Democrat Ass

At least they put the data where their mouth is.

And what data would that be? Every model that has been used has been proven wrong.

In the 1970's they said we would be in an ice age by now. Then they said the temp would be 2 degrees higher by 2020, yet the temp has remained the same for the last 17 years so they readjusted the data and excluded the 1940 cold period. Never mind Al Gores predictions that we would see a worldwide famine by 2015. Climate is much more complex then we have been able to predict.

Now, if the data is referring to two sexes, there is no scientific data supporting more than two sexes or genders or whatever you want to call it.

I need a source for Al Gore's claim from you.
Also, it would be nice if you have some reference to the prediction in the 70's. But I have a feeling it may have been qualified by "if temperatures continue to decline as they have been, ..."

The global temperature has not been static.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

You cannot prove a model "wrong". That is like trying to prove someone's gender is "lion". You can show that the model has limited accuracy. You can see how different your model prediction is from what you observe. You can find that the ocean is absorbing CO2 and discover that this new understanding improves your model and accounts for some of the error in the old model. To say a model is skillful means it predicts with a high degree of accuracy what you will observe in the future. Today's models are skillful. They have been for over a decade.

Intersex : babies are born that have reproductive organs developed on a spectrum from male to female sex. It is commonplace in the US to guess the gender and perform surgery shortly after birth.

The temp. has been flat. NOAA redid the way they measure satellite data when they didn't like the results the stations on the earth were giving them.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/21/the-new-york-times-global-warming-hysteria-ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/#768f39c42a4c

Al Gore also stated that the ice caps would be gone by now. Wrong, they are growing.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/global-warming-apocalypses-didnt-happen

As far as models, you are correct. My point, however, is that they give these apocalyptic warnings that in x years this will happen. Then when we get to that year, it hasn't happened. So they tweak the model again. So far, not one model has been correct in predicting what has really happened.

I watched Al Gore's talk. That is not what he said, that is a misrepresentation of what he said.

"They" aren't growing. The North is clearly melting huge amounts. The south cap is, by volume, shrinking as well. New ice in one region does not necessarily mean growing.

https://www.edf.org/blog/2013/10/21/disinformation-spreads-confusion-about-reality-climate-change

If you look at the past 700,000 years, the Antarctic ice core records show a lag between temperature rise and CO2 rise. Today, CO2 levels are rising before temperature. That has not happened in the past 700,000 years. That makes this completely uncharted territory. What is your prediction? What do you base that on?

Last 22k years.
http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf

"not one model has been correct" is a misnomer. They are measured in terms of accuracy. The oceans absorbing CO2 has been a discovery and worked into models. Sun activity has been noticed and worked into models. The models are skillful. The models have gotten more skillful over time. The apocalyptic talk stems from the idea of a "point of no return". Which should we believe? thousands of scientists and over 100 collaborating countries, or people who make a few inferences from some graphs?

**At least they put the data where the money is

It is naive to think that climate models will be 100% accurate. They used to be less accurate. Then we discovered CO2 going into the ocean and they became more accurate. At some point we accounted for the Earth's orbit around the sun (eliptical) and the models became more accurate. At some point we accounted for the (average length) sun cycle of 11 years and it's effect on Earth temperature and the models became more accurate. At some point we used new methods for measuring atmosphere history in the recent past, 700,000 years, or the more recent past, last 22,000 years and the models could be made more accurate. The fact has been (it may not be now) all(probably) records and research show that, historically, temperature rise has come before CO2 rise. So, unless we can show that the CO2 level rise precedes temperature rise (22,000 year reference) we are in completely uncharted territory.

The climate is changing, that has been shown. CO2 is playing a role that has been shown.

You ask one of two questions : What if we're wrong and the temperature doesn't rise and sea levels stay the same and it is ok to burn fossil fuels?

Remember, we've predicted many scenarios of how temperature will change based on how we control the carbon changes. The prediction is that sea levels will rise, people will be displaced, weather patterns will change, maybe deserts will become fertile land and maybe wetland will become deserts.

What if we're wrong the other way? What if the feedback is so strong that things change faster than we could have predicted (this situation has never been seen before, nothing to learn from)? What happens if all the Earth ice melts? It has been calculated that ice melt and expanding ocean water(higher temperature) can cause sea level rise of 120 feet.

