Help me understand the logic.
1. Do you accept the findings that the global temps have increased over 1 degree F over the last 80 years?
If no, why not?
If yes, go to 2.
2. Do you accept the findings that the increased global temps are most likely caused by CO2 emissions?
If no, why not?
If yes, go to 3.
3. Do you accept the consensus that the global temps will continue to rise as CO2 emissions increase?
If no, why not?
If yes, go to 4.
4. Do you believe action should be taken to address this increase? If so, what?
You can make it a drinking game with shots, or strip global warming questions, if you need that to motivate you fellas - I'm just really curious as to why!!
Can you explain why ALL of the planets in our system are warming? I'll give you 3 guesses to answer! Oh, BTW. Are you a BIO/ENVIRO engineer (PHd) like my my father (deceased)" BTW, he was a registered meteorologist. He laughed and the global warmers!
1. Global temps, according to my reading, have perhaps increased by 1 degree F over the last 100 to 150 years.
2. Why the temp has increased we do not know. The temp has fluctuated more than 1 F over history within the span of a century before. The last occurred when it cooled in the 1700 -1850 period (the "little ice age") and when it warmed during the greadt "medieval warming period" (when greenland was actually green. So, a 1 degree F change within a century is well within historical norms.
3. The consensus that the earth's temp will rise by 1 degree F has, indeed, been the predictions of global warming models over the last generation. However, the empirical evidence does not support the theory. Indeed, the last 15 years has seen no rise in temperature. Remember, Al Gore's little movie "no ice in the arctic in five years"?
4. I do not believe in any action that needs to be taken. Anything that prevents the use of fossil fuels will be disasterous for the economy and result in a massive increase in poverty and all of the ills that come with it. I am not willing to do that based on a "maybe" with no empirical evidence.
Global Warming is a religion, not a science. Most of the theorized outcomes have minimal or no evidence to back them. We are suppose to just have faith. (#1.No...not enough factual evidence to support. Findings have been skewed, 80 years subset does not represent accuratly the cycles of tempature for the planet: #2.No... not enough factual evidence to support. Humans and animal life emit CO2 as a waste product, so if you believe this, then your best solution is to kill half of the living things on this planet.:#3.No....Evidence supports that global temperatures are cooling over the last 6-7 years. That is why Climate Change Preachers are spreading gossip about how global warming damaged the POLAR VORTEX and it is leaking cool air out of the polar regions and into the rest of the globe.: #4YES...."Give a hoot, don't pollute" and plant a tree. These are good policies to live by. But, whatever you do, do not buy into POPE AL Gore's "If you let us tax you, we can save the planet" mentality.
"Most of the theorized outcomes have minimal or no evidence to back them."
Except for the correlation between CO2 and temperature, which is well-established.
That's the core proof of global warming, and it's as scientifically established as cholesterol to coronary artery disease, or carbon monoxide to lung cancer. Even more.
Google it. I did. And if you ignore it, you are part of the crime against humanity that global warming likely will become.
Can you explain why ALL 10 planets in our system are warming? Mars has been chronicled in National Geographic. Dontcha think the sun might just be a BIG part of this? Oh, no, we can't do REAL science.
Vikkitrader - help me understand your stupid logic - do you wish to live in a fxcking cave and eat tree roots? Stop your make al gore more money, and moron mikey moore more big bucks from the system he hates. Now go plant a dam tree and give it a hug and shut the hell up.
I retract and I am sorry for posting stupid comments. Although I have personally caused BP millions of dollars in losses, and although I am one of God's chosen disciples, and although not many can stand me, and although I am a lonely loser, I will prevail. I didn't need college, I didn't need good looks, I didn't need basic manners. I didn't need any of that as long as I have good prescriptions and a big mouth.
I have planted trees and done more for the environment than most people. Some of it is public, just look how I've held BP's feet to the fire in remedying the Macondo disaster of 2010 that caused untolled death and disaster upon the ecosystem of the Gulf region.
But more to the point, it's not "my" logic that is at issue, it's the science of global warming. I have not stated any particular set of policies should be followed. I have simply raised the factual issue of climate change.
It's clear to me that you're the one stuck in the cave, as most of the intelligent, educated world agrees with ME and not YOU.
I have noting further to say to such on obvious dimwit. This conversation is now over.
A game of "strip global warming questions" sounds very motivating to me. Post your picture and maybe we can arrange one. We'd have to get player consensus on a fact source and with 27 "thumbs down" votes on your post it looks like we deniers will carry that vote. With that in mind you might want to wear a lot of clothing to the game. It's pretty chilly these days and getting naked ten minutes into the game won't be comfortable for you (but won't bother us at all). lol