|
grastog1313 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
48ford - Technically, you're right that we haven't "proven" human responsibility for global warming if proof means 100% certainty, but an enormity of evidence makes it a near certainty. The death and devastation from the past century of global warming is already significant, although mainly in Africa and Asia so that it's less appreciated elsewhere. Without CO2 mitigation, the harm is expected to be many times greater, hence the perceived urgency to begin reducing CO2 emissions.
48ford8n (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Risks of taking action against global warming are also large. We haven't proven that we're responsible for global warming, let alone how to fix it. So what are we going to fix? Stop using fossil fuels and pray the climate gets cooler again? Who's to say that a warmer planet is not actually better for us warm blooded mammals? There's uncertainty in the outcome of any action we would take with no guarantee that we will get it right. So it's the same as Iraq.
republicansr4therich (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
its not the same...the risks of overthrowing iraq even though the entire world would turn on us was worse than the risk of taking diplomatic action...There are now more terrorists than before 911We are creating more terrorists than we can kill
foolmetwicethemovie (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Excellent point.More lies from the same bunch of criminals.
foolmetwicethemovie (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The earth has been cooling for a decade.Lets go with a global tax because the risk is too great!And while we are at it we better start finding a cure for zombies just in case zombies start populating the earth.
grastog1313 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I'd like to suggest that anyone interested less in refereeing YouTube arguing than in understanding evidence underlying CO2-driven anthropogenic warming can find details in the literature (GRL, PNAS, J. Climate, etc.), but can also Google web sources as a start - "Global Warming" for a wikipedia overview plus references, "Greenhouse Effect" for basic physics, "Climate Book" for a mathematicaly rigorous analysis, and "Lean Rind 2008" for a recent paper with model-independent confirmatory data.
48ford8n (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
You can make the same argument for starting a war with Iraq because they have weapons of mass destruction. Experts claimed they had them...inaction posed too much of a threat. So we should all be very happy with the decision to invade and the outcome.
johnknoefler (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I see now his ploy. Since he lost on every science fact he now claims science is iffy and doesn't really matter. So we should just listen to those .orgs who have the government funding. He forgets that only a few facts are needed to destroy his argument. It went from "global warming" to AGW, To Climate change... and each time it was debunks by SCIENTISTS. So now it is Climate destablelization. and oh... don't forget... Tipping points. Stupid argument.
johnknoefler (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
at 5:44 he makes the argument that we should ignore the independent scientists. Then he follows up by labeling those in the large government organizations as dependable. and he labels the independant scientists as hippies. Ad Hominen arguement? So don't worry about the facts. Just worry about who is talking. Since large corporations are pushing for taxes and controls that proves a point? This guys arguments are just sick propaganda.
johnknoefler (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I like how he wins his argument by debating himself. kinda like playing chess with yourself. This is the only way this tard can win an argument with his weak mind. blah blah blah. |