Not declaring Armageddon. This is a call to caution. The prediction for change provides an extremely high probability. The predicted consequences (hundreds of years in the future) are cataclysmic. High probability times extreme damage means extreme danger/risk. This is a risk you mitigate. This is one we do as humanity, not states or nations.

It's not a call for caution, it's a call for more government power and higher taxes based on inconclusive evidence. It's the reason academia is full of SJWs who stigmatize you if you don't agree with their dogma. Everyone agrees that the climate is changing. What's up for debate is are humans the cause, is this really a serious threat, is there anything we can do about it, is government the best answer, should we wait until we have more data or better tech? Folks on the right would love to open up this debate, but the left just calls us science-deniers and the debate ends. You can't assume you're right. If dems were confident in the science they would welcome a challenge, not silence it.

181 parties(soon to be 180). 195 signatories.
Would you like to debate here?

Sure. My biggest beef with climate change, politically speaking, is that it's being used as an excuse for more government and more globalism. I'm all for cleaner energy solutions, but I won't be fear-mongered into more taxes and regulations. I don't believe the threat is as imminent and threatening as the left is making it sound. I have faith that within the next 50 years technological breakthroughs will solve the problem for us.

Government and taxes aside. Did humans put 100 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere?

Humans have undoubtedly put some CO2 in the atmosphere - you like to ask questions without having a point don't you lol

It looks like we did 120 ppm. Before that, the average was something like 300 ppm. How much would you agree was put there by man?

Bruh, aint no body got time for this much setup. If you have a point let's hear it

We have to find out what we agree on or there is no point.

Haha even then there's not much of a point. I'll try to speed things along, b/c my arguments don't depend on whether it's 120ppm or 300ppm. The left is afraid that CO2 emissions will create a subtle rise in global temperature which will lead to a catastrophic runaway greenhouse effect turning Earth into Venus. Sounds like a political boogey man tactic to me. Everyone agrees that CO2 levels are rising, everyone agrees that humans contribute to that, and maybe CO2 indeed has a greehouse effect - how much is up for debate (by smarter folks than us).The fact that the left doesn't want to debate it and condemn the right as science-deniers only makes me more suspicious. There's just not enough data, too many variables, and too much motive for lying about it.

Fact : CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
A "subtle" increase can have a devastating effect.
Science shows. The evidence shows. The agenda of people supporting fighting CO2 emissions is to maintain the planet in about the condition it is in now. The estimated sea level rise by the end of the century is 3 feet. The agenda is to preserve dry land near sea level. The agenda is to protect property and lives.

The smart people have debated. The smart people have proved their points. Singletons like you and the oil industry that want to continue to "debate" the facts are being left behind. For humanity's sake, the world has found the science well founded, convincing, informing, predictive, and has produced skillful models. The world signed the Paris Climate Accord. trump is the only leader stupid and ignorant enough to withdraw from the climate accord. I don't have to debate it. You can go on the internet and find terabytes of debate already done. The only thing I need to call you is behind the times.

CO2 is a GHG.

For whatever reason, man made or not, the climate is changing. If you don't believe it ask all the construction crews in Miami who work 'round the clock pumping water, trying to keep the ocean from taking their city...

Yes, with the exception of Klinefelter's Syndrome and some other rare hermaphrodite disorders. However, these conditions are very rare.

Then I believe you meant to answer “no”

Technically you are correct. According to research done at Brown Univ. the percentage of people who are born with XX or XY chromosomes is 99.9994%.

So call me a liar for 0.0006% because I am sure you think you are correct more than 99.9994% of the time.

You probably think Elizabeth Warren is Native American hahah

Haha so you'll split hairs over chromosomes but not DNA. Dems should learn some consistency

Dag yo... I had no idea that people actually think that way fo' reeels lol. I mean I know some people are uptight and think that their opinion is what we should all live by. I just honestly didn't think they truly believe people can't just be not like them. Guess I always thought they knew the truth but hid it deep down inside with their feelings of inadequacy and covered it all up with hate and self righteousness.

What it really comes down to is a battle of the open minded vs the closed minded. It's really kinda unfair, open minded people are capable of understanding things closed minded people shut themselves off from. Their arguments remain the same since new knowledge is not allowed inside their minds, while we keep learning new things and evolving beyond their comprehension.

It's kinda like arguing with a tree to get up and walk. While the tree argues that things that can move go against nature...