by metatron 262 Replies latest jw friends
global warming. It is emphatically NOT undecided
True, Global Warming exists. It is the sources of the warrnth, and how much each contributes, that is the subject of discussion.
There is no proof that manmade sources make up any more than a small minority, as a percentage, of what is causing Global Warming.
Yet the alarmist element continues braying "the sky is falling!"
BA- Doesn't buy the hype.
hs,
The evidence is what will settle the issue
The issue can't be settled with the current evidence available- At aminimum, more and better data is required to successfully argue that human sources are responsible for anything other than a small minority of the causes of Global Warming.
I disagree entirely. Even the most anti-global warming candidate accepts that humankind has had some effect on global warming, as you seem to yourself. Their argument is that the effect is too small to matter on a geologic timescale. Science can and has been able to measure the effects of global warming over the past 200 years including its constituents.
Please note that at this stage I have not stated my own views on the matter. I am merely pointing out the following :
1) Humans have had an effect on climate change.
2) Science has borne this out.
3) The degree of human involvement is at issue.
Then we're in agreement, not disagreement, on that one. Measuring the effects is not at issue, measuring how much is due to manmade sources is, so far. At least for those who want to push the agenda that manmade sources are a major source, which, according to all currently available data, it's not.
For the record, I do not have a bloody nose from a previous encounter with Abaddon. As I have stated and will state again, Abaddon's "style" of "debate" is childish. I have pointed out how already, so I will not repeat myself here. BA- Cheers to you as well PS - sorry - nor could I switch off the yellow highliting!When you enter a situation of debate and have a bloody nose from a previous encounter with a person involved in the debate, leave your personal feelings out of it as it is a waste of the readers attention. If you do not people may conclude, not that you do not debate with children, but that you debate like a child. Cheers - HS PS - sorry - could not switch off the underlining.and that is what Abbadon has called for
I respectfully disagree. As I have pointed out, based on his post history, Abaddon simply wants to bash others who don't conclude the same as he does- plain and simple truth, it's his M.O. It's a waste of precious time to "debate" with a child.BA- doesn't "debate" with children
This thread is funny for a number of reasons, most I will keep to myself. However, it is interesting how the pro-global warming persons seem to immediately disregard and attack the motives of the anti-global warming persons. The pros remind me of how the Dubs attempt to win arguements. Say something with enough bluster, and you will win, right?
Brother Apostate,
Then we're in agreement, not disagreement, on that one. Measuring the effects is not at issue, measuring how much is due to manmade sources is, so far. At least for those who want to push the agenda that manmade sources are a major source, which, according to all currently available data, it's not.
Can you cite peer reviewed scientific date for the part of your post that I have put in bold lettering. This is the kind of statement that Abbadon seems to be seeking evidence for.
XJW,
This thread is funny for a number of reasons, most I will keep to myself. However, it is interesting how the pro-global warming persons seem to immediately disregard and attack the motives of the anti-global warming persons. The pros remind me of how the Dubs attempt to win arguements. Say something with enough bluster, and you will win, right?
Another waste of the readers time. State your position on the issue and present your evidence for that position - if you are able. Your comments are not helpful and are, as ever, innaccurate.
HS
Absolute Proof of Global Warming:
The one pushing the agenda bears the burden of proving the agenda
BA- can hear a pin drop
Hillary,
I stated that there are no sources that show more than a minor percentage of manmade contribution to global warming, and you ask me to cite sources?
Huh? Did you miss something?
The onus is on those who want to convince the world that there is a significant manmade contribution to global warming to cite sources!
BA- Hears crickets chirping
Brother Apostate,
You seem to have missed the point. I will quote you again :
At least for those who want to push the agenda that manmade sources are a major source, which, according to all currently available data, it's not.
The onus is on those who want to convince the world that there is a significant manmade contribution to global warming to cite sources!
You have made a bold claim. You have stated that ALL currently available scientific data indicates that manmade sources are not a major source of climate change. You are obviously aware that a large part of the world scientific commiunity disagree with you, and have presented their evidence as to why they take this stand - from their point of view thay HAVE proved this scientifically. The evidence is not a mystery, but peppered all over the Internet, scientific journals, peer reviewed papers, for all, including yourself, to research.
Now, what you need to do is to provide peer reviewed rebuttal evidence as to why, you, contrary to the majority of the scientific community disagree with them.
Please continue to note, that I have not expressed my own point of view as yet. I am just teaching you how to properly debate outside of the boundaries taught to you in 'Watching The World'. So, put up or shut up. That is all Abbadon is asking for you and your camp to do.
Present the science to evidence your views, as have those who adhere to the 'global warming' scenario.
HS
Seems like a moot point to me.
Is global warming a natural phenomena or caused by humans?
...don't know.
I think one thing that everyone can agree on is that mankind is pretty good at poluting the earth. So personally I'm going to continue to recycle as much as I can and do my tiny little part to pollute less. Not because of this recent hysteria,...but because I know it's good for me to do. If one day I can afford a more fuel efficient less carbon emitting vehicle,...then I will probably do that. If I can afford any other green "avenue" of using energy,...then I will probably do that too.
I'm not in any hurry though,...because right now I cannot afford to be green.
What I am worried about tho:
I am a little worried about this hysteria though.
The thing I'm most concerned about is if the global elite are using this hysteria as a means to further global governance. It's one thing to encourage people to try to go green,...its something different if they use this to pursue a globalist agenda.
This thread is funny for a number of reasons, most I will keep to myself. However, it is interesting how the pro-global warming persons seem to immediately disregard and attack the motives of the anti-global warming persons. The pros remind me of how the Dubs attempt to win arguements. Say something with enough bluster, and you will win, right?
LOL....I agree.
