Global Warming?

[LWG]

They prefer to ignore all previous warming periods, many much warmer than today and faster to onset. I've asked a dozen tomes sNd they ignore that inconvenient truth.
During Medieval warming the British Isles were producing two grain crops a year, hasn't happened since and certainly not in the blasting heat furnace of today's imagination.

The real tragedy of this is that the AGW people think they are really supported by "science." Hansen, the University of Easy Access and the like are, to me, nothing more than prostitutes plying their trade among the government grant johns, who in turn are selling this bunk in order to deprive us of even more liberty.

I will begin to give them some credence when the UN and governmental "meetings" are held by videoconference, rather than at some tropical resort requiring the burning of tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel and gasoline.

 

[newbury]

I bet the 5 other liberals think you're just hilarious!

If I actually thought you could comprehend I could reply to you.

 

[toppop52]

If I actually thought you could comprehend I could reply to you.

If I actually thought you had a valid point at any time,I might give a ****!

 

[newbury]

If I actually thought you had a valid point at any time,I might give a ****!

Good reply, concealed profanity.

 

[toppop52]

Good reply, concealed profanity.

Just because it's not allowed unconcealed. People that condescend, profess great knowledge and pick around the edges, while trying to cover for their own inability to answer a simple question, get boring after a while. You seem like a really smart guy, if you can't answer the question about the previous warming periods but insist on defending AGW, it reflects badly on you.

 

[SPYDERLK]

I bet the 5 other liberals think you're just hilarious!

If I actually thought you could comprehend I could reply to you.

If I actually thought you had a valid point at any time,I might give a ****!

The tactic is to insist on absolute proof of the unprovable. ... Then insist that the premise is false because only highly cohesive supportive information can be offered as proof. A wholly science free nit pic tactic, great for those who are fooled into believing that it is valid. ... but very bad for everybody if the "unprovable" was right.
larry

 

[mostly_gas]

The tactic is to insist on absolute proof of the unprovable. ... Then insist that the premise is false because only highly cohesive supportive information can be offered as proof. A wholly science free nit pic tactic, great for those who are fooled into believing that it is valid. ... but very bad for everybody if the "unprovable" was right.
larry

Would be nice to know why the green house effect of CO2 is unprovable.
Knowing the effects of CO2 would help in managing man effects (if significant). That project would be a black hole for money with clearly defined measurable objectives.
How would it be for everyone if the unprovable is wrong?

 

[jefwyn]

The same guys that argue that global warming is not possible, are the same ones that argued to the bitter end that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. I don't get it.

 

[/pine]

The same guys that argue that global warming is not possible, are the same ones that argued to the bitter end that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. I don't get it.

I don't think you understand the argument...for starters, the correct term is "climate change" and I don't think you will find many folks (including agoraphobics) that have not realized some "climate change"...

The crux of the argument is "AGW" meaning that greenhouse gasses (and their release by human activity) are directly responsible for said climate changes...

get it now ?

 

[Redneck in training]

The same guys that argue that global warming is not possible, are the same ones that argued to the bitter end that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. I don't get it.

They also believe that wrestling is real.:laughing: