• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Supreme Court, 5-4, Rules Against Administration in Global Warming Case

Stinger said:
No, science based on fact and observation, not tweaked models.

:rofl you just make stuff up as you go along don't you. We know virtually NOTHING about how water vapor interacts with the environment. One of the reason the models are bogus, they don't know how to factor in water vapor.

Thing is you can't refute the actual scince. The fact is burning hydrogen puts out LOTS of water vapor, and water vapor is the leading greenhouse gas. If we are going to ban the little bit of CO2 being put out then surely we cannot have water vapor being emitted.

Is water vapor a pollutant?

Since we think global warming is a problem we are going to issue a ruling even though we don;t believe anyone has any standing to sue.

Prove a negative.

And that is the most absurd part of the ruling. They should have to prove a scientific base TO DO it, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

Spinning as usual with the usual partisan rhetoric talking points - typical stinger fashion.
 
Yup. The amount of water vapor held in the air is determined by temperature, which definitively makes it a feedback, not a forcing. Add more water to the atmosphere and it rains out. Remove it, and it just soaks up more from the oceans.

Good try, though. :2razz:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom