Anthropogenic global warming myth

Originally posted by Metal Brain
LOL!

So you think man should stop NATURAL global warming? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

What about the cyclical ice ages, should we stop them too? That is climate change. Is your view that mother nature is a bitch that needs to be tamed no matter how impossible it seems?

I only use an umbrella when the rain is man-made.
The natural stuff is ok.

Originally posted by humy
So you don't answer my simple question of why, according to your non-expert opinion, it is "impossible" or "absurd".
Must mean you have no answer.

I cannot prove a negative you dolt.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Take a look at this consensous:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

7 science organizations say you are full of shlt. You AND your buddy you parrot.

And this, a study done of over 1300 CLIMATE SCIENTISTS say 95% of THEM agree humans are causing climate change.

https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp

The REAL problem here is you being in denial. You can drown in De Nile you know.

Nope.
Are they climate scientists?
Are the words "primary cause" used?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I cannot prove a negative you dolt.

Well, it is obvious that YOU cannot prove a 'negative'. That is because you are far too stupid to be able to prove anything at all, regardless of whether it is 'positive' or 'negative'. Fortunately, the vast majority of the rest of us are not inflicted with such a self-inflicted mental disability and can sometimes prove something regardless of whether it is 'positive' or 'negative'.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Nope.
Are they climate scientists?
Are the words "primary cause" used?

Yes, they are climate scientists, not astronomers or biologists or linguists or historians, and YOU are the one quibbling over nomenclature.

You don't even accept evidence you wanted us to provide.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Yes, they are climate scientists, not astronomers or biologists or linguists or historians, and YOU are the one quibbling over nomenclature.

You don't even accept evidence you wanted us to provide.

The words "primary cause" are not used. You are wrong again.

Give it up. You are just embarrassing yourself again.

Originally posted by humy
Well, it is obvious that YOU cannot prove a 'negative'. That is because you are far too stupid to be able to prove anything at all, regardless of whether it is 'positive' or 'negative'. Fortunately, the vast majority of the rest of us are not inflicted with such a self-inflicted mental disability and can sometimes prove something regardless of whether it is 'positive' or 'negative'.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Originally posted by Metal Brain
The words "primary cause" are not used. You are wrong again.

Give it up. You are just embarrassing yourself again.

You don't even know when someone is embarrassed. They don't have to use the phrase 'primary cause' since they KNOW there are several things going on. They know humans are a big part of the equation and that is enough to know we need to modify our behavior and if that means lowering fossil fuel use, so be it. If it means we develop CO2 eating machines so be it. There are already machines like that the question is if that is the way to go, can we do it on large enough scale.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

This doesn't apply because you present no argument; Just baseless asserted opinion.
How can I attack your argument (via whatever means) when you present none?
I attack your assertions because they are bad, not to attack your non-existent argument which is logically impossible to attack because it doesn't exist or at least you haven't asserted it yet.
What is your 'argument'?

Evidence now overwhelming deniers:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-parkin/evidence-overwhelms-denia_b_13077974.html

But of course the deniers will just scream "FAKE' louder than before.

Originally posted by humy
This doesn't apply because you present no argument; Just baseless asserted opinion.
How can I attack your argument (via whatever means) when you present none?
I attack your assertions because they are bad, not to attack your non-existent argument which is logically impossible to attack because it doesn't exist or at least you haven't asserted it yet.
What is your 'argument'?

"This doesn't apply because you present no argument; Just baseless asserted opinion."

That applies to you, not me. It is impossible to prove a negative. The burden belongs on you. Prove your positive and drop the infantile rhetoric. That does not impress the intellectual level of most on this forum.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You don't even know when someone is embarrassed. They don't have to use the phrase 'primary cause' since they KNOW there are several things going on. They know humans are a big part of the equation and that is enough to know we need to modify our behavior and if that means lowering fossil fuel use, so be it. If it means we develop CO2 eating machines so be ...[text shortened]... machines like that the question is if that is the way to go, can we do it on large enough scale.

"They don't have to use the phrase 'primary cause' since they KNOW there are several things going on. "

That is absurd and you know it. Primary cause means everything in this context. So far the only poll of "climate scientists" that has been done that shows anthropogenic global warming as a consensus is one that proves nothing more than man is a mere factor. Could be their average opinion is 0.1% anthropogenic for all we know.

Your false assertions show you are losing this debate and you are getting desperate. Stick to the facts. Don't make them up as you go along.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Evidence now overwhelming deniers:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-parkin/evidence-overwhelms-denia_b_13077974.html

But of course the deniers will just scream "FAKE' louder than before.

As if I deny global warming.....lol.

Here is another word you need to remember, it is in the title of this thread.

"anthropogenic"

If you fail to use this word you are an idiot. It is extremely important to make this distinction. Nobody denies natural global warming, at least nobody who knows about the Pliocene Epoch. Global warming is real alright, no doubt about it. It is primarily from natural causes.

People who write articles and purposely leave out the word "anthropogenic" are nothing short of propagandists.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
As if I deny global warming.....lol.

Here is another word you need to remember, it is in the title of this thread.

"anthropogenic"

If you fail to use this word you are an idiot. It is extremely important to make this distinction. Nobody denies natural global warming, at least nobody who knows about the Pliocene Epoch. Global warming is real alri ...[text shortened]... te articles and purposely leave out the word "anthropogenic" are nothing short of propagandists.

What you refuse to understand in your haste to pronounce CO2 levels as somehow making what we see today as not being caused by humans, the fact there are more than one greenhouse gas, like methane which is something like 25 times the greenhouse gas pound for pound as CO2. And water vapor is another. You can't just look at CO2 readings and extrapolate a whole history out of that one gas. But that doesn't bother you since you already have your bias where you just parrot your buddy who thought aliens caused it.
It doesn't matter to you what is causing climate change, one new fact: the arctic is running 36 degrees F right now, 20 degrees higher than it should be and that is now, in November. That will impede new ice forming no matter how cold the winter gets and can lead to more methane being released, a positive feedback mechanism which can lead to unstoppable heat rise and loss of even more ice around the world, Iceland, Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic. I know all about the increase in ice in Antarctica so you don't have to bring that one up, That can go on only so long and an irreversable trend can happen that will screw humanity royally to say nothing of exacerbating the already ongoing major extinction event going on as we speak, as large a loss of diversity as what happened 66 million years ago, using whatever catch phrase you want, primary cause, anthromomorphic age, whatever, mankind is the one mostly at fault here, my guess, 80% at fault. Of course you WILL scoff at that kind of figure, anything more than 10% human activity is all you would ever admit to but it matters not a whit what you believe, what matters is do we have the political will to counter it, man made or not. But it IS manmade as much as you want to yell otherwise.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"This doesn't apply because you present no argument; Just baseless asserted opinion."

That applies to you, not me. It is impossible to prove a negative. The burden belongs on you. Prove your positive and drop the infantile rhetoric. That does not impress the intellectual level of most on this forum.

If there is a claim proposed and that claim is disputed, the burden of proof falls onto the proponent of the claim.

We prove negatives all the time. Try google for help.