Why I stopped debating Climate Science with Science denialists...

It would appear that you are unable to address the points I made. If you already know the cause, why do you need to government to force you to change?

 

Only real change from my youth is the cooling to warming direction and the size of the extra wide media spoon and orifice it shovel fear it to..

 

It's never about the true believers/followers and every about misery that loves and demands company..

 

My posts have been factual. Sagan said what I claimed. Here are my claims. Using the PF quote function.

Here is Sagan’s statement in full, including the parts Golem edits out.

Now, what Golem seems to not understand is that increases in rates of increased atmospheric CO2 are tied directly to increases in rates of burning fossil fuels. I explained this to him here.

So it’s clear if we look at one or the other of fossil fuel burning rates of 1985 or rates of additional gasses occurring in 1985 (or both) Sagan is incorrect. There is NO evidence to support his claim of several degrees C rise by 2050 or 2100 from emission and gas addition rates occurring in 1985.

The IPCC doesn’t predict those warming numbers even accounting for doubling of emissions since 1985 and increase in rate of increase of atmospheric levels from 1.12ppm/year in 1985 to 1.72 ppm/year today.

If one claims Sagan was correct in 1985 they are claiming IPCC predictions today are incorrect. If one claims Sagan was correct in 1985, they are claiming increased use of fossil fuels have not increased the rate of increased atmospheric CO2.

LOL. My claim was based on watching his testimony. My claims were correct. Sagan was incorrect in his predictions no matter if we look at fossil fuel burn rates or accelerating additional CO2 levels that result from increased fossil fuel usage.

You do not research either apparently or you would know atmospheric CO2 rate increases accelerated with increased use of fossil fuels. You would know that Sagan’s claim from 1985 directly conflicts with IPCC predictions of warming. You have not demonstrated that you have researched. There is no evidence you have.

What I posted came directly from Sagan’s mouth. Why would I look at climate denier web pages when I’m not a climate change denier? Everything I post is based on peer reviewed research. That’s why the IPCC conflicts with Sagan’s 1985 claim. Because it’s based on research.

It seems nothing you believe comes from a scientific source if you don’t understand increased rates of greenhouse gas increases are tied directly to increased burning of fossil fuels.

[/QUOTE]

Show me a credible source from your extensive research that shows several degrees of warming will occur by 2050 or 2100 from emission rates equal to those in 1985 or from increases in rates of increase in atmospheric CO2 seen in 1985. Go!

Remember, a claim Sagan was correct is a claim the IPCC is incorrect. Good luck!

This part of Sagan’s presentation is also important! Why? Because when usage of fossil fuels increases so does the rate of increase of greenhouse gasses.

 

Imagine that

 

Show me a credible source from your extensive research that shows several degrees of warming will occur by 2050 or 2100 from emission rates equal to those in 1985 or from increases in rates of increase in atmospheric CO2 seen in 1985. Go!

Remember, a claim Sagan was correct is a claim the IPCC is incorrect. Good luck!

This part of Sagan’s presentation is also important! Why? Because when usage of fossil fuels increases so does the rate of increase of greenhouse gasses.[/QUOTE]

Fatback says
If he had anything factual to rebut you with he would not have to sit there and edit out half of your claim like he does with almost every reply he makes.

 

And according to my generation we should have all starved and froze to death decades ago

As far as propaganda goes, I'd have gone with the rebirth of unknown pathogens from the preastoric era that thrive on warmer climates.

Missed a perfect opportunity with outbreak of covid

 

"Magically"? No way! I think it takes a very sharp knife!

Ouch!

 

You don't! Read the link. You don't need to lift a finger!

 

If it wasn’t part of the prediction why did he bring it up? It’s irrelevant anyway. Science shows us by 2100 the emissions levels of 1985 wouldn’t cause the warming predicted by Sagan.

 

We can all be right. Yippee.

 

Ha. Climate nutters trashing the IPCC to defend a dead dude.

 

Like 5 years ago I stopped debating climate science with climate denialist but yet I'm going to start a thread right now so I can keep doing the thing that I said I stopped doing 5 years ago, or is it 6...

 

Yeh. Shocker.

 

You are dodging. Why do you need the government to force you to change your consumption habits if you already know? The lips say "science" but the actions say "science denier".

 

Yes. What Sagan actually said is irrelevant in golem’s opinion. Only what Golem wants to be relevant is relevant. Essentially Golem’s argument is Sagan babbled irrelevant nonsense for 15 plus minutes but only part of one sentence is relevant. And that part sentence conflicts with the IPCC.

I thought it would be funny to see nutters trash modern climate science. A couple were wise enough to see the trap. Golem fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

 

Yes and would you please stop.

 

Or a very sharp imagination Ask a prog, the have proven to be VERY creative!

 

Dang science revisionists No wonder people refuse to take them serious. Personally, I'm sick to death being treated like a dope by people trying to scare me into using less, owning less while places like China increase there conforts while some American choose to self-flagellate themselves to atone for their percieved sins of wealth and comfort.

 

They don’t want to solve the problems. They NEED the problems. Even Sagan wanted to use the tools nature provides to make a better planet. When is the last time you heard a Sagan supporting climate nutter pontificate about that?

 

The battle of the PF climate science deniers. We have one dude saying nobody on the rational side would use Sagan as a source. Someone from his “tribe” does so. Another tribal elder not only wants Sagan used as a source, he wants the source to be mandatory in every school in the country! Good stuff.

 

Why don't you hook up with Guv. Newsom of California. He going to China to meet with Xi Jinping pimping for support in 2024 or 2028. Xi will encourage Newsom to keep pouring money into the bottomless pit of the Green Weenies want list. Your tax money is going to build a tax subsidized windmill which will be owned by a hedge fund as soon as it goes private. They are all like this.

 

Silly thing is anyone this side of extinction rebellion is not asking for that. What we are asking is simply to get out of the way so the needed changes can be brought in. I mean humanity survived changing over from Kerosene lamps to incandescent light bulbs to flouros to now LEDs - that did not kill us. I am betting there is not one person on the forum who does not have at least one device using LED tech. We have seen revolutions in computing and who would go back to the old sat phones of yesteryear that looked like a brick had a battery life of about 2 minutes and were about ad reliable as a condom made in a pin factory. Change is coming - yes change has issues but give it a chance

 

I was making a point to the “duh! But der climate change is der scientists all inna konspiracy!!” Crowd that concern has been noted by the scientific community for more than 50 years