|Why alarmists will lose02-01-2016 07:32|
|Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆
|Deniers have 4 options:|
1. If it warms several C they say Oh look CO2 is so good with warming.
2. If it stays the same they say Oh look alarmists are wrong.
3. If it cools they say Oh look alarmists are wrong.
4. If it catastrophically heats up by say 30 C in winter and 10 C in summer, resulting in the vast northern lands which are currently sparsely inhabited becoming available for habitation and the net gain in land would be a huge positive considering heating will mainly affect towards the poles with little effect towards the equator.
Alarmists on the other hand have 0 option.
Edited on 02-01-2016 07:35
|Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆
|In every scenario, deniers win, alarmists lost|
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
What I notice is that science wins every time. Hence warmizombies and climate lemmings don't really have any case to make.
Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
|climate change alarmists had their brains damaged by household man made chemicals||7||04-12-2016 21:43|
|Alarmists are wrong. The debate is over.||15||11-01-2016 19:20|
|Alarmists are wrong. Humans are not nature's enemy. Humans are nature's savior.||16||31-12-2015 02:29|
|Why do alarmists think humans are messing up nature?||2||28-12-2015 13:47|
|Alarmists versus deniers, what's the disagreement really about?||13||26-12-2015 13:29|