Tot admits of human effect on global warming! (1 Viewer)

[jfuh]

I guess ppl can be changed to see the light. Long time stander that humans would have absolutely 0 effect to influence climate change now also claims that humans can indeed influence the environment. Specifically he noted that it was the Chinese that were making a change to environment. Though seeing as China only uses about <1/10
of the world's annual energy, currently, the US by contrast uses 1/4. Then it's rational to say that indeed we are causing climate change.

Source

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I guess ppl can be changed to see the light. Long time stander that humans would have absolutely 0 effect to influence climate change now also claims that humans can indeed influence the environment. Specifically he noted that it was the Chinese that were making a change to environment. Though seeing as China only uses about <1/10
of the world's annual energy, currently, the US by contrast uses 1/4. Then it's rational to say that indeed we are causing climate change.

Source

First of all I never said that humans have no effect on global warming just that it's a minor effect.

Second of all I said they are soon to surpass the U.S..

Third of all I didn't admit anything let's see what actually was stated:

Well then you should support screwing red China if you believe in the myth of global warming.

But how does screwing china protect the environment exactly?

Umm because they are soon to be the largest consumers of fossil fuels and their environmental regulations are almost non-existent.

Tot admits of human effect on global warming!

http://www.debatepolitics.com/todays-news/10438-protest-against-chinese-president-hu-5.html#post297347

 

[jfuh]

First of all I never said that humans have no effect on global warming.

:lamo :2funny: No?
So who posted this?

You follow the group think if you want to, I'll stick with the facts and the facts say that humans can't cause climate change anymore than they can stop it.

This must be a completely different tot then I suppose.

Second of all I said they are soon to surpass the U.S..

But human's can't cause climate change anymore than they can stop it!

Third of all I didn't admit anything let's see what actually was stated:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/todays-news/10438-protest-against-chinese-president-hu-5.html#post297347

Yes I know what you posted, and this is what it was in response to.

Well then you should support screwing red China if you believe in the myth of global warming.

Then I said

t But how does screwing china protect the environment exactly?

To which you replied.

Umm because they are soon to be the largest consumers of fossil fuels and their environmental regulations are almost non-existent.

Exactly seems so obvious doens't it? Consume large quantities of fossil fuels and bam! you effect the climate. If fossil fuel comsumption goes unregulated or there are non-existent regulations against fossil fuel consumptions (ie the Kyoto Protocols) then things really get out of hand. Wow some body pinch me.

So, question, how does that foot taste?
Swoosh! Nothing but net.:2party:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

:lamo :2funny: No?
So who posted this?

This must be a completely different tot then I suppose.

Again you're a master of out of context quotes, numerous times in that thread I stated that human activity is a factor but not the only factor or the dominate factor and to this date you have still not proven causation only correlation nor have you provided what % of global warming is caused by human activity save for your own obviously flawed opinion that it's caused 100% by human beings..

But human's can't cause climate change anymore than they can stop it!

That's why I deliberately said: "if you believe in the myth of global warming."

Yes I know what you posted, and this is what it was in response to.

Then I said

To which you replied.


So, question, how does that foot taste?
Swoosh! Nothing but net.:2party:

Nothing but net? Hardly, you took an out of context quote that prior to my writing it I deliberately stated that: "if you believe in the myth of global warming," specifically to avoid this type of bullshit.

 

[jfuh]

Again you're a master of out of context quotes.



Nothing but net? Hardly, you took an out of context quote that prior to my writing it I deliberately stated that: "if you believe in the myth of global warming," specifically to avoid this type of bullshit.

So what about that first part tot, the claim that, oh wait what was it again?

First of all I never said that humans have no effect on global warming just that it's a minor effect.

Oooo wow, you used the edit option to re-word what you said, from no effect to a minor effect. Too late, already caught your quote in my former post.

Confirmation that you are indeed lieing and that this is not a simple memory lapse.

Now as for the global warming myth portion, I find it interesting how till this day the 10th time I've asked you and all the other environmental destroyers still decline to answer.
Do you deny the direct correlation between carbon dioxide and Global warming? Oh wait, no it seems you've admited to it because you said.

Umm because they are soon to be the largest consumers of fossil fuels and their environmental regulations are almost non-existent.

Seems like you accept this correlation. Not to mention the human factor.

So how did you say that foot tasted?:lol:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

So what about that first part tot, the claim that, oh wait what was it again?

Now show the numerous posts in the same thread where I said that humans have a minor effect on global warming.

Oooo wow, you used the edit option to re-word what you said, from no effect to a minor effect. Too late, already caught your quote in my former post.

Oh really?

Last edited by Trajan Octavian Titus : Today at 08:39 AM.

Last edited by jfuh : Today at 08:52 AM.

I'm sorry that you don't have the ability to process new information but it's really not my problem.

Confirmation that you are indeed lieing and that this is not a simple memory lapse.

Is it your main mission in life to use fallacies of logic . . . or just a hobby?

Now as for the global warming myth portion, I find it interesting how till this day the 10th time I've asked you and all the other environmental destroyers still decline to answer.
Do you deny the direct correlation between carbon dioxide and Global warming? Oh wait, no it seems you've admited to it because you said.
Seems like you accept this correlation. Not to mention the human factor.

Correlation is not the same thing as causation so really it's a pointeless question.

So how did you say that foot tasted?:lol:

Umm, I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a user of out of context quotes thus proving what everyone already knows: YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY!!!

 

[jfuh]

Now show the numerous posts in the same thread where I said that humans have a minor effect on global warming.



Oh really?

Last edited by Trajan Octavian Titus : Today at 08:39 AM.

Last edited by jfuh : Today at 08:52 AM.

I'm sorry that you don't have the ability to process new information but it's really not my problem.




Is it your main mission in life to use fallacies of logic . . . or just a hobby?



Correlation is not the same thing as causation so really it's a pointeless question.



Umm, I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a user of out of context quotes thus proving what everyone already knows: YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY!!!

Then in the end, a very hopeless attempt to discredit through ad homenin. If were were in the True debate section, guess what, you just lost.:hitsfan: I think this diserves an avatar change.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Then in the end, a very hopeless attempt to discredit through ad homenin. If were were in the True debate section, guess what, you just lost.:hitsfan: I think this diserves an avatar change.

What are you talking about? You deliberately used an out of context quote to distort my position and I just proved it, it is you sir that just lost.

 

[jfuh]

What are you talking about? You deliberately used an out of context quote to distort my position and I just proved it, it is you sir that just lost.

I'm not going to be drawn out by you in a personal mud slinging contest tot. I'm perfectly satisfied with you're accepting human cause of global warming. Now what's say you about doing something to prevent this global catastrophe.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I'm not going to be drawn out by you in a personal mud slinging contest tot. I'm perfectly satisfied with you're accepting human cause of global warming. Now what's say you about doing something to prevent this global catastrophe.

So is that why I used the quantifiying phrase: "if you believe in the myth of global warming?"

 

[Enola/Alone]

Jfuh, if you were responsible for this turn-around on the part of Tot, you can have my first born(as long as you raise her socialist).

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Jfuh, if you were responsible for this turn-around on the part of Tot, you can have my first born(as long as you raise her socialist).

I didn't admit anything let's see what actually was stated:

Well then you should support screwing red China if you believe in the myth of global warming.

But how does screwing china protect the environment exactly?

Umm because they are soon to be the largest consumers of fossil fuels and their environmental regulations are almost non-existent.

Tot admits of human effect on global warming!

http://www.debatepolitics.com/todays-news/10438-protest-against-chinese-president-hu-5.html#post297347 (Protest against Chinese President Hu.)

