How to argue with a global warming "skeptic"


[quote]I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that my point went completely over your head. The fact remains, everyone with even partially functional grey matter already knows this to be true, yet Mr. Fred Smith needs a study to tell him the painfully obvious.

Yes Fred, turns out pollution from the fossil fuel industry is actually dangerous. I know, I know, who would have thought right? Turns out, studies show that toxic gases are… toxic[/quote]

I enjoy watching you flail about trying to pretend that you didn’t say what you did. This study was about indoor fires and respiratory diseases. Development will save those 3.7 million lives. They are not dying due to CO2 emissions. THAT is the difference and it is a very big one. Honestly, if you “well-thinking” concernists would only read a bit more carefully, you wouldn’t find yourselves in these embarrassing predicaments.


I said absolutely nothing about that study or any other. I have no idea why you’re talking to me about what somebody else said or some study I neither mentioned nor even glanced at. Surprisingly, I am an entirely different person than he is.

I mentioned that we don’t need a study to tell us that toxic gases are toxic, and air pollution due to the fossil fuel industry is bad for our health. As anybody with an IQ over 80 should easily be able to intuit.

If it was anybody else but you, it would shock the hell out of me that a grown man required a study to know this. But since it’s you, I’m not the least bit surprised you didn’t know pollution was unhealthy. As far as you’re feeble brain is concerned, the jury is still out on that one.


[quote]It’s a little surprising that as an adult Fred you still need a
to tell you whether inhaling poisonous gases and toxic fumes is bad for our health. Really? You really need a
to determine this? :unamused: [/quote]

No worries. I can barely recall anything you write due to its flaccid fatuousness. I am not surprised that you cannot recall what you have written. Given your “stance” in many “issues,” I would imagine that your brain is engaged in selective, highly selective, recall. And we all know why.

So what study were you referring to? The one I mentioned? otherwise, if not, why reply to me? and you seemed to believe that the study involved “inhaling poisonous gases.” So, you have two choices here: You are responding as usual without knowing what the hell it is that you are talking about OR you are talking out of your ass. Well, I guess it amounts to the same thing and, yes, toxic fumes and poisonous gases would be a very good description.

Laughing at you, not with you…


I mentioned the word study in a totally unrelated way to the thousands of studies that have been posted in this thread by other people, and this is the malfunction it caused your brain? We actually have to waste time unpacking this for you?

There’s straw man arguments Fred, and then theres this. So you just thought that you’d assign a random study and talk about it for a few posts as if I said anything of the sort? Has life really beaten you down that much? Nobody else will talk to you, so you’ve resorted to talking to yourself?

Every time I think you’ve demonstrated a new low in basic comprehension, you surprise to the downside.

For the last time Fred, pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels is bad for our health. You do not need a study to tell you that. The negative effects of the fossil fuel industry should be just as concerning to someone like you who has zero grasp of basic science as it would be to any other normal person who understands what we’re talking about. Fortunately for you it doesn’t require a grasp of even grade 10 science. Everybody can enjoy the simplicity of it.

Let’s say it for the children, and Fred:

Fossil fuels are bad for our health and the planet. We should stop burning them. Since we have the technology to stop, and it would help the economy if we did, we should stop.

Was that so hard Freddie? :ponder:


So’s your mom!


Update to surface temperature observations for comparison with IPCC AR5 climate models:

Comparing CMIP5 & observations

Updates to surface temperature record as of last month:

2016 shaping up to be a tough year for deniers


More on the temperature spike this February:

[quote]On Saturday, NASA dropped a bombshell of a climate report. February 2016 has soared past all rivals as the warmest seasonally adjusted month in more than a century of global recordkeeping. NASA’s analysis showed that February ran 1.35°C (2.43°F) above the 1951-1980 global average for the month, as can be seen in the list of monthly anomalies going back to 1880. The previous record was set just last month, as January 2016 came in 1.14°C above the 1951-1980 average for the month. In other words, February has dispensed with this one-month-old record by a full 0.21°C (0.38°F)–an extraordinary margin to beat a monthly world temperature record by. Perhaps even more remarkable is that February 2015 crushed the previous February record–set in 1998 during the peak atmospheric influence of the 1997-98 “super” El Niño that’s comparable in strength to the current one–by a massive 0.47°C (0.85°F).

An ominous milestone in our march toward an ever-warmer planet
Because there is so much land in the Northern Hemisphere, and since land temperatures rise and fall more sharply with the seasons than ocean temperatures, global readings tend to average about 4°C cooler in January and February than they do in July or August. Thus, February is not atop the pack in terms of absolute warmest global temperature: that record was set in July 2015. The real significance of the February record is in its departure from the seasonal norms that people, plants, animals, and the Earth system are accustomed to dealing with at a given time of year. Drawing from NASA’s graph of long-term temperature trends, if we add 0.2°C as a conservative estimate of the amount of human-produced warming that occurred between the late 1800s and 1951-1980, then the February result winds up at 1.55°C above average. If we use 0.4°C as a higher-end estimate, then February sits at 1.75°C above average. Either way, this result is a true shocker, and yet another reminder of the incessant long-term rise in global temperature resulting from human-produced greenhouse gases. Averaged on a yearly basis, global temperatures are now around 1.0°C beyond where they stood in the late 19th century, when industrialization was ramping up. Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University) notes that the human-induced warming is even greater if you reach back to the very start of the Industrial Revolution. Making matters worse, even if we could somehow manage to slash emissions enough to stabilize concentrations of carbon dioxide at their current level, we are still committed to at least 0.5°C of additional atmospheric warming as heat stored in the ocean makes its way into the air, as recently emphasized by Jerry Meehl (National Center for Atmospheric Research). In short, we are now hurtling at a frightening pace toward the globally agreed maximum of 2.0°C warming over pre-industrial levels.[/quote]

February Smashes Earth’s All-Time Global Heat Record by a Jaw-Dropping Margin


This was sent to me by my conservative cousin and man did it crack me up:

Global Warming Movement Devastated After Obama Agency EXPOSED In Massive FRAUD!!!

For those interested in the shenanigans of climate change denial, check out this story (don’t worry; not long). Look at the charts, and see if you can figure out why it is fricking hilarious that they are trying to use them to prove their headline.


Step outside for half an hour almost anywhere in the world.

Job done.

Those morons have slunk off back to their ignorant holes now.

That’s what happens when you conflate a political leaning with a fixed opinion on scientific facts.

I guess they will just say they always knew it was warming and now it’s just the degree or how fast it’s warming or we can’t do anything about it or its all China’s fault blah blah.

Again just like the orange moron in charge in the US these folks anti science political leanings are damaging our environment .


I have no interest in joining this thread, but I thought this news was very interesting and y’all might make ado about it:

“So there you have it. The countries in the Paris climate accord have broken almost every promise they’ve made and the nation (the U.S.) that hasn’t signed the treaty is doing more than any other nation to reduce global warming. Yet, we are being lectured by the sanctimonious Europeans and Asians for not doing our fair share to save the planet. It’s another case study in how the left cares far more about good intentions than actual results. What matters is that you say that you will wash the dishes, not that you actually do it.”

Now, that’s a snippy way to put it I admit. But facts is facts.

Here’s the data:

Seems to be good news for Natural Gas and Renewables in the US, bad news for China and India and their coal usage.


Indeed the trend is positive . It’s to be applauded . It’s not due to Trump though.

It’s also a fact that if we all (citizens of the world in general but especially the developing nations ) used as much energy per head as Americans we would be stewing in our own juices pretty quickly. Americans use four times more electricity per head than the average worldwide.

In America
In 2016, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 10,766 kilowatthours ( kWh ), an average of 897 kWh per month. Louisiana had the highest annual electricity consumption at 14,881 kWh per residential customer and Hawaii had the lowest at 6,061 kWh per residential customer.

In Africa.


Trump’s policy.





It’s current year. Nothing surprises me anymore.


Wonder how many would have gone, if there was a " Must fly economy" stipulation ? :thinking:


I wonder how many would attend if it were simply webcast. I mean, wtf? I don’t need to meet the author in person to learn from a book he or she has written.


And the end result is another list of thousands of goals with no real plan and time frame to implement them.

Taiwan is actually a good example of what happens when a bunch of these people get politicians to go green. We closed down nuclear plants and “planned” to go green with no real plan that I can see. End up just burning a fuck ton of coal because no real plan was set.


There’s no point arguing with a global warming skeptic.

That’s why I stopped arguing with @Dr_Milker and the likes.


Meetings about global warming have buggerall to do with global warming.


Who says I’m a skeptic? I just don’t think there’s much we can realistically do about it, and don’t believe it’s the global crisis!!! that people are painting it to be.