|
Post by blondie on Mar 7, 2007 21:27:51 GMT -5
Dear global warming deniers:
Your position involves an enormous global conspiracy involving the nightly news, the daily newspapers, science publications, the Bush administration, the UN, the EPA, NASA, all the governments of the world, and all institutions of higher learning.
It it possible that you may be wrong on this one?
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Mar 8, 2007 10:49:35 GMT -5
Here would be the appropriate place to note the difference between Global Warming and Man-Made Global Warming.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 8, 2007 11:11:21 GMT -5
that has been done a few times....blondie has no real response, has NEVER given one shred of evidence....the ONLY thing they have is to distort and try to paint the CORRECT side as being conspiracy theorists, when you have NOTHING to debate with you attack the other side as people rather than deal with FACTS!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 8, 2007 11:25:24 GMT -5
I can remember, just a few short years ago, right-wingers said global warming didn't exist at all. Now it's not caused by man. Next they'll be taking credit for warning everyone about it. I can't argue against someone who doesn't believe in global warming. I can just advise you to learn about it. My point is to stop because you're embarrassing yourself. I'm trying to help you people out. billt, The two "facts" you presented before (Co2 is the only gas causing global warming and if Co2 can stop light waves from leaving the atmosphere why can't it stop them from coming in) are so unbelievably naive I can't believe you're back for more. I'm not happy about global warming. I'm no big fan of Al Gore. I just have an open mind to the evidence produced by objective scientists.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 8, 2007 13:26:09 GMT -5
"(Co2 is the only gas causing global warming and if Co2 can stop light waves from leaving the atmosphere why can't it stop them from coming in) are so unbelievably naive I can't believe you're back for more."
blondie in the interest of TRUTH.....YOUR side is the one claiming "Co2 is the only gas causing global warming" i never made that claim YOUR side does when saying that NOT only co2 is in control but also the manmade part is CAUSING the warming.
as to the other part about co2 well it is FACT that IF co2 can block IR waves going out to space then indeed it also blocks IR waves coming in from the sun!
as to an "open mind" it is clear to any thinking person that YOU indeed are NOT open in any way to the science involved.
i am using the science to show how SILLY the claim that humans are the CAUSE of any recent warming really is.
FACT there was warming in the early part of the 20th century, FACT, after that warming and during the time man's co2 output was increasing the climate was COOLING.
FACT the ice core data shows the co2 levels rise AFTER the temperatures rise, to any thinking person that makes it clear, IF co2 is the CAUSE of warming, then the warming would come AFTER the co2 goes up NOT before!
again blondie try TRUTH and honesty, YOU saying I am the one saying "Co2 is the only gas causing global warming" if simply put FALSE and is indeed a STUPID claim to make, the very claim YOUR SIDE IS MAKING!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 8, 2007 14:43:27 GMT -5
IF co2 is capable of blocking IR waves heading out to space, wouldn't co2 ALSO have that SAME ability to block those same type waves as the come IN from the sun? I never heard anyone claim that Co2 is the only gas causing global warming except you. My side is the EPA. That's where I found out you were wrong. I just heard Rush Limbaugh and the new global warming denier trick is to claim that people who believe in GW aren't skeptical. This is very clever until you back off a bit and realize Rush and billt are only skeptical of real scientists using the skeptical scientific method. All that skepticism disappears when some quack appears parroting what they what to hear. Rush's powerful evidence against GW today came from half way around the world in an op-ed piece in the extremely right-wing Daily Mail. No reason to be skeptical of an amateur conservative's opinion.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 8, 2007 14:47:45 GMT -5
BEFORE we go any further, you MUST show me where i made such an idiotic claim!
also, IF that isnt the claim your side is making then how on earth can YOU or anyone else claim that human release of c02 is CAUSING global warming!
IF that isnt your sides position then WHAT is causing any warming please?
and IF that isnt their claim then why is co2 even being discussed?
|
|
|
Post by fragerella on Mar 8, 2007 15:00:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 8, 2007 15:00:43 GMT -5
how could such a TINY part of the equation, co2, have taken total control and be the ONLY factor involved in any recent warming? Is this a straw man argument? I thought this was your position.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Mar 8, 2007 15:02:24 GMT -5
I'll keep posting this since no one seems to want to address it.
dominant (consensus) does not = scientific proof
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 8, 2007 15:08:58 GMT -5
I'll keep posting this since no one seems to want to address it. dominant (consensus) does not = scientific proof That's because everybody knows that. Science is the tentative conclusions drawn from the best evidence. The best evidence points to Global Warming and its human cause. If better evidence comes along that refutes it all the objective people will change their minds.
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Mar 8, 2007 15:11:25 GMT -5
I'll keep posting this since no one seems to want to address it. dominant (consensus) does not = scientific proof I agree. And when so many scientists and TWO major government bodies (The Department of Energy and the EPA) can not agree, where is the proof?
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Mar 8, 2007 15:12:57 GMT -5
I'll keep posting this since no one seems to want to address it. dominant (consensus) does not = scientific proof That's because everybody knows that. Science is the tentative conclusions drawn from the best evidence. The best evidence points to Global Warming and its human cause. If better evidence comes along that refutes it all the objective people will change their minds. OK...and all of the evidence that shows that the Earth has been in warming/cooling cycles since the dawn of time, and this is just the latest warming cycle means........?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 8, 2007 15:21:27 GMT -5
I agree. And when so many scientists and TWO major government bodies (The Department of Energy and the EPA) can not agree, where is the proof? Where did you get this from? Obviously the EPA believes in GW. I went to the Department of Energy's website and they're all about reducing greenhouse gases.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 8, 2007 15:26:02 GMT -5
OK...and all of the evidence that shows that the Earth has been in warming/cooling cycles since the dawn of time, and this is just the latest warming cycle means........? Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts, believe all these climate scientists around the world haven't taken this into consideration?
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Mar 8, 2007 15:40:22 GMT -5
I agree. And when so many scientists and TWO major government bodies (The Department of Energy and the EPA) can not agree, where is the proof? Where did you get this from? Obviously the EPA believes in GW. I went to the Department of Energy's website and they're all about reducing greenhouse gases. Do you even LOOK at the links other people post, or do you just start posting willie nillie and hope someone is stupid enough to buy what you vomit up hook line and sinker? Several of the graphs and statistics used in the last link I posted (oh, yeah, YOU claimed it was just an opinion page, when what it was was a HUGE dry and boring statistic page) were directly from the Department of Energy.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 8, 2007 15:56:58 GMT -5
Do you even LOOK at the links other people post, or do you just start posting willie nillie and hope someone is stupid enough to buy what you vomit up hook line and sinker? Several of the graphs and statistics used in the last link I posted (oh, yeah, YOU claimed it was just an opinion page, when what it was was a HUGE dry and boring statistic page) were directly from the Department of Energy. If it quacks like a quack.
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Mar 8, 2007 16:08:17 GMT -5
Do you even LOOK at the links other people post, or do you just start posting willie nillie and hope someone is stupid enough to buy what you vomit up hook line and sinker? Several of the graphs and statistics used in the last link I posted (oh, yeah, YOU claimed it was just an opinion page, when what it was was a HUGE dry and boring statistic page) were directly from the Department of Energy. If it quacks like a quack. This is almost the most intelligent post I have seen you make, and even it makes no sense at all.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 8, 2007 16:12:43 GMT -5
"Science is the tentative conclusions drawn from the best evidence."
utter NONSENSE.....science is what is used to TEST the conlusions and the evidence thereof.
tentative conlusions are called hypothesis in science....then the conlusions are tested and proven to be true or false.
the agencies blondie cites have been shown to be guilty of reaching the conslusion BEFORE the science is even begun and then trying to find "scientists" that will support the foregone conclusions....the EPA and its meta analysis about SHS in 1992-3 is a PERFECT example of this and when reviewed in COURT, was proven that indeed the EPA made up its mind BEFORE any science was even looked at and then attempted to make the "science" match the conclusion.
the mann hockey stick graph which was/is the basis of much of the media franzy has been shown beyond a shadow of doubt to be FALSE(using random numbers many times, no matter what the input the output was a hockey stick shape).
that is THE PROBLEM with YOUR side of this blondie, NO EVIDENCE that can be tested by others, NO RESPONSE to the FACT that history SHOWS that the warming is BEFORE the rise in co2.
and YOU in partricular blondie have done NOTHING except say is essence, i saw it on TV and read it in a newspaper so that makes it right.
to which i respond the headline "DEWEY WINS".
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 8, 2007 16:28:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Mar 8, 2007 16:28:45 GMT -5
Thanks for noticing my note, dixiepixie. I was really hoping blondie would notice and respond but I guess that was too much to ask.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 8, 2007 16:32:53 GMT -5
blondie, those links are PROOF that you have no desire to discuss the issue but rather ONLY attempt to FALSELY portray those that are correct!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 8, 2007 16:33:22 GMT -5
billt,
How can you possibly discredit the entire collection of working scientists at the EPA over some minor incident decades ago yet fall head over heals into what the entire world knows is a wacky right-wing conspiracy theory?
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 8, 2007 16:33:48 GMT -5
zoomixer i would have responded but didnt see any need to because any rational adult can understand the TRUTH you posted.
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Mar 8, 2007 16:37:00 GMT -5
Thanks for noticing my note, dixiepixie. I was really hoping blondie would notice and respond but I guess that was too much to ask. It's nice to see someone, other than bill, that makes a good point in the thread. blondie has an anti Christian agenda and tried to make every thread a way to discredit Christians. If the village idiot of Birmingham was an Atheist and said the world was a concave square, blondie would find a Wikipedia link that agreed.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 8, 2007 16:37:12 GMT -5
Thanks for noticing my note, dixiepixie. I was really hoping blondie would notice and respond but I guess that was too much to ask. Did you see post # 70?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 8, 2007 16:39:44 GMT -5
blondie, those links are PROOF that you have no desire to discuss the issue but rather ONLY attempt to FALSELY portray those that are correct! Your stance reminds me of Dr. Dino.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 8, 2007 16:41:54 GMT -5
blondie do you actually think the EPA is a group of "scientists" if so then you are too ignorant to waste any time with on any issue. the EPA is government workers NOT scientists.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 8, 2007 16:48:19 GMT -5
thank you blondie for confirmation you have NOTHING but personal insult!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 8, 2007 17:03:21 GMT -5
blondie do you actually think the EPA is a group of "scientists" if so then you are too ignorant to waste any time with on any issue. the EPA is government workers NOT scientists. Let's see. You call me ignorant and say the EPA is government, not scientists. I wonder if there are scientists among the 18,000 employees at the EPA. How could I possibly find out? Oh, I know, they must have a jobs board: jobs1.quickhire.com/scripts/epa.exe/runuserinfo?Haveusedbefore=5
|
|