Climate scientists give clear warning

[bluesmoke]

Sorry, but when you toss the term "flat earthers" at people who disagree with you, whether you mean it literally or not, you lose any real qualification to debate the issue at any level. If you want your point of view respected, you must show at least a modicum of respect for opposing views.

"Sorry, but when you toss the term "flat earthers" at people who disagree with you, whether you mean it literally or not, you lose any real qualification to debate the issue at any level. If you want your point of view respected, you must show at least a modicum of respect for opposing views."

My use of the term “flat-earther” is by definition and does accurately describe you. My qualification to debate includes the facts I gave to support what I said. You did not give irrefutable support of your claims, so you’re the one not qualified to debate because the burden of proof in a debate lies with the claim- maker, you, and if you do not meet that burden then the opponent, me, does not need to argue against the unfounded claim. If you want your point of view respected, back up what you say with factual evidence, like I did, without which your assertion is dismissed.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

"Sorry, but when you toss the term "flat earthers" at people who disagree with you, whether you mean it literally or not, you lose any real qualification to debate the issue at any level. If you want your point of view respected, you must show at least a modicum of respect for opposing views."

My use of the term “flat-earther” is by definition and does accurately describe you. My qualification to debate includes the facts I gave to support what I said. You did not give irrefutable support of your claims, so you’re the one not qualified to debate because the burden of proof in a debate lies with the claim- maker, you, and if you do not meet that burden then the opponent, me, does not need to argue against the unfounded claim. If you want your point of view respected, back up what you say with factual evidence, like I did, without which your assertion is dismissed.

All of your narcissism aside, if you cannot accept some level of skepticism when discussing the issue of the issue of climate change without resorting to terms like flat earther then you are clearly not all that confident in your own argument or your ability to defend it. Have a nice 4th of July weekend.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[bluesmoke]

All of your narcissism aside, if you cannot accept some level of skepticism when discussing the issue of the issue of climate change without resorting to terms like flat earther then you are clearly not all that confident in your own argument or your ability to defend it. Have a nice 4th of July weekend.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

"All of your narcissism aside, if you cannot accept some level of skepticism when discussing the issue of the issue of climate change without resorting to terms like flat earther then you are clearly not all that confident in your own argument or your ability to defend it. Have a nice 4th of July weekend."


I accept whatever level of anything is discussed when such is given factual support, at least when asked, which you refuse to do. Your reply is nothing more than Trumpian projection. You level the term “narcissism” at me yet you are so arrogant you refuse to provide proof, the burden of which is on you by debate standards, which you arrogantly refuse to recognize. You say I cannot accept skepticism, skepticism being inherent in the scientific process, yet it is you who refuse to accept my skepticism of your assertion for your lack of providing proof. Naming you a flat-earther fits by definition. There is no clearness in your assertion I’ve no confidence in my own argument or ability to defend it when what is clear is that in debate the ball is now in your court. In debate, defending my position is not called for as you are the original claim-maker and thus the burden of proof is on you. It’s your turn. Because I don’t need to argue against unfounded claim, being yours, if you reply to this post without pertinent evidence of fact, I need not reply to you again.

My 4th of July weekend is still going great, thanks. Surrounded by bunting and flags. I hope yours is going great, too.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

"All of your narcissism aside, if you cannot accept some level of skepticism when discussing the issue of the issue of climate change without resorting to terms like flat earther then you are clearly not all that confident in your own argument or your ability to defend it. Have a nice 4th of July weekend."


I accept whatever level of anything is discussed when such is given factual support, at least when asked, which you refuse to do. Your reply is nothing more than Trumpian projection. You level the term “narcissism” at me yet you are so arrogant you refuse to provide proof, the burden of which is on you by debate standards, which you arrogantly refuse to recognize. You say I cannot accept skepticism, skepticism being inherent in the scientific process, yet it is you who refuse to accept my skepticism of your assertion for your lack of providing proof. Naming you a flat-earther fits by definition. There is no clearness in your assertion I’ve no confidence in my own argument or ability to defend it when what is clear is that in debate the ball is now in your court. In debate, defending my position is not called for as you are the original claim-maker and thus the burden of proof is on you. It’s your turn. Because I don’t need to argue against unfounded claim, being yours, if you reply to this post without pertinent evidence of fact, I need not reply to you again.

My 4th of July weekend is still going great, thanks. Surrounded by bunting and flags. I hope yours is going great, too.

Okay chicken little.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[snakestretcher]

I was talking about US carbon production and you posted a graph of world production. It’s very clear that you are clueless

Is there no atmosphere outside of America's borders, or wind and ocean currents to carry emissions somewhere else? Did you mention 'clueless'?

 

[Crovax]

Is there no atmosphere outside of America? Did you mention 'clueless'?

Until you figure out a way to change China and India’s carbon output with US domestic policy then there might as well not be

 

[snakestretcher]

Until you figure out a way to change China and India’s carbon output with US domestic policy then there might as well not be

Well, seeing as China is spending hundreds of billions of dollars in addressing their problems I'd say you don't really have an argument. India is depressingly poor but is trying. America? Not so much, and de-funding the EPA and appointing people to lead it who have links to the fossil fuel industry isn't helping.

China invests PS235 billion to

- Telegraph

New EPA head Scott Pruitt's emails reveal close ties with fossil fuel interests | Environment | The Guardian

 

[PoS]

These moronic climate scientists have been issuing the same failed predictions on climate for decades. This one is from 1989- and it says exactly the same thing as what they say now:

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.

I personally think that if any official makes a warning like this and it doesnt come true then they ought to be sacked and never allowed back in the community again.

 

[Crovax]

Well, seeing as China is spending hundreds of billions of dollars in addressing their problems I'd say you don't really have an argument. India is depressingly poor but is trying. America? Not so much.

China can spend all the money they want they still don’t have the results yet. The US actually has results from doing very little which is what my point was all along... had you actually been reading the thread

 

[snakestretcher]

China can spend all the money they want they still don’t have the results yet. The US actually has results from doing very little which is what my point was all along... had you actually been reading the thread

How long do you think it takes to do these things; you want instant results? Try hitting the brakes on a supertanker and see how many miles it needs to stop. The US is still the world's second worse polluter. No excuses will alter that fact.

 

[Crovax]

How long do you think it takes to do these things; you want instant results? Try hitting the brakes on a supertanker and see how many miles it needs to stop. The US is still the world's second worse polluter. No excuses will alter that fact.

Turns out we have a lot of people living in the US. If you go by per capita the US has the same carbon output as Canada and less than Australia

 

[snakestretcher]

Turns out we have a lot of people living in the US. If you go by per capita the US has the same carbon output as Canada and less than Australia

I don't go by per capita, but by total emissions. That's the universal standard for measurement.

 

[Crovax]

I don't go by per capita, but by total emissions. That's the universal standard for measurement.

That’s a silly way to do things 300 million people will always output more emissions than a 30 million

Per capita is the only way to really measure how efficient a country is being with emissions

 

[snakestretcher]

That’s a silly way to do things 300 million people will always output more emissions than a 30 million

Per capita is the only way to really measure how efficient a country is being with emissions

Why is it silly? Does the per capita number do anything to lessen total emissions, or does it just make people feel better?