Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
r-j said:
Like that statement you just made. I am skeptical of what you claim. Your attempts to avoid a debate, an argument, or even a discussion, by claiming victory, that isn't how it works.

Not even close.
Click to expand...

now if you want to call it vistory, yes we did indeed win. the evidence is in, the evidence is clear. AGW is real and happening, no doubt about that anymore.
do you accept that?
 
Something I noticed while lurking on another forum was that the people claiming AGW, or global warming, or climate change, they would do anything except state what they meant by the terms.

The same thing happened here when I asked for either a definition, or a link to a page describing what AGW means. What is the theory, what are the predictions. How can anyone tell the difference between natural global warming and AGW.

So far, nobody in this thread has ever answered. I doubt this will change.

Like my straightforward question I just asked. Rather than just link to what you mean by AGW, there will be endless posts, but none that answer the question.
 
DC said:
AGW is very well defined. no need to further specify it at all. you know what A stands for? and GW? all you need
Click to expand...

DC said:
now if you want to call it vistory, yes we did indeed win. the evidence is in, the evidence is clear. AGW is real and happening, no doubt about that anymore.
do you accept that?
Click to expand...

The above post were made while I was composing my post above.

I would apply for the challenge, except it doesn't take any psychic powers to predict this chain of events.
 
DC said:
AGW is very well defined.
Click to expand...
You have never defined what you mean by AGW. Much less told us what evidence would change your mind about it.

Hence your statement is meaningless. Each post you make with out answering a simple rational question, just proves my point.

You refuse to say what you are talking about. Or what evidence would change your mind.
 
r-j said:
It's not "the science" that the skeptics are questioning.
Click to expand...

As DC says, sceptics have accepted the science long time ago.

About denialists, just the last three ones here have five diverging opinions so "what they want" is a chimera, unless you say "doing nothing about global warming" and you have them signing any document, because to you/them AGW doesn't exist until action and regulation about it stops, then it can exist.
 
Answer the question put to YOU in #919 R-J - is Tillerson wrong or are you?...
..you complain of others not answering and do exactly the same thing on a very straightforward question.

•••

You are just **** disturbing R-J - the answer is in the very link you posted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGW

Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming (human impact on the environment):
Attribution of recent climate change
Climate change
Global warming
Click to expand...

and YOU POSTED IT..!!!!...gets tiresome this wheedling nonsense
 
Last edited:
macdoc said:
Answer the question
Click to expand...
The last time I asked,months ago, the different answers and attempts to avoid answering were educational. This should be as well.

And before anyone asks, no, there never was a definition or any explanation of what would prove the undefined "AGW" to be wrong.
 
macdoc said:
There IS no debate over the reality of AGW
Click to expand...

What do you mean when you use "AGW"?

Demanding somebody answer a question about a term you refuse to define, much less explain, seems sort of ignorant.
 
macdoc said:
you got one thing correct here R-J ...your self description.
Click to expand...

Once again, you type but don't even attempt to answer the most fundamental of questions for this topic.

I predict that in the next hundred responses, there will be zero discussion of the "theory of AGW", or AGW, or what ever it is. Nobody will define, much less explain what they mean.

Which is pretty slick if you are trying to avoid the next part, where you have to explain what would prove you wrong.
 
r-j said:
Something I noticed while lurking on another forum was that the people claiming AGW, or global warming, or climate change, they would do anything except state what they meant by the terms.

The same thing happened here when I asked for either a definition, or a link to a page describing what AGW means. What is the theory, what are the predictions. How can anyone tell the difference between natural global warming and AGW.

So far, nobody in this thread has ever answered. I doubt this will change.

Like my straightforward question I just asked. Rather than just link to what you mean by AGW, there will be endless posts, but none that answer the question.
Click to expand...

i told you the last time when you asked. so why do you lie? its still to be found here in this very thread. why do you lie?


anthropogenic global warming. it means, that increase of greenhosue gasses do to human activity will cause warming as it increases the greenhouse effect. this global warming is causing climatic changes.

as simple as it gets.

the predictions are. the already released greenhosue gasses will further warm up the planet.
increasing the greenhouse gasses even further will lead to even more warming.

detailed projections can be found in the scientific literature and the IPCC AR's.
 
DC said:
the predictions are. the already released greenhosue gasses will further warm up the planet. increasing the greenhouse gasses even further will lead to even more warming
Click to expand...

Does anyone else agree that is what they mean when they use "AGW"?

DC, what would change your mind in regards to your belief in what you stated?
 
r-j said:
You have never defined what you mean by AGW. Much less told us what evidence would change your mind about it.

Hence your statement is meaningless. Each post you make with out answering a simple rational question, just proves my point.

You refuse to say what you are talking about. Or what evidence would change your mind.
Click to expand...

you asked the same a while back, i answered it back then. i just did again.
you did not miss it when i posted it the last time. so why do you lie about it?
i was and am now again very clearly what i mean by AGW.

what evidence does it need? well how for example evidence of any other forcing able to explain the observations? if you want to replace the AGW theory, you will need either provide conclusive evidence shiwng the theory wrong, or provide a theory that is able to better explain the observations and make better projections.

you got something like that? i doubt it as noone on the denier side has this.
 
Once again, you type but don't even attempt to answer the most fundamental of questions for this topic.

I predict that in the next hundred responses, there will be zero discussion of the "theory of AGW", or AGW, or what ever it is. Nobody will define, much less explain what they mean.
Click to expand...

This will do for me as well

anthropogenic global warming. it means, that increase of greenhouse gases due to human activity have caused observable warming as it increases the enhanced greenhouse effect.
Global warming is causing climatic changes.

Disproof would consist of an overturn of the physics governing C02 absorption of LW radiation.

•••

Now answer the Tillson question....is he wrong or are you?
 
r-j said:
Does anyone else agree that is what they mean when they use "AGW"?

DC, what would change your mind in regards to your belief in what you stated?
Click to expand...

conclusive evidence and a alternative theory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom