Originally posted by FabianFnas
Do you think this will work? I don't think so.

Metal Brain will never accept anything that isn't supported by his views.

Why waste the time? Honestly, why waste good time to someone who doesn't want to learn anything new?

He will never admit he is wrong. He thinks he wins every discussion. He already knows everything and therefore doesn't need t ...[text shortened]... ct loses any battle when he insults people and think this is good rhetorics.

So why bother...

Somebody else with a more open mind who doesn't understand these issues might read this and be influenced by it.

That's one potential reason.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well my actual sentence was: "The problem for now is that we've pumped so much CO₂ into the atmosphere that we may have pushed the climate past the hysteresis point.". So, first, I was not making a definite claim, I said it's a conditional because the "may" depends on details about how the climate works and what the thresholds are which are beyon ...[text shortened]... ty. So that CO₂ lags temperature does not show that CO₂ is not the major driver of temperature.

You made this claim:
"This is bad news as we are not well adapted to greenhouse conditions. Neither is anything else."

Contrary to your denial you made the definite claim above. You abandoned your conditional so I don't think you are being entirely honest or sensible about what you implied.

You want to get across the stakes involved? I can do that too:

Humy may be becoming insane. This is bad news as googlefudge and sonhouse will follow him blindly into changing the world's “economic development model”.

http://americaswatchtower.com/2015/02/13/did-a-united-nations-official-admit-the-global-warming-agendas-real-goal-was-to-destroy-capitalism/

Notice how I didn't make a definite claim that humy is becoming insane, it is a conditional. I went on to assert things about googlefudge and sonhouse, but by your logic it is still a conditional. Does that make sense?

You also said this: "So that CO₂ lags temperature does not show that CO₂ is not the major driver of temperature."

Nobody claimed that. You have resorted to fabricating a quote I never made. Go back and read my actual quote and correct your false statement. Don't leave out the part about the lack of "runaway warming" next time.

Our climate is not comparable to an electrical circuit. It is not like anything piezoelectric either. The comparison is irrelevant. I'm surprised you even went there.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You made this claim:
"This is bad news as we are not well adapted to greenhouse conditions. Neither is anything else."
....

That is a pretty trivial "claim" he made. Like claiming night follows day.
Does that mean that, purely for the sake of trying to win the argument, you would say that we humans ARE well adapted to hurricanes, tornadoes droughts, floods, sea level rise flooding our coastal cities, and famines? Just because he implied we are not?
If not, then you agree with his "claim" thus rendering your petty point that it merely IS a "claim" completely mute.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You made this claim:
"This is bad news as we are not well adapted to greenhouse conditions. Neither is anything else."

Contrary to your denial you made the definite claim above. You abandoned your conditional so I don't think you are being entirely honest or sensible about what you implied.

You want to get across the stakes involved? I can do th ...[text shortened]... anything piezoelectric either. The comparison is irrelevant. I'm surprised you even went there.

And you know climate cannot be compared to electric flow because?

Originally posted by humy
That is a pretty trivial "claim" he made. Like claiming night follows day.
Does that mean that, purely for the sake of trying to win the argument, you would say that we humans ARE well adapted to hurricanes, tornadoes droughts, floods, sea level rise flooding our coastal cities, and famines? Just because he implied we are not?
If not, then you agree with his "claim" thus rendering your petty point that it merely IS a "claim" completely mute.

"Does that mean that, purely for the sake of trying to win the argument, you would say that we humans ARE well adapted to hurricanes, tornadoes droughts, floods, sea level rise flooding our coastal cities, and famines? Just because he implied we are not?"

Yes, the human race has endured all of that and more. Who implied we are not?

Originally posted by sonhouse
And you know climate cannot be compared to electric flow because?

🙄

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"you would say that we humans ARE well adapted to hurricanes, tornadoes droughts, floods, sea level rise flooding our coastal cities, and famines? ...

Yes, the human race has endured all of that and more.

false inference; the fact that humans "endured" it doesn't mean they are well adapted to it. For example, just because many humans endured floods, doesn't mean they are well adapted to it, and they generally are not. The fact that millions of people have died in floods should be a clue to this. Ducks are well adapted to floods; crocodiles are well adapted to floods; humans generally are not. That's why so many people often die in them.

Many domestic cats have "endured" (survived ) floods; so domestic cats are well adapted to floods?

+ many disasters cannot be avoided BUT many can including those from global warming simply by not making it much worse. So, why should we have to endure such terrible and dangerous experiences when we can use our basic intelligence to avoid them?
Surely the intelligent thing to do is to do what we can to minimize the risk of such disaster so we often don't have to endure disaster in the first place rather than be stupid by not doing what we can to minimize that risk?