Can we?

[Dubya]

You can delete this if you want to, and I suggest you do, but can we debate AGW deniers in here? How do you make a challenge a debate on this site? Is the site monitored to restrict the rules? In simple English, how or what starts a debate. Is it on other sites of just posting a thread here?

If this thread is totally stupid, get rid of it or keep it as an example, I don't care.

 

[Politico]

Just posting an opinon will start a debate around here. As far as monitored goes it's the wild west. But at least in the clean zone you have a chance at a good discussion.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The only 'restriction' in the Clean Debate Zone is on personal insults and truly vile language. Keep it 'clean' and nobody will fuck with you.

As far as discussing "AGW Deniers" goes, I'm all for it. I think that a good first step would be for Mr. Dubya to define "AGW".....

I may not be alone in having no clue as to who he is accusing of denying what.

 

[freedombecki]

The only 'restriction' in the Clean Debate Zone is on personal insults and truly vile language. Keep it 'clean' and nobody will fuck with you.

As far as discussing "AGW Deniers" goes, I'm all for it. I think that a good first step would be for Mr. Dubya to define "AGW".....

I may not be alone in having no clue as to who he is accusing of denying what.

AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming

Anthropogenic = adjective indicating that something is man-caused

TABLE 1.

The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)

U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) [SIZE=-1](1)

[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1](all concentrations expressed in parts per billion)[/SIZE]

Pre-industrial; baseline; Natural additions; Man-made additions; Total (ppb)

Concentration Percent of Total Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

288,000; 68,520; 11,880; [SIZE=-1](2)[/SIZE] 368,400; 99.438%

Methane (CH4) 848; 577; 320; 1,745; 0.471%

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 285; 12; 15; 312; 0.084%

Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 25; 0; 2; 27; 0.007%

Total 289,158; 69,109; 12,217; 370,484; 100.00%

TABLE 3.

Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases

(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative

Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect" [SIZE=-1]Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics[/SIZE] Percent of Total Percent of Total --adjusted for water vapor

Water vapor ----- 95.000%

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72.369% 3.618%

Methane (CH4) 7.100% 0.360%

Nitrous oxide (N2O) 19.000% 0.950%

CFC's (and other misc. gases) 1.432% 0.072%

Total 100.000% 100.000%

Global Warming: A Closer Look at the Numbers

Dubya, the scientifically-gathered figures tell us clearly that AGW is a minimal factor in nature's schema. Nature is by far the favorite in this horse race.
​

If we decided to omit our small contribution to this problem, trumped up by scientists who needed funding grants and were hell-bent to get them, we'd have to live in the banana belt and swing from trees for survival. That is not a solution.

Really.

 

[percysunshine]

I am doing my part and am holding in my breath. My face is getting a bit red though.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The only 'restriction' in the Clean Debate Zone is on personal insults and truly vile language. Keep it 'clean' and nobody will fuck with you.

As far as discussing "AGW Deniers" goes, I'm all for it. I think that a good first step would be for Mr. Dubya to define "AGW".....

I may not be alone in having no clue as to who he is accusing of denying what.

AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming

Anthropogenic = adjective indicating that something is man-caused

TABLE 1. The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) [SIZE=-1](1)[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1](all concentrations expressed in parts per billion)[/SIZE] Pre-industrial baseline Natural additions Man-made additions Total (ppb) Concentration Percent of Total Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 288,000 68,520 11,880 [SIZE=-1](2)[/SIZE] 368,400 99.438% Methane (CH4) 848 577 320 1,745 0.471% Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 285 12 15 312 0.084% Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 25 0 2 27 0.007% Total 289,158 69,109 12,217 370,484 100.00%
TABLE 3. Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect" [SIZE=-1]Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics[/SIZE] Percent of Total Percent of Total --adjusted for water vapor Water vapor ----- 95.000% Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72.369% 3.618% Methane (CH4) 7.100% 0.360% Nitrous oxide (N2O) 19.000% 0.950% CFC's (and other misc. gases) 1.432% 0.072% Total 100.000% 100.000%
Global Warming: A Closer Look at the Numbers

Dubya, the scientifically-gathered figures tell us clearly that AGW is a minimal factor in nature's schema. Nature is by far the favorite in this horse race.
​

If we decided to omit our small contribution to this problem, trumped up by scientists who needed funding grants and were hell-bent to get them, we'd have to live in the banana belt and swing from trees for survival.

Really.

Can we close the thread now?

 

[Wiseacre]

Solar cycles, cosmic rays. Next.

Has the AGW argument imploded? « Hot Air

 

[Wiseacre]

The only 'restriction' in the Clean Debate Zone is on personal insults and truly vile language. Keep it 'clean' and nobody will fuck with you.

As far as discussing "AGW Deniers" goes, I'm all for it. I think that a good first step would be for Mr. Dubya to define "AGW".....

I may not be alone in having no clue as to who he is accusing of denying what.

F-bomb = vile language?

