• 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!

I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

re: I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

MrT said:
So you're trying to insinuate that they can measure the solar output (and in fact, everyone can), but that they are lying about the data? Seriously? The sun is the one variable that would be the hardest to hide. Either the sun is pumping out more energy...or it is not. Everyone can measure that solar output or can review the published/reported data.
Click to expand...

No, not lying, rather adjusting. If the Sun is the prime mover, not CO2, that ends a lot of careers, a lot of money and political power. It's called "Group Think" and AGW is just Group Think on a global scale. There is just too MUCH VESTED to change things, and there is really no need as long as the public remains stupid.

Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink:

Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.
Click to expand...
What is Groupthink
 
re: I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

Renae said:
Big giant ball of plasma sitting 1 AU from the earth or my car?

Hmmm.....
Click to expand...

Please post the trend of solar activity over the last century.
 
re: I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

Renae said:
No, not lying, rather adjusting. If the Sun is the prime mover, not CO2, that ends a lot of careers, a lot of money and political power. It's called "Group Think" and AGW is just Group Think on a global scale. There is just too MUCH VESTED to change things, and there is really no need as long as the public remains stupid.


What is Groupthink
Click to expand...

Are solar variation and greenhouse influences on climate mutually exclusive?
 
re: I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

Renae said:
No, not lying, rather adjusting. If the Sun is the prime mover, not CO2, that ends a lot of careers, a lot of money and political power. It's called "Group Think" and AGW is just Group Think on a global scale. There is just too MUCH VESTED to change things, and there is really no need as long as the public remains stupid.
Click to expand...

So...basically, it's a massive conspiracy that spans every country and economic status and scientific disciplines? This despite the fact that some scientists operate out of countries whose leaders, like Australia or the Republicans in the United States, would provide even more funding to those scientists that support the government's point of view.
 
re: I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

distraff said:
Lord of Planar said:
Those are mot measured. they are modeled.
Click to expand...

No. Those bars measure the radiative forcings of different climate factors from the past, not the future. You can use these to generate temperature models of the past and see if these fit observed temperatures.
Click to expand...
LOL...

The pundits sure have you fooled.

Please show me your source that shows they are measured levels. Even the IPCC says they are "calculated" using "models."
 
re: I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

Deuce said:
Are solar variation and greenhouse influences on climate mutually exclusive?
Click to expand...

Not at all.

If the TSI increases, so does the CO2 forcing. If the TSI decreases, so does the CO2 forcing.
 
re: I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

MrT said:
So...basically, it's a massive conspiracy that spans every country and economic status and scientific disciplines? This despite the fact that some scientists operate out of countries whose leaders, like Australia or the Republicans in the United States, would provide even more funding to those scientists that support the government's point of view.
Click to expand...

You aren't very well educated if you think groupthink and conspiring are the same thing.
 
re: I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

The pundits sure have you fooled.

Please show me your source that shows they are measured levels. Even the IPCC says they are "calculated" using "models."
Click to expand...

"Radiative Forcing (RF) is the measurement of the capacity of a gas or other forcing agents to affect that energy balance, thereby contributing to climate change."
CORE: Radiative Forcing
 
re: I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

MrT said:
So...basically, it's a massive conspiracy that spans every country and economic status and scientific disciplines? This despite the fact that some scientists operate out of countries whose leaders, like Australia or the Republicans in the United States, would provide even more funding to those scientists that support the government's point of view.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what GROUP THINK is. You keep trying to circle back to the CT angle, and that is a DISHONEST move on your part, it's okay though, I get why you have to, the alternative is just more then your ego and mind can handle.
 
re: I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

distraff said:
"Radiative Forcing (RF) is the measurement of the capacity of a gas or other forcing agents to affect that energy balance, thereby contributing to climate change."
CORE: Radiative Forcing
Click to expand...

Yes, I know, but that article is wrong in many ways. Individual gasses are only measured in the laboratory. the complex and changing atmosphere throws that out the window. CO2 and H2O have complex overlaps, making such actual measurements impossible. same with CH4 and N2O.

The forcing of greenhouse gasses in the atmospheric mix, are modelled, not measures.

Don't think you know anything about the climate sciences that I don't.

CORE is nothing but an activist site by SEI:

SEI at a glance - Stockholm Environment Institute
 
re: I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

Wow...

Who ever wrote that got something else completely wrong.


For example, over a 100-year time frame (see Global Warming Potential), a molecule of methane is approximately 25 times more potent (effective at trapping radiation and inducing warming) than a molecule of CO2.
​


GWP is calculated by mass, not by mols.

Does that even have any meaning to you?
 
re: I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

Lord of Planar said:
You aren't very well educated if you think groupthink and conspiring are the same thing.
Click to expand...

Oh I understand that the definitions are different, but conspiracy is a broad enough that it can apply to a group think situation.
 
re: I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

Renae said:
No, that's not what GROUP THINK is. You keep trying to circle back to the CT angle, and that is a DISHONEST move on your part, it's okay though, I get why you have to, the alternative is just more then your ego and mind can handle.
Click to expand...

No, conspiracy in this context, is broad enough to apply to your theory of what is going on.
 
re: I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

MrT said:
No, conspiracy in this context, is broad enough to apply to your theory of what is going on.
Click to expand...

