• 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!

Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

Cardinal said:
When someone who isn't educated in science (in particular, the specific scientific field in question) claims that a scientific subject "is not a complicated issue," that tends to set off a slew of red alarms for me.
Click to expand...

That also applies to phrases like "scientific consensus".
 
AlbqOwl said:
And critical thinking requires stepping back and looking at something with unemotional honesty. Have you read any of the well-researched and well written commentary on the scientists who are invited to contribute to the IPCC report? Do you think it possible that the fact that no matter how well qualified, no skeptics are welcome among the scientists who develop the 'consensus' opinion and write those reports? Those who disagree are sort of invited out of the organization? Don't you think it possible that having such a built in bias will affect the conclusions and opinion included in those reports? And are you aware that every scientist who is writing those reports is being heavily funded by governments who promote global warming/climate change? Don't you think that merits even a little bit of a raised eyebrow?

Do you know that the IPCC Summary for Policymakers are not written by scientists though some participate in the process? But the Summary is generally a product of what the various countries' politicians are willing to accept in the report and therefore it is often something less than 'scientific'.

Accusing oil companies of funding skeptics to deny climate change is invariably specious as there is absolutely no evidence to support that. Oil companies do hire scientific groups, including those promoting AGW, to do studies almost always relative to EPA and similar agency regulations and requirements in advance of construction or oil exploration. But why would the oil companies support the skeptics to be skeptics? They are making out like bandits within the AGW religious fervor. I have a close family member who works for a major oil company who recently designed and built a beef fat rendering plant to convert beef fat to fuel--the total design, construction, and start up costs, mega millions, are being covered by we the taxpayers who will continue to cover the almost certain losses the company will incur running the plant. And when the taxpayer money runs out, the plant will simply be closed and scrapped as is happening to dozens of other 'green energy' companies that have been government funded. And because of AGW generated rules and regs, oil companies can charge a whole bunch more for products the people have to have regardless of price. Why would they want to screw that up? (And Tyson Foods is also benefitting because the government is buying the beef fat from them to supply to the plant.)

Ultimately, you have a lot of scientists who have staked their reputations and possibly their careers on the doctrine of AGW and they are also making out like bandits supporting the doctrine. They are unlikely to ever admit they have been wrong.

For those able to set aside the emotional knee jerk responses, attitudes, and assigned talking points on this subject, can understand and appreciate that stepping back and scrutinizing the whole big picture with a critical eye can do wonders for the truth.

In summary:
Governments have implemented fuel taxes on non-renewable energy sources and poured billions into constructing wind farms, and other “green” energy strategies, all in the name of reducing carbon emissions. If these scientists are eventually forced to admit that their climate change theories have been terribly mistaken, it will certainly be a very costly one; incalculable sums of money will have been wasted, and the reputation of the scientific community will be left in tatters. On this basis, what would be the incentive for the IPCC to ever confess they were wrong? (--James Fenner)
Read more at IPCC Report in Doubt: Are Climate Change Skeptics “Dumb”?​
Click to expand...

Well I think I completly made my point here. I and other that believes in the scientifc communinties have posted many scientific report including the massive IPCC report. And what do I get then I yet agian ask what scientific evidendence the people questin AGW have? All I got is a link to a op ed and not even the first people mentioned in that op ed are scientists. Instead they are a journalist and a person working for republicans.

Christopher Booker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marc Morano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Also scientist are tough look for example at Clair Cameron Pattersson who took on the mighty oil companies and won.

Clair Cameron Patterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you can't say that amongst tens of thousands of scientist their would be none tough enough to question global warming. And in the case of Global Warming you can't deny that it's a lot of powerful interest againts global warming that would gladly support scientists that question global warming.

So if it's so much wrong with the IPCC and the scientifc result about global warming we could have a real scientific debate about gw. Their the people against global warming would present scientific findings and scientist question gw. Instead the people question GW have posted links to op ed and opions of non scientiss.

Then it comes to reducing greenhous gases their are a lot of positive example. For example I have linked to sources about a drastic global increase in both solar and wind power and also both presented a report and concrete positive example with community power. Also I have posted a link to a souce the cost could be 1 % of global GDP to reduce greenhouse gases.

You also don't have to forget the massive subsidies to the fossil fuel companies. That during the period 2002-2008 the subsidies to fossil fuel was 72 billion compared to 29 billion to renewable in the USA.

http://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/eli-pubs/d19_07.pdf


Besides the cost for subsidies you also have to consider the huge military and political cost of being dependent on oil from the middle east.
 
Last edited:
Bergslagstroll said:
Well I think I completly made my point here. I and other that believes in the scientifc communinties have posted many scientific report including the massive IPCC report. And what do I get then I yet agian ask what scientific evidendence the people questin AGW have? All I got is a link to a op ed and not even the first people mentioned in that op ed are scientists. Instead they are a journalist and a person working for republicans.

Christopher Booker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marc Morano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Also scientist are tough look for example at Clair Cameron Pattersson who took on the mighty oil companies and won.

Clair Cameron Patterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you can't say that amongst tens of thousands of scientist their would be none tough enough to question global warming. And in the case of Global Warming you can't deny that it's a lot of powerful interest againts global warming that would gladly support scientists that question global warming.

So if it's so much wrong with the IPCC and the scientifc result about global warming we could have a real scientific debate about gw. Their the people against global warming would present scientific findings and scientist question gw. Instead the people question GW have posted links to op ed and opions of non scientiss.

Then it comes to reducing greenhous gases their are a lot of positive example. For example I have linked to sources about a drastic global increase in both solar and wind power and also both presented a report and concrete positive example with community power. Also I have posted a link to a souce the cost could be 1 % of global GDP to reduce greenhouse gases.

You also don't have to forget the massive subsidies to the fossil fuel companies. That during the period 2002-2008 the subsidies to fossil fuel was 72 billion compared to 29 billion to renewable in the USA.

http://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/eli-pubs/d19_07.pdf


Besides the cost for subsidies you also have to consider the huge military and political cost of being dependent on oil from the middle east.
Click to expand...
Instead of playing Wikigames, with appeals to authority, let's look at the Science.
When we peel away the layers of obscurity in the IPCC reports.
Get past all the what-if warnings, we get to section "1.2.2 key concepts in climate Science".
They cite a paper Baede et al.
Within Baede et al, they lay out where the beliefs of catastrophic AGW are based.
If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm−2. In other words, the
radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration
would be 4 Wm−2. To counteract this imbalance, the
temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to
increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of
other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the
climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the
overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase
to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises
from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with
radiation.
Click to expand...
The temperature record is the GISS,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt
The J-D volume goes from -.21 C to +.59 °C, that's .8 °C most places.
CO2 level, we can go with NOAA, 401 ppm (the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm is widely accepted)
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

So doubling CO2 from 280 ppm would raise the level to 560 ppm,
at 401 ppm we are 121/280= .43% of our way towards a doubling of CO2.
Since Baede et al said the 1.2 °C was only ±10%, a simple curve fit will be close enough.
4X(log560)-4X(log280)=1.204 (a little high, but within ±10%)
4X(log560)-4X(log401)=.580 (this is the remaining part so) 1.2 °C- .580 °C= .62 °C

The observed increase is .8 °C,
The direct response of CO2 is .62 °C.
The difference is .18 °C.

At it's most basic level, the catastrophic portions of the IPCC predictions are not showing up in the data
in a way that shows itself beyond the natural variation, I.E. Noise.
 
Grant said:
That also applies to phrases like "scientific consensus".
Click to expand...

The overwhelming majority of scientists agreeing on something alarms you? That's...odd.
 
Cardinal said:
When someone who isn't educated in science (in particular, the specific scientific field in question) claims that a scientific subject "is not a complicated issue," that tends to set off a slew of red alarms for me.
Click to expand...
Why the alarms? Here's one better: what scientific proof is there of global warming? What causes global warming?
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
Why the alarms? Here's one better: what scientific proof is there of global warming?
Click to expand...

Because they're arriving at conclusions based on what people who have no qualifications in the field are telling them, and because they think that a subject that has involved years of study and research "isn't very complicated." Would you hire a car mechanic to do your taxes, a martial arts instructor to cut your hair, me to teach you how to fire guns? If the answer to those questions is a resounding "Duh, of course not," then why are you listening to people who have no qualifications on the subject tell you about global warming? And why, for the love of God (and per the thread's topic), would you feel more certain about your opinion on global warming because a lot of uneducated yahoos also say global warming isn't real?
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Well I think I completly made my point here. I and other that believes in the scientifc communinties have posted many scientific report including the massive IPCC report. And what do I get then I yet agian ask what scientific evidendence the people questin AGW have? All I got is a link to a op ed and not even the first people mentioned in that op ed are scientists. Instead they are a journalist and a person working for republicans.

Christopher Booker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marc Morano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Also scientist are tough look for example at Clair Cameron Pattersson who took on the mighty oil companies and won.

Clair Cameron Patterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you can't say that amongst tens of thousands of scientist their would be none tough enough to question global warming. And in the case of Global Warming you can't deny that it's a lot of powerful interest againts global warming that would gladly support scientists that question global warming.

So if it's so much wrong with the IPCC and the scientifc result about global warming we could have a real scientific debate about gw. Their the people against global warming would present scientific findings and scientist question gw. Instead the people question GW have posted links to op ed and opions of non scientiss.

Then it comes to reducing greenhous gases their are a lot of positive example. For example I have linked to sources about a drastic global increase in both solar and wind power and also both presented a report and concrete positive example with community power. Also I have posted a link to a souce the cost could be 1 % of global GDP to reduce greenhouse gases.

You also don't have to forget the massive subsidies to the fossil fuel companies. That during the period 2002-2008 the subsidies to fossil fuel was 72 billion compared to 29 billion to renewable in the USA.

http://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/eli-pubs/d19_07.pdf


Besides the cost for subsidies you also have to consider the huge military and political cost of being dependent on oil from the middle east.
Click to expand...

Well stated for one who obviously is a strong believer. But anecdotal evidence/examples does not substitute for the big picture that your sources do not address. Reciting the same doctrine over and over does not necessarily make it true. One reason I have such questions and doubts about the whole AGW religion is because those who embrace it are so dismissive of the really important questions asked by the skeptics, count none of the skeptics' sources as valid, and generally become highly defensive and unwilling to discuss the topic objectively. This to me smacks of indoctrination and dogma and fanaticism instead of a scientific approach.
 
Please provide evidence that 'Global scientists are faking the evidence'. Let's see if it comes from a valid source. Is it a journalist that is hooked up with one of the libertarian think tanks that is funded by Exxon Mobile or another oil company?

Let's see the accusation, and follow the money trail.
 
RAMOSS said:
Please provide evidence that 'Global scientists are faking the evidence'. Let's see if it comes from a valid source. Is it a journalist that is hooked up with one of the libertarian think tanks that is funded by Exxon Mobile or another oil company?

Let's see the accusation, and follow the money trail.
Click to expand...

it's not that. I can provide evidence that many scientist disagree over the severity of the climate change, and how much time it will take to really be considered dangerous. Those points alone should give you pause as to HOW MUCH of an issue this is, as well as our ability to make slow changes to make it less of a problem.

what I'm saying is many libs put this issue as number ONE, while others, who understand the problem, don't think it is so severe that we allow it to dictate who is elected President of Senator. Many think the economy and defense are more immediate issues. And who are you to say they are wrong? when even the scientists still don't agree.
 
Cardinal said:
The overwhelming majority of scientists agreeing on something alarms you? That's...odd.
Click to expand...

Why is it odd? It is clear that the science is not concrete and a great deal of controversy still remains.

Science is not a democracy where the majority votes on what the truth is, though at one time, centuries ago, that might have been the case.

You may be familiar with the now discredited "Hockey Stick Theory" and some of the unfounded claims people calling themselves "scientists" have made. The Hockey Stick: A New Low in Climate Science
 
RAMOSS said:
Please provide evidence that 'Global scientists are faking the evidence'. Let's see if it comes from a valid source. Is it a journalist that is hooked up with one of the libertarian think tanks that is funded by Exxon Mobile or another oil company?

Let's see the accusation, and follow the money trail.
Click to expand...
There are a few leads here if you want to do some serious investigation. Bret Stephens: Climategate: Follow the Money - WSJ
 
Cardinal said:
Uh, no. If someone claims "nuclear physics isn't real!" I could always ask, "Are you a nuclear physicist? Are you a physicist at all?" If their answer is no, then I can surmise that person probably isn't very qualified to claim that nuclear physics isn't real.
Click to expand...

You could, that's true. But who are you? People are entitled to their own opinions, you can disagree all you want, that doesn't make you right.
 
