's you.

All I can do is try and decide which very smart scientist I should believe: very smart scientist #1 who believes, or very smart scientist #2 who does not.

let's play a game. i will name one very smart scientist who believes that human activities are causing global warming. for every one that i name, you must name one as well who denies that human activities are causing global warming.

first one to run out of names loses and must leave this site forever, not to create a new sock puppet (murdoch-rifleman-alabamaredneck-augnurn1985-wileycoyte).

wanna play?
 

heckler73

Well-Known Member
I'm a reluctant believer in global warming. I doubted at first, but then realized that most of the smartest scientists in the world believed. And I had to admit that personally, I could see it as a possibility. And I've come to believe that man is responsible or at least partly to blame with all the greenhouse gasses we produce.
.
Was there something in particular that convinced you?
 
Top