HOME | DD | Gallery | Favourites | RSS
| LosBastardos
LosBastardos
[1099585]
[2004-09-13 23:15:22 +0000 UTC]
"frizzles"
(United States)
# Statistics
Favourites: 47; Deviations: 141; Watchers: 28
Watching: 58; Pageviews: 9149; Comments Made: 457; Friends: 58
# Interests
Favorite visual artist: The artist that ain't in it for the moneyFavorite movies: Fight club, waking life, mr. nobody, inception, red line
Favorite TV shows: Serenity, sons of anarchy, cowboy bepop, outlaw star, gungrave, how I met your mother, the walking dead,
Favorite bands / musical artists: Flobots, atmosphere, seth sentry, pez, immortal technique, otep, gym class heroes, sage francis, rage against the machine, nuttin but strings
Favorite books: Batman and psycology, snuff, being and nothingness
Favorite writers: Who knows.... Could be you
Favorite games: Fallout 1,2,3, and new vegas
Favorite gaming platform: Ps3
Tools of the Trade: a heart as a weapon and a mind as the extra clip
Other Interests: Writing, parkour, doing marine corps shit
# Comments
Comments: 143
i most likely did, but i cant say that i recall which message. just dont remember.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
hey devon! its Michelle, ya know akadragon. i made a new account recently and saw that youv ben on recently, whats up man?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Pop and lock - do the robot dance! There is an old saying in my country. It goes, "Don't eat the cow before you milk it". That's what your artwork makes me think of. Once in a while, I lie down in the tall weeds and stare at the rain clouds, and imagine they are all robots.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Life is like a box of robots, you never know what you have until it steps on you and your guts squirt out your eyeballs. You are an amazing artist, I don't know how you do it.It's amazing what you can do with a few tools of the trade.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
far out, look at the spam on your page, maybe this comment should help get rid of it?
If we talk, the more comments we do, the quicker they'll disappear, so, gunna post somrthing else up soon?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
absoltively. i got smack something fierce by this bitch spammer. i bet youare the bitch spammer, arent you?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If i was a spanner, i'd post long incredibly stupid thing up on your page, i'm just helping ya out by getting rid of his stupidity! don't be paranoid!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
no, no. you got me wrong. this girl says that she does this for sport. i thought she just made another name and started the cycle again.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You've got great skills w/the pencils
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i do not understand. i was not trying to plug my work. i just thought it might be more fun that way. is that considered spam?
thanks for the compliment.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
just wondering about your contest
What's your ideal women? is it still going on?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Man, the guy is spamming you too. Sorry about that. Anyways, responding to your comment on his, carbon monoxide is also relatively unstable, and will react (at a slow rate, admittably) to free oxygen molecules (Which is what makes it disassemble ozone in experiments), becoming carbon dioxide. The very thing that makes it damage ozone, however, also virtually guarantees it never reaches it, because there is a lot of free oxygen between here and the troposphere.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
this guy is kind of a dick. but hes new, i cut alittle slack. thanks for the comment. that was good to know. you know. i never thought that i would be using deviantart for political discussions. but what ever.
did he post his spam like 14 times on your page too. i think i just might have him banned for a while.
good day to you and yours.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I reported the activities. His spamming only served to suppress other people's commentary, since I started going by my inbox rather than returning to the forum for updates, and it would take a single click to remove anything he put up. And I never glance down at my Deviant Comments, so I'm going to have to go see if he also spammed that, now that you mention it. Ah well.
Good day!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
AHHHHHHHHHHHH! dammit. i am too late. i didnt want you to ban her. that is what she wants from us. fuck.
good day
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Dont associate with him, thats all im gonna say.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
its a her and i have an idea.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you do
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you do
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, reali
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you do
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you do
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, reali
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, reali
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, reali
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, reali
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, reali
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, realize that it is essentially floating(An important point) in the ocean and that if it were not, the shear stress involved would cause the breakup we're worried about anways, and then try to make water in a cup rise or fall by melting ice that is floating in it. And then keep quiet about my run-on sentence.I would just like to ask if anybody here believes in Global Warming and is capable of arguing seriously about it. A serious argument would mean, first of all, only linking to informative reports. "Greenhouse Warming Expected to Melt Caps in 50 Years" is probably not an informative report - this kind of report tends to quote (or misquote) scientists, without providing the evidence used to establish the claims made. Secondly, it means being willing to debate the information IN those reports, meaning if you bring up some information, you'd better understand what the information means. Thirdly, a willingness not to engage in name-calling.
I guess EPA reports are acceptable, but only if there is practical information. The abbreviated political reports tend to be useless in that respect.
If you don't care for my terms, or if you have terms of your own, just let me know in advance so we can both make judgements and avoid wasting one anothers' time.
So anyway, my view is that, particularly, the carbon dioxide generated by human activities makes an insigificant impact upon larger warming trends. I will probably concede points on the production of certain other molecules, but will in most cases make a point about US restriction on the production of said particles. Additionally, any global warming we do experience will make a significant impact on human economy for the next 100 years, because of the variably positive and negative impacts that it can bring about in various regions of the globe. And rising ocean waters due to polar melting is, in the next century, a ridiculous idea.
If you don't believe me on that last point, because I do not care to argue about that, first, look at the portion of the Antarctic glaciers which environmentalists can establish MIGHT melt in said event, reali
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>