(12-12-2016 01:59 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  List 5 points one by one and I will tell you where you are misconstrued or being lied too. For example, above someone said that the Artic is gaining ice. Categorically false and I will show you where and how you are being misled. Let's go.

you could've started with that one...why didn't you?

your word is hardly scientific fact...

and even if it is less....how would that data state it isn't beneficial to life, economic growth, causality, etc....

surely you realize that increased heat is why homo sapiens have survived this long, eh?

This site addresses the first graph and how it misrepresents what the models says and ignores the vast majority of the findings. It even shows the exact graph you use.

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-mod...ediate.htm

If that's the one you want me to use. Sure. Just google is the Arctic losing or gaining ice? It's absolutely amazing. Just google it. That's like shooting fish in a barrel.

The IPCC climate models haven't been woefully wrong. Quite the contrary actually.


Next. You guys have 4 more. I'll give you a 2 for 1.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/antarct...ng-ice.htm

Sea ice vs land ice. Antarctica is losing land ice. Read. See how you are being lied to and misled.

And what Mach won't tell you is that one of the largest polluters of our clean water was....yes, his beloved leftist EPA under Obama.

Oh gawd. USM. Diagnosed with add as a kid? Stick to one thing. Right now I am debunking 4 more climate denials. Let's go. Go to the dark places of the internet where the cockroaches deniers crawl and come up with a denial for me to debunk.

(12-12-2016 02:30 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The IPCC climate models haven't been woefully wrong. Quite the contrary actually.


Next. You guys have 4 more. I'll give you a 2 for 1.

Please post a link to the most correct model which is more than say, ten, years old....

(12-12-2016 02:54 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Oh gawd. USM. Diagnosed with add as a kid? Stick to one thing. Right now I am debunking 4 more climate denials. Let's go. Go to the dark places of the internet where the cockroaches deniers crawl and come up with a denial for me to debunk.

Did Obama's EPA have a spill that caused major damage to clean water? I can see why you made the big bad post to avoid answering. If you think your name calling and attempt to intimidate me will work, well......I will post what I want. By the way, what are the odds today of Hillary winning?

So giving up on the climate denials hey?

Bull-

Stick with the program!

My goodness. Like herding cats!

(12-12-2016 02:33 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  https://www.skepticalscience.com/antarct...ng-ice.htm

Sea ice vs land ice. Antarctica is losing land ice. Read. See how you are being lied to and misled.

except the argument has been thear that sea ice is the greater issue, due in part to changing currents/a warming ocean

(12-12-2016 02:26 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This site addresses the first graph and how it misrepresents what the models says and ignores the vast majority of the findings. It even shows the exact graph you use.

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-mod...ediate.htm

I already know that land ice is receding.....

sea ice is another animal, eh?

now, skip all the bs and make the argument why this isn't beneficial relative to the reasons I previously mentioned...aw **** it....here they are again....

Quote:and even if it is less....how would that data state it isn't beneficial to life, economic growth, causality, etc....

surely you realize that increased heat is why homo sapiens have survived this long, eh?

I'll play if'n you want.....but if we do, we're gonna get after it....I don't pick up pennies...

Mach is confused. He is mixing up "The earth is warming" with "fossil fuels are causing the earth to get warmer."

Those two assertions are not the same.

(12-12-2016 05:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  Mach is confused. He is mixing up "The earth is warming" with "fossil fuels are causing the earth to get warmer."
Those two assertions are not the same.

The place where he really loses me is, "We must immediately go full speed ahead on changes which will have massive negative impacts on our current economy and lifestyle, but will produce minuscule reductions in future global warming."

Except I never said that. The first problem is getting people to admit there is a problem. Kind of like any situation where there is a problem. First you have to admit there is one. Owl I challenge you to find anything where I ever came remotely close to what you are saying. I encourage govt intervention in alternative fuels. The Biomass methane generators are an excellent example of what I encourage our govt. to help out with. Quasar Energy group I have posted on here numerous times. 80x's cleaner than coal.

(12-12-2016 06:34 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Except I never said that. The first problem is getting people to admit there is a problem. Kind of like any situation where there is a problem. First you have to admit there is one. Owl I challenge you to find anything where I ever came remotely close to what you are saying. I encourage govt intervention in alternative fuels. The Biomass methane generators are an excellent example of what I encourage our govt. to help out with. Quasar Energy group I have posted on here numerous times. 80x's cleaner than coal.

But all of those things still provide only minuscule improvement.

Maybe you didn't say that in so many words, but the approaches the you favor say that. And you say that by supporting them. So you said that right there.

The whole global warming/climate change/whatever they are going to call it next movement rests on that as a guiding principle.

(12-12-2016 06:34 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Except I never said that. The first problem is getting people to admit there is a problem. Kind of like any situation where there is a problem.

No, the first problem you have is actually proving there is a problem of which you describe.

Boys...... quit with the side tracking shenanigans. I need to debunk at least three more of your citations that say global warming is not happening.

Let's go.

(12-12-2016 06:34 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Except I never said that. The first problem is getting people to admit there is a problem. Kind of like any situation where there is a problem. First you have to admit there is one.

Not true. Not disagreeing with UofMStateU....

BUT....
You can agree with being a good steward of the planet and reducing our reliance upon fossil fuels heavily manipulated by foreign governments etc etc without having to buy into the idea... NOT that the planet is warming... NOT that man can, much less does have an impact.... but that man is not only the PRIMARY cause of such things AND since many of the causes have as much to do with simply being ON the planet, i.e. deforestation for farming or housing, cattle for feed etc etc... that we can reasonably do anything about it.

If we can't, are we better off spending $1 trillion on pushing a string up a hill with no assurance that it will make any meaningful difference, or on adapting to the changes that are coming.

Hint... The planet will be fine. It's man who may suffer