Changing opinion on Global Warming

[abandonconflict]

It is rather funny to see the ad hominem attacks that occur in this forum when someone has an opinion on the impact of AGW that is anything other than that put out by the IPCC. Because I think the lower end of the IPCC prediction range is most likely, I am an idiot, a retard, and a couple other nasty names. Oh well, so it goes. It would have been fun to explore the topic with those that have other ideas but the nature of RIU politics is what it is.

It is not ad hominem when someone explicates your stupid ass arguments and then insults you. It is just an insult, dumb ass.

 

[Flaming Pie]

america has not cleaned up its act, and china is leading the way in building renewable energy rather than coal fired plants now.

Last I checked, they signed an agreement to greatly reduce their pollution output. Good for them for actually doing it if what you say is true.

You are right. We still can improve alot.

Hopefully solar will make leaps and bounds so we can just line the deserts with solar panels and wean ourselves off of both coal and natural gas for electricity.

Good looking out.

 

[Bugeye]

It is not ad hominem when someone explicates your stupid ass arguments and then insults you. It is just an insult, dumb ass.

Nope, there were no arguments made and no untangling of arguments, just name calling. That is what is called an ad hominem attack.

 

[abandonconflict]

Nope, there were no arguments made and no untangling of arguments, just name calling. That is what is called an ad hominem attack.

Just because you speak from both sides of your mouth doesn't mean I didn't address your asinine assertions. You spent most of your time trying to convince us that you're not upset.

AGW is a settled science.

 

[Flaming Pie]

Reducing the amount of energy the world wastes is the first and best step toward fighting global warming. The International Energy Agency estimates that almost one-half of the necessary climate mitigation will need to come from improved energy efficiency. Eliminating energy waste also provides financial resources to sustainably grow strong economies around the world.

What’s more, energy efficiency’s benefits are universal – equally important in countries large and small. Reaching international agreement to unlock the energy efficiency opportunity is a strong down payment on further emissions reductions.

http://www.unfoundation.org/what-we-do/issues/energy-and-climate/improving-energy-efficiency.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

 

[NLXSK1]

I have conversed with a lot of climate skeptics but never met one that did not believe the climate has changed and will change. Really not the question as I think the idea of the climate changing really IS settled science.

It is the same thing as gay marriage. Gay people can get married whenever they want. It is government recognition they are demanding but they frame the question in a decitful way. AGW followers will never actually admit that their opponents agree the climate is changing. It makes it more difficult to demonize those who do not agree with their views completely.

I have never met anyone who says the climate is not changing but it continues to be said by the opposition ad nauseum.

 

[NLXSK1]

Just because you speak from both sides of your mouth doesn't mean I didn't address your asinine assertions. You spent most of your time trying to convince us that you're not upset.

AGW is a settled science.

AGW is a settled religion. Science by definition is only settled after it is proven by experimentation and results.

 

[Bugeye]

Just because you speak from both sides of your mouth doesn't mean I didn't address your asinine assertions. You spent most of your time trying to convince us that you're not upset.

AGW is a settled science.

Do you even read the IPCC assessment reports? Not the abstracts, the actual reports? Just curious. You really think all the global feedback mechanisms are understood with perfect clarity?

I guess the guys that came up with the low end of the range in their model predictions are all retarded idiots as well?

Still not sure where I changed my mind on the topic but I suspect you think I use the terms climate change and AGW/AGC interchangeably, when I do not.

I've been around Troll It Up too long to get upset by much. Perhaps in my more innocent days here? LOL

 

[abandonconflict]

AGW is a settled religion.

You are welcome to cite a peer reviewed study contradicting it.

 

[abandonconflict]

Do you even read the IPCC assessment reports? Not the abstracts, the actual reports? Just curious.

I haven't read any peer reviewed studies which contradict AGW.

 

[NLXSK1]

I haven't read any peer reviewed studies which contradict AGW.

Newsflash, it isnt all about you.

The environment will continue long after you are dead and gone.

 

[Bugeye]

I haven't read any peer reviewed studies which contradict AGW.

Cool, not the question I asked. Wish you were here so we could enjoy some of my 5 way rosin dabs together. Nothing would upset you either!

 

[abandonconflict]

Still waiting for peer reviewed studies contradicting AGW to, you know, upend the settled science. That's how science works. New evidence comes along and new conclusions are accepted. Bad ideas are tried by peer review.

 

[Bugeye]

Still waiting for peer reviewed studies contradicting AGW to, you know, upend the settled science. That's how science works. New evidence comes along and new conclusions are accepted. Bad ideas are tried by peer review.

ha ha, back to square 1 eh? The argument is around the amount of warming. Peer reviewed papers peg it all over the place. And I suspect you've never actually read a peer reviewed paper.

 

[bravedave]

Just because you speak from both sides of your mouth doesn't mean I didn't address your asinine assertions. You spent most of your time trying to convince us that you're not upset.

AGW is a settled science.

That's right it is settled, now go away. If you achieved your arguing style from your parents, that only makes them close-minded, asswipes. Fortunately, others think and argue more intelligently and respectfully..like Bugeye. Here is another...

https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/climate-change-our-biggest-problem

Gore said in 2007 that summer arctic ice would already be gone. Was it settled in 2007? Ignorant boob. You add nothing here.

 

[abandonconflict]

And I suspect you've never actually read a peer reviewed paper.

I haven't read one that contradicts AGW. If you're not alarmed that's up to you, but don't go making a dumb ass thread about changing opinions on climate change unless you're going to cite some actual science, not just some retarded blog. I mean, what a waste of 400 hours. If you do make such threads, expect replies like mine, berating you for it.

 

[abandonconflict]

Gore said

You seem upset. Relax scro, plenty of tards live kick ass lives.

By the way, I don't care what Al Gore says, since he is not a climate scientist and never published any peer reviewed journals on climate science. If you're going to cite him as a source for anything, I'm not really impressed, dumb ass.

 

[Bugeye]

I haven't read one that contradicts AGW. If you're not alarmed that's up to you, but don't go making a dumb ass thread about changing opinions on climate change unless you're going to cite some actual science, not just some retarded blog. I mean, what a waste of 400 hours. If you do make such threads, expect replies like mine, berating you for it.

I found the article interesting and saw it had potential for some great discussions. I will reserve the option to start any thread I like, but thank you for your coaching.

 

[bravedave]

You seem upset. Relax scro, plenty of tards live kick ass lives.

By the way, I don't care what Al Gore says, since he is not a climate scientist and never published any peer reviewed journals on climate science. If you're going to cite him as a source for anything, I'm not really impressed, dumb ass.

Gore made those statements based on peer-reviewed studies and a paper by Prof. Wieslaw Naslowski. Who do you cite? Michael Mann? Dumb ass.

 

[abandonconflict]

Gore made those statements based on

Then why are you citing Gore? He isn't a climate scientist. Didn't you read the thread before posting some asinine BS at me? That is my point, don't just come in posting news articles or some laymen's take on what an actual expert found and tout it as something useful or even significant. You keep pushing Gore on me as if I give a shit. Look at the thread title, do you really expect to change any opinions if you don't know the difference between an expert and a biased political talking head?