HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Help with a refutation?
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 02:32 PM

Help with a refutation?

A friend has been complaining on FB about the "global warming controversy." In particular, he's asserted repeatedly that humans are responsible for "one sixth of one percent" of global warming.

He's not usually a flat-earther, but he is a Republican. Surprise surprise!

Obviously he won't give a citation, demanding instead that everyone else prove him wrong. I don't particularly care about proving his foolishness, but I remain kind of curious about it.

Any idea where he came up with that particular figure? He's quoted it often enough for me to think that he must have heard it somewhere.


Thanks!

5 replies, 560 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 5 replies Author Time Post
Reply Help with a refutation? (Original post)
Orrex Nov 2012 OP
MADem Nov 2012 #1
RepublicansRZombies Nov 2012 #2
intaglio Nov 2012 #3
Orrex Nov 2012 #4
Arcanetrance Nov 2012 #5

Response to Orrex (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:05 PM

1. Tell him the only "controversy" is that he refuses to provide a citation for his horseshit stats. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:09 PM

2. I'm gonna guess Limbaugh

 

He is the source of most of the GOP 'arguments' and he just pulls them out of his ass.

That is why Romney kept saying the most absurd stuff, why so many Republicans say off the wall stuff they feel completely confident in but can't back up...because they heard him say it, and they actually believe he tells the truth.

Limbaugh is making fools of them, because they don't know he just makes stuff up. It they ever do find out, you would think they would be mad as hell, particularly with their emotionally reactive tendencies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:13 PM

3. Smells like he is talking about absolute increase in CO2

Which is about 160 ppm since 1750, which is about a 58% increase or he could be talking about this as the increase in heat trapping due to this increase in CO2. In the last case he is ignoring positive feedback effects and is ignorant of compound interest calculations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:02 PM

4. Thanks!

I'll keep that in mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 12:54 AM

5. Remember you have to use words they will understand

I would start now by making it clear your refudiating his point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread