echelon1k1
New Member
Our grandchildren will be indebted by the pen, policed by the sword and I honestly don't think mother nature will get her revenge. I also don't buy into any of that Gaia crap. This isn't a captain planet cartoon.
Damn Global Warming....
- Thread starter Sand4x105
- Start date
- Status
Our grandchildren will be indebted by the pen, policed by the sword and I honestly don't think mother nature will get her revenge. I also don't buy into any of that Gaia crap. This isn't a captain planet cartoon.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
That's all fine and dandy, but until there is indisputable proof that man is the significant contributor, I'll pass on the $5 light bulbs, outrageously priced solar energy and the bogus carbon credit debacle.
BTW, you never answered my question about global warming beginning right after the last ice age, what about that?
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
For. Fucks. Sake...
Not a lot of science buffs around tonight. The record heats, droughts, sea temperature and demonstrable mathematical simulations exist regardless if they listen.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
What would you consider "indisputable proof" of AGW?
AGW began during the industrial revolution
Have any of you who oppose the scientific consensus observed the air quality in China? The main argument seems to be "humans can't do that", and yet humans have destroyed the quality of breathable air in China in just the last 2 decades. If humans are global, and ~1 billion people can cause that much damage to one country in 2 decades, why is it so inconceivable that ~7 billion people could affect the global environment in 20?
What would you consider "indisputable proof" of AGW?
AGW began during the industrial revolution
Have any of you who oppose the scientific consensus observed the air quality in China? The main argument seems to be "humans can't do that", and yet humans have destroyed the quality of breathable air in China in just the last 2 decades. If humans are global, and ~1 billion people can cause that much damage to one country in 2 decades, why is it so inconceivable that ~7 billion people could affect the global environment in 20?
Are the temperatures in China EXTRA hot?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I think you missed the point..
Opposition - "people can't do that"
observation - People do do that (3 examples)
Rebuttal?
echelon1k1
New Member
What would you consider "indisputable proof" of AGW?
AGW began during the industrial revolution
Have any of you who oppose the scientific consensus observed the air quality in China? The main argument seems to be "humans can't do that", and yet humans have destroyed the quality of breathable air in China in just the last 2 decades. If humans are global, and ~1 billion people can cause that much damage to one country in 2 decades, why is it so inconceivable that ~7 billion people could affect the global environment in 20?
Dude you expect china to act on the pollution they create? look at the moron in picture with no PPE. Plus one child policy is creeping death, let it run its course.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
China can do that in less than 2 decades, yet 6 billion more people can't cause any significant change to the environment in 5 times (approximated for the increase in population over time) that amount of time?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
You do know that the entire earth was not covered in ice right? 1/3 - 1/2 North America will still be livable in the next ice age...
Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
Did he just switch from global warming to pollution?
Not the same.
66% of all scientists agree: it either doesn't exist or it's inconclusive.
33% of scientists agree with agw.
Not the same.
66% of all scientists agree: it either doesn't exist or it's inconclusive.
33% of scientists agree with agw.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Then what caused the medieval warming period?
I'm not a climate scientist, so I couldn't tell you. Speculating as much, either way, would be just that, speculation..
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
It's strange that lefties (ie "climate scientists") can't seem to get their head around the fact humans can effect climate without being the sole cause.Then what caused the medieval warming period?
We know climate has been cyclical for about the last 3 billion years...it's reasonable to assume we can have an effect on the height of the peaks and troughs without getting all "We'll turn into Mars".
Why cant lefties accept that we need MOAR data from a longer sample before going all retarded?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Aaah, there it is, I knew that's what you were getting at.. Very dishonest of you, man..
Funny you choose to word it like that, when, according to your own numbers, less than 1% oppose AGW and 66% find the data inconclusive. So I think a more accurate statement would be 33% support it, >1% oppose it, and 66% are undecided.
Now why would you phrase it like that I wonder...
Also, the pollution example was used to demonstrate that human beings can have a dramatic effect on the environment, even in relatively short periods of time
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Because by the time you dimwits "have enough data", it'll be too late to do anything about it
Again, since nobody has answered the question yet, what would you accept as "proof" of AGW?
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
According to the "dimwits" on your side it's already too fucking late to save the planet.
So what have we got to lose by waiting and gathering more data if we (apparently) can't effect the outcome anyhow?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
So you don't believe em when they say "we're fucking up the planet", but you do believe em when they say "and we can't do anything about it!"? The hell kind of logic is that?
I completely disagree with that premise. We absolutely can do something to affect it, it just takes a lot of different social changes, like education, to happen first.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The longer we wait, the longer it will take to fix, and the more expensive it will be
- Status
Similar threads
