re: Nearly ALL current global warming is fabricated: peer reviewed study finds

quote:

---

I said this the last time you floated this argument but since you're clearly going there again: Saying AGW is good because it will stave off the glaciers is like burning your house down tomorrow because the winter is forecast to be harsh.

---

I was trying to figure out where he was going with that

quote:

---

Person A: "Wow Russell Westbrook averaged a triple-double last season with 31.6 points, 10.6 assists, and 10.4 rebounds; no player could accomplish that without modern man-made contributions including new diet supplements, computer guided workouts, and air-jordans."

Person B: "What were Oscar Robertson's stats in his triple double season in 61-62?"

Person A:"I don't know. Do you?"

Person B:"That's what I thought."

---

But has Salmon argued that it's solely man-made?

I think the issue is that most people think there is warming and humans have some impact on that, and there is some reasonable variability around this position--with some more skeptical of it than others.

The problem is that because the political opportunists on both sides have taken the extreme positions, well beyond the reasonable variability noted above. But then once a discussion arises, people whose views aren't very different, assume the other person is taking the extreme position.

Now all of a sudden reasonable discussion is gone, and Breitbart's hacks and the AGW hacks (like that Cook guy) have taken over the discussion.

quote:

---

Is this a bad thing?

---

In moderation no.

What we really need is a planet we could observe that has a runaway greenhouse effect already happening that shows what the temperature is affected compared to the distance from its closest star heat.

quote:

---

You did. You're attempting to dodge via playing semantics.

---

link?

quote:

---

So you concede that the "science" of AGW is politically driven. Thats a start.

---

No. That is not what I said.

quote:

---

Yes they were. Do you own research as to specific people.

---

That isn't how this works

quote:

---

Strawman.

---

You don't know what a "strawman" is

And I'm done. I'm not going around in circles with you again in this thread. You either respond with a non answer, move the goal posts, or build some retarded strawman every time. It's frustrating as frick.

quote:

---

well this analogy fails because Person B obviously knows Oscar's stats because they at least know he averaged a triple double

---

As you should suspect he did regarding 1200-1300 temps

quote:

---

I think the issue is that most people think there is warming and humans have some impact on that, and there is some reasonable variability around this position--with some more skeptical of it than others. The problem is that because the political opportunists on both sides have taken the extreme positions, well beyond the reasonable variability noted above. But then once a discussion arises, people whose views aren't very different, assume the other person is taking the extreme position. Now all of a sudden reasonable discussion is gone, and Breitbart's hacks and the AGW hacks (like that Cook guy) have taken over the discussion.

---

For me personally, I consider societal and historical factors as well.

Americans are a very wasteful bunch. There are many simple things that all of us can do to promote positive change for our environment but don't out of sheer laziness and convenience.

Many people love to point out the boogeyman of scientists protecting their bottom dollar but who stands to lose more in that discussion, the scientists or the fossil fuel industry? (who have been making money hand over fist for years)

Even people who made great contributions to this country historically have gone berserk when protecting their money or egos. Look at Edison and the lengths he went to prevent AC. It took a happy accident for AC to get introduced when it did.

quote:

---

Because what you're saying here is that you think there is no warming and the current climate is the actual problem that everyone is upset about..

Can you correct yourself here or double down on that

---

Thats not what I'm saying, or have been saying. I'm pointing out that, based on actual real life conditions, the minor rise or fall of 0.8 degrees in 100 years is both natural and meaningless to the welfare of humanity...also I never claimed there was any problem with the climate. You did.
You can correct yourself here or double down on that.

quote:

---

According to ice core records we would expect a natural drop of 8°C over the next 100,000 years. We've added 1°C in 100.

---

And?

quote:

---

over a dozen players on every team for every season.

---

I thought the comparison was for two specific individuals during two specific seasons. No need to compare to other players any other year.

quote:

---

But then once a discussion arises, people whose views aren't very different, assume the other person is taking the extreme position.

---

This is a nonsense statement.
The people who hold the position that there is nothing to worry about...certainly nothing that would demand humanity completely change the way they live and the minor rise or fall in temperature is a natural phenomenon are holding an extreme position?? If so, what does the "middle" position consist of??