Debate time: Global Warming

[Dana]

I thoght schools had debate teams for this sort of this

 

[groundpounder]

Otz is a pita fubar sammich school, and AP is valedictorian...

 

[Goat Whisperer]

so?:dunno

Because that was re-posted to say that your side had used science. I was just pointing out that yes, your side has used science, that's why the comment was only towards AlienAllen, who hasn't, see here:

Look you 'proving' that people agree with you, proves nothing to me. Your proving that science agrees with you, that is when I become convinced.

So far you have made no steps to prove scientifically that global warming to be false or at least false enough for us to not worry about it at all.

you would roast someone for saying the same thing.

I would 'roast' someone for asking a climatologist a question about a topic in climatology they specialize in?

I don't think you know me well enough to make that assumption

it is exactly the same type of data that you provide.

It doesn't prove anything scientifically, it shows a result, but it doesn't show a cause, therefore it can not be proved yet. That's like charging a person with murder because they had no alibi on the night of the murder, even though they don't have any direct evidence or motive.

In fact, it might even be better quality information than anything you have put in this far useless thread.

Ladies and gents, here is a clear confirmation biased. The other side has better or stronger numbers simply because gp believes it does. When in fact I use multiple sources (this all came from one) and I also sited them. There is no reason what so ever to say the data on this graph is more credible then any of my data.

it's far more informative (read: better) than any explanation you have offered

Ot still doesn't give a theory as to why CO2 doesn't warm the earth. Once again, it's like convicting someone to murder that doesn't have any motive. When the defense provided the opposite of a motive, such as them being mother and daughter.

you need to prove the flip side of this statement as much as you ask for it to be proven. The double standard is staggering, yet understandable given the overt displays of narrow-mindedness (see: below)

I have a theory as to why greenhouse gases cause warming

The greenhouse effect refers to circumstances where the short wavelengths of visible light from the sun pass through a transparent medium and are absorbed, but the longer wavelengths of the infrared re-radiation from the heated objects are unable to pass through that medium. The trapping of the long wavelength radiation leads to more heating and a higher resultant temperature.

But you do not have a theory that disproves or attempts to disprove the one above. You just give a result, but no proof as to the cause of the result. And until you have a cause, the result doesn't matter.

good question, which is why the warming theory is only a theory - no real frame of reference.

I was just qusetioning the technique used to discover temperature changes and the amount of gas in the atmosphere. We currently use ice cores, to get our rates from the past 6'000 years, but how did we get conclusive tmeperatures from 6 million years ago? I don't believe the ice cores go back even close to that far... can these numbers be as trusted as the ones we have today?

these are the types of questions that people ask who are reluctantly seeing that there is a chance they could be wrong...

The fact that no alarmist or skeptic has used the argument before ussually shows that something was incorrect with the findings, as well as the statement above. I never said the numbers ARE wrong, as I can't prove it with a more reliable graph. But I have a theory, I just want to make sure I have a full understanding of the theory before I argue it, so I don't mess up and get it wrong.

I'm sure all the sites you are so fond of quoting are full of stone-cold fact and evey single one that presents an opposing viewpoint is full of lies, deceit, derelicts and weak science.

Well no, not really. That's why I have researched not only one or two anthropogenic global warming sites, but many, to be sure I am not being fed lies or 'mis-information' and it is also why I read the skeptic websites to see if they are using any more reliable websites that prove my current numbers wrong. Then I also hold debates, to see if I can find some more skeptic websites to double check my findings against, and I also get a chance to talk to skeptics to see if they can prove me wrong. And if they can I first research it further to see if I could of held a stronger argument, or I concede to defeat. This has been nearly impossible here, because only a few skeptics have argued scientifically, and ussually for only short periods of time.

My theory is: Science you understand doesn't lie, people do.

You clearly don't understand most of the science here. And you are believing the lies, because you are afraid of the truth.

:cool That's a good P.O.V. to keep for the rest of your life - anything that stands in contrast to whatever you believe is founded upon false premise, so why bother even trying to see it any other way?? :thumbup

More then 80% of the time I flip on the issues. It's my favorite way to get an opinion, start out on one side, end up on the other.

Death penalty--at first I was pro, later on upon realizing a few things, I decided to switch sides.

PETA-- suprisingly in 6th or so grade my zoo friends pursaded me to join PETA. I was a veggie for a year and I even went to a few hunting/ furring protests. Now I am not only the VP of my greenhand ffa chapter, I also own a fur coat.

I am fully capable of switching sides, and I in fact like to do it. I also always look at the evidence before I make my conclusion, and I never set my conclusion in stone.

I believe closed minded people are the main problem in the world, and I strive very hard not to be one.

And most people accuse others of what they really are, to try and hide it.

GTFO! Are you serious?!?! No fucking way!

There's not much information on the temperature and gas records for over 600 million years ago, I think you find that a lot more suprising then it should be.

Not popularly used data on BOTH sides of the debate generally means the data is not correct. Doesn't mean it is, just throwing it out there.


Note how you ignored my leading/lagging phenomenon statement. Anyone who understood even a fracture of the science in this debate would have at least commented on it. Obviously you don't.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

I thoght schools had debate teams for this sort of this

They make you debate on shit that doesn't matter.

 

[Alien Allen]

They make you debate on shit that doesn't matter.

At least the don't debate "bull shit"

 

[groundpounder]

Jeebus H. Cripes on a cracker, AP. my head hurts....
I was going to re-reply to you point by point (again), but I think I'm going to say "Fuckit, you're too much of a fubar'd P.I.T.A. to waste more time on" and stick with this:

That's right. now stay in line or I'll whip my belt out. :hey

I have a feeling you weren't spanked enough as a child. I'm going to rectify that...:humm:



gp ---> :spank: <--- ap

so get over here and bend over.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

At least the don't debate "bull shit"

shit is shit.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

I was going to re-reply to you point by point...

Because I am so sure you can.

 

[groundpounder]

And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger

:spank:

and you'll love it!