• 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!

Top climate change myths answered [W:126]

ethanUNC said:
Flogger has stated numerous times that he doesn't need to provide any facts to support his position because AGW has the burden of proof.
Click to expand...

That's right ! My word with your final acknowlegment of that essential truism are we are making progress at last ? :shock:
 
flogger said:
That's right ! My word with your final acknowlegment of that essential truism are we are making progress at last ? :shock:
Click to expand...

Not really, because AGW already has mountains of evidence supporting it. To suggest that there is a problem with the evidence, you would need to bring in your own instead of sitting in your armchair and playing games of intuitive science.
 
code1211 said:
That's the while point. We still don't have it.

What history shows is that the climate has changed in the past and that it is changing right now.
Click to expand...

So you believe that there only be one cause of climate change?

How weird is that.
 
PMZ said:
What you say is precisely false.
Click to expand...

The paleoclimatic record disagrees #363

Show us how it is scientifically possible for atmospheric GHGs to not cause AGW
Click to expand...

That's not the question. The burden of proof is yours to provide illustrating how an extra 0.012% atmospheric content of a benign beneficial naturally occurring gas can possibly be responsible for all the evils being claimed for it.

Proceed
 
flogger said:
You are right . What has happened before has happened again and perfectly naturally too

View attachment 67160847
Click to expand...

Nothing unnatural about greenhouse gases. Nature took them out of the atmosphere and created fossil fuels from them. We put them back, recreating the former climate from the last time that they were there.
 
ethanUNC said:
Not really, because AGW already has mountains of evidence supporting it. To suggest that there is a problem with the evidence, you would need to bring in your own instead of sitting in your armchair and playing games of intuitive science.
Click to expand...

I see we still aren't making any progress sorting out what represents evidence and what represents speculation though :(
 
flogger said:
The paleoclimatic record disagrees #363



That's not the question. The burden of proof is yours to provide illustrating how an extra 0.012% atmospheric content of a benign beneficial naturally occurring gas can possibly be responsible for all the evils being claimed for it.

Proceed
Click to expand...

Why would anyone expect to understand science without learning it first? If you can't show us science that shows how greenhouse gases can not create AGW, why would you think that you are capable of understanding the science that proves that it does?
 
PMZ said:
Why would anyone expect to understand science without learning it first? If you can't show us science that shows how greenhouse gases can not create AGW, why would you think that you are capable of understanding the science that proves that it does?
Click to expand...

I'm not the one with the hypothesis to defend . Its your side making all the big claims and its your side requiring the evidence that confirms them
 
PMZ said:
Once we get the farms back to where the water is, we should be in good shape. At least for the survivors.
Click to expand...

Survivors ! Are you also a 9/11 truther too by any chance ? :lamo
 
flogger said:
I'm not the one with the hypothesis to defend . Its your side making all the big claims and its your side requiring the evidence that confirms them
Click to expand...

You are proposing the hypothesis that there is a possibility that GHGs are not GHGs. The science community awaits your proof.
 
PMZ said:
You are proposing the hypothesis that there is a possibility that GHGs are not GHGs. The science community awaits your proof.
Click to expand...

No the scientific community has yet to provide some showing that mankind is culpable for modern warming. I don't need to address your strawman at all
 
PMZ said:
You really don't care much for humanity, do you.
Click to expand...

On the contrary I post on issues such as this because I view modern day environmental extremism as a far greater threat to all our futures than anything mother Earth has in store
 
flogger said:
No the scientific community has yet to provide some showing that mankind is culpable for modern warming. I don't need to address your strawman at all
Click to expand...

It's not a straw man when it's scientifically undeniable.

Yours is the strawman. That GHGs don't behave like GHGs.
 
flogger said:
No the scientific community has yet to provide some showing that mankind is culpable for modern warming. I don't need to address your strawman at all
Click to expand...

"the scientific community has yet to provide some showing that mankind is culpable for modern warming"

Absolutely false. It's been unequivocally proven. You are incapable of understanding the proof.
 
PMZ said:
Absolutely false. It's been unequivocally proven. You are incapable of understanding the proof.
Click to expand...

I'll never know until it gets provided. You are espousing certainties and absolutes on this issue than exist only within your own mind
 
code1211 said:
Are you saying that mankind can control and direct the climate?
Click to expand...

We can control our actions that affect our environment.

Are you arguing that isn't possible to destroy our environment, or just on a global scale?
 
flogger said:
I'll never know until it gets provided. You are espousing certainties and absolutes on this issue than exist only within your own mind
Click to expand...

Do you believe that burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide and typically dumps it in our atmosphere?
 
Joe1991 said:
We can control our actions that affect our environment.
Click to expand...
Certain actions yes but climate certainly isn't proven to be one of them yet

Are you arguing that isn't possible to destroy our environment, or just on a global scale?
Click to expand...

Its possible but probably unlikely. Ditching the AGW scam and ploughing the vast monies into actual verifiable environmental conservation projects would help
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom