World's temperature likely to break key 1.5C warming threshold for first time between 2023 and 2027, scientists predict

[Yellowtail]

53 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Regardless of the personal actions of scientists, the planet is warming, caused by human produced carbon dioxide.

 

How is it that only human produced carbon dioxide causing it, and not all carbon dioxide? 

[Danderman123]

12 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

How is it that only human produced carbon dioxide causing it, and not all carbon dioxide? 

All CO2 causes warming.

 

The problem that the natural level of 280mm is now increased to 400+ ppm by human produced CO2.

 

I

 

[Danderman123]

17 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

He's not claiming the topic is "about" alarmism, he is claiming the people like you that are posting are alarmists. 

 

Do you disagree? 

Yes.

 

My point is that the first step in solving a problem to identify the problem. The Deniers don't believe there is a problem. They generally don't believe that human produced carbon dioxide is causing global warming.

[sirineou]

22 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

How is it that only human produced carbon dioxide causing it, and not all carbon dioxide? 

Because , there is an amount of CO2 that would be produced naturally from a variety of sources.  

That can't be helped .

Then there is the CO2 produced by Human, not naturally but by bad choices that could be mitigated. 

Those are the ones that we can do something about, and should. 

I am sure you , like everyone else is complaining about the air Quality in Thailand and all the human causes for it.  Ok , wouldn't you agree that steps should be taken to mitigate the situation? I am sure you would.

Then why can't we apply such approach   planet wide .

 

Edited February 18 by sirineou

[Yellowtail]

58 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Yes.

Wrong. He posted: 

"3 posts in a row - all adding to c02 levels. 

 

Comedy show watching you alarmists."

 

His post clearly not referring to the topic, but to the posters.

58 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

My point is that the first step in solving a problem to identify the problem. The Deniers don't believe there is a problem. They generally don't believe that human produced carbon dioxide is causing global warming.

What "deniers" are you talking about? You call everyone that disagrees with any of the idiocy you spew a denier. 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

Because , there is an amount of CO2 that would be produced naturally from a variety of sources.  

That can't be helped .

Then there is the CO2 produced by Human, not naturally but by bad choices that could be mitigated. 

Those are the ones that we can do something about, and should. 

I am sure you , like everyone else is complaining about the air Quality in Thailand and all the human causes for it.  Ok , wouldn't you agree that steps should be taken to mitigate the situation? I am sure you would.

Then why can't we apply such approach   planet wide .

 

I am not complaining about the air quality in Thailand. 

 

I agree something needs to be done "planet wide", but it is my position that the things being pushed to "solve" the issue are largely ridiculous, are the people pushing them. 

 

Have you seen any cost benefit analysis done for any of this stuff? 

 

 

[sirineou]

10 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I am not complaining about the air quality in Thailand. 

The answer of an oxygen deprived brain 

10 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Have you seen any cost benefit analysis done for any of this stuff? 

Yes!! 

We don't do it  many will die and most will suffer.

We do it and maybe we will not. 

[KhunLA]

https://aseannow.com/topic/1319843-greenland-has-lost-ice-36-times-the-size-of-new-york-that’s-a-huge-problem-for-the-planet/page/3/#comment-18704240

 

Edited February 19 by KhunLA

[Yellowtail]

4 hours ago, sirineou said:

The answer of an oxygen deprived brain 

Oh, an insult, I'm shocked. 

4 hours ago, sirineou said:

Yes!! 

I bet you have not. 

4 hours ago, sirineou said:

We don't do it  many will die and most will suffer.

What is "it" that we need to do? 

4 hours ago, sirineou said:

We do it and maybe we will not. 

So, the plan is to end suffering and stop people from dying?

[sirineou]

27 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Oh, an insult, I'm shocked.

 I am making excuses for you and you don't even appreciate it. 

and i worked in the CI2 angle.

32 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I bet you have not. 

Sure I have. the cost analysis is , we don't do something soon. it will cost a lot of death and suffering

34 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What is "it" that we need to do? 

transition into a less polluting lifestyle. and make those who profit by polluting pay for it.

every other Industry has to pay for the pollution they cause in their peruse of profit, but not the energy sector?

42 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, the plan is to end suffering and stop people from dying?

Very cute and highly insincere. You are not a dummy . unless you want to argue otherwise.

You know what we are talking about. 

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 I am making excuses for you and you don't even appreciate it. 

and i worked in the CI2 angle.

Sure I have. the cost analysis is , we don't do something soon. it will cost a lot of death and suffering

transition into a less polluting lifestyle. and make those who profit by polluting pay for it.

every other Industry has to pay for the pollution they cause in their peruse of profit, but not the energy sector?

Very cute and highly insincere. You are not a dummy . unless you want to argue otherwise.

You know what we are talking about. 

 

Yet you pretend to not know what I am talking about. 

 

My post: I agree something needs to be done "planet wide", but it is my position that the things being pushed to "solve" the issue are largely ridiculous, are the people pushing them. 

 

Have you seen any cost benefit analysis done for any of this stuff? 