 

[teacher]

The real question jfuh, is to what percentage is humanity causing global warming? I'll keep in mind you are a glass is half full kind of fellow. I never saw TOT say humans have NO effect on global warming. That would be just as stupid as saying we are entirely responsible for it. And you didn't happen to catch the documentary "The Dimming Sun" the other day did you? Hehe.

 

[Enola/Alone]

Well, Tot, you use the phrase "the myth of global warming". A myth is something untrue/false, therefore it looks like you're denying global warming is real, or denying that it's a problem.

Second of all I said they(China) are soon to surpass the U.S..

Can you prove this? It would seem higly unlikely that they're going to jump ahead of the US (espicially when you consider that at Kyoto, the US demanded that "sink land" count towards emission reductions.)

 

[teacher]

Chinas population uses dirty burning coal to heat and cook with. This is not taken into account in emissions. And there are a lot of Chinese doing this last I saw. You people get so caught up in what the numbers and scientists and politicians say you often over look the simple and obvious. You can measure America's emissions because we know how fossil fuel we use. How much coal, dung, wood, peat, seaweed, charcoal does the rest of the world use? America is not the big polluter. And we get cleaner every year. I'll wait for the cries of "prove it" and "link" and "source". Doesn't change common sence.

 

[Billo_Really]

Give it up, TOT, you've been had. There's no going back. Take your beating like a man. You'll thank jfuh later.

 

[Enola/Alone]

Chinas population uses dirty burning coal to heat and cook with. This is not taken into account in emissions. And there are a lot of Chinese doing this last I saw. You people get so caught up in what the numbers and scientists and politicians say you often over look the simple and obvious. You can measure America's emissions because we know how fossil fuel we use. How much coal, dung, wood, peat, seaweed, charcoal does the rest of the world use? America is not the big polluter. And we get cleaner every year. I'll wait for the cries of "prove it" and "link" and "source". Doesn't change common sence.

Sounds like a round-about way of admitting you have no sources to back your claim up.

 

[teacher]

Sounds like a round-about way of admitting you have no sources to back your claim up.

Oh, I could go find some, I just don't do that. I'd rather tell you people water is wet then giggle my friggin azz of when you yell for a source on it.

The point is, if you need a source for common knowledge then you're too friggin stupid to understand the source. Or maybe you are here to play some "who can come up with a better source" game, for simple matters.

Or I could get all stupid and tell you to prove to me that there aren't a billion Chinese cooking and heating with dirty burning coal. Would you come back by asking me to prove there are a billion Chinese?

There is a palm tree outside of my window. Do you need to see me standing in front of my window with a copy of todays newspaper?

I don't play stupid word games with children. Claim victory, but we both know what the real deal is.

Try this one on: The sun rises in the East.

 

[jfuh]

Jfuh, if you were responsible for this turn-around on the part of Tot, you can have my first born(as long as you raise her socialist).

It'd be an honor

 

[jfuh]

The real question jfuh, is to what percentage is humanity causing global warming? I'll keep in mind you are a glass is half full kind of fellow. I never saw TOT say humans have NO effect on global warming. That would be just as stupid as saying we are entirely responsible for it. And you didn't happen to catch the documentary "The Dimming Sun" the other day did you? Hehe.

No no no, you've misunderstood. I'm not a glass half full kinda guy, I'm the glass is over engineered by 50% kinda guy. There's a difference.
Now as to the percentage? Humans are 100% responsible for the current CO2 spike in our atmostphere.
As for global dimming, yes I know all about it. If you would like to debate me on this matter I say, please let's start.

Now as for what tot said, I'm quite happy he's admitted of the cause and effects.
In fact, he's even gone to say how such unregulated emmissions will cause environmental catastrophes. If that's not an endorsement of something like Kyoto, which I know he hates with a passion through misguidance, I don't know what is.
Keep in mind, tot has also claimed that "First of all I never said that humans have no effect on global warming." Then edited that phrase after I posted his old quotes to say "First of all I never said that humans have no effect on global warming just that it's a minor effect."
Where as his old posts have said "I'll stick with the facts and the facts say that humans can't cause climate change anymore than they can stop it."

 

[jfuh]

Chinas population uses dirty burning coal to heat and cook with.

Let me add to this the major source of pollution and that is the burning of high sulfur coal for generation of electricity as well as the production of steel.

This is not taken into account in emissions.

Anything that is emmited into the atmosphere is emmissions.

And there are a lot of Chinese doing this last I saw. You people get so caught up in what the numbers and scientists and politicians say you often over look the simple and obvious. You can measure America's emissions because we know how fossil fuel we use. How much coal, dung, wood, peat, seaweed, charcoal does the rest of the world use? America is not the big polluter. And we get cleaner every year. I'll wait for the cries of "prove it" and "link" and "source". Doesn't change common sence.

The case with the US after Nixon's clean air act back in the 70's is not so much about particulate, sulfurous, nitrous emissions anymore, but about the energy trapping green house gas carbon dioxide. It's still another emission and it's the only emission that is unregulated.
China fair 0 better then the US if not -100 better, however India is in the same boat on this issue as well. Add to that are particulate, volatile organics and acid rain causing gases.

 

[jfuh]

Can you prove this? It would seem higly unlikely that they're going to jump ahead of the US (espicially when you consider that at Kyoto, the US demanded that "sink land" count towards emission reductions.)

A very interesting thing about Sink Lands. I just read an article two days ago which states that forests and various other carbon sinks, also have a temperature threshold. Once the threshold temperature of these sinks are passed in contrast to capturing and "sinking" CO2, they're going to release more CO2.

 

[jfuh]

Oh, I could go find some, I just don't do that. I'd rather tell you people water is wet then giggle my friggin azz of when you yell for a source on it.

The point is, if you need a source for common knowledge then you're too friggin stupid to understand the source. Or maybe you are here to play some "who can come up with a better source" game, for simple matters.

Or I could get all stupid and tell you to prove to me that there aren't a billion Chinese cooking and heating with dirty burning coal. Would you come back by asking me to prove there are a billion Chinese?

There is a palm tree outside of my window. Do you need to see me standing in front of my window with a copy of todays newspaper?

I don't play stupid word games with children. Claim victory, but we both know what the real deal is.

Try this one on: The sun rises in the East.

Precisely, just the way in which you don't need to prove or cite that burning of fossil fuels releases green house gases and green house gases cause global warming; it's just common sense.

 

[teacher]

Precisely, just the way in which you don't need to prove or cite that burning of fossil fuels releases green house gases and green house gases cause global warming; it's just common sense.

Hope you're not being sarcastic there because I agree. What I want to see is a scientific estimate of what percantage the warming climate is attributed to man and what is the normal cyclical increase. Is that too much to ask? Then we can debate that number and what to do about it.

Get these two friggin extreme sides:

The sky is falling, it's one hundred percent caused by man and we are all gonna die in 3 days...

Ostrich head in the sand, man has no contribution to global warming what so ever...

camps out of this debate and then we can go on like adults. Well, you all can, I'll still act the fool. It's my job. I'm The Warden.

 

[Sir_Alec]

Hope you're not being sarcastic there because I agree. What I want to see is a scientific estimate of what percantage the warming climate is attributed to man and what is the normal cyclical increase. Is that too much to ask? Then we can debate that number and what to do about it.

Get these two friggin extreme sides:

The sky is falling, it's one hundred percent caused by man and we are all gonna die in 3 days...

Ostrich head in the sand, man has no contribution to global warming what so ever...

camps out of this debate and then we can go on like adults. Well, you all can, I'll still act the fool. It's my job. I'm The Warden.

I'm getting sick of people saying "were all gonna die. Oh my god were all gonna die!"

I'm also sick of people saying "humans have done nothing to hurt the planet. Global warming is stupid."

I see no proof to say that global warming is exploding out of control, but I've seen lots of evidence that it has sped up because of our presence.

And teacher... you're only the warden in the basement. Up here your powers mean nothing.