I'm gonna try to make this less of a rant... This AGW argument - that man is the main (only) causer of global warming - makes no sense. Scientific evidence shows that curtailing man's pollution of the environment helps nature's ecosystems to rejuvenate. However, there are no scientific studies that prove reducing man's effect on the environment will greatly reduce effects of global warming. For example, to allow the reformation of ice at the poles for the sake of penguins and polar bears. Yet, this is the ONLY measure that environmentalists use to lessen the effects of global warming: lessen man's effect on the environment. When did environmentalists first have this dogma?

The false argument that fossil fuels are unsustainable because they aren't currently being produced... will only be true if governments halt the refinement of fossil fuels. For example, The EPA is attempting to make refining (and transporting) fossil fuels harder and harder to do in the US .. maybe because the agency believes man is the main causer of global warming? Right now, we have an abundance of fossil fuels and are finding more pockets of fossil fuels all the time.

There are no viable alternatives to fossil fuels to run our cars and industry, and it's been predicted that any viable alternative would take at least 30 years to develop (even if the US attempted a 'moon shot' for alternative fuels). What do we use for fuels in the mean time? Are we dependent on Middle Eastern and South American oil?
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
Please provide evidence that 'Global scientists are faking the evidence'. Let's see if it comes from a valid source. Is it a journalist that is hooked up with one of the libertarian think tanks that is funded by Exxon Mobile or another oil company?

Let's see the accusation, and follow the money trail.
Click to expand...


The NOAA just reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record.

That means their previous selection of July 2012 was based on faulty data.

Of-course they were knowm for manipulating temperature measurements before they quietly changed their minds.

The NOAA has already admitted to not relying on obsolute ambient measurements and to altering measurements so as to coincide with their expected results.

In fact the only way AGW can be "proven " is through Computer models built on corrupted data.
 
Grant said:
Why is it odd? It is clear that the science is not concrete and a great deal of controversy still remains.

Science is not a democracy where the majority votes on what the truth is, though at one time, centuries ago, that might have been the case.

You may be familiar with the now discredited "Hockey Stick Theory" and some of the unfounded claims people calling themselves "scientists" have made. The Hockey Stick: A New Low in Climate Science
Click to expand...

Science is not a democracy? You do realize the irony of that statement when the OP is attempting to cast doubt on the legitimacy of global warming by pointing out that the majority of people don't believe in global warming? Why does the majority of what anybody has to say on a topic matter to you when you don't know anything about their qualifications?
 
j-mac said:
You could, that's true. But who are you?
Click to expand...

I'm a guy who can read and write English, and can therefore comprehend the words "I do/don't have qualifications in the area of nuclear physics."

j-mac said:
People are entitled to their own opinions, you can disagree all you want, that doesn't make you right.
Click to expand...

This isn't about opinions. An example of an opinion is "Breaking Bad is terrible" or "Cardinal can dance really well," and while both examples would be really bad opinions, they're still subjective statments and thus legitimately opinions. The comment "nuclear physics isn't real," however, isn't an example of an opinion, but of a terribly uninformed statement by an uneducated person.

But all of this is a detour from my main point of interest which is this: why are you more interested in the "opinions" of people who have no training in a scientific field than those who do? What makes you think listening to those uneducated people will give you a more informed understanding of the topic? Let's say I'm trying to get my head around the topic of fixing my car. Which method of research is going to leave me more informed on the matter, and which will make me more ignorant?

1) Reading blogs and comments by art and philosophy majors, or
2) Going to forums specifically dedicated to car repair or, better yet, just asking a car mechanic directly

Now, keep in mind, people who are legitimately qualified to repair cars disagree with each other frequently, but which of those options is guaranteed to have me walking away even more of an idiot than I began?
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
Well stated for one who obviously is a strong believer. But anecdotal evidence/examples does not substitute for the big picture that your sources do not address. Reciting the same doctrine over and over does not necessarily make it true. One reason I have such questions and doubts about the whole AGW religion is because those who embrace it are so dismissive of the really important questions asked by the skeptics, count none of the skeptics' sources as valid, and generally become highly defensive and unwilling to discuss the topic objectively. This to me smacks of indoctrination and dogma and fanaticism instead of a scientific approach.
Click to expand...

It is very easy to find sources on a lot of subjects. For example I can find soucres that ”proves” that the moanlanding is a hoax. If you are not an expert you can even believe it something is fishy about the moonlanding. That you have to look at the credibility of the sources, and then you can see all the scientific and credibility sources show that the moonlanding is not a hoax.


10 Reasons the Moon Landings Could Be a Hoax - Listverse


That if you want to look at the debate on global warming you have to first look at the diffrent sources. And if you look at this debate it only the people believing in the scientific communities that have linked to real scientific sources.


Also it is but risk taking.That I pointed to sources that show that the cost of reducing greenhouse gases can be relative little and also have benefits for example to local communities. That at the same time doing nothing is extremly costly and dangereus according to the scientific community.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...report-global-warming-climate-change-science/

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...eventing-global-warming-cheaper-than-adapting


Even American military organizations warns about the national security threath of global warming.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/u...rity-threat-by-military-researchers.html?_r=0

http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/MAB_2014.pdf

http://www.cna.org/sites/default/fi... and the Threat of Climate Change - Print.pdf

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Quadrennial_Defense_Review.pdf


Should you then take the risk and do nothing?
 
Last edited:
The psychology of deniers is intriguing. They wrap themselves in "science", in "critical thinking", but then behave in the very manner they swear the "others" are doing. No matter how well you lay it out, no matter how obvious you make the evidence to them, they cling to what they want to believe, oblivious to the very fact they are completely blind to reality.

Its like Kitchen Nightmares where Gordon cannot get through to a stubborn owner who swears their food is good and its everyone else is the problem. Some people just are not self aware and when they surround themselves with others that parrot the same untruths there is no impetus to change, to take a step back and think for once... maybe I'm wrong? Maybe the science is actually really rock solid? What if... what if all the scientists are right? I mean... it is their job... and they almost all agree so...? Naaaaaaaaaaaah... this is all disinformation... this is all an elaborate ruse...YEAH, that jives with what I want to believe, I'll stick with that. :lol:
 
Fenton said:
The NOAA just reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record.

That means their previous selection of July 2012 was based on faulty data.

Of-course they were knowm for manipulating temperature measurements before they quietly changed their minds.

The NOAA has already admitted to not relying on obsolute ambient measurements and to altering measurements so as to coincide with their expected results.

In fact the only way AGW can be "proven " is through Computer models built on corrupted data.
Click to expand...

So now the deniers will be saying the temperature has been decreasing since 1936.

And the knuckle dragging crowd will agree.
 
Cardinal said:
Science is not a democracy? You do realize the irony of that statement when the OP is attempting to cast doubt on the legitimacy of global warming by pointing out that the majority of people don't believe in global warming? Why does the majority of what anybody has to say on a topic matter to you when you don't know anything about their qualifications?
Click to expand...

Climatologists do not agree on global warming and until they do it seems wise to withhold judgement. What the laypeople say is of little interest and many of the hardcore worriers appear to be 'the end is nigh' crackpots anyway.
 
Fenton said:
The NOAA just reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record.

That means their previous selection of July 2012 was based on faulty data.

Of-course they were knowm for manipulating temperature measurements before they quietly changed their minds.

The NOAA has already admitted to not relying on obsolute ambient measurements and to altering measurements so as to coincide with their expected results.

In fact the only way AGW can be "proven " is through Computer models built on corrupted data.
Click to expand...

This belief in global warming (or global cooling) is more evidence of the right/left split in many areas.

If authority figures say that the earth is cooling, or overpopulating, the left tends to believe whereas the right is skeptical. If politicians say they will be 'transparent' the left tends to believe and the right is skeptical.

It seems that the left is more inclined to believe authoritative figures, whether it's politicians who will promise to turn their unhappy lives around, scientists in white coats who tell them they are in a position to save the planet, or school teachers who tell them republicans are racist and anti woman.
 
Threegoofs said:
So now the deniers will be saying the temperature has been decreasing since 1936.

And the knuckle dragging crowd will agree.
Click to expand...

Yes, there was an ice age scare during that period. 1970s Global Cooling Scare | Real Science

Could it be, like all the other scares we were warned about, that it is a scam? Why not follow the money, or look at increased government regulations and powers they received since concocting these scare stories for a gullible public? The Overpopulation Hoax – LewRockwell.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom