Global warming proved to be a scam?

[dt3]

its not my theory, it's a scientific consensus.

Then it should be easy enough to prove. Go ahead.

 

[edgray]

that is bullshit

just spewing the climate control crowd rhetoric

no, it actually is the scientific consensus.

funny how this is, and perhaps evolution, are the only two consensus's being challenged by the layman?

why not challenge the consensus on atomic theory or something like that?

 

[dt3]

no, it actually is the scientific consensus.

funny how this is, and perhaps evolution, are the only two consensus's being challenged by the layman?

why not challenge the consensus on atomic theory or something like that?

Layman? Did somebody forget to tell these guys about the consensus?

Global Warming Petition Project

 

[edgray]

nice professional looking website that, you can tell it's got the weight of the scientific community behind it.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12

 

[dt3]

nice professional looking website that, you can tell it's got the weight of the scientific community behind it.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12

Ok, now prove that the rise in earth's temperature is attributable to man's release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

 

[edgray]

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dt3]

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.....

Ok, now prove that the rise in earth's temperature is attributable to man's release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

 

[Alien Allen]

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He asked for PROOF

Not opinion

Glad to know wiki has been peer reviewed :24:

 

[edgray]

The point is that I don't have proof, and neither does anyone on this forum. We trust scientists to develop theories based on their research and they have done so. Why question this and nothing else?

Oh, and here's the professional opinion of science on wikipedia:

BBC NEWS | Technology | Wikipedia survives research test

 

[dt3]

The point is that I don't have proof, and neither does anyone on this forum. We trust scientists to develop theories based on their research and they have done so. Why question this and nothing else?

Oh, and here's the professional opinion of science on wikipedia:

BBC NEWS | Technology | Wikipedia survives research test

Maybe you trust scientists blindly, but that doesn't mean everybody has to. Why won't they release their initial data to be peer-reviewed? Oh wait, they deleted the raw data. And they conspired to distort the peer-review process. Not exactly ringing endorsements of credibility.

 

[Burntblood]

Take all that energy and put it to a cause that you can actually have an effect on.
The dramatic changes that mother Earth regularly goes through scoffs at our Hummers and aerosol cans.
She will do what she has for 4.5 billion years.
We are all stewards of this planet and each must do his or her part to not contribute to the death of the planet.
Choose your battles well.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

You have all failed to make an argument against the actual theory of climate change. Instead you have dodged the bullet by arguing little points and ignoring arguments you can't overcome. Can someone please start brining in Skeptical Arguments that count instead of just "The climate has changed before" That is not an argument. That's like saying "My car has always stopped working before, because the gas run out. So therefore, even though the gage says the gas is full, that's why my car has just stalled." Just because the climate has never changed before because of carbon (released by humans), it doesn't mean it can't now.

 

[nova]

do you care for the planet?

Hell NO! Lets get hopped up on roofies and burn this mother fucker to the ground :24::24:

 

[retro]

You have all failed to make an argument against the actual theory of climate change. Instead you have dodged the bullet by arguing little points and ignoring arguments you can't overcome. Can someone please start brining in Skeptical Arguments that count instead of just "The climate has changed before" That is not an argument. That's like saying "My car has always stopped working before, because the gas run out. So therefore, even though the gage says the gas is full, that's why my car has just stalled." Just because the climate has never changed before because of carbon (released by humans), it doesn't mean it can't now.

But you've successfully argued against yourself as well. Just because the climate could be changing due to carbon (and btw, the burning of fossil fuels doesn't account for all of the carbon in the atmosphere, but I digress) doesn't mean that it is. In fact, because the climate has changed in the past before, it would stand to reason that we're simply going through the same cycle as has happened before.

 

[dt3]

You have all failed to make an argument against the actual theory of climate change. Instead you have dodged the bullet by arguing little points and ignoring arguments you can't overcome. Can someone please start brining in Skeptical Arguments that count instead of just "The climate has changed before" That is not an argument. That's like saying "My car has always stopped working before, because the gas run out. So therefore, even though the gage says the gas is full, that's why my car has just stalled." Just because the climate has never changed before because of carbon (released by humans), it doesn't mean it can't now.

By your analogy, my entire argument is that you can't trust the gas gauge

 

[Goat Whisperer]

And once again no one brings a solid argument to the table.

 

[Alien Allen]

And once again no one brings a solid argument to the table.

And yours are ???

right

I thought so

Your responses are to say others have no argument

It is dangerous to become wedded to any argument to such a degree you can not even acknowledge when there is one.

This will not serve you well down the road to have such biases

 

[Goat Whisperer]

My argument is the theory of climate change. Which no one has given a good argument directly against. I'm pretty sure you all understand the basics of AGW, but if I really must explain it...

 

[Guyzerr]

By your analogy, my entire argument is that you can't trust the gas gauge

Now you're really trying to confuse her with facts. Shame... shame... shame....

 

[Goat Whisperer]

The whole analogy is based on that you guys are assuming problems can only be caused by the same thing... Nothing new can ever happen.