Climate change denial strongly linked to right-wing nationalism

Looks like a bad base to build a railroad on. LOOK how bad it looks now. Again and again, I read from the above "so called" evidence, I read "most likely" and "Is to be believed" etc. Just a religion based on guesses. Who decides who the 4 billion humans to be "deleted" to support such a wacko theory of a religion of "global warming is man's fault"? Like a religion, it uses unproven natural phenomenon to gain power over the masses. Someone has to decide the 4-5 billion humans to stop this "religious theory" have to die. And if your theory is right, it is too late to stop the inevitable from happening, it is too late to do anything about it. WE ARE DOOMED! The sky is falling I tell you >)

 

What part of this don't you understand?

"So carbon dioxide etc. emitted by industry has different physical properties than that from natural sources?"

Yes. Or no.

 

Reminder: you can keep embarrassing yourself by continuing to try to dodge a simple question or you can be intellectually honest and answer directly.

 

I would say stumping for a religion like global warming would be an embarrassment, with wacko theories and guesses, but no real hard facts. I am a civil engineer, it is only hard facts. I don't do theories, guesses and maybes, I deal in solid facts that I can see and touch. I delve in such a "religion", and I would get my pants sued off of me. Come back when you have SOLID PROOF. Until then, it is just a religion based on theory and guesswork, circumstantial evidence at best.

 

Answer the question:

"So carbon dioxide etc. emitted by industry has different physical properties than that from natural sources?"

 

I am agnostic on if it is real or not. But if it is really mans fault, we have already passed the tipping point, so it is a moot point.

 

a) You're not agnostic
b) Whether we have passed the tipping point does not inhere on whether anthropogenic climate change is real
c) Answer my ****ing question

 

The question does not have any bearing on any answer. YOu are simply using things to gain control over the populace. Who decides who are the 4 billion people to die to stop it?

 

It does:

a) Whether or not climate change is real
b) Whether or not you will ever stop being an evasive ****

 

If you want "SOLID PROOF" of what lots of carbon dioxide can do, imagine living on Venus, a planet hotter than Mercury despite being farther from the Sun. Your life would be very brief in that case.

So how is carbon dioxide from industry different from the "natural" kind? Answer the question.

 

I am agnostic. There is not enough evidence to prove it is man's fault, and if it is, then all the arguments are moot, because the game is over anyways for mankind. You and your question are like debating how many angles can fit on the head of a pin, irrelevant to the eventual outcome. Come back when you have the answer to what caused the last 5 Ice ages. Nobody has any solid evidence one way or the other, and they have been studying them for years. We lack any real historical cause and effect for global warming, with temp records and contents only forth the last 100 years, too scant a history to define what is going on. End of story. Need more evidence. And even if you get more evidence, the game is over if it is true, so it is a moot point of your question.

 

My my, what's this? Oh yeah:

 

So in addition to answering my other question, which you still haven't done, and I'm not going to forget it, can you tell me why you think committing logical fallacies is good?

Also answer my other question.

 

The question is immaterial. Venus is what happens when a planet that close to the sun gets to much gasses. So what, nothing to do with global warming here. But we are not living on Venus, at least not yet, so another moot point. We are past the tipping point according to many of these "global warming religious types, so it has become a moot point. The fire has been started and is burning. End of story.

 

What caused the last 5 ice ages? Proof, not theories.

 

What is it that makes Venus hotter than Mercury despite the increased distance? Actually, you know what, I'll answer this one for you because it looks like the cat got your tongue: it starts with "c" and ends with "arbon dioxide".

Are you ******** me?

Oh, and, as before: "So carbon dioxide etc. emitted by industry has different physical properties than that from natural sources?"

 

Stop deflecting. Why do you think logical fallacies should be seen as permissible?

And copying and pasting is easy, I can just keep doing this until I get an answer: "So carbon dioxide etc. emitted by industry has different physical properties than that from natural sources?"

 

So what caused the last 5 ice ages? NO theories, FACTS. Got no answer? Neither to climatologist and global warming THEORISTS. If you cannot tell me the facts by autopsy of the past, how can you speculate on current or the future?

 

a) You don't know what the word "theory" means (gravity is also a "theory")
b) Refusing to honor your pathetic attempt to deflect by answering a question with a different, irrelevant question isn't a dodge like what you're doing
c) "So carbon dioxide etc. emitted by industry has different physical properties than that from natural sources?" Answer. Pronto.

 

And for all this blabbering about how climate science is all airy-fairy spitballing, if you have better predictions of the relevant time series I'd like to see them. For reference, this is the bar to clear:

 

Your English construction is so bad that even this third attempt needs assistance from a magician in order to understand. I am dead serious. What the h-e-l-l are you trying to say?

I don't give a fiddler's hangnail what you believe because I have no idea what you are trying to say other than to reconfirm that you don't like me. So what gives you the idea that I want to "sway" you? You and your secret opinion mean nothing to me.

So the tossed-salad first paragraph is all about whether or not I believe in global warming? Why didn't you just say so? BETTER QUESTION: Why don't you find the post where I specifically deny the presence of global warming? That would save much time.

Just answer these two "yes or no" questions and then we'll see:
1). Do you believe that man is responsible for the so-called Global Warming?
2). Is it your opinion that I believe in it?

 

OK, we'll await evidence of the claim you obviously just made up.

 

No. Why would I?

 

So, I'd say this is lazy. It is also incredibly myopic. You'd simply ruin on the chance you're right. It seems at first pejorative, and then, destructive. Why should we adopt your approach then?

 

I don't believe the IPCC used the Arrhenius model.