• 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

Wonder how many lost civilizations would be around if they had listened to those saying "I think we may have a problem here."

They listened to their Koch brothers, though, and we can see where that got them.

I wonder how many lost civilizations ruined their way of life and much of what they created in some arrogant attempt to change the path of nature sometime in the distant future.

They listened to Al Gore, though, and we can see that Al Gore lived the high life while others paid half their salary on the hydro bill.
 
There's that nasty superiority thing working against you again.

Funny, I was under the impression that the issue of the OP was a poll that showed that only 20% of the American public believed the debate on the validity of man-made global warming was over. Perhaps you were confused into thinking the OP was a direct challenge to the science or - pseudo science or perhaps I'm confused because I thought the OP was a direct challenge to the claims that the debate is over. There is a subtle difference.

In a world where I can purchase an emotional attitude towards a subject in a predictable and repeatable percentage of a target demographic, opinion polls are less than worthless except as feedback loops to the persuasion process.
 
In a world where I can purchase an emotional attitude towards a subject in a predictable and repeatable percentage of a target demographic, opinion polls are less than worthless except as feedback loops to the persuasion process.

So why aren't you able to manufacture a poll that shows 80% of the American public believe in man-made global warming, if it's such a piece of cake? God knows, the emotional blackmail on the part of the greenies is rampant so why no luck in turning opinion your way? If only polar bears could vote.
 
Ok, even if the numbers were reversed on this poll, and people actually believed this crap, the problem you have is that certain entities have made this more about politics, than actual science, and have tied a redistribution scheme into it that does little to mitigate anything other than wealth in the world.

If it were only about science, then it may be a better argument, but right now? Not.

Haha think about it
Who makes more money?
Environmentalists
or Anti-environmentalists(what I mean by that is who don't care about the environmental costs)
 
I'm getting my ice cap data from the government agency who reports it every single month. I don't take it from pro-AGW message board sites.

As for Al Gore, he had revised his predictions a bit by 2009:

New computer modeling suggests the Arctic Ocean may be nearly ice-free in summer as early as 2014, Al Gore said today at the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen

The former vice president said the new projections suggest an almost-vanished summer ice cap could disappear much earlier than foreseen by a U.S. government agency just eight months.

"It is hard to capture the astonishment that the experts in the science of ice felt when they saw this," Gore told reporters and other conference participants at a joint briefing with Scandinavian officials and scientists, his first appearance at the two-week session.

Update at 3:58 p.m. ET: "Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years," Gore said.

Afterward his office clarified his statement, saying he meant nearly ice-free, because ice would be expected to survive in island channels and other locations. . . .
Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014

Which makes one wonder how many times those computer models will have to be wrong before at least some of the AGW religionists will also become skeptics?

Right. 'Could'. And it was referring to 'some' scientists. And it was a politician, not a scientist. Maybe you get confused with those categories?


And the data I showed was from PIOMAS.

I guess you could consider it a 'pro-AGW site', since 97% of the people who collect, maintain and publish climate data subscribe to that basic scientific concept.

I wonder why you didn't name the mysterious neutral site you get your information from....
 
I wonder how many lost civilizations ruined their way of life and much of what they created in some arrogant attempt to change the path of nature sometime in the distant future.

They listened to Al Gore, though, and we can see that Al Gore lived the high life while others paid half their salary on the hydro bill.

One of the Mesoamerican groups poisoned themselves because someone convinced them that sacrifices would make the crops grow and they threw the sacrifices in the wells their water came from.

No archaeological evidence for what you describe that I am aware of. Much that points towards environmental damage leading to collapse.
 
Right. 'Could'. And it was referring to 'some' scientists. And it was a politician, not a scientist. Maybe you get confused with those categories?


And the data I showed was from PIOMAS.

I guess you could consider it a 'pro-AGW site', since 97% of the people who collect, maintain and publish climate data subscribe to that basic scientific concept.

I wonder why you didn't name the mysterious neutral site you get your information from....

I was referring to the NSIDC funded by NOAA and NASA. Still hung up on that 97% I see. I have to wonder why people don't feel silly repeating that phony number again and again after the overwhelming evidence that it has been thoroughly disputed. But CanadaJohn is correct that the OP is about the debate itself and whether it is over, so I will continue to try to focus on that. The number of scientists promoting AGW, whether accurate or manufactured, is irrelevent to the OP. The fact that there are still a LOT of questions out there re what the AGW group is actively trying to sell is relevent.
 
From highly insulting people that think that those that disagree with them are somehow just north of mentally handicapped, to the mockery of the disciple of Gorentology that comes at you with the viciousness of a typical cult member when their religion is under question, it is clear that the majority of voters in this country don't buy the lie that the case is settled, that the argument is over...

Back to fringe obscurity GW lunatics. :mrgreen:

Once again behaving as if opinion is equal to fact. :coffeepap
 
So why aren't you able to manufacture a poll that shows 80% of the American public believe in man-made global warming, if it's such a piece of cake? God knows, the emotional blackmail on the part of the greenies is rampant so why no luck in turning opinion your way? If only polar bears could vote.

I would hope scientists refrain from simple manipulation of public opinion. I suspect letting the PR boys contribute led to much of the "evidence" that AGW is a hoax.

Those whose fortunes ride on AGW NOT being real certainly do indulge in persuasive messaging.
 
You really need to let every single major national and international scientific organization know of your findings.

Climate Change: Consensus

I can't wait to see what your thoughts are about gravitational wave theory, nuclear physics, and molecular biology are.

The earth sucks. Its "nucular" physics. And who cares what moles do?
 
I was referring to the NSIDC funded by NOAA and NASA. Still hung up on that 97% I see. I have to wonder why people don't feel silly repeating that phony number again and again after the overwhelming evidence that it has been thoroughly disputed. But CanadaJohn is correct that the OP is about the debate itself and whether it is over, so I will continue to try to focus on that. The number of scientists promoting AGW, whether accurate or manufactured, is irrelevent to the OP. The fact that there are still a LOT of questions out there re what the AGW group is actively trying to sell is relevent.

NOAA and NASA are quite clear on their stance on AGW.

Because....there is an overwhelming consensus. In fact, NASA itself clarifies that 97% of scientists agree with AGW!!


http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
 
Yea, I cant prove a negative wrong........It just so happens that this nonsense is the biggest myth since the idea that the sun revolved round the earth.

Believe me I would love to tell these quacks that they're idiots and call them out.... It doesn't take much intelligence to realize their game -- $$$$$$$$....

So the scientists that reject AGW are working pro bono?
 
I would hope scientists refrain from simple manipulation of public opinion. I suspect letting the PR boys contribute led to much of the "evidence" that AGW is a hoax.

Those whose fortunes ride on AGW NOT being real certainly do indulge in persuasive messaging.

Really? You're selling that?

The only people making money on the AGW scam are those pushing inefficient, costly, green energy "solutions" ignoring the whole picture while making a buck - billions of bucks - off people who mean well. That's what really makes me angry.

I know, I live in Ontario, Canada, where the ignorant idiots in government have decided to go all in on solar and wind power, two of the most costly and inefficient sources of green energy, claiming it's replacing coal, when in fact nuclear, natural gas, and hydro-electric have replaced all the coal we were using and more. In addition to tossing billions at those who will put windmills on their land, they are paying them upwards of 10 times the market price for the energy they provide and wind power never provides energy when it's actually needed. As a result, Ontario is selling - that's right SELLING - excess power because you can't just shut down nuclear and hydro-electric generation on a dime and they are buying all wind power first, as part of their contracts. And that selling of extra power to other jurisdictions is not really selling because we have to PAY other jurisdictions to take that power out of our system.

Add to this, the fact that home consumers have had their electricity bills double and the government has promised that their bills will increase again by at least 42% over the next 5 years. Add again, the fact that manufacturing in Ontario is bolting for the US and other neighbouring Canadian jurisdictions because electricity costs in Ontario aren't competitive. And guess what, with a reduced need for electricity by manufacturers who've closed shop, we have even more excess electricity to pay other jurisdictions to take.

So as you can see, the brilliant minds in the green energy field are destroying the standard of living Ontario had in Canada and in North America. If America is smart, they'll look at the examples in Europe and Canada and run screaming for the exits before it's too late.
 
NOAA and NASA are quite clear on their stance on AGW.

Because....there is an overwhelming consensus. In fact, NASA itself clarifies that 97% of scientists agree with AGW!!


Climate Change: Consensus

They clarified it, dishonestly, in 2009 after which it was thoroughly debunked.

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

It is such expose's that are becoming the norm rather than the exception that no doubt has triggered that 20% number in the OP. And I'm quite confident that if all scientists who have any knowledge of climate and climate issues were polled, the number doggedly hanging onto the AGW doctrine would be a whole bunch less than 97% and the huge majority if not all of those who do are the ones receiving government funding as long as they promote the doctrine while Obama is in office. Put a President with healthy skepticism into office, and I'm pretty darn sure you'll see much different numbers coming out of those studies.
 
Maybe predictions that the ice caps will melt, coastal cities will flood, and all the other 'predictions' of runaway anthropogenic created CO2 aren't 'doomsday predictions' to you. But they sure look that way to me.

I've been following this stuff since the 1970's and noting when this was supposed to happen or that was supposed to happen. Did you forget that in 2007 Al Gore was amassing his fortune by declaring that the Arctic ocean would be ice free by 2014? But non of the AGW religionists are criticizing him now are they?

We are in the middle of summer in 2014 and the ice coverage is pretty normal--no danger that ice melt will be as much as that of at least five other years in the very short (33 years) period that records have been kept of ice melt. So everybody moved the goal posts to 2050 that the great melt is expected to be a done deal. That gives them another 35 or so years to take more liberties, choices, options, and opportunities away from the people and solidify their personal fortunes before they have to ignore how wrong they got that too and move the 'doomsday' prophecy dates again.

For one, Al Gore is not a scientist, he is a communicator. If you want to know the official positions of the AGW community, I suggest you read the IPCC reports.

For two, did Al Gore really say "the Arctic ice will be gone by 2014?". If so please provide a source. My experience with deniers tells me that Gore probably said something or other that was creatively interpreted to mean that but did not mean that at all and this is just a bunch of nonsense.

For three, even if he did say that (which I doubt he did), who cares? He is one guy in this world. Do you really base your belief systems and information from what a single person says?
 
Really? You're selling that?

The only people making money on the AGW scam are those pushing inefficient, costly, green energy "solutions" ignoring the whole picture while making a buck - billions of bucks - off people who mean well. That's what really makes me angry.

I know, I live in Ontario, Canada, where the ignorant idiots in government have decided to go all in on solar and wind power, two of the most costly and inefficient sources of green energy, claiming it's replacing coal, when in fact nuclear, natural gas, and hydro-electric have replaced all the coal we were using and more. In addition to tossing billions at those who will put windmills on their land, they are paying them upwards of 10 times the market price for the energy they provide and wind power never provides energy when it's actually needed. As a result, Ontario is selling - that's right SELLING - excess power because you can't just shut down nuclear and hydro-electric generation on a dime and they are buying all wind power first, as part of their contracts. And that selling of extra power to other jurisdictions is not really selling because we have to PAY other jurisdictions to take that power out of our system.

Add to this, the fact that home consumers have had their electricity bills double and the government has promised that their bills will increase again by at least 42% over the next 5 years. Add again, the fact that manufacturing in Ontario is bolting for the US and other neighbouring Canadian jurisdictions because electricity costs in Ontario aren't competitive. And guess what, with a reduced need for electricity by manufacturers who've closed shop, we have even more excess electricity to pay other jurisdictions to take.

So as you can see, the brilliant minds in the green energy field are destroying the standard of living Ontario had in Canada and in North America. If America is smart, they'll look at the examples in Europe and Canada and run screaming for the exits before it's too late.

Also not true.

The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon.

"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American

Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks
Anonymous billionaires donated $120m to more than 100 anti-climate groups working to discredit climate change science

Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks | Environment | The Guardian
 
This is the result of ignorance. People who don't understand science but think they do. I will never understand why people think that an idea they had while looking out the window is just as valid as a scientist... A professional, a person who went to college and got a degree, who spent many years studying after college and while working in the field many years as a career.

I've said this many times in the environmental forum and I will say it again here. Almost all of the questions about global warming can be answered simply by reading an introductory science textbook. The remaining questions can be answered by studying climate science and reading the IPCC's reports.

If you don't know anything about these things, you should not have an opinion that you think AGW is X(anything), because you have no idea. If you are going to have an opinion at least do a bare minimum of research and learn basic science first, it is not that hard at all. If you don't do this, you are at the mercy of whatever nonsense is spewed from television, radio, the internet. It is laughably stupid and you will immediately spot it once you learn a few basic things.

I fully agree with your post.

I am, however, shocked that it was you that said such a thing. I have not seen any evidence of a sound understanding of such basic science from you. I have seen a lot of religious support of the AGW hype.
 
Really? You're selling that?

The only people making money on the AGW scam are those pushing inefficient, costly, green energy "solutions" ignoring the whole picture while making a buck - billions of bucks - off people who mean well. That's what really makes me angry.

I know, I live in Ontario, Canada, where the ignorant idiots in government have decided to go all in on solar and wind power, two of the most costly and inefficient sources of green energy, claiming it's replacing coal, when in fact nuclear, natural gas, and hydro-electric have replaced all the coal we were using and more. In addition to tossing billions at those who will put windmills on their land, they are paying them upwards of 10 times the market price for the energy they provide and wind power never provides energy when it's actually needed. As a result, Ontario is selling - that's right SELLING - excess power because you can't just shut down nuclear and hydro-electric generation on a dime and they are buying all wind power first, as part of their contracts. And that selling of extra power to other jurisdictions is not really selling because we have to PAY other jurisdictions to take that power out of our system.

Add to this, the fact that home consumers have had their electricity bills double and the government has promised that their bills will increase again by at least 42% over the next 5 years. Add again, the fact that manufacturing in Ontario is bolting for the US and other neighbouring Canadian jurisdictions because electricity costs in Ontario aren't competitive. And guess what, with a reduced need for electricity by manufacturers who've closed shop, we have even more excess electricity to pay other jurisdictions to take.

So as you can see, the brilliant minds in the green energy field are destroying the standard of living Ontario had in Canada and in North America. If America is smart, they'll look at the examples in Europe and Canada and run screaming for the exits before it's too late.

Seems you're shifting focus from what scientists are concerned about and what politicians and capitalists are doing in response.

And the idea that an industry won't resort to manipulation through persuasion science every time it protects/improves their bottom lines is nonsense.

Persuasion is a ten billion dollar a year business in the US outside of practitioners in direct employ
 
Also not true.

The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon.

"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American

Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks
Anonymous billionaires donated $120m to more than 100 anti-climate groups working to discredit climate change science

Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks | Environment | The Guardian

What? Did you just throw a dart to find a post to respond to? Your content has zero, zip, nada, nothing to do with what I posted so your "Also not true" nonsense is just that, nonsense.

As for what you posted, let's get a count on the hundreds of millions American billionaires have flooding into the environmental movement and their "charity" fronts here in Canada and the US to fight against Keystone, the Northern Gateway, and other pipeline projects.

The naivety of the American left is a wonder to behold.
 
Originally Posted by longview View Post
The evidence is that the Global average temperatures based on the GISS have increased by .8 C since 1880.
At the same time CO2 levels have increased from 280 ppm to 401 ppm.
The AGW predictions from the IPCC say doubling the CO2 level will result in a temperature
increase between 1.5 and 4.5 C.
Baede et al:

We are 43% of our way to doubling CO2, but the diminishing response curve of CO2
means we should have seen 52% of the effect, about .6°C.
This means all of the remaining variables of warming are contained in .2°C, over 133 years.
.2°C per century is well within the natural variability.
Does this mean Human activity is not causing some warming, of course not,
it does mean the warming will likely be in the low end of the IPCC prediction,
and not catastrophic.
We have real problems to worry about, without having to create artificial ones.

You're drawing a lot of conclusions and throwing a lot of things out there backed by what?

That stuff up there, above your bit is called a scientifically made argument.

Those number things need a basic understanding of science to make sense to you.

The IPCC's reports are based upon the ideas posted by Longview. They also have a large positive forcing component by which a small initial warming is somehow magnified by other factors. This has not been shown and is at odds with the short term temperature records (going back 150 year max or so) and the evidence from longer term records from proxy sources.

It is generally the skeptics who have read the science and understand the difference between a Watt, a degree, a Joule and a rate of change.
 
For one, Al Gore is not a scientist, he is a communicator. If you want to know the official positions of the AGW community, I suggest you read the IPCC reports.

For two, did Al Gore really say "the Arctic ice will be gone by 2014?". If so please provide a source. My experience with deniers tells me that Gore probably said something or other that was creatively interpreted to mean that but did not mean that at all and this is just a bunch of nonsense.

For three, even if he did say that (which I doubt he did), who cares? He is one guy in this world. Do you really base your belief systems and information from what a single person says?

Setting aside your snide ad hominism, I did post a source. I suggest you go back and read it. And though Al Gore is not a scientist and simply a AGW opportunist, who can deny he is that? He has been given great weight, has been quoted again and again, and thousands bought his book and he received an Oscar for his movie and a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts:

The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

IMO, all that accomplished was to demonstrate the sheep mentality of Hollywood and the utter bias and incompetence in the Nobel group that awards the Peace Prize. And believe me, I HAVE read the IPCC reports and also the informed rebuttals to the IPCC reports and, in my opinion, that organization has little credibility as anything other than an ultra-biased and somewhat dishonest tool of government that seeksmore and more power.
 
What? Did you just throw a dart to find a post to respond to? Your content has zero, zip, nada, nothing to do with what I posted so your "Also not true" nonsense is just that, nonsense.

As for what you posted, let's get a count on the hundreds of millions American billionaires have flooding into the environmental movement and their "charity" fronts here in Canada and the US to fight against Keystone, the Northern Gateway, and other pipeline projects.

The naivety of the American left is a wonder to behold.

It does have something to do with it. Your side always makes excuses to ignore the science. There is no doubt that deniers are financially motivated directly, and not through the supposition your side tries to imply.
 
They clarified it, dishonestly, in 2009 after which it was thoroughly debunked.

.

English, please.

Debunked what?

The fact that the vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations overwhelmingly support the IPCC and the broad conclusions it has made regarding AGW?

Because your non-pro AGW site, NASA, gives NO indication of this.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
 
Back
Top Bottom