by metatron 262 Replies latest jw friends
Abbadon makes a fair point. This is an issuethat can only be settled by an appraisal of the science.
So, for those who deny that man has any involvement in what is being termed 'global warming', then let us see the science from which a reasoned conclusion can be reached.
HS
Hysterically funny is how this conversation goes: people who have NO scientific background
try to debunk global warming. It is emphatically NOT undecided, but it is not the reason for unpredictable local bad weather.
People in the midwest right now are saying that the cold weather and snow mean global warming is not real.
I see, on this board, people who used to laugh at evolution without knowing a thing about it; I see the same head in the sand approach to this.
Metatron, what scientific background do you have to discuss this?
Is there any credible scientist who doubts the evidence for CO2 warming? Not on oil company or conservative foundation payrolls?
The point of Gore, etc is to DISCUSS the problem and find solutions.
Does anyone who has been posting on this thread have a scientific background ??
Decoding Abbaddon-speak, lesson two:
1. Your continued evasion of issues, the lies and distortions of your perpetual ad homs = Translation: I refuse to look in the mirror
2. You might even be so contemptuous of others you think it'll fool them = Translation: I like to post sentences that don’t make any logical sense
3. However your intent and your lack of substance are really quite noticeable = Translation: My "substance" is better than yours, also, see Translation 1, above
4. the first post of yours I noticed was fallacious, why should this one be any different? = Translation:
As of today, 5476 posts by me so far, I’ve never admitted being wrong, am not now, and never will be5. E. coli
has its place in nature and so apparently do you. It's about your level from what I see here. = Translation: See Abbadon-speak example 1 (ad hom) and Translation 1, above6. You also seem to be under some mistaken impression that your opinion (which you have demonstrated the 'worth' of) about <insert any word here> is of any interest. = Translation: My opinions are the only ones that are of any interest, why, just look at all my posts, I’m always right, everyone else who doesn’t agree with my conclusion is wrong.
7. Or that I am in any way intimidated by you posting your repetitive(sic) evasions and fabrications about me. How can I be intimidated by something with all the substance of the hole in the middle of a doughnut? = Translation: see Translation 1, above
8. So too craven to talk about the science? = Translation: I am a hypocritical child who likes to post ad hom attacks to bait others into posting their conclusions based on sound science so that I can venomously spew my opinions which are always, always, always correct.
9. That's all I need to know; Unless responding to further posts would be amusing (for me), or you actually have the balls to discuss the issues instead of attacking me, you can carry on your Onanistic relationship with your keyboard all you like. = Translation: I am a child who knows everything, why won’t you play by my rules? Mommy, they won’t play by my rules, waaaaaaa!!! Also, see Translation 1, above.
BA- doesn’t "debate" with children, and knows a child when he sees one.
Brother Apostate,
Your ad hominem attacks are wearing thin. Funny for a second or two, tedious beyond that.
Shutterbug,
Does anyone who has been posting on this thread have a scientific background ??
You do not need a scientific background to present scientific evidence on either side of the dispute. The evidence is what will settle the issue and that is what Abbadon has called for.
Cheers - HS
Does anyone who has been posting on this thread have a scientific background ?? Perhaps a better question is "If someone claimed they did, could they PROVE it?" How? By posting their sheepskin? Firstly, that would take away any anonymity, secondly, a know-it-all would claim that they photoshopped it. "Opinions are like arseholes, everbody has one" - anonymous BA- Realizes everything is an opinion, plain and simple, regardless of claimed credentials
Jupiter, Titan and Pluto might be warming up too.
http://www.nationalsummary.com/Articles/Science_Tech/science_tech__warmings_mars.htm
metatron
Your ad hominem attacks are wearing thin
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
The evidence is what will settle the issue
The issue can't be settled with the current evidence available- At aminimum, more and better data is required to successfully argue that human sources are responsible for anything other than a small minority of the causes of Global Warming.
and that is what Abbadon has called for
I respectfully disagree. As I have pointed out, based on his post history, Abaddon simply wants to bash others who don't conclude the same as he does- plain and simple truth, it's his M.O. It's a waste of precious time to "debate" with a child.
BA- doesn't "debate" with children
Brother Apostate,
Your ad hominem attacks are wearing thin - What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
The evidence is what will settle the issue
The issue can't be settled with the current evidence available- At aminimum, more and better data is required to successfully argue that human sources are responsible for anything other than a small minority of the causes of Global Warming.
I disagree entirely. Even the most anti-global warming candidate accepts that humankind has had some effect on global warming, as you seem to yourself. Their argument is that the effect is too small to matter on a geologic timescale. Science can and has been able to measure the effects of global warming over the past 200 years including its constituents.
Please note that at this stage I have not stated my own views on the matter. I am merely pointing out the following :
1) Humans have had an effect on climate change.
2) Science has borne this out.
3) The degree of human involvement is at issue.
When you enter a situation of debate and have a bloody nose from a previous encounter with a person involved in the debate, leave your personal feelings out of it as it is a waste of the readers attention. If you do not people may conclude, not that you do not debate with children, but that you debate like a child. Cheers - HS PS - sorry - could not switch off the underlining.and that is what Abbadon has called for
I respectfully disagree. As I have pointed out, based on his post history, Abaddon simply wants to bash others who don't conclude the same as he does- plain and simple truth, it's his M.O. It's a waste of precious time to "debate" with a child.BA- doesn't "debate" with children
Frank, What we should all be asking is, if we cannot even depend on the weather channels 5 day forecast, why would we listen to a forecast that spans the next century? Excelllent point made very succinctly! BA- Appreciates terseness.
