It’s very amusing
“I don’t see what all those environmentalists are worried about,” sneers your Great Uncle Joe. “Carbon dioxide is harmless, and great for plants!”
Okay. Take a deep breath. If you’re not careful, comments like this can result in dinner-table screaming matches. Luckily, we have a secret weapon: A flowchart that will help you calmly slay even the most outlandish and annoying of climate-denying arguments:
You’ll have to go over to Mother Jones to see the whole amusing thing at full size. What? You don’t want to? Well, I have a smaller size version below the fold
I’d LOVE for any Warmist to attempt to win an argument with me using this claptrap. Consensus is not science. It’s politics. The earth has warmed a whopping .28F since 1990. There has been no warming over the last 16 years (see Andrew Bolt for more on this insignificant warming using the Warmists favorite sources). And, really, nothing from this scientifically shows that the current warm period, which started around the mid-1800’s, is anything but mostly natural.
Wendy McElroy calls this “how to lose a climate argument, and offers some excellent points
- You assume your conclusion. Granting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there is little evidence that man’s CO2 emissions are the dominant force in global temperature. For the last 17 years, CO2 has risen but temperature has remained flat, which suggests that some other influence is stronger than CO2. Also, “too much” warming is a judgment call — there is no scientific basis for how much is too much. Sea level isn’t rising any faster than it used to. The ocean isn’t becoming acid; at most, it’s becoming slightly less alkaline, and that change is well with natural variation from place to place. The scientific evidence is that there is no linkage between CO2 emissions and extreme weather, even the IPCC has admitted as much in their recent SREX report. And no one has named a single species that has gone extinct due to global warming.
- Wrong. First, the 97% figure comes from just 77 scientists in a survey of over 3100 scientists. The survey-takers threw out over 3000 responses to get the result they wanted. Second, the survey did not ask whether climate change is “driven” by humans; it asked if human activity is a “significant contributing factor” in changing global temperature. “Significant” might be a 10% effect; and that activity might be deforestation or agriculture, rather than CO2 emissions.
Make sure to read her entire essay. Quite frankly, a couple warmists at work tried these arguments with me last week, and it took everything I had to not obliterate them with facts.
Thew US Navy says that the climate is changing, Teach why do YOU think you know more than them ?
John, for the millionth time we all agree the climate is changing. The issue is the cause and how much.
It must really suck to have everything you say be exposed as a lie.
Why do you hate the truth so much?
And just to be clear, there are large numbers of scientists who have published peer reviewed papers disputing AGW.
Do you think you know more than real scientists?
^Dense, shallow, ditzy and clueless^, but very opinionated. Further evidence that that obnoxious asshole is a dumb broad …, a very, very, very dumb broad.
John is clueless, doesn’t bother looking at real data, and has been flogging the navy thing for years.
But, do I trust the navy on this? No. I’ll trust them on core military stuff
Well Brian, since you disagree with me, you must agree with john.
It is good to see you liberal hypocrits on this site demonstrating how you can’t argue facts, but have to resort to mindless name calling.
I am sure you think going after me and gumball is a sport for you, much on the level of playing tag in elementary school. The problem is most of us – most adults – outgrow such childish endeavors.
But that’s okay. While we will discuss issues and facts, you can continue to demonstrate the immature actions of a liberal.
It’s amusing to watch but ultimately, like your posts, worthless.
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-03-06 12:14:10
LOL Weird rationale; further evidence that you’re a dumb broad.
Shhhh, she’s thinking. he he he
Can’t wait for her next snappy come-back, can you?
Pssst, what a maroon.
Um. yeah, that makes sense.
Say what???
If there is a real John and he isn’t just one of your daffy sock puppets here, he redefines the words, dense and shallow, seeing and hearing only what he wants to see and hear, and leading a dysfunctional life in a land of make believe. Question is, does he think that he is Peter Pan or Tinkerbelle?