Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yup, all that pollution has absolutely no effect, the temperatures are not rising, and disappearing sea ice is not the most obvious indicator of this warming trend
What does some melting prove? You mislead the issue. The fact is not that we may have had warming, but that it is unprecedented, that it is abnormal to the functionary of the planet and that it is caused by man. None of those have been proven. Not one.
I'm not misleading anything, YOU are. You make it abundantly clear when you say that "none of these have been proven", you are trying to dispel something that has been happening for decades, but has taken a much more drastic turn in the past couple decades, as rising temperatures have shown us.
By removing mans contribution to this as a possible cause you show you are wallowing in denial
I'm not misleading anything, YOU are. You make it abundantly clear when you say that "none of these have been proven", you are trying to dispel something that has been happening for decades, but has taken a much more drastic turn in the past couple decades, as rising temperatures have shown us.
By removing mans contribution to this as a possible cause you show you are wallowing in denial
I have displayed the science right down to the very code of errors with your beloved demigods that you worship. You have never met me in intelligent contest. Your knowledge of this subject is infantile and easily shown to be nothing more the regurgitation of agenda machines.
Do you think you are capable of discussing with me? I am open completely to discussion. Shall we put away the partisan political strollers and dig into the science? I am willing to. Pick a subject, any of your choice in your support.
We will walk through the research step by step, discussing the science of it, its mathematical process and results.
Can you do this or are you simply another internet sheep posting the daily "talking points" from your news sites?
Run along, your ignorance is stinking up this place.
I have displayed the science right down to the very code of errors with your beloved demigods that you worship. You have never met me in intelligent contest. Your knowledge of this subject is infantile and easily shown to be nothing more the regurgitation of agenda machines.
Do you think you are capable of discussing with me? I am open completely to discussion. Shall we put away the partisan political strollers and dig into the science? I am willing to. Pick a subject, any of your choice in your support.
We will walk through the research step by step, discussing the science of it, its mathematical process and results.
Can you do this or are you simply another internet sheep posting the daily "talking points" from your news sites?
Run along, your ignorance is stinking up this place.
Yea, you're just the kind of guy I feel like discussing this with.
You sound like a real intelligent chap. I'm sure I could learn alot about denial from you. Please continue.
Yup, all that pollution has absolutely no effect, the temperatures are not rising, and disappearing sea ice is not the most obvious indicator of this warming trend
You are correct. The Earth is cooling and the sea ice has increased dramatically since 1979.
Quote:
Quote:
Yea, thats great, all those glaciers are not really disappearing,
I wonder; Do you think they have come and gone throughout the ages?
Still no answer to my question. Have the glaciers always been there?
You also made a sufficiency/necessity flaw in your OP. You stated that based on the possibility, presented in the article, that global warming might not have been, in the past caused by carbon dioxide some of the time, that the current global warming theory must be wrong.
You ignore that it says that sometimes in the past it was caused by carbon dioxide. Your answer that GW is wrong based on this article confuses a sufficient answer (global warming may have been caused by other factors) for a necessary one: yours (GW is caused by other factors), which is not logically defensible.
Yup, all that pollution has absolutely no effect, the temperatures are not rising, and disappearing sea ice is not the most obvious indicator of this warming trend
Pollution within the US has been dropping since the 80's according to the EPA, more than 50% I might add. CO2 is not a pollutant unless you want to call water a pollutant. Let's call it what is, a greenhouse gas. One of the primary tactics of the environazis is to sling CO2 into the same category as real pollution. Next time you're reading an article see how man times the word pollutant is used to describe CO2.
There are occasional variances in temperature and as it states in the article the 2007 summer and according to NASA sea melt was record breaking for aug 2008 were some of the warmest on record. Still the long term trend as the BBC article states is a net loss in ice. As the author himself states it is too early to tell if this is an actual reversal.
Additional if you look at the overall trend from the nasa graph in the second article is shows a decreasing trend in sea ice which can be seen by draw a line with your finger from the earliest to most recent peak and the earliest to most recent trough.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
