• 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

Verax said:
Climate change denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Oh 'PUHLEEZE'.... wiki? Really?

The word "denier" has traditionally been used as a pejorative in other languages usually meaning "evil unbeliever in our religion". It is a form of the argument ad hominem: the aim is not so much to refute your opponent as to discredit his motives.

An essay published by the online "democrat & chronicle" sums it up best as far as I am concerned....

Anyone even remotely paying attention to the debate over global warming has surely recognized that one side has simultaneously proclaimed victory and denounced the other. But few, it seems, have noticed how the language of the debate is being manipulated.

Those who argue that human activity causes irrecoverable damage to the planet and advocate curbing carbon-based technology through governmental regulation have boldly escalated their rhetorical attacks on their opponents. We have now reached the point where anyone who expresses skepticism over the “facts” or disagrees with the litany of “solutions” (cap and trade schemes, elimination of fossil fuels, declaring carbon a pollutant) is labeled a denier.

The sudden ubiquity of this relatively new political label signals an increased vitriol in a debate as much about politics as about science, for there is no denying that the term derives its rhetorical strength from the language of the Holocaust. The public discourse would be well-served if both sides refer to each other with the relatively neutral terms “believers” and “skeptics” and leave the Holocaust out of it.

Web Essay: Leave Holocaust out of climate debate
Click to expand...
 
j-mac said:
Oh 'PUHLEEZE'.... wiki? Really?

The word "denier" has traditionally been used as a pejorative in other languages usually meaning "evil unbeliever in our religion". It is a form of the argument ad hominem: the aim is not so much to refute your opponent as to discredit his motives.

An essay published by the online "democrat & chronicle" sums it up best as far as I am concerned....
Click to expand...

And this is the kind of thing that deniers do. Rather than make a rational argument built on logic and evidence you follow propaganda 101. You play the victim card, the persecution complex, compare a simple word to a phrase of an "evil unbeliever in our religion" and even the Holocaust.

:lamo
 
j-mac said:
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:
Click to expand...

It won't be over until the earth morphs into a streaking meteor and crashes into Saturn or some out-of-our-galaxy planet in the year 8,972,567,213. Way to go gorenatics!
 
Originally Posted by Verax View Post
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.
Click to expand...

Verax said:
This is what I was getting at in my OP, the fact that people think their casual knowledge of a subject is greater than the best collective minds of the world. If I were a climate scientist with exceptional knowledge and insight in the field I would draw my own conclusions being that I am a master of the subject. However computers are my thing, I have only a cursory knowledge of climate science, only a fool with a limited knowledge of a subject thinks their opinions are likely better than thousands of scientists from the mainstream community.

So let me ask you, are you a lifelong climate scientist? Do you have a Phd in the relevant fields? Have you spent thousands upon thousands of hours reviewing literature, peer reviewed papers? Research? If not what makes you think your opinion or that of longview is anything special? Are you guys secret master climatologists? I seriously doubt it, you're just somebody on a forum with a self appointed rebel ego because you draw your own conclusions.
Click to expand...

The 2 posts are in conflict with each other. If you have a basic understanding of physics and have done some basic research into AGW and find that your conclusions are at odds with the nonsense is spewed from television, radio, the internet then surely in a democracy you have the duty to hold your opinion.

Longview's argument, which is made using a decent understanding of the science of the subject as described in the papers which the IPCC uses for the basis of it's argument, is clear. It is that there has been some warming due to increased CO2 and will be more as humanity continues to burn fossil fuel but that it will be minor as per the science and not as per the utterly unsubstantiated additional forcing which the IPCC relies upon to get their higher range figures.

You however seem to think that it is unreasonable to base our thinking upon a detailed look at the underlying science of a situation but must follow whatever the TV tells us to.
 
j-mac said:
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:
Click to expand...

It's likely that a bunch of that 20% are also on the "it's a hoax" side. They also think it's settled.
 
Verax said:
And this is the kind of thing that deniers do. Rather than make a rational argument built on logic and evidence you follow propaganda 101. You play the victim card, the persecution complex, compare a simple word to a phrase of an "evil unbeliever in our religion" and even the Holocaust.

:lamo
Click to expand...

What kind of nonsense you are spewing here is just that....I no longer wish to participate in your ad hom attacks...
 
j-mac said:
"It's likely"? Says who? you? Give me a break....:lamo
Click to expand...

So everybody that says it's a hoax is keeping an open mind?

If you really think so, I gave you too much credit before.
 
I'm not saying the earth isn't warming or cooling (it's done both). I'm saying extreme warming or cooling could be a problem for mankind.

Furthermore, I'm saying environmentalists ASSUME man is the only cause of global warming. This is where environmentalists diverge from the 'science', and their ideology (that it's only man, baby) declares what to do about global warming. That's why the only measures to reduce the horror of global warming deal with man's effects on nature.. the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere... and why the end result of weaning the atmosphere of CO2 is to lessen the effects of man on the environment and not to stop global warming.

I mean, if you TRULY believe greenhouse gases (like on Venus) cause warming on the earth, and you're TRULY fearful of global warming and its effects, you'll think to do a whole lot more than just reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.

Isn't there an interpretation by Thomas Jefferson's SCOTUS that government should be separate from church? Why isn't the environmentalist's church of man as the only cause of global warming not separated from government because of the separation of church and state?
 
Last edited:
Tim the plumber said:
The 2 posts are in conflict with each other. If you have a basic understanding of physics and have done some basic research into AGW and find that your conclusions are at odds with the nonsense is spewed from television, radio, the internet then surely in a democracy you have the duty to hold your opinion.

Longview's argument, which is made using a decent understanding of the science of the subject as described in the papers which the IPCC uses for the basis of it's argument, is clear. It is that there has been some warming due to increased CO2 and will be more as humanity continues to burn fossil fuel but that it will be minor as per the science and not as per the utterly unsubstantiated additional forcing which the IPCC relies upon to get their higher range figures.

You however seem to think that it is unreasonable to base our thinking upon a detailed look at the underlying science of a situation but must follow whatever the TV tells us to.
Click to expand...

The two posts are different aspects, perspectives of the global warming debate. Do you only think in black and white terms? Absolutes?

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. 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

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?

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.

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. I would tend to trust them over anyone else. 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.
 
j-mac said:
What kind of nonsense you are spewing here is just that....I no longer wish to participate in your ad hom attacks...
Click to expand...

Taking your ball and going home after a spanking. :cry:
 
Verax said:
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...
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.
 
longview said:
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...

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

a3asaru9.jpg
 
rocket88 said:
So everybody that says it's a hoax is keeping an open mind?

If you really think so, I gave you too much credit before.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't say that. But, I am certainly not convinced that those who succumbed to the religion of AGW are playing with a full deck either.
 
The planet just finished the warmest three months on record. This chart shows the difference in temperature between the average from 1951-1980 and now. A few spots are cooler, but the redder the hotter.

Bsmi7GyCEAAFOXf.png:large
 
Great. Let's do a whole lot more to cool the earth than just reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. Let's reduce water vapor (95% of greenhouse gases) and methane (greenhouse gas that's approximately 25 times MORE EFFECTIVE IN TRAPPING HEAT in the atmosphere than CO2), as well.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
No, I didn't say that. But, I am certainly not convinced that those who succumbed to the religion of AGW are playing with a full deck either.
Click to expand...


Which would mean that some of the 20% who think it's settled fall on the other side of the debate. Which is what I said that you disagreed with and laughed at.
 
Threegoofs said:
Are you telling me you're cherry picking a year rather than looking at a moving average?
Click to expand...
No, I am telling you to use numerical data, rather than a subjective graph.
The numbers are subject to less interpretation.
Also, the starting year was picked with the statement,
It has warmed .7C in the last 30 years,
Click to expand...
 
longview said:
No, I am telling you to use numerical data, rather than a subjective graph.
The numbers are subject to less interpretation.
Also, the starting year was picked with the statement,
Click to expand...

The graph is subjective? Why- because it shows you re wrong?

If I wrote out the moving averages in a long table, would that be better for you?

Clearly, the movement over the last decades is a rise of much more than 0.3 degrees C, unless you cherry pick years.
 
Threegoofs said:
The graph is subjective? Why- because it shows you re wrong?

If I wrote out the moving averages in a long table, would that be better for you?

Clearly, the movement over the last decades is a rise of much more than 0.3 degrees C, unless you cherry pick years.
Click to expand...
No, the Graph subjective, because the limited resolution required interpretation,
The numeric data, does not.
Are you saying that the last 30 year increase,
From 1983 to 2013 in the GISS is not the difference between .27 and .60C?
If there is a data set out there that shows a annual increase in the last 30 years,
of .7C, I would like you to cite it, because it is quite different than the rest.
 
longview said:
No, the Graph subjective, because the limited resolution required interpretation,
The numeric data, does not.
Are you saying that the last 30 year increase,
From 1983 to 2013 in the GISS is not the difference between .27 and .60C?
If there is a data set out there that shows a annual increase in the last 30 years,
of .7C, I would like you to cite it, because it is quite different than the rest.
Click to expand...

You must really be freaking out over the 31 year data, huh?
 
Threegoofs said:
You must really be freaking out over the 31 year data, huh?
Click to expand...
Goofs, A comment was made in post 185 that,
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom