• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says[W:46]

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

ludin said:
only 3 of their models actually were close to the observed data. so the question is why are not all the model recaliberated to those 3.
more so why are they always chooses the biggest doom and gloom models for their reports when there is little data to back them up.

the IPCC is nothing more than a political body doing hack science work in order to push a political agenda.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I am trying to argue that the mid to high IPCC predictions are unsupported,
even using their own numbers.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:
Not sure why I should as it has nothing to do with anything I'm arguing. I'll happily address anything that I'm claiming.
Click to expand...

This is a pattern with you. I ask a question when we were talking about the role of man in any possible in GW. You in turn don't answer until the discussion shifts, then you post a snide comment and proclaim 'we aren't talking about that' as if you control the topic.

Not to worry though, I never thought you'd be honest anyway. :coffeepap
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

longview said:
Man does play a role.
Some portion of the increase in CO2 is related to Human activity,
and there is a direct response (warming ) to increasing CO2.
For the purpose of this discussion, We could blame all the warming in the last
133 years on human activity,(unlikely)it still would not be worthy of the
catastrophic predictions.
The additional open loop feedback, that is predicted to cause the additional warming,
so far appears to be a minor player at best, not a game changer.
The fact that the range of their predictions is so large, tells you something
of their own confidence in their predictions.
Click to expand...

Whether that is true or not, you and I are not in the best position to say. The scientific community has a better understanding and thus a more valid opinion on the matter.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

j-mac said:
This is a pattern with you. I ask a question when we were talking about the role of man in any possible in GW. You in turn don't answer until the discussion shifts, then you post a snide comment and proclaim 'we aren't talking about that' as if you control the topic.

Not to worry though, I never thought you'd be honest anyway. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

But you didn't ask that question. You asked about the political solution, and not about how much of a role man plays. You leap away from from the discussion. If you agree Global warming is real, and you believe man plays a role, then you and only then can you discuss possible solutions to the problem or how to decrease man's role.

And no, j, I only control what I'm talking about, and only support what I claim. I am not required to leap of cliffs with you at your whim.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:
Whether that is true or not, you and I are not in the best position to say. The scientific community has a better understanding and thus a more valid opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...

this is appeal to authority that doesn't hold water. we are allowed to have valid opinions on the situation more so if it doesn't pass the smell test and what the IPCC is doing doesn't pass the smell test.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

ludin said:
this is appeal to authority that doesn't hold water. we are allowed to have valid opinions on the situation more so if it doesn't pass the smell test and what the IPCC is doing doesn't pass the smell test.
Click to expand...

Don't make me put up the definition of appeal to authority again. I hate when you guys misuse that a appeal. That's a fallacy only when you use someone who is not actually an authority on the subject. It is quite proper to use actual authorities, those who actually know.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

ludin said:
only 3 of their models actually were close to the observed data. so the question is why are not all the model recaliberated to those 3.
more so why are they always chooses the biggest doom and gloom models for their reports when there is little data to back them up.

the IPCC is nothing more than a political body doing hack science work in order to push a political agenda.
Click to expand...

That's part of the problem. The models don't agree, they use differing values for supposedly known variables (like CO2 sensitivity) and still claim it is settled science.

If AGW were settled science there would be only one model and it would be in agreement with observed climate data.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:
Whether that is true or not, you and I are not in the best position to say. The scientific community has a better understanding and thus a more valid opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...

That logic is greatly flawed. While there may be general agreement that man's activity affects the climate (it is warming and man is likely accelerating that warming a bit) there is no general agreement on what impact (if any) a US only effort to reduce carbon emissions will have.

The US is now responsible for about 20% (at most) of total CO2 emissions and may (reasonably) be able to reduce that by 25% (over a few decades). At the same time, other nations are producing more CO2, so the US impact falls (all by itself) as a percentage of the world total. The real question is: what would a 5% to 10% reduction in man's world CO2 production accomplish?

Having "experts" agree upon the definition of a problem is not the same thing as having "experts" agree upon a viable solution to that problem. After all, the US (or UN) cannot command anything be done on a worldwide basis - even if "experts" say that it should (must?) be done
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:
But you didn't ask that question. You asked about the political solution, and not about how much of a role man plays. You leap away from from the discussion. If you agree Global warming is real, and you believe man plays a role, then you and only then can you discuss possible solutions to the problem or how to decrease man's role.

And no, j, I only control what I'm talking about, and only support what I claim. I am not required to leap of cliffs with you at your whim.
Click to expand...

Aren't you special. The use of taxation and wealth redistribution on a global scale through creation of a fiat currency in furtherance of greater control over the masses is the goal of the church of AGW believer's. The junk science is just the rhetoric to further the lie.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

j-mac said:
Aren't you special. The use of taxation and wealth redistribution on a global scale through creation of a fiat currency in furtherance of greater control over the masses is the goal of the church of AGW believer's. The junk science is just the rhetoric to further the lie.
Click to expand...


Here's a little of that junk science to help you out. Read the complete article.


Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists | Connecting the Dots | BillMoyers.com

"“That’s one of the cherrypicking points for deniers — they take the highest value and then compare it” with lower points in the natural temperature fluctuation we know as “weather.” “If you choose the highest value,” says Trenberth, “then the odds are that all the other values are going to be lower — even in the presence of an overall warming climate.”Here’s what the long-term warming trend looks like, according to both surface and ocean readings:
(Graphic: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies)

But the idea that the climate stopped warming at some point goes back even further. In the 1990s, two climatologists, Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, published a series of papers hypothesizing that global warming had stopped. Spencer and Lindzen are among the few climate contrarians with real scientific credentials, and have been widely cited by climate skeptics; Spencer has testified at a number of Republican congressional hearings on climate science.
"And 168 more…
These are only some of the most common pseudoscientific climate arguments. The Skeptical Science website provides easy-to-understand scientific rebuttals to these and 168 others."

There is some dispute on the 168 number, as my buddy "Fingers" Menoshole says there are only 167. Who ya' gonna' believe, eh?
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:
Whether that is true or not, you and I are not in the best position to say. The scientific community has a better understanding and thus a more valid opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree, some, there are levels of understanding Science.
Like the approximations in a mathematics formula.
It 's not that the numbers change based on more understanding, they just get more accurate.
I like to use road trip analogies, as most people have some experience in planning and driving.
Someone plans a trip to another city that is 200 miles away.
They want some idea of how long the trip will take, and how much gas they will use.
The basic variables, are, route taken, road conditions, number of stops, ect.
A non traffic interstate, with no stops cold do the trip in 3 hours, and 10 gallons of gas
The older hwy route, going through towns, say 6 hours, and 12 gallons of gas.
This would be the first approximation.
An Engineer asked the same question, may also want to know the weather conditions,
and speed limits in the states passed.
With the added information, the results could be refined to within a 15 min window,
and quart of gasoline,based on the input info.
This would be the second approximation.
The Scientist, might get the department of transportation data,
and average the time 100,000 drivers took to make the trip on the primary route.
They could tell the average time, likely down to the minute,
and the average amount of gasoline likely used on the trip.
This would be the third approximation.
All three approximations still fall into the 3 to 6 hours, and 10 to 12 gallons of gasoline,
the layman driver calculated.
The added information, improved the accuracy, but did not change the time fuel window.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:
Don't make me put up the definition of appeal to authority again. I hate when you guys misuse that a appeal. That's a fallacy only when you use someone who is not actually an authority on the subject. It is quite proper to use actual authorities, those who actually know.
Click to expand...

The fact is they don't know. They have admitted that they are not exactly sure how earths climate works on long term trends. Therefore at this point they are simply guessing.

actually that is not correct there are several layers to an appeal to authority in which it can be used as a fallacy.

For example: “Well, Isaac Newton believed in Alchemy, do you think you know more than Isaac Newton?”

is basically what you did. scientist X knows more therefore who are you to question what they do.
an appeal to authority can be made in several different ways.

trying to shoot down someone's argument simply because they are not an expert is one of those ways.
stating that we are not allowed to question someone's motives or conclusions because we are not experts is another.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

DaveFagan said:
Here's a little of that junk science to help you out. Read the complete article.


Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists | Connecting the Dots | BillMoyers.com

"“That’s one of the cherrypicking points for deniers — they take the highest value and then compare it” with lower points in the natural temperature fluctuation we know as “weather.” “If you choose the highest value,” says Trenberth, “then the odds are that all the other values are going to be lower — even in the presence of an overall warming climate.”Here’s what the long-term warming trend looks like, according to both surface and ocean readings:
(Graphic: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies)

But the idea that the climate stopped warming at some point goes back even further. In the 1990s, two climatologists, Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, published a series of papers hypothesizing that global warming had stopped. Spencer and Lindzen are among the few climate contrarians with real scientific credentials, and have been widely cited by climate skeptics; Spencer has testified at a number of Republican congressional hearings on climate science.
"And 168 more…
These are only some of the most common pseudoscientific climate arguments. The Skeptical Science website provides easy-to-understand scientific rebuttals to these and 168 others."

There is some dispute on the 168 number, as my buddy "Fingers" Menoshole says there are only 167. Who ya' gonna' believe, eh?
Click to expand...

Explain the carbon credit exchange system please.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

ttwtt78640 said:
That logic is greatly flawed. While there may be general agreement that man's activity affects the climate (it is warming and man is likely accelerating that warming a bit) there is no general agreement on what impact (if any) a US only effort to reduce carbon emissions will have.

The US is now responsible for about 20% (at most) of total CO2 emissions and may (reasonably) be able to reduce that by 25% (over a few decades). At the same time, other nations are producing more CO2, so the US impact falls (all by itself) as a percentage of the world total. The real question is: what would a 5% to 10% reduction in man's world CO2 production accomplish?

Having "experts" agree upon the definition of a problem is not the same thing as having "experts" agree upon a viable solution to that problem. After all, the US (or UN) cannot command anything be done on a worldwide basis - even if "experts" say that it should (must?) be done
Click to expand...

Nor did I say it was. I said they had a better understanding of the problem. If we agree on the problem, then and only then can we reasonably discuss the solution.

And even if we're only 20% of the problem, that doesn't relieve us of responsibility for our 20%.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

j-mac said:
Aren't you special. The use of taxation and wealth redistribution on a global scale through creation of a fiat currency in furtherance of greater control over the masses is the goal of the church of AGW believer's. The junk science is just the rhetoric to further the lie.
Click to expand...

Again, either you accept science or you don't. That's the issue here.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

longview said:
I have to disagree, some, there are levels of understanding Science.
Like the approximations in a mathematics formula.
It 's not that the numbers change based on more understanding, they just get more accurate.
I like to use road trip analogies, as most people have some experience in planning and driving.
Someone plans a trip to another city that is 200 miles away.
They want some idea of how long the trip will take, and how much gas they will use.
The basic variables, are, route taken, road conditions, number of stops, ect.
A non traffic interstate, with no stops cold do the trip in 3 hours, and 10 gallons of gas
The older hwy route, going through towns, say 6 hours, and 12 gallons of gas.
This would be the first approximation.
An Engineer asked the same question, may also want to know the weather conditions,
and speed limits in the states passed.
With the added information, the results could be refined to within a 15 min window,
and quart of gasoline,based on the input info.
This would be the second approximation.
The Scientist, might get the department of transportation data,
and average the time 100,000 drivers took to make the trip on the primary route.
They could tell the average time, likely down to the minute,
and the average amount of gasoline likely used on the trip.
This would be the third approximation.
All three approximations still fall into the 3 to 6 hours, and 10 to 12 gallons of gasoline,
the layman driver calculated.
The added information, improved the accuracy, but did not change the time fuel window.
Click to expand...

On more simplistic examples, like you enumerate, maybe. But we're talking about something not within the novice domain. It'd be more like me practicing medicine without a license. I might actually get a few things right, but I'd ultimately fail due to what I didn't fully understand.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

jmotivator said:
That's part of the problem. The models don't agree, they use differing values for supposedly known variables (like CO2 sensitivity) and still claim it is settled science.

If AGW were settled science there would be only one model and it would be in agreement with observed climate data.
Click to expand...

that is what i would think. you would need 150 models. with only 3 being anywhere close to the actual observed data.
i can say that you would want different models to forcast or try to forcast future events, but they should be built off 1 baseline model
that can match the observed data.

from there your forcasts can be predicted but as you get more observed data they will need to be corrected from the baseline control.

the IPCC doesn't have this. they have taken the data and manipulated it to get the results they want then say it is settled.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

ludin said:
The fact is they don't know. They have admitted that they are not exactly sure how earths climate works on long term trends. Therefore at this point they are simply guessing.

actually that is not correct there are several layers to an appeal to authority in which it can be used as a fallacy.

For example: “Well, Isaac Newton believed in Alchemy, do you think you know more than Isaac Newton?”

is basically what you did. scientist X knows more therefore who are you to question what they do.
an appeal to authority can be made in several different ways.

trying to shoot down someone's argument simply because they are not an expert is one of those ways.
stating that we are not allowed to question someone's motives or conclusions because we are not experts is another.
Click to expand...

Again, they are better qualified. They give us the best information possible. And as I remember very well the arguments against smoking causing cancer and be unhealthy, arguments made by novices with a the help of a few industry hacks, I won't accept the same logic used in any other argument. Most simply don't know enough. And arguing that your correct because you don't know isn't logical, even if you stayed at a Holiday Inn.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:
Again, either you accept science or you don't. That's the issue here.
Click to expand...

Until it is uncoupled from the hysterical politics it is just not credible.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:
Again, either you accept science or you don't. That's the issue here.
Click to expand...

sit down shut up and do what they say right? typical liberal attitude.

science is not sit down shut up and accept what we say. science is constantly questioned and there is a great deal of questions that have to do with how the IPCC is operating.
the NIPCC is made up of a group of scientists that actually use to work for the IPCC and quit for different reasons.

while their graphs show warming trends it is not near as bad as what the IPCC claims.

the meer fact that the IPCC was trashed for using non-peer reviewed material in their paper simply because it supported the AGW movement speaks volumes of how scientific they are.

I also find it interesting is that there is not an independant outside scientific board that does the peer review. the people doing the peer review are the same people that support AGW.

that is like asking a fox to keep the weasel out of the hen house.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

j-mac said:
Until it is uncoupled from the hysterical politics it is just not credible.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The science stands by itself.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

j-mac said:
Until it is uncoupled from the hysterical politics it is just not credible.
Click to expand...

there is to much money involved in AGW right now. The fact that scientists are threatened with the jobs and funding unless they comply with AGW beleivers says there is even more dishonesty going on with this group to say the least.

as mentioned before the head of the IPCC isn't even a climatist. he is an industrial engineer and an economist who has ties to major green energy companies and carbon trading companies.

so he has vested interest in keeping this thing going.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:
On more simplistic examples, like you enumerate, maybe. But we're talking about something not within the novice domain. It'd be more like me practicing medicine without a license. I might actually get a few things right, but I'd ultimately fail due to what I didn't fully understand.
Click to expand...
It actually is that simple, that is why they have such a big range in the predictions.
Not only do they not know what all the variables that affect the feedbacks are,
For many they cannot even tell if the feedback will be positive or negative.
An example, Extra heat causes humidity to increase, causing more clouds.
Do cloudy conditions add to, or take away from total warming?
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:
Wrong. The science stands by itself.
Click to expand...

if it stood by itself then they shouldn't have such a hard time trying to convience people. more so they wouldn't have to hijack a real term "climate change" to push their agenda.
their global warming term failed so they hijacked a real term.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

ludin said:
sit down shut up and do what they say right? typical liberal attitude.

science is not sit down shut up and accept what we say. science is constantly questioned and there is a great deal of questions that have to do with how the IPCC is operating.
the NIPCC is made up of a group of scientists that actually use to work for the IPCC and quit for different reasons.

while their graphs show warming trends it is not near as bad as what the IPCC claims.

the meer fact that the IPCC was trashed for using non-peer reviewed material in their paper simply because it supported the AGW movement speaks volumes of how scientific they are.

I also find it interesting is that there is not an independant outside scientific board that does the peer review. the people doing the peer review are the same people that support AGW.

that is like asking a fox to keep the weasel out of the hen house.
Click to expand...

Hardly. When I'm ill, I go to a doctor and not an the sales clerk at Walmart. there's a reason for that. I rightly assume the doctor knows more. The same works with science. They provide the best possible information.

You sport a lot above that has not been supported. The agencies you speak of are still widely accepted out side the denier bubble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom