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.
Ask any climate denier these ten+ questions and make sure they stay on topic* by allowing only three logical answers.
A) Yes
B) No
C) Not Sure**
These aren't trick questions and non-shill scientists answer Yes to all of them.
According to you. I am wasting my time questioning your own agenda as expressed in this post.
1) Do people create particulate air pollution and photochemical smog?[/quote]
Why yes they do. So do the AGW crazies who are promoting chem trails. Look it up. there are threads here on City data, including a thread I started. Dont be lazy. Look it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north
1a) Is air pollution a global environmental problem caused primarily by Man?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north
2) Do people pollute lakes, rivers and oceans with chemicals, radiation and other toxins?
Yep they do, So?
2a) Is water pollution a global environmental problem caused primarily by Man?[/quote]
Be more careful and define your definitions. Water pollution where? BTW I am absolutely against weater pollution.That's why we have an EPA. Established by Republican Nixon BTW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north
3) Are people cutting down trees at a faster rate than they can grow back, or clearing them altogether?
Dont know. Do you have a reference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north
3a) Is deforestation a global environmental problem caused primarily by Man?
Hell, the environmental left whackos have fought tooth and nail against fireplace fires. After demanding that we move to fireplaces in order to reduce demand for more hydro energy sources. Dig?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north
4) Are people taking fish from the oceans faster than nature can replace them?
Yep. Conservative hate radio talk host Michael Savage agrees.
4a) Is overfishing a global environmental problem caused primarily by Man?[/quote]
So how do you propose to feed people, Wait, you are one of those who thinks peple should starve to death ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north
5) By means of deforestation, agriculture, hunting, fishing, mining, drilling, pollution and road & city construction, have people caused the extinctions of numerous species beyond nature's typical levels in modern times? Have them research "The Sixth Extinction" if they deny this one.
Let's see some research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north
5a) Are species extinctions a global environmental problem caused primarily by Man?
Guess what. Species extinction has ALWAYS occurred over time. Let's see some numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north
6) Are people breeding beyond the level of natural birth & death balance? The current world population growth rate is somewhere between 75 and 80 MILLION (net gain per year). That's A LOT of people and they occupy space and use resources while withholding them from other (declining) species. Smoke a pack while you ponder that.
6a) Is human population growth increasing overall stress on the global
environment?
See above
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north
7) Is CO2 the major cause of radiative forcing in the Earth's atmosphere, and do you accept that without CO2 the Earth would be largely frozen?
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north
8) Is Man the primary reason CO2 levels are rising since the time when fossil fuels were first burned?
The question is does man create more CO2 than volcanoes, Got any data?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north
9) If you agree that CO2 is the most critical greenhouse gas and that Man is raising its levels far above what nature is currently doing, wouldn't more CO2 in the atmosphere trap more heat? This includes the oceans, where scientists say 90% of the heat ends up.
I disagree. Again. provide data. Provide proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north
10) Does CO2 circulate and disperse fairly evenly in the global atmosphere?
I dont know. Do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north
10a) Are the climatic effects of CO2 emissions a global environmental problem caused primarily by Man?
No
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north
Most denier arguments depend on false context, cherry-picking, changing the subject or casting one-sentence insults (watch the Jethro replies here).
MOST AGW true believer arguments ignore climate context. But after all, you set the rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north
I'm posting this because science-denial has become a criminal attitude and society can't afford to coddle these people any longer.
Ask any climate denier these ten+ questions and make sure they stay on topic* by allowing only three logical answers.
A) Yes
B) No
C) Not Sure**
These aren't trick questions and non-shill scientists answer Yes to all of them.
1) Do people create particulate air pollution and photochemical smog?
1a) Is air pollution a global environmental problem caused primarily by Man?
2) Do people pollute lakes, rivers and oceans with chemicals, radiation and other toxins?
2a) Is water pollution a global environmental problem caused primarily by Man?
3) Are people cutting down trees at a faster rate than they can grow back, or clearing them altogether?
3a) Is deforestation a global environmental problem caused primarily by Man?
4) Are people taking fish from the oceans faster than nature can replace them?
4a) Is overfishing a global environmental problem caused primarily by Man?
5) By means of deforestation, agriculture, hunting, fishing, mining, drilling, pollution and road & city construction, have people caused the extinctions of numerous species beyond nature's typical levels in modern times? Have them research "The Sixth Extinction" if they deny this one.
5a) Are species extinctions a global environmental problem caused primarily by Man?
6) Are people breeding beyond the level of natural birth & death balance? The current world population growth rate is somewhere between 75 and 80 MILLION (net gain per year). That's A LOT of people and they occupy space and use resources while withholding them from other (declining) species. Smoke a pack while you ponder that.
6a) Is human population growth increasing overall stress on the global environment?
7) Is CO2 the major cause of radiative forcing in the Earth's atmosphere, and do you accept that without CO2 the Earth would be largely frozen?
8) Is Man the primary reason CO2 levels are rising since the time when fossil fuels were first burned?
9) If you agree that CO2 is the most critical greenhouse gas and that Man is raising its levels far above what nature is currently doing, wouldn't more CO2 in the atmosphere trap more heat? This includes the oceans, where scientists say 90% of the heat ends up.
10) Does CO2 circulate and disperse fairly evenly in the global atmosphere?
10a) Are the climatic effects of CO2 emissions a global environmental problem caused primarily by Man?
The point of this exercise is to force faux/Fox skeptics to see global warming in the context of other man-made environmental problems that they usually don't dispute, scientifically (whether they care is separate issue). Equally important is refuting the claim that Man is just a "puny" animal, incapable of upsetting nature's balance. Deniers waffle on whether Man is the greatest force in the universe (outside of a deity) or as humble as a chipmunk on a Sequoia. "We're a harmless species..... except when we cause a Dust Bowl, clear 90% of a forest for farming, dam the Colorado river, or bomb Hiroshima. But God is watching us 24/7 so don't worry about the mess! We don't know exactly why, but He only lets us get away with things other than global warming, or that ozone hole hoax. Ain't that right, Lord?"
Most denier arguments depend on false context, cherry-picking, changing the subject or casting one-sentence insults (watch the Jethro replies here). Once you understand how these people operate they become very transparent. Don't be fooled by the ones who seem articulate and quote Roy Spencer articles. They're just as devious as the high-school dropouts, if not more so (see Dunning-Kruger effect).
I'm posting this because science-denial has become a criminal attitude and society can't afford to coddle these people any longer. A petition to ban Creationist James Inhofe from the Environment and Public Works committee would be a good start in a nation that's supposedly based on knowledge.
* Staying on topic means don't let them change the subject to regulations, taxation, Al Gore, the NWO, the Illuminati, something they heard Rush say, or cherry-picking the wording of a question to distract from its overall meaning. Don't let them pull a Ronald Reagan by saying things like "well...trees cause pollution also." Man-made impacts are always in addition to longstanding natural ones. Have them look up "cumulative environmental impacts" if they press that old tactic. Don't let them be temporary soft-deniers by sounding vague about the whole issue, e.g. "we don't yet know if Man is fully at fault, so let's do another _X_ years of research."
** If they answer every question with "I'm not sure," ask them if/when they could EVER be sure, and what prevents them from being sure at the moment. Also ask them if they are unsure about other scientific concepts, like gravity, electron-flow, the ignition of fuel in their engines, DNA testing to solve crimes, medicines that keep them alive, etc. Make sure they don't segue into talking about regulations or taxation on any of those topics!
Predicted response to this thread: Fbzr jvatahg jvyy cbfg gurve bja 10 dhrfgvbaf, zbfgyl gb qb jvgu erthyngvba & gnkngvba, naq vtaber gur ragver fpvragvsvp sbphf bs guvf. Vg jbhyq bayl or nobhg gur 12 zvyyvbagu gvzr gung'f unccrarq va na NTJ guernq. (decode with ROT13)
You try to come off like you're championing logic and science but then talk bout Faux News. You blew it with that. Reasonable people don't resort to gutter tactics like that. You just outed yourself as a hypocrite partisan hack.
It would be a real debate if deniers produced real evidence from real scientists....Have you not noticed that I always back up my statements with real evidence when asked, and deniers rarely do....Here is your chance to show some real evidence that refutes AGW, then we can have a real debate, until then AGW deniers are just blowing smoke. I do not debate smoke.
the problem though is that you are the one trying to set the standards for the debate, and its not the debaters that set the standard but rather the judges of the debate. second you also use blogs for your support, you cant deny it because you have been caught doing it in the past. so until such time as you are willing to stop setting the standard as a debater, and either be a judge, which you wont do because you actually have to be neutral on the subject and you are not, or stop setting the standards and let the chips fall where they may.
Ask any climate denier these ten+ questions and make sure they stay on topic* by allowing only three logical answers.
A) Yes
B) No
C) Not Sure**
These aren't trick questions and non-shill scientists answer Yes to all of them.
1) Do people create particulate air pollution and photochemical smog?
1a) Is air pollution a global environmental problem caused primarily by Man?
2) Do people pollute lakes, rivers and oceans with chemicals, radiation and other toxins?
2a) Is water pollution a global environmental problem caused primarily by Man?
3) Are people cutting down trees at a faster rate than they can grow back, or clearing them altogether?
3a) Is deforestation a global environmental problem caused primarily by Man?
4) Are people taking fish from the oceans faster than nature can replace them?
4a) Is overfishing a global environmental problem caused primarily by Man?
5) By means of deforestation, agriculture, hunting, fishing, mining, drilling, pollution and road & city construction, have people caused the extinctions of numerous species beyond nature's typical levels in modern times? Have them research "The Sixth Extinction" if they deny this one.
5a) Are species extinctions a global environmental problem caused primarily by Man?
6) Are people breeding beyond the level of natural birth & death balance? The current world population growth rate is somewhere between 75 and 80 MILLION (net gain per year). That's A LOT of people and they occupy space and use resources while withholding them from other (declining) species. Smoke a pack while you ponder that.
6a) Is human population growth increasing overall stress on the global environment?
7) Is CO2 the major cause of radiative forcing in the Earth's atmosphere, and do you accept that without CO2 the Earth would be largely frozen?
8) Is Man the primary reason CO2 levels are rising since the time when fossil fuels were first burned?
9) If you agree that CO2 is the most critical greenhouse gas and that Man is raising its levels far above what nature is currently doing, wouldn't more CO2 in the atmosphere trap more heat? This includes the oceans, where scientists say 90% of the heat ends up.
10) Does CO2 circulate and disperse fairly evenly in the global atmosphere?
10a) Are the climatic effects of CO2 emissions a global environmental problem caused primarily by Man?
The point of this exercise is to force faux/Fox skeptics to see global warming in the context of other man-made environmental problems that they usually don't dispute, scientifically (whether they care is separate issue). Equally important is refuting the claim that Man is just a "puny" animal, incapable of upsetting nature's balance. Deniers waffle on whether Man is the greatest force in the universe (outside of a deity) or as humble as a chipmunk on a Sequoia. "We're a harmless species..... except when we cause a Dust Bowl, clear 90% of a forest for farming, dam the Colorado river, or bomb Hiroshima. But God is watching us 24/7 so don't worry about the mess! We don't know exactly why, but He only lets us get away with things other than global warming, or that ozone hole hoax. Ain't that right, Lord?"
Most denier arguments depend on false context, cherry-picking, changing the subject or casting one-sentence insults (watch the Jethro replies here). Once you understand how these people operate they become very transparent. Don't be fooled by the ones who seem articulate and quote Roy Spencer articles. They're just as devious as the high-school dropouts, if not more so (see Dunning-Kruger effect).
I'm posting this because science-denial has become a criminal attitude and society can't afford to coddle these people any longer. A petition to ban Creationist James Inhofe from the Environment and Public Works committee would be a good start in a nation that's supposedly based on knowledge.
* Staying on topic means don't let them change the subject to regulations, taxation, Al Gore, the NWO, the Illuminati, something they heard Rush say, or cherry-picking the wording of a question to distract from its overall meaning. Don't let them pull a Ronald Reagan by saying things like "well...trees cause pollution also." Man-made impacts are always in addition to longstanding natural ones. Have them look up "cumulative environmental impacts" if they press that old tactic. Don't let them be temporary soft-deniers by sounding vague about the whole issue, e.g. "we don't yet know if Man is fully at fault, so let's do another _X_ years of research."
** If they answer every question with "I'm not sure," ask them if/when they could EVER be sure, and what prevents them from being sure at the moment. Also ask them if they are unsure about other scientific concepts, like gravity, electron-flow, the ignition of fuel in their engines, DNA testing to solve crimes, medicines that keep them alive, etc. Make sure they don't segue into talking about regulations or taxation on any of those topics!
Predicted response to this thread: Fbzr jvatahg jvyy cbfg gurve bja 10 dhrfgvbaf, zbfgyl gb qb jvgu erthyngvba & gnkngvba, naq vtaber gur ragver fpvragvsvp sbphf bs guvf. Vg jbhyq bayl or nobhg gur 12 zvyyvbagu gvzr gung'f unccrarq va na NTJ guernq. (decode with ROT13)
Bla Bla Bla. The EPA has so many restriction and a police mentality everything is Global Warming.
Give me Break!
CO2 causes more heat, and more heat causes more water vapor....It's called a feedback effect....Another difference....Water vapor does not last long in the atmosphere, sometimes only hours.....CO2 can last several thousand years. The life of other greenhouse gasses like methane (12 years), nitrous oxide (114 years), and halocarbons (Some halocarbons last many thousands of years).
How can you criticize other people's sources and not see the obvious issues with your own? The 'Guardian' newspaper is simply publishing reports from their Global Warming propaganda arm the 'Carbon Brief' Home | Carbon Brief. Since the 'Carbon Brief' is a .org it must get it's funding from somewhere and I wondered from where? Obviously the reporters who's job is to publish Global Warming pieces for the Carbon Brief to publish in the Guardian have to earn a living right? So who funds these guys? The answer, as found on their website under 'Funding' is that they are funded by the 'European Climate Foundation' European Climate Foundation You'll notice the board is mostly Harvard grads, almost all of whom are finance/bankers. The director of the ECF is Vice Chairman of DeutscheBank. This is only the second layer of the financing though and one common theme you'll find as we continue digging is bankers/financiers funding most of this 'science'. Here's their stated reason for founding the ECF from their website:
"The group of philanthropists who founded the ECF were deeply concerned over the lack of political action and the lack of general public awareness around the devastating future consequences implied by climate change. They formed the ECF – a ‘foundation of foundations’ – to collaborate in ensuring the necessary transformation from a high-carbon to a low-carbon economy."
Since their stated agenda to raise "public awareness" about the implied consequences of climate change, do you think they're funding objective science and journalism, or do you think they're funding the 'Carbon Brief' specifically to push their agenda? The answer is obvious of course.
When you look at who's funding the ECF, you'll see it's the Children's Investment Fund (no specifics on who funds them, but they claim they work with governments to change their policy's), ClimateWorks Foundation (the link to their funding is conveniently broken, but their current project is working with the IMF to show the economic benefits of taking action on climate change), McCall and McBain Foundation (another Harvard grad who made his billions in finance/banking), Oak Foundation, Baring Foundation, Mercator Foundation, Schroder Foundation and Telus Mater Foundation.
Bottom line is it's all billionaire bankers/hedge fund guys using shadowy foundations/endowments to avoid paying taxes or raising red flags while investing billions in the 'science' and 'media' they need to help launch their new industry. If you think the billionaire bankers are in this to help the environment or the little guy, you're nuts. These guys buying some journalists to publish a newspaper that's sympathetic to their business interests doesn't make them or the science they purchase legit.
The point of this exercise is to force faux/Fox skeptics to see global warming in the context of other man-made environmental problems that they usually don't dispute, scientifically (whether they care is separate issue).
No, the point of this is to only allow multiple false answers.
Ask any climate denier these ten+ questions and make sure they stay on topic* by allowing only three logical answers.
A) Yes
B) No
C) Not Sure**
These aren't trick questions and non-shill scientists answer Yes to all of them.
1) Do people create particulate air pollution and photochemical smog?
First explain what this has to do with climate change.
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.
