jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
You haven't debated shit dude, I've observed that first hand.
When Heckler talks science, you come back with internet talking points, me, well I sit back and laugh.
It's the Winds Man, It's the Winds Fault
- Thread starter Sand4x105
- Start date
When Heckler talks science, you come back with internet talking points, me, well I sit back and laugh.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Life must be easy when you only see what you want to.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
That's awesome. The proponents of MMGW satisfy 8 of the 9 qualifications for pseudoscience. Thank you for clearly framing our argument against your little Eco-Loon religion. Ima take that if you don't mind, it's a great tool against fuckheads that believe this stupid shit.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Yeah Pad, it's just a THEORY!
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Obama: Climate Change Will 'Define The Contours Of This Century' Like Nothing Else
While referencing other major challenges facing the world -- including disease, economic inequality and the threat of terrorism -- President Barack Obama declared climate change to be the "one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other" at a United Nations summit Tuesday afternoon.
Climate change, Obama said, is an "urgent and growing threat," and it "is changing faster than our efforts to address it."
"The alarm bells keep ringing. Our citizens keep marching," he said. "We cannot pretend we don't hear them. We have to answer the call."
In his remarks, Obama touted actions his administration has taken to address rising greenhouse gas emissions, including the release in June of draft rules limiting carbon emissions from power plants. He also announced a new executive order that directs federal agencies to consider climate change in their international development projects.
Obama said he met with Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli shortly before his address, and emphasized that as their countries are the two largest emitters, "we have a special responsibility to lead. It's what big nations have to do."
Obama's speech repeated that emphasis, arguing that a new global agreement -- which negotiators are working to complete by the end of 2015 -- should include commitments from all nations. "We can only succeed in combating climate change if we are joined by every nation, developed and developing alike. Nobody gets a pass," Obama said. "It is those emerging economies that are likely to produce more and more carbon emissions in the years to come. Nobody can stand on the sidelines on this issue."
In separate remarks, China's vice premier Zhang reiterated the country's commitment to cutting its carbon intensity by 40 to 45 percent by 2020, and to increasing the share of non-fossil fuels in use there. He also said China would announce "as soon as we can" any additional actions it will take to cut emissions after the year 2020. And while he did not offer a more specific timeline, he said China "will also try to bring about the peaking of total CO2 emissions as early as possible."
Zhang emphasized that an agreement reached at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in 2015 should "uphold common but differentiated responsibilities" for developed and developing nations. "All countries need to follow a path of green and low-carbon development that suits their national conditions," he said.
Others at the climate summit criticized the U.S. and other developed nations for not putting more money into the Green Climate Fund, a pool of money created in 2009 to direct $100 billion to climate mitigation and adaptation work in poorer countries. Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda Gaston Browne said that he is "angry and frustrated" that only Germany had committed significant resources to the fund prior to Tuesday's meeting, while "others have been deafeningly silent." He added that it is "immoral" to demand that developing nations commit to cutting emissions while developed nations -- those with the responsibility for historic emissions -- have not contributed to the fund. (France, South Korea and others announced commitments to the fund on Tuesday.)
The New York summit is meant to build momentum for the UNFCCC meeting in Paris in 2015, when negotiators expect to complete a new global agreement on cutting planet-warming emissions. "Climate change is the defining issue of our age," said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon at the opening of the meeting. "It is defining our present. Our response will define our future."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/23/obama-climate-speech-un_n_5869830.html
Dems are surely going to win another term at the White House next presidential election, so things are looking pretty solid in the ACC department
While referencing other major challenges facing the world -- including disease, economic inequality and the threat of terrorism -- President Barack Obama declared climate change to be the "one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other" at a United Nations summit Tuesday afternoon.
Climate change, Obama said, is an "urgent and growing threat," and it "is changing faster than our efforts to address it."
"The alarm bells keep ringing. Our citizens keep marching," he said. "We cannot pretend we don't hear them. We have to answer the call."
In his remarks, Obama touted actions his administration has taken to address rising greenhouse gas emissions, including the release in June of draft rules limiting carbon emissions from power plants. He also announced a new executive order that directs federal agencies to consider climate change in their international development projects.
Obama said he met with Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli shortly before his address, and emphasized that as their countries are the two largest emitters, "we have a special responsibility to lead. It's what big nations have to do."
Obama's speech repeated that emphasis, arguing that a new global agreement -- which negotiators are working to complete by the end of 2015 -- should include commitments from all nations. "We can only succeed in combating climate change if we are joined by every nation, developed and developing alike. Nobody gets a pass," Obama said. "It is those emerging economies that are likely to produce more and more carbon emissions in the years to come. Nobody can stand on the sidelines on this issue."
In separate remarks, China's vice premier Zhang reiterated the country's commitment to cutting its carbon intensity by 40 to 45 percent by 2020, and to increasing the share of non-fossil fuels in use there. He also said China would announce "as soon as we can" any additional actions it will take to cut emissions after the year 2020. And while he did not offer a more specific timeline, he said China "will also try to bring about the peaking of total CO2 emissions as early as possible."
Zhang emphasized that an agreement reached at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in 2015 should "uphold common but differentiated responsibilities" for developed and developing nations. "All countries need to follow a path of green and low-carbon development that suits their national conditions," he said.
Others at the climate summit criticized the U.S. and other developed nations for not putting more money into the Green Climate Fund, a pool of money created in 2009 to direct $100 billion to climate mitigation and adaptation work in poorer countries. Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda Gaston Browne said that he is "angry and frustrated" that only Germany had committed significant resources to the fund prior to Tuesday's meeting, while "others have been deafeningly silent." He added that it is "immoral" to demand that developing nations commit to cutting emissions while developed nations -- those with the responsibility for historic emissions -- have not contributed to the fund. (France, South Korea and others announced commitments to the fund on Tuesday.)
The New York summit is meant to build momentum for the UNFCCC meeting in Paris in 2015, when negotiators expect to complete a new global agreement on cutting planet-warming emissions. "Climate change is the defining issue of our age," said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon at the opening of the meeting. "It is defining our present. Our response will define our future."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/23/obama-climate-speech-un_n_5869830.html
Dems are surely going to win another term at the White House next presidential election, so things are looking pretty solid in the ACC department
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I see an Anarchist.
No wait, hang on....he's going to a bank. Oh what's that he's doing? Oh my gawd!!! That "anarchist" is cashing a coercive government check.
Four legs good, two legs better....baaa baaa baaaa
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I see someone who thinks people are property and opposes civil rights.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Playing to the masses for sympathy eh? Pro tip - If you have to strawman, you're not winning.
You've done a poor job of refuting your own hypocrisy and answering questions. Are you doing an Uncle Buck imitation? What next, fast food bathroom turds?
As an "anarchist" how is it that you cash government checks and favor legislation that insists one person must serve another even if they prefer not to associate with them? Further, if that person does not obey and submit to the forced interaction, you, "Abandon Conflict" champion a coercive government punishing them.
Look in the mirror, is that an anarchist? No, it is not. It is a person that says one thing, but does another.
When you summon the courage to answer questions and be honest, we can talk again.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You are no anarchist if you believe people are property and oppose civil rights.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
earnest_voice
Well-Known Member
Hey man, burning flags every time someone criticizes your ridiculous beliefs would become quite a costly exercise without the government paying for said flags.That is pretty funny when you think about it, a self proclaimed anarchistic who lives off gubment checks.
Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
So twisting statements is all you have?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
How did I twist your statement?
I didn't bring up polar bears, someone else did as if to say that it was my talking point, but I never did. In fact, I don't know of any climate scientist who ever did. Maybe someone who agrees with ACC did at some point, and maybe it was even an ACC talking point, but I didn't bring it up. It is a talking point. When a denier brought it up, I pointed out the truth, polar bear numbers are increasing ever since hunting them was restricted.
You're stuck on it because you think I brought it up and you want to insist I'm using talking points. I welcome you to review the thread to verify this, and stop with the talking points and that makes you the one twisting my statements. I prefer facts. Do you have any of those?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
There has been a large buildup of ice at one pole that the global warming fanatics do not want to address... That is a fact.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No there hasn't, and scientists aren't fanatics but they do clearly address it. Rapid ice gains in a single year do not indicate growth of the ice caps. First off, they indicate huge ice losses in the previous year. Secondly, this growth is in area. The surface need only reach 32 degrees in order to freeze, so it doesn't indicate record low temperatures, it just means that the ice which melted in the previous year refroze on the surface. When volume is measured, it is clear that the ice caps are shrinking.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
So, more ice indicates the ice caps are shrinking. No wonder you guys are freaking out....
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I rest my case.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
If something is gaining in size it is not shrinking. I know you want to COMPLETELY DISREGARD the data by trying to fold it in with data over time and saying it is not significant. Which was my original point.
What happens if the ice cap gains this year like last year? Will it simply be a 2 year anomaly? What happens after 10 years? Are you still going to call it a fluke? I mean, after all, global temperatures have been level or decreasing for over a decade and you guys still wont shut up...
Rest your case because you lost it a long time ago...