- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: AGW Deniers - Seems Kind of Hopeless
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:02 am to AUbused
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:02 am to AUbused
quote:
Well the solution has pretty much been pounded into the ground and I believe you well know that. Reducing carbon output. Your retort would likely be "well but china, emerging countries etc" and my answer would be that there currently exists no clear path to a "solution" only a general direct we need to start traveling. The solution is complex and painful.
You seem to have a problem assuming what others are thinking. This may be part of the issue. Your OP is accusatory and you continually build strawmen to beat down. I have simply asked questions....your replies consistently put words in my mouth. That is an issue with your ability to debate and communicate....not me.
However...back to the point. "Reducing carbon output" is a method to get to a desired result, right? The desired result being cessation of man made global warming? Is that correct?
If so, then simply stating "reducing carbon output" isn't nearly sufficient. What is the output range we must get to to achieve the desired result? Surely, the consensus of scientists have identified the problem and the desired levels that would provide a solution. What is that number (or what are the levels)? Once we have that lets see a plan to get to those levels.
Do we have this information? If not...what is the point?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:14 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Do we have this information? If not...what is the point?
That seems awfully short sighted. If we assume for a second that both of us agree that increased carbon emissions from human activity need to be reduced because of their definite negative impact on climate....then, while it would be nice to know specific targets it doesn't seem like a deal breaker to me.
Your argument seems like being in a desert without water....97 out of 100 scientists are standing there saying that you will find it to the west....but you're like "if you can't tell me precisely how far, I ain't trying".
Yeah sure, thats a stretch, but you're right about my assumptions. I simply find it hard to believe that anyone who chooses to believe what scientists are saying would conclude that throwing our hands up is the logical course of action...........when we know the general direct we need to start walking.
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)