• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AGW: The best arguments a lay person can make!

Big Lie #3: No correlation between atmospheric carbon and global temperatures? Then why are these data linear?
32740893963_9e937c6084_b.jpg

I have explained that to you at least four times now.

Guess you never learn.
 
Big Lie #3: No correlation between atmospheric carbon and global temperatures? Then why are these data linear?
32740893963_9e937c6084_b.jpg

So that would be a temperature rise of 2.2c by 2100 assuming a continuation of the 2 parts per million per year growth of CO2.
 
So that would be a temperature rise of 2.2c by 2100 assuming a continuation of the 2 parts per million per year growth of CO2.

2.2 above the present, yes - 3.2 above the early 20th century.

The current trajectory of atmospheric CO2 increases is actually a lot steeper than that; the average increase over the past five years was almost 2.6ppm/year, and accelerating. If the current trajectory continued, we'd reach over 750ppm by 2100. Sensitivity may be considerably lower than the 3.6 degree value that graph implies however, so using for example a 2-year CO2 lag and GISS temperatures would yield a similar result for 750ppm.
 
Here are some laypersons making arguments.

Climate Myths
[h=1]An Invitation To Debate “Climate Change”[/h]Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach (see Update at the end) I had tweeted the following: Various people either liked or retweeted this, including my mad mate and human lightning rod, James Delingpole. This post started because someone named Robin Whitlock tweeted the following: Delingpole is a knuckledragger, pure and simple. It’s a wonder his brain…

 
The hockey stick was a retrospective of the past, not a prediction of the future. Somebody was paid to lie to you about that, and you swallowed their lies hook, line, and sinker, just like the rube they took you for.

so who paid Jim Hanson to say NYC would be under water by now????
 
Big Lie #2: nobody has ever said AGW stared in 1900.

sure they do most measurements 1880 as a baseline that is when industrialization took off and when measuring got better. Sorry to rock your world.
 
Oops. Looks like you were lied to again. And looks like you fell for it again.
Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
“According to the National Hurricane Center, storms are no more intense or frequent worldwide than they have been since 1850. […] Constant 24-7 media coverage of every significant storm worldwide just makes it seem that way.” (Paul Bedard)
 
The hockey stick was a retrospective of the past, not a prediction of the future. Somebody was paid to lie to you about that, and you swallowed their lies hook, line, and sinker, just like the rube they took you for. . . .

Here's the actual data from Munich RE, the world's largest re-insurance company. (A re-insurance company is an insurance company that insures other insurance companies against large disasters.)
MunichRe2015-638x377.jpg


Oops. Looks like you were lied to again. And looks like you fell for it again.

Increased insurance payouts are entirely a result of increased coastal development and nothing else.
 
Increased insurance payouts are entirely a result of increased coastal development and nothing else.

he's looking at climate events not dollars-right?
 
A reinsurance company is only going to count events that cause payouts.

well Warren Buffet agrees with you. His insurance companies see no change in weather that causes more damage
 
Back
Top Bottom