Group think isn't a theory, it happens all the time. What do you think brought down the Challenger? Group think. History is replete with examples of group think. That's all AGW is, it meets ALL the criteria.
 
re: I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

Renae said:
Group think isn't a theory, it happens all the time. What do you think brought down the Challenger? Group think. History is replete with examples of group think. That's all AGW is, it meets ALL the criteria.
Click to expand...

A) Group Think is not always wrong...heck, I would venture to say that the instances of Group Think often occur because the obvious problem/solution is, specifically, quite obvious.

B) There are plenty of critics of AGW and if "Group Think" were enough of a justification for dismissing a theory that has been analyzed for nearly 40 years, then it would have been dismissed.
 
re: I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

MrT said:
A) Group Think is not always wrong...heck, I would venture to say that the instances of Group Think often occur because the obvious problem/solution is, specifically, quite obvious.
Click to expand...
Okay, you don't even understand the concepts being discussed.
MrT said:
B) There are plenty of critics of AGW and if "Group Think" were enough of a justification for dismissing a theory that has been analyzed for nearly 40 years, then it would have been dismissed.
Click to expand...
Again, you don't understand the discussion.
 
re: I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

MrT said:
Oh I understand that the definitions are different, but conspiracy is a broad enough that it can apply to a group think situation.
Click to expand...

LOL...

If you say so...
 
re: I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

distraff said:
Instead of counting dollar bills why don't we just look at the facts? Is the earth warming? What cannot be the cause? What could be the cause? Lets just use logic and evidence to figure out what is going on.
Click to expand...

So we can only count dollars when you don't like the message?
 
re: I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

distraff said:
Scientists have already measured all the forcings on the climate for the past 150 years. CO2 is the biggest. Those are the facts.
View attachment 67191608
Click to expand...

Look at the error bars on the aerosols. Look at the error bars on the final total forcing. Even given that these are modeled values, how can any person who understands even the basics of science and statistics look at that chart and think we have it figured out?
 
Last edited:
re: I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

Lord of Planar said:
Yes, I know, but that article is wrong in many ways. Individual gasses are only measured in the laboratory. the complex and changing atmosphere throws that out the window. CO2 and H2O have complex overlaps, making such actual measurements impossible. same with CH4 and N2O.
Click to expand...

That is your unqualified position and it is obvious that scientists disagree with you as they highly trust their forcing measurements. Just because the laboratory measurements are done in the laboratory are not 100% accurate does not mean you just throw them out or that they don't have confirmation outside the lab.
 
re: I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

jmotivator said:
So we can only count dollars when you don't like the message?
Click to expand...

So are you going to count dollars on the young earth creationism vs evolution debate? Are you going to count dollars on the flat earth vs. round earth debate? Some "debates" are mostly debates outside the scientific community and the science had already been settled a long time ago.
 
re: I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

Renae said:
Okay, you don't even understand the concepts being discussed.

Again, you don't understand the discussion.
Click to expand...

No, I do understand the discussion. You wish to dismiss AGW because it epitomizes "Group Think" for you in that there is a significantly large enough group that supports the theory and, as such, there is a tendency amongst these individuals to view the problem and the solution through a narrow focus that tends to dismiss creativity and original thought. My point is that Group Think often occurs and, in the vast majority of instances, the Group Think will yield a positive result, although it may not be as optimal as a problem/solution analysis that did allow for creativity and original thought. Additionally, it is extremely rare that Group Think situations yield a problem/solution analysis that is completely opposite of the conclusion that should be followed.

You are viewing AGW through a very narrowly biased opinion (i.e. that it is wrong) and thus, you have reached the conclusion that the Group Think occurring here will not only yield a less than optimal conclusion, but that the conclusion is the exact opposite of what should be followed. That type of analysis is, again, extremely rare and it is a possibility long considered by other experts both within and outside of the climatology field.

And yet, the theory persists and the evidence for the theory only continues to mount.
 
re: I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

jmotivator said:
Look at the error bars on the aerosols. Look at the error bars on the final total forcing. Even given that these are modeled values, how can any person who understands even the basics of science and statistics look at that chart and think we have it figured out?
Click to expand...

Calling something "modeled" doesn't refute them. You have to explain how the way they were derived makes them unreliable specifically. Even when you take the error bars into account you are still going to wind up with most global warming coming from human factors.
 
re: I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

If you say so...
Click to expand...

Conspiracy only requires an agreement to pursue something harmful or illegal. Group Think denotes a situation where a group of individuals have begun to analyze a problem in such a way that limits original or creative thought analysis.

Here, renae has effectively argued that scientists are mis-representing actual data (she used the phrase, "readjusted") in order to push an agenda that is harmful. That is a conspiracy. The analysis and unwillingness to assume that another variable could be the cause (even though the climatologists have studied and analyzed these other causes) is evidence of the Group Think at the heart of this article.

Conspiracy and Group Think overlap here.
 
re: I get why the "Global Warming" hoax is appealing, but use your heads. [W:144]

distraff said:
Calling something "modeled" doesn't refute them. You have to explain how the way they were derived makes them unreliable specifically. Even when you take the error bars into account you are still going to wind up with most global warming coming from human factors.
Click to expand...

No, you are looking at modeled anthropogenic warming contribution that ranges from 0.6 w/m2 to 2.4 w/m2. Every single negative forcing has an error bar wider than the modeled effect. It's all guess work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom