@metal-brain saidYou've never proven anything in your life.
Wrong about what?
You need to be specific about what you are claiming. When you are specific I will prove you wrong like I always do. Don't you get tired of me proving you wrong so much?
What are you scared about?
@metal-brain saidPlease........just don't bring up the sharpies again. 😛
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/the-big-hurricane-lie.178426
@metal-brain saidSurely nuclear weaponry isn't the only way that humans can warm or cool the planet.
With nuclear bombs, yes.
You remind me of Trump when he suggesting using a nuclear bomb to stop hurricanes. It isn't that I don't think his suggestion is possible, but the radiation fallout seemed to elude him.
A nuclear bomb would make the upper atmosphere warmer. Is that why scientists suggested it could work? I'm pretty sure Trump didn't think of that idea himsel ...[text shortened]... are cyclical, right? About every 100,000 years. Do you think averting the next ice age is possible?
Global warming is a solvable problem.
@wildgrass saidIf global warming is natural it isn't a problem and even if it was man cannot solve it. Nature is far more powerful.
Surely nuclear weaponry isn't the only way that humans can warm or cool the planet.
Global warming is a solvable problem.
There is no evidence man is the main cause of GW. That is nothing more than a hypothesis. There is very little CO2 in the atmosphere. For optimum plant growth we should more than double the amount of CO2 we have right now. That would be the best thing for the planet.
The planet is still CO2 starved at less than 0.05%
0.1% would be perfect.
@metal-brain saidI don't cause the rain, but I still put a roof over my head to protect me.
If global warming is natural it isn't a problem and even if it was man cannot solve it. Nature is far more powerful.
There is no evidence man is the main cause of GW. That is nothing more than a hypothesis. There is very little CO2 in the atmosphere. For optimum plant growth we should more than double the amount of CO2 we have right now. That would be the best thing for the planet.
The planet is still CO2 starved at less than 0.05%
0.1% would be perfect.
Nature is powerful, but we have found innovative solutions to a multitude of naturally-occurring problems.
In geological timescales, global warming causes mass extinction. I think it's in humanity's best interest to find a solution for that. We've found solutions to hard problems in the past.
@metal-brain saidThere is evidence.
If global warming is natural it isn't a problem and even if it was man cannot solve it. Nature is far more powerful.
There is no evidence man is the main cause of GW. That is nothing more than a hypothesis. There is very little CO2 in the atmosphere. For optimum plant growth we should more than double the amount of CO2 we have right now. That would be the best thing for the planet.
The planet is still CO2 starved at less than 0.05%
0.1% would be perfect.
Like all the evidence used at COP 26.
You just choose to ignore it.
@wildgrass saidYou are talking about weather, not climate.
I don't cause the rain, but I still put a roof over my head to protect me.
Nature is powerful, but we have found innovative solutions to a multitude of naturally-occurring problems.
In geological timescales, global warming causes mass extinction. I think it's in humanity's best interest to find a solution for that. We've found solutions to hard problems in the past.
I have heard proposals that seem pretty crazy. Are you referring to this?
https://www.rt.com/news/519904-sweden-experiment-dim-sun-gates/
Are you suggesting HAARP be used to change the weather? How much progress has been made using electromagnetic waves to alter the weather? Show me something real.
@shavixmir saidThen show me that evidence.
There is evidence.
Like all the evidence used at COP 26.
You just choose to ignore it.
@metal-brain saidIt's on the net. If you weren't always nose-deep in conspiracy theory sites that constantly tell you what to fear next, you'd have seen that evidence by now.
Then show me that evidence.
@metal-brain saidNO! I'm talking about our ability as humans to alter our environment to fit our needs.
You are talking about weather, not climate.
I have heard proposals that seem pretty crazy. Are you referring to this?
https://www.rt.com/news/519904-sweden-experiment-dim-sun-gates/
Are you suggesting HAARP be used to change the weather? How much progress has been made using electromagnetic waves to alter the weather? Show me something real.
We can alter the input variables that impact our climate. Current proposals don't affect your bottom line, but they move towards more sustainable and less environment-altering forms of energy. That's a start for sure.
@metal-brain saidNo. Go and find it yourself.
Then show me that evidence.
A simple google search will give you a ton of information.
You are, once again, pointlessly trolling.
97% of research reaches the same conclusion and 200 countries accept the facts.
That you don’t want to accept them is neither here nor there, but you show up in thread after thread with debunked nonsense.
@wildgrass said"We can alter the input variables that impact our climate"
NO! I'm talking about our ability as humans to alter our environment to fit our needs.
We can alter the input variables that impact our climate. Current proposals don't affect your bottom line, but they move towards more sustainable and less environment-altering forms of energy. That's a start for sure.
What input variables? Is this the part where you falsely claim CO2 warming the planet is a fact when the truth is it is a mere hypothesis?
"Current proposals don't affect your bottom line"
What current proposals? Bottom line for what?
You continue to make all these assertions as if they are facts, yet you have never proved any of it. The fact is you don't know what is causing global warming. You just think you do because you have been indoctrinated with a lot of propaganda from the corporate news media.
The corporate news media does not allow Richard Siegmund Lindzen or anybody else to tell you the truth about climate change. They don't want informed and intelligent climate scientists telling people the truth in debates about this issue. If the truth was what you claim they would allow Richard Siegmund Lindzen on TV to discuss it.
The fact Richard Siegmund Lindzen is censored from the corporate news media is a good indication the global warming theory they have been pushing is a house of cards they are protecting so they can expropriate wealth from us all. It is a big scam. It is all about money and power.
They have you so scared you want them to take your money. All over a fake environmental issue.
@shavixmir said"97% of research reaches the same conclusion and 200 countries accept the facts"
No. Go and find it yourself.
A simple google search will give you a ton of information.
You are, once again, pointlessly trolling.
97% of research reaches the same conclusion and 200 countries accept the facts.
That you don’t want to accept them is neither here nor there, but you show up in thread after thread with debunked nonsense.
What is that conclusion? It isn't the conclusion you have expressed on this thread. You claimed man is the main cause of GW and most climate scientists do NOT agree with that, certainly not 97%.
What is your source of information?
Read your own source so you know what that 97% believe. Misinformation regarding that 97% is as common as dirt.
97% believe man is influencing the climate. They don't believe man is the main cause of GW like many people falsely claim. That is a common lie to misrepresent the true consensus.