Am I in trouble now?

 

[freedombecki]

Solar cycles, cosmic rays. Next.

Has the AGW argument imploded? « Hot Air

Thank you for the other opinion, Wiseacre, and its appreciable summary from your link:

The new CERN research is certainly promising. I’d like to see more before we declare it a Holy Grail, however. Scientific concepts require reproducibility for credibility, although it’s certainly true that AGW has been a glaring exception to the scientific method. The first results of this research explain a lot of the failures of the AGW models, which relied on CO2 as a trigger for temperature increases with no correlation ever proven and no AGW climate model ever producing an accurate prediction. Let’s stick to actual science rather than blind devotion to faith, which is all that AGW advocates have now to keep going.

The trouble with falsifying data as certain AGW proponents emailed their colleagues in the scientific community to do, is that it leaves only their method in tatters, and not their alleged theories of cause. This omission has been egregious in the press, in spite of measurable evidence showing other causes that would seriously threaten the AGW cash cow foundation gifts which basically are foolishly diverting billions of dollars to such pretentious paradigms.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The only 'restriction' in the Clean Debate Zone is on personal insults and truly vile language. Keep it 'clean' and nobody will fuck with you.

As far as discussing "AGW Deniers" goes, I'm all for it. I think that a good first step would be for Mr. Dubya to define "AGW".....

I may not be alone in having no clue as to who he is accusing of denying what.

AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming

Anthropogenic = adjective indicating that something is man-caused

TABLE 1.

The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)

U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) [SIZE=-1](1)

[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1](all concentrations expressed in parts per billion)[/SIZE]

Pre-industrial; baseline; Natural additions; Man-made additions; Total (ppb)

Concentration Percent of Total Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

288,000; 68,520; 11,880; [SIZE=-1](2)[/SIZE] 368,400; 99.438%

Methane (CH4) 848; 577; 320; 1,745; 0.471%

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 285; 12; 15; 312; 0.084%

Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 25; 0; 2; 27; 0.007%

Total 289,158; 69,109; 12,217; 370,484; 100.00%

TABLE 3.

Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases

(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative

Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect" [SIZE=-1]Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics[/SIZE] Percent of Total Percent of Total --adjusted for water vapor

Water vapor ----- 95.000%

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72.369% 3.618%

Methane (CH4) 7.100% 0.360%

Nitrous oxide (N2O) 19.000% 0.950%

CFC's (and other misc. gases) 1.432% 0.072%

Total 100.000% 100.000%

Global Warming: A Closer Look at the Numbers

Dubya, the scientifically-gathered figures tell us clearly that AGW is a minimal factor in nature's schema. Nature is by far the favorite in this horse race.
​

If we decided to omit our small contribution to this problem, trumped up by scientists who needed funding grants and were hell-bent to get them, we'd have to live in the banana belt and swing from trees for survival. That is not a solution.

Really.

Why do we still need an Environment Section?

This should be posted in every AGW thread there too

 

[AVG-JOE]

The only 'restriction' in the Clean Debate Zone is on personal insults and truly vile language. Keep it 'clean' and nobody will fuck with you.

As far as discussing "AGW Deniers" goes, I'm all for it. I think that a good first step would be for Mr. Dubya to define "AGW".....

I may not be alone in having no clue as to who he is accusing of denying what.

F-bomb = vile language?

Am I in trouble now?

It's vile, but not necessarily truly vile. There's a difference. You learn all about it in Mod School.

 

[Wiseacre]

I think it's very likely that by the end of this century fossil fuels will go the way of the dinosaur. Assuming that is, that the democrats don't completely choke off innovation and entrepeneurship.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So much for debating AGW.

 

[Katzndogz]

AGW is a hoax. Like all magnificent hoaxes it was designed to get money. Slowly but surely, the hoax is being let go. The scientists being paid to find incidents of global warming will scream for a while, poor countries who won't get paid for being victims of global warming will slink off but the hoax is close to being done. That will last until the new hoax is determined. There will always be con men willing to ensnare the gullible.

 

[Dante]

You can delete this if you want to, and I suggest you do, but can we debate AGW deniers in here? How do you make a challenge a debate on this site? Is the site monitored to restrict the rules? In simple English, how or what starts a debate. Is it on other sites of just posting a thread here?

If this thread is totally stupid, get rid of it or keep it as an example, I don't care.

goo luck, you'll need it.

and if you join USMB as a subscribing member you get a huge discount on hazmat suits

 

[PaulS1950]

For the last 10000 years the planet has been warming from the last ice age.
The sun is getting slightly warmer every year.
The insects on planet earth produce more methane and CO2 than humans do.
There are vast stores of methane in the oceans and deep seas around the world.
There are vast stores of CO2 in lakes and seas near volcanic activity.

Therefore we should believe than man, in his irresponsible manner, is the leading cause of global climat change.
right........ not so much. we may be self important but we are a tiny affector on planet earth.