 

You claimed that you had seen a cost-benefit analysis, and then go on to (apparently) prove you have not. 

 

Typical leftist dodge and then a few silly emojis, for what? Is it a serious topic or is it not?

 

 

 

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Yet you pretend to not know what I am talking about. 

Now pretending not to know what my comment was about. In case you are sincere, It was about the death and suffering reply you made.

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Have you seen any cost benefit analysis done for any of this stuff? 

Not sure what you are talking about there.

I have seen the benefit. (preventing death , and suffering), as to the cost.

How much does a life cost? 

 

[Yellowtail]

7 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Now pretending not to know what my comment was about. In case you are sincere, It was about the death and suffering reply you made.

Still pretending then. 

7 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Not sure what you are talking about there.

I don't doubt that.      

7 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I have seen the benefit. (preventing death , and suffering), as to the cost.

Yet you seemed to have claimed you have seen a cost benefit analysis when you have not. 

 

What is the benefit you have seen and from what? 

7 minutes ago, sirineou said:

How much does a life cost? 

 

To the current administration? If you're a hostage being held by Iran, over a billion dollars, if you're one of the working poor in East Palestine, nothing. 

 

Do you have an what a cost benefit analysis is or no? 

 

My position is that the feel-good nonsense being pushed as solutions are largely ridiculous. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sirineou]

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Still pretending then. 

[Danderman123]

22 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

What "deniers" are you talking about? You call everyone that disagrees with any of the idiocy you spew a denier. 

Deniers come in all flavors, including those who simply attempt to sow doubts about the Global Warming hypothesis.

 

Sowing doubt was first used by the tobacco industry, but the oil companies picked up the technique:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubt_Is_Their_Product

[Danderman123]

7 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Oh, an insult, I'm shocked. 

I bet you have not. 

What is "it" that we need to do? 

So, the plan is to end suffering and stop people from dying?

One very old trolling technique is to deflect from describing the problem of Global Warming and instead argue about solutions. After enough time has been wasted on solutions, then claim that the Global Warming problem doesn't exist.

 

I suggest that discussion of solutions be moved to another topic.

Edited February 19 by Danderman123

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

Deniers come in all flavors, including those who simply attempt to sow doubts about the Global Warming hypothesis.

 

Sowing doubt was first used by the tobacco industry, but the oil companies picked up the technique:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubt_Is_Their_Product

So, you don't know, you were just making it up, and now you're changing the subject, that's what I thought. 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

One very old trolling technique is to deflect from describing the problem of Global Warming and instead argue about solutions. After enough time has been wasted on solutions, then claim that the Global Warming problem doesn't exist.

 

I suggest that discussion of solutions be moved to another topic.

Aside from it being easy it is for you to continue regurgitating the same silly talking points over and over, what is the point of discussing climate change if there are no solutions? 

 

I think we most all agree that the Earth warming, no? 

 

 

[Danderman123]

42 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, you don't know, you were just making it up, and now you're changing the subject, that's what I thought. 

The atmosphere is being warmed by human produced Carbon Dioxide.

 

Your job is to raise doubts about the reality of Global Warming.

[Danderman123]

41 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Aside from it being easy it is for you to continue regurgitating the same silly talking points over and over, what is the point of discussing climate change if there are no solutions? 

 

I think we most all agree that the Earth warming, no? 

 

 

The first step in solving a problem is to recognize that there is a problem. In this case, the problem is that human produced carbon dioxide is warming the atmosphere.

 

Although you admit that the atmosphere is warming, you disagree that human produced Carbon Dioxide is the primary cause.

 

So, it's impossible to discuss solutions with you, if you don't recognize the cause of the problem.

[Danderman123]

It would be easy for a Denier to prove that human produced Carbon Dioxide isn't the cause of the current warming:

 

Show another source of increased carbon dioxide.

 

Show increased solar output.

 

Show changes to the Earth's orbital parameters that are currently causing warm.

 

Show a wizard who is casting warming spells.

 

To the extent that the Deniers can't do this, they are wrong.

[Yellowtail]

10 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

The first step in solving a problem is to recognize that there is a problem. In this case, the problem is that human produced carbon dioxide is warming the atmosphere.

The problem is that the atmosphere is warming, regardless of why. 

10 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Although you admit that the atmosphere is warming, you disagree that human produced Carbon Dioxide is the primary cause.

You are lying again. Where did I say that? 

10 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

So, it's impossible to discuss solutions with you, if you don't recognize the cause of the problem.

Or if you're not bright enough. 

[Rimmer]

Bickering flame and reply has been removed

[Danderman123]

https://www.co2.earth/

 

The Deniers cannot dispute that this increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from human activity.

[scottiejohn]

21 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The Deniers cannot dispute that this increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from human activity.

It is only a graph produced by someone/thing you support!

It is NOT proof, it is only the opinion of the originator who may claim it is proof!

[Danderman123]

4 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

It is only a graph produced by someone/thing you support!

It is NOT proof, it is only the opinion of the originator who may claim it is proof!

You don't believe that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the last 100 years?

 

@Yellowtail

 

Here is your chance to educate a Denier!