Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (931492)	5/15/2016 3:21:01 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574864

Your 1) is puzzling. Are you claiming there is little evidence of warming? I'm claiming their is little evidence for the combination of all the points. From my post - "What particularly hasn't been established as being true is the combination of all the below points.". Considering that, and also the first two sentences of the same post - "Of course global warming is true. The globe has been warming for a long time". Your response is puzzling to say the least, and seems to indicate that you merely skimmed over the post rather then actually reading it. Your 2) is false. If point number 2 is false (or if any of the other points are false), then then my argument is correct. The argument is that the combination of all points is false. So any one of them being false would make the overall point correct. it is indisputable that most of it is because of CO2 emissions So after saying point number 2 is false, you then make the same claim as in point number 2 as true... Your 3) is a mix of nonsense and bullshit. Not to mention the straw man. Its not a straw man. It has been claimed many times. At worst its a "weak man" argument, searching out the weakest arguments of the other side to argue against. But I don't think its even that. If there has been similar warming in human history and often in pre-human history, before significant (or any) human emissions of CO2, then the whole human emission of CO2 is causing a massive global warming disaster idea is weakened. If multi-meter rises in sea level and extinction of a large percentage of extant species is not a catastrophe, then what is? The first is not a disaser if it happens over multiple centuries. The 2nd is mostly something that's not going to happen any time soon as a result of human CO2 emissions. And 5). You keep using the word "massively". I don't think it means what you think it does. I've seen global warming alarmists, including on this thread, that call for a 70 to a nearly 100% cut in human CO2 emissions and/or fossil fuel use relatively quickly (within 50 years or even 20). That's quite reasonably called massive.