Why 'Climate Change' Alarmists Will NEVER Debate Skeptics

By all indications, that's impossible.

Why the hell do you repeat that question and expect a different answer?

You frame the questions deceptively, presumably so as to miss the point.

 

Pure flamebait trolling

 

Rarely and 50% of the time its

What is to be disputed his how much of it is from man made CO2 as opposed to other factors as well as how much it will continue to increase. Alarmists exaggerate this amount and it is here they deviate from scientific proof in favor of biased speculation and belief.

 

The time for debate ended a long time ago. We've already passed the point of no return when it was still possible to reverse the effects of climate change. There's nothing that can be done.

Within 20 years, the seas levels will be high enough to flood the everglades in Florida, taking away the state's main fresh water source, making most of the state uninhabitable.

 

Because you haven’t answered the questions. Not that I’m all that surprised as you have no real argument.

 

They would debate politics of climate change. Nobody denies climate change. It has been occurring since the planet formed.

 

Is that true?

The way words keep getteng re-defined, I just assume 'climate change' = 'global warming' = 'human caused global warming'.

Am I mistaken?

 

I think you are. Climate change would include any change. Global warming is a type of climate change. Humans likely contribute somewhat to the current warming trend but the overall situation is more political than scientific. When the next cooling trend occurs people may be out manufacturing all the CO2 they can. The politics will be different.

 

I agree. Your definitions are what those three terms would mean to me.

That just doesn't seem to be how they are used. To me, it looks like they are generally used as if they meant the same thing. Specifically, that The Earth's climate is warming, and it is being caused solely by human activities.

 

What's different is the speed of the change since we have begun dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere daily...

 

That's not true but it is the final Denier argument.

After dragging their feet on this for decades...they now say it's too late...

At some point it will be accurate...if we continue on the current path

 

Climatologiests said for many years that once the greenhouse gases reach a certain percentage of the atmosphere, it will be too late to change reverse using current technology. That percentage was reached in the mid 2000's.

 

OK.

 

I can't explain the confusion of others.

 

So you repeated that retarded question because I didn't vouchsafe you answers to your other strawman-based questions. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

Still dodging I see. I get it...you have no argument. You must feel silly.

 

When will you begin proving your remarks? Opinions are fine, but say that. Stop pretending you speak for all sides of an argument. For your information, companies such as Shell long ago entered the alternative energy fray only to lose enormous sums of money forcing them back out.

Stop calling it climate denial. We do not deny climate. We deny humans are in charge of climate.

 

Why don't you point out the doubts contained in the IPCC reports?

 

Ok, you want a debate? Tell me why the planet is warming and why this has more evidence than the CO2 explanation.

 

I believe the most basic error you made is saying the planet is warming. In particular places there is warming but in other places there is cooling. Do you want me to take credit for the parts that cool?

 

Believe me, I understand how hope springs eternal in the minds of projectioneers like yourself.

 

Next up:

Why won't the round-earthers debate the flat-earthers?
and a special treat
How a conspiracy against bloodletting was designed to promote cancer.

 

Do you have links to that?

 

The planet doesn't warm and cool uniformly so it is no surprise that parts of the planets are cooling while the average global temperature has risen by 2 F.

 

Translation: I refuse to answer the question because it would prove I am wrong.