• 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

longview said:
Goofs, A comment was made in post 185 that,

This is not in agreement with the GISS data, or any of the others I know of.
If one of the data sets show that kind of increase, I would like to know which one.
I am guessing you cannot cite the data set ether.
Click to expand...

So if Verax said 31 years you would berate him for underestimating the warming?
 
Threegoofs said:
So if Verax said 31 years you would berate him for underestimating the warming?
Click to expand...
I did not come up with the .7C in the last 30 years number.
If there is a data set that shows this, I would like to see it.
I just ran a quick calculation, for a 30 year delta for the GISS data.
Only 1 year, in the last 133, shows greater than a .7 C delta for a 30 year period, 1976-2006.
 
Grant said:
Many people are unclear on this issue but this site helps explain things to the layman. Earth ‘Serially Doomed’: UN Issues New 15 Year Climate Tipping Point – But UN Issued Tipping Points in 1982 & Another 10-Year Tipping Point in 1989! | Climate Depot
Click to expand...

Not surprisingly, your post is so completely unrelated to mine that it's laughable.

Do you have an open mind about warming, or have you already decided that it's not true? If you have already decided, then you are in the 20% that believes the issue is settled and proves my point that some people on the "hoax" side believe it is settled.
 
Verax said:
The two posts are different aspects, perspectives of the global warming debate. Do you only think in black and white terms? Absolutes?
Click to expand...

You cannot say in one breath that only those who have a basic understanding of science should participate in AGW debate and then say that you do not understand science whilst being in this forum. Choose 1.

One of the biggest reasons I advocate potential skeptics to educate themselves are because of silly denier myths that are perpetuated through a lack of basic understanding of science.
Click to expand...

The skeptics on this forum have, in general, a much better understanding of science than you do. I include myself in that.

Here is a page that debunks over 100 of them, they are very basic and simple but you will see people making these silly arguments in the environmental forum on a weekly basis. A basic understanding would bypass this.

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says
Click to expand...

I got to 12. All of them are either wrong or utterly disingenuous. You have had many of the points explained to you and have no excuse for regurgitating them again.

You then make a leap in logic Evel Knievel could not fathom and go from learning basic science to challenging the global mainstream scientific community because of a one paragraph forum post that you think debunks everything. This shows a lack of critical thinking skills on your part and an almost childlike understanding of well reasoned science and debate. Do you really think it can all be boiled down to such a simplistic position? Do you know what all else effects what Longview is talking about? You don't and neither do I, guess who does... climate scientists. Do you know what all could be missing from the equation?
Click to expand...

Whatever your point is in this paragraph you have made it badly. That Longview can explain his position clearly in a brief way is good.

It has warmed .7C in the last 30 years, that is REALLY rapid warming that is already effecting ecosystems around the world. That is 2.33C a century. Do you know how likely it is for the rate of warming to increase? Do you know what will stop it? Do you know what other factors could be in play right now that are contributing to weaker than expected warming? I know a few answers to these, do you? This rate of warming is already enough to cause massive consequences in the near and long term, so I'm not sure what you think is so revealing here.
Click to expand...

It has warmed by 0.7c between 1970 and 2000. Since then it has stopped warming. That sort of climate variability is not at all unusual as shown by any long term temperature record. We have only got thermometer record for a very short duration. You have less idea as to what the science is than me.

The point is thousands of scientists around the world hold the position that these things are of critical importance that are in urgent need of mitigation.
Click to expand...

You have any evidence that thousands of scientist think this? I would agree with the statement that human activity has warmed the planet up a bit. Everyone would. That is a different statement.

I would tend to trust them over anyone else.
Click to expand...

Without the ability or willingness to make your own conclusions you should stay out of the debate. As per your argument.

As I stated before I would question my own understanding first before I questioned them. If you really think very basic glances at the data reveals an unimportant conclusion, I would guess you're probably out of your league and don't understand the issue.
Click to expand...

I understand that you are out of your league. I do not argue about the effects of CO2 or of any additional forcing factors. That is beyond my science. I can see that there are clearly those who do understand a lot more than I do who disagree with the notion that there are any net positive factors. I stay out of that debate however. I would be out of my depth.

I restrict my input to pointing out that the effects of AGW upon ice melt and sea level is way exaggerated in the IPCC reports and to also explaining that actually even if you go with their over blown numbers there is very little to worry about.

You have a religious perspective on this issue.
 
Originally Posted by longview View Post
I am not sure which data set shows annual warming of .7 C over the last 30 years. Please cite!
GISS says 1983 to 2013 was .3 C.
Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:
How amazingly odd that you haven't seen the GISS graph, yet you've been discussing this for months.

a3asaru9.jpg
Click to expand...

The graph shows a temperature 30 years ago of about 0.3 and 0.8 now. That's 0.5. There are various data sets.
 
rocket88 said:
Not surprisingly, your post is so completely unrelated to mine that it's laughable.

Do you have an open mind about warming, or have you already decided that it's not true? If you have already decided, then you are in the 20% that believes the issue is settled and proves my point that some people on the "hoax" side believe it is settled.
Click to expand...

I am aware that hoaxes have been played on the gullible for centuries and continues to this day. This is why I'm always skeptical of these 'end of the world' scenarios, as well as the Al Gores and the Bernie Madoffs, and instead look to the money trail. My suspicions increase when skeptics are referred as 'deniers', by those who are convinced the truth has been established and will go to any lengths to support that 'truth'. It has become a religion, not a science.
 
Grant said:
I am aware that hoaxes have been played on the gullible for centuries and continues to this day. This is why I'm always skeptical of these 'end of the world' scenarios, as well as the Al Gores and the Bernie Madoffs, and instead look to the money trail. My suspicions increase when skeptics are referred as 'deniers', by those who are convinced the truth has been established and will go to any lengths to support that 'truth'. It has become a religion, not a science.
Click to expand...

Didn't answer the question. Do you have an open mind, or is your mind made up?
 
Grant said:
Many people are unclear on this issue but this site helps explain things to the layman. Earth ‘Serially Doomed’: UN Issues New 15 Year Climate Tipping Point – But UN Issued Tipping Points in 1982 & Another 10-Year Tipping Point in 1989! | Climate Depot
Click to expand...

Just to be clear- that was written by a political operative who basically acts as a spokesman to oil companies.

And it's interesting that the 1982 article says nothing about AGW, but is a note on environmental status, which in the places which took no action HAS deteriorated significantly.

And in 1989 the UN did nail it- there was about 10 years to figure out how to address it. And the IPCC was formed to do just that! The implementation, however has been slowed by knuckle draggers who put statements from corporate shills above those of scientists.
 
rocket88 said:
Didn't answer the question. Do you have an open mind, or is your mind made up?
Click to expand...

If the science is 100% then I will obviously be influenced by that. But until it is, and not being a scientist, global warming or cooling of little interest.

What does interest me is the number of gullible people who can be drawn into these 'end of the earth scenarios' and believe 100% in what they are hearing. They will pay hundreds of dollars to hear stories of how we will all be doomed in a few years unless we do what these people suggest. Calling those who cast a doubtful eye on all these reports are called "deniers", just as those who would dare deny the existence of God.

They are fools duped by scoundrels, and no one seems to take a lesson from history.
 
People who believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth the same time humans did, and that Jesus might have ridden one, have no business being counted in any "Scientific" study. But, what the hell. I have no knowledge of global finance. How about I answer the question 'What is interest' with 'That is money the stork throws down your chimney when you have money in the bank'. And if the stork runs out of money, he might throw a baby down there once in a while.
 
Say what???
 
danarhea said:
People who believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth the same time humans did, and that Jesus might have ridden one, have no business being counted in any "Scientific" study. But, what the hell. I have no knowledge of global finance. How about I answer the question 'What is interest' with 'That is money the stork throws down your chimney when you have money in the bank'. And if the stork runs out of money, he might throw a baby down there once in a while.
Click to expand...


:screwy What the hell are you talking about? Good grief. :lamo
 
Grant said:
I am aware that hoaxes have been played on the gullible for centuries and continues to this day. This is why I'm always skeptical of these 'end of the world' scenarios, as well as the Al Gores and the Bernie Madoffs, and instead look to the money trail. My suspicions increase when skeptics are referred as 'deniers', by those who are convinced the truth has been established and will go to any lengths to support that 'truth'. It has become a religion, not a science.
Click to expand...

Well can't you see your own biases.That in this thread the people that believe in science have been called many names for example lunatics. But this doesn't seem concern you instead you get upset then the word deniers is used.


I have twice posted link to the latest IPCC report and showed the massive scoop of the report. That ther eport itself is also a summary or hundreds if not thousand peer reweied studies. Also it is probably ten of thousands scientist around the world competent to challenge the findings of the report. So if their was error that disprove the findings of the report their would surely been known. Instead the criticism comes from blogs and opinion pieces, look at this thread their are as I believe not even links to a singel peer rewied study question global warming.

You can't say that they are one big conparicy. Because if somebody really could question the finding of IPCC. They would be remember for a long time in scientific history.Also oil companies that are amongst the richest in the world already spend a lot of money on thinktanks and other that question globalwarming, do you don't think they would also reward scientists that could disprove global warming?

To me you sound like the people that didn't want to belive smoking was bad or didn't think it was something wrong with lead in petrol.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see conspiracy theorists removed from both sides of the global warming issue - deniers and environmentalists. Until that time, the global warming science ISN'T settled. It's just ideology.

BTW Bergslagstroll, which language do you normally speak? I highly doubt it's english.
 
Last edited:
Bergslagstroll said:
Well can't you see your own biases.That in this thread the people that believe in science have been called many names for example lunatics. But this doesn't seem concern you instead you get upset then the word deniers is used.


I have twice posted link to the latest IPCC report and showed the massive scoop of the report. That ther eport itself is also a summary or hundreds if not thousand peer reweied studies. Also it is probably ten of thousands scientist around the world competent to challenge the findings of the report. So if their was error that disprove the findings of the report their would surely been known. Instead the criticism comes from blogs and opinion pieces, look at this thread their are as I believe not even links to a singel peer rewied study question global warming.

You can't say that they are one big conparicy. Because if somebody really could question the finding of IPCC. They would be remember for a long time in scientific history.Also oil companies that are amongst the richest in the world already spend a lot of money on thinktanks and other that question globalwarming, do you don't think they would also reward scientists that could disprove global warming?

To me you sound like the people that didn't want to belive smoking was bad or didn't think it was something wrong with lead in petrol.
Click to expand...

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”?​
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
:screwy What the hell are you talking about? Good grief. :lamo
Click to expand...

He's saying he has as much qualifications for participating in complicated discussions of global finance as uneducated people have in discussing complicated scientific matters.
 
Last edited:
Bergslagstroll said:
Well can't you see your own biases.That in this thread the people that believe in science have been called many names for example lunatics. But this doesn't seem concern you instead you get upset then the word deniers is used.


I have twice posted link to the latest IPCC report and showed the massive scoop of the report. That ther eport itself is also a summary or hundreds if not thousand peer reweied studies. Also it is probably ten of thousands scientist around the world competent to challenge the findings of the report. So if their was error that disprove the findings of the report their would surely been known. Instead the criticism comes from blogs and opinion pieces, look at this thread their are as I believe not even links to a singel peer rewied study question global warming.

You can't say that they are one big conparicy. Because if somebody really could question the finding of IPCC. They would be remember for a long time in scientific history.Also oil companies that are amongst the richest in the world already spend a lot of money on thinktanks and other that question globalwarming, do you don't think they would also reward scientists that could disprove global warming?

To me you sound like the people that didn't want to belive smoking was bad or didn't think it was something wrong with lead in petrol.
Click to expand...
You haven't proved any point here.
 
Cardinal said:
He's saying he has as much qualifications for participating in complicated discussions of global finance as uneducated people have in discussing complicated scientific matters.
Click to expand...
Global warming is not a complicated issue. Here it is in a nutshell: are there enough greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to warm the earth to dangerous levels?
As far as we know, now, dangerous levels of greenhouse gases haven't been proven in earth's atmosphere. Hence, the lack of science.

Receding ice caps on both poles are supposed indicators of global warming. We do know about correlations, don't we? Does the crowing of roosters cause the sun to rise each morning?

Ideology has always been foremost in this debate, driving this debate. Environmentalists, either by their desire in making earth's environment more pristine, or having a belief system that man is the main causer of global warming (AGW), focus all their energies on man's pollution of the earth. Some deniers don't want government spending enormous amounts of money to combat global warming because they have an ideology that restricts government.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
He's saying he has as much qualifications for participating in complicated discussions of global finance as uneducated people have in discussing complicated scientific matters.
Click to expand...
Like I said that's just screwy. For instance, what are your qualifications to speak on the subject? By your own logic you're disqualified.
 
j-mac said:
Like I said that's just screwy. For instance, what are your qualifications to speak on the subject? By your own logic you're disqualified.
Click to expand...

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.
 
cabse5 said:
Global warming is not a complicated issue. Here it is in a nutshell: are there enough greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to warm the earth to dangerous levels?
As far as we know, now, dangerous levels of greenhouse gases haven't been proven in earth's atmosphere. Hence, the lack of science.

Receding ice caps on both poles are supposed indicators of global warming. We do know about correlations, don't we? Does the crowing of roosters cause the sun to rise each morning?

Ideology has always been foremost in this debate, driving this debate. Environmentalists, either by their desire in making earth's environment more pristine, or having a belief system that man is the main causer of global warming (AGW), focus all their energies on man's pollution of the earth. Some deniers don't want government spending enormous amounts of money to combat global warming because they have an ideology that restricts government.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom