a question for those who don't believe in global climate change

[dixon76710]

And bolded above is the concrete proof of you deniars. Here you are accepting all the premise and screaming how there is no global warming. go figure.[/QOUTE]

?????You asked the question-

2 Do you deny that the world today is warming?

An I answered NO. ????
I see that the lights are on but nobody is home.

As for Antarctica you're still lying by omission - the author of the study that you are pointing to says
"The fact that the interior ice sheet is growing is a predicted consequence of global climate warming."
Clear evidence of how you are lying.

Soooo where is the lie? Like I said

And before any of you clowns get carried away, I am making two simple claims. Antartica has been cooling since the 50s and the total extent of all ice in the antartica has increased since the 70s. Nothing more. Everything else that this implies for you, is your own creation.

 

[UtahBill]

From what I have read about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, it is in no immediate danger of melting away or calving off from the rest of the antarctic ice, UNLESS sea level rises due to melting ice from other parts of the world, then the WAIS might just float off the bedrock it is anchored to and sail off into warmer waters where its melting could cause a very serious sea level rise. Looks like an event on one side, or end, of the world could cause other events on the other side.
Parts of the USA (southern CA) are below sea level as it is, and it would be a very interesting situation if sea level rose enough to flood those parts.

 

[jfuh]

?????You asked the question-

An I answered NO. ????
I see that the lights are on but nobody is home.

Now that you realized just what you did, right back to the insults.

Soooo where is the lie? Like I said

The lie is your continual lying by omission. You do not include the fact that the cooling and mass increase in the interior of Antarctica is consistent with global warming climate models.
Additionally I've asked you to clearly state what your conclusion of your two simple statements are. Need I remind you this is a debate site. So if you are making two points, you need to provide what your conclusion is. As in providing just what your argument is.
Hell I can say. Snow is white, the sky is normally blue. Ok, so what.
Hence with your two statements, so what?

Additionally it's even more telling now with your complete omission of a former post. You made the claim that Antarctica had cooled by 1 degree yet somehow the scientific community "ignored" this fact, but went gaga over a 0.6 degree warming. I've showed you how one was isolated local event on the fahrenheit scale while the other was global on the centigrade scale. That's what you deniars all do, you make blanket statements taken out of context to sound as if you are knowledgeable of all the facts yet in reality all you have are bits and pieces.
You're former statement was more honest with "I believe". You guys religiously deny global warming and one could give you an entire academic year filled with all the facts proving beyond a shadow of a doubt with only objective evidence that AGW is a reality and you'd still scream I don't believe.
You accept all the premise of AGW yet you deny it, juxtaposing with antarctica cooling as if that served as any basis of argument.

So I'll ask you flat out now.
Do you deny AGW?

 

[dixon76710]

Additionally I've asked you to clearly state what your conclusion of your two simple statements are. Need I remind you this is a debate site. So if you are making two points, you need to provide what your conclusion is. As in providing just what your argument is.
Hell I can say. Snow is white, the sky is normally blue. Ok, so what.
Hence with your two statements, so what?

And if you and southern democrat claimed that the sky was not blue and snow is not white, Im going to correct you in that situation as well. You two deny that the antartic has cooled and that the extent of ice has increased, I know that it has. You two are stating a lie, or are ignorant of the topic, take your pick.

 

[jfuh]

And if you and southern democrat claimed that the sky was not blue and snow is not white, Im going to correct you in that situation as well. You two deny that the antartic has cooled and that the extent of ice has increased, I know that it has. You two are stating a lie, or are ignorant of the topic, take your pick.

As Ive already challenged you, please show me where I have claimed the opposite? My claim is that your claim is completely consistent with global warming models prediction of what would happen in antarctica.
As your favorite phrase, you're in a imaginary debate.
Yet you still haven't made any conclusion yet. You're still beating around screaming your top off.
Ok tell us, Antarctica has experienced record cold winters and accumulated mass what about it? What's your conclusion?

As I notice you've dodged the question this time I'll ask it again.
Do you deny AGW?

 

[dixon76710]

You two deny that the antartic has cooled and that the extent of ice has increased, I know that it has. You two are stating a lie, or are ignorant of the topic, take your pick.

As Ive already challenged you, please show me where I have claimed the opposite?

OK.

And there in also is the lie. While the Eastern anarctic is thickening in the interior - the Coast of Antarctica is loosing ice at an alarming rate that far out weighs what the west is gaining in it's interior.

and in response to my statement that

Antartica has been cooling since the 50s

you replied

I won't deny that it has colder winters. But that's the key point. You are claiming unanimously and as I have said, lying via omission that Antartica has been cooling since the 50s (let me know if I'm misquoting you here, wouldn't want to take you out of context) but you don't say that this is only applicable to the winter and not the summer.

 

[jfuh]

OK.



and in response to my statement that



you replied

That's interesting as in each case I specified where the additional mass was occurring and where the cooling was also occurring. That's far from denial; you're reaching.
Speaking of, for the 3rd time now. Do you deny AGW??

 

[dixon76710]

That's interesting as in each case I specified where the additional mass was occurring and where the cooling was also occurring. That's far from denial; you're reaching.
Speaking of, for the 3rd time now. Do you deny AGW??

Aaaand you said that -

While the Eastern anarctic is thickening in the interior - the Coast of Antarctica is loosing ice at an alarming rate that far out weighs what the west is gaining in it's interior.

And the cooling in the Antartic is occurring in both the winter and summer. And your labeling of my statement that the antartic is cooling as a "lie" couldnt be a clearer denial of the facts of reality.

But I understand why you now want to distance yourself from your previous demonstrations of ignorance of the topic.

 

[jfuh]

Aaaand you said that -



And the cooling in the Antartic is occurring in both the winter and summer. And your labeling of my statement that the antartic is cooling as a "lie" couldnt be a clearer denial of the facts of reality.

But I understand why you now want to distance yourself from your previous demonstrations of ignorance of the topic.

:lamo, I said you were lying by omission dixon. Do try to keep up. you're play on word's couldn't be more transparent as to your desperation.
For the 4th time now, do you deny AGW?

 

[dixon76710]

:lamo, I said you were lying by omission dixon. Do try to keep up. you're play on word's couldn't be more transparent as to your desperation.
For the 4th time now, do you deny AGW?

Ive answered that question 4 times, no. Is there really any point in saying no a 5th time? It was a stupid question the first time you asked it. People like you and southern democrat are the ones with all the proclimations of climatic fact. Not me.

 

[jfuh]

Ive answered that question 4 times, no. Is there really any point in saying no a 5th time? It was a stupid question the first time you asked it. People like you and southern democrat are the ones with all the proclimations of climatic fact. Not me.

Actually you have never directly answered this question ever. And given your past argumentative style of counting only what you said exactly word for word as opposed to what your arguments may imply one has to make certain.

Yet as we see here, you don't deny the premises of AGW and you don't deny that AGW is indeed a reality. So then I must ask; just wtf are you arguing?

 

[dixon76710]

Actually you have never directly answered this question ever.

Just the most recent case. You asked

well then state clearly and answer these questions - something tells me you'll avoid answering.

1. Do you deny that there is a clear relationship between greenhouse gas concentration and climatic temperatures?
2. Do you deny that the world today is warming?
3. Do you deny that it is warming because of excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
4. Do you deny that these greenhouse gases are of anthropogenic origin on top of natural equilibria?

1. 
   
   and I replied.
   
   

   WTF????? Uh, No, No, No, No

   
   Where did I lose you einstein?

 

[jfuh]

Just the most recent case. You asked

and I replied.

Where did I lose you einstein?

You're just trolling now.

 

[dixon76710]

You're just trolling now.

Is there some other way that I could have MORE "directly answered this question" than I did with a "NO"?

 

[jfuh]

Is there some other way that I could have MORE "directly answered this question" than I did with a "NO"?

As you are not denying the premise of the thread you don't have an argument. This is a debate site, I'm on the side that says there is AGW have stated the premise and conclusions - a full argument. You have made clear that you don't deny AGW - so then just what the hell are you doing other than trolling?

 

[dixon76710]

As you are not denying the premise of the thread you don't have an argument. This is a debate site, I'm on the side that says there is AGW have stated the premise and conclusions - a full argument. You have made clear that you don't deny AGW - so then just what the hell are you doing other than trolling?

Just pointing out the multiple layers of bull shiite within your conclusions. Why does it irritate you so?

 

[jfuh]

Just pointing out the multiple layers of bull shiite within your conclusions. Why does it irritate you so?

Particularly funny coming from the person who is now denying the very thing he has said.

1. Do you deny that there is a clear relationship between greenhouse gas concentration and climatic temperatures?
2. Do you deny that the world today is warming?
3. Do you deny that it is warming because of excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
4. Do you deny that these greenhouse gases are of anthropogenic origin on top of natural equilibria?
5. Finally, With particular attention to what has been posted here with this sub topic of snow accumulation - Do you accept that the snow packs in Antarctica are consistent with AGW models as has been written in the published original literature?

WTF????? Uh, No, No, No, No and I suspect those who create the "models" could contend with most any isolated contradiction.

For the 4th time now, do you deny AGW?

Ive answered that question 4 times, no. Is there really any point in saying no a 5th time?

Now your just attributing your own beliefs onto me. I havent seen any evidence that shows that the majority of the warming we are now experiencing is due to man made causes.

Keep on :spin: bullshit dude. You got you're arse kicked up and down on this one. You're just trolling now.

 

[dixon76710]

Particularly funny coming from the person who is now denying the very thing he has said.
Keep on :spin: bullshit dude. You got you're arse kicked up and down on this one. You're just trolling now.

???? "Kicked up and down"? You havent even presented a rational arguement, let alone offered any evidence, other then these proclimations of fact you seem to like making. Perhaps you are much more impressed with these personal proclimations of yours, than the rest of us.

 

[jfuh]

???? "Kicked up and down"? You havent even presented a rational arguement, let alone offered any evidence, other then these proclimations of fact you seem to like making. Perhaps you are much more impressed with these personal proclimations of yours, than the rest of us.

Lie lie and more lies.
I've offered plenty of evidence debunked everything you have said and even proved that you were a troll.
Seems that you're having an argument with yourself here. On one side you admit of the realities of the matter, but then on the otherside you just have to disagree with all of the facts for the sole purpose of disagreeing and not to be called the troll you are.

 

[dixon76710]

Lie lie and more lies.
I've offered plenty of evidence debunked everything you have said and even proved that you were a troll.

You are confused. Ive subtantiated with links all my claims about Antartic temperature and extent of ice coverage, as well as the passing of the holocene maximum. None of your arguements have been about what I have stated, but intead youve been busy debunking what I didnt state. This whole silly lie by ommission tactic of yours. Not addressing my claims but instead constantly addressing what I didnt state.