Seriously, so what? What’s going to happen if the north pole melts? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Nothing is hinging on whether or not the north pole remains frozen.”
Seriously? You are confusing your argument my friend. The North Pole melt is not a causal factor, rather it is a result. But that’s not the argument you want to have, is it, so you lead with a straw man.
“Yes, global temperatures have gone up somewhat (between about 0.6 and 1.0 degrees C) in the last hundred or so years. But the idea that this was caused by humans or that this is somehow catastrophic is laughably ignorant.”
What is laughable is that you extrapolated from my comment to once again introduce your own agenda. Did I say anything about human causation?
As for your talking points, or should I say “facts,” they have been consistently examined and either nuanced or refuted. See, for instance, the May 16, 2007 article in New Scientist regarding climate myths espoused by warming deniers. I won’t provide links as I’m sure you’re familiar with this article already… since every one of your “facts” is addressed in it.
“(If you don’t know what I’m talking about, you don’t understand how the “greenhouse effect” works and shouldn’t be arguing in the first place.)”
Hey Moe… bullying doesn’t help your argument. Interesting rhetorical flourish though - pretend your opponent doesn’t “get it” and then dismiss his or her opinion altogether. You do realize that’s a fallacy, don’t you?
“And you people want to STOP that.”
“You people”?! I don’t think that even requires comment - but just to be on the safe side: you don’t know me and I have said nothing that would make it otherwise, assumptions based on a single issue say more about you than I think you realize.
“hobbesknows: So what?
Seriously, so what? What’s going to happen if the north pole melts? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Nothing is hinging on whether or not the north pole remains frozen.”
Seriously? You are confusing your argument my friend. The North Pole melt is not a causal factor, rather it is a result. But that’s not the argument you want to have, is it, so you lead with a straw man.
“Yes, global temperatures have gone up somewhat (between about 0.6 and 1.0 degrees C) in the last hundred or so years. But the idea that this was caused by humans or that this is somehow catastrophic is laughably ignorant.”
What is laughable is that you extrapolated from my comment to once again introduce your own agenda. Did I say anything about human causation?
As for your talking points, or should I say “facts,” they have been consistently examined and either nuanced or refuted. See, for instance, the May 16, 2007 article in New Scientist regarding climate myths espoused by warming deniers. I won’t provide links as I’m sure you’re familiar with this article already… since every one of your “facts” is addressed in it.
“(If you don’t know what I’m talking about, you don’t understand how the “greenhouse effect” works and shouldn’t be arguing in the first place.)”
Hey Moe… bullying doesn’t help your argument. Interesting rhetorical flourish though - pretend your opponent doesn’t “get it” and then dismiss his or her opinion altogether. You do realize that’s a fallacy, don’t you?
“And you people want to STOP that.”
“You people”?! I don’t think that even requires comment - but just to be on the safe side: you don’t know me and I have said nothing that would make it otherwise, assumptions based on a single issue say more about you than I think you realize.