• 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

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.

I forgot about that. See the problem here is he took some numbers from the IPCC and then he drew conclusions himself from the data that are very different from the IPCC. I asked for backing of his conclusions and he responded by posting the source of the data which isn't in question.
 
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.

Ad Hom? LoL, you're not a denier??? You never posted a source for the Al Gore quote either??? You do realize that means posting a link to a credible source right?

Al Gore is a communicator and he has done a fine job, he deserves the Nobel absolutely.

You've read the IPCC reports and your opinion is they are dishonest? Is your opinion important? Are you a well respected scientist? If not, nobody cares. If you want to make an argument, you need to post evidence and logic to back your claims here in the forums.
 
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.

Why conflate science with religion? Seems a strange tactic when debating science, maybe it is you that is religious about the subject. I am heartbroken though that you think I don't understand science very well. :2bigcry:
 
...I did post a source. ...

So I was reading back and saw you had posted something about sea ice with another poster. So Al Gore said "nearly ice-free in the Summer by 2014" and if you notice the ice is most definitely following that trend. So it could be off by a few years? Is this really your big doomsday prediction that has come and gone and proves AGW is all a bunch of nonsense?

This is just grasping at straws on your part.
 
So I was reading back and saw you had posted something about sea ice with another poster. So Al Gore said "nearly ice-free in the Summer by 2014" and if you notice the ice is most definitely following that trend. So it could be off by a few years? Is this really your big doomsday prediction that has come and gone and proves AGW is all a bunch of nonsense?

This is just grasping at straws on your part.


I bet he thinks the US Navy is in on the conspiracy too:

US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016 | Nafeez Ahmed | Environment | theguardian.com

And of course, even his own ("non-pro-AGW") source, the NSIDC, thinks that the arctic will be ice free in a few decades:

When will the Arctic lose its sea ice? | Icelights: Your Burning Questions About Ice & Climate

New study: Seasonal Arctic summer ice extent still hard to forecast | National Snow and Ice Data Center
 
As I already posted we see today a large global increase in both solar and wind power. I also have posted a report about community power, but of course I understand you have other things then reading a report. But maybee you have time to look at some of this positive examples.

Inspiring stories - www.communitypower.eu

Then it comes to meat I guess it the same in your country USA that you are constantly bombarded with advertisment for meat products especially hamburgers.You can also not choose to see them because they are for exampel on big billboards along side public roads.


But you get pissed then I suggested atleast trying new food from countries famous for making great vegatarian and partly vegatarian dishes. As a potential way for many people to reduce C02 and also find new favorite dishesand at the same time eat more healthy. But I didn't say anything about forcing people or that people should give up meat completly.
Don't like vegan food, don't eat vegan anything, just don't care for it. If you like it, great. More meat for me.
 
Ad Hom? LoL, you're not a denier??? You never posted a source for the Al Gore quote either??? You do realize that means posting a link to a credible source right?

Al Gore is a communicator and he has done a fine job, he deserves the Nobel absolutely.

You've read the IPCC reports and your opinion is they are dishonest? Is your opinion important? Are you a well respected scientist? If not, nobody cares. If you want to make an argument, you need to post evidence and logic to back your claims here in the forums.

Well maybe to some here, your post makes sense. But I am apparently too stupid to make much sense out of it, so I will leave the deciphering to somebody else. Do have a nice day.
 
So I was reading back and saw you had posted something about sea ice with another poster. So Al Gore said "nearly ice-free in the Summer by 2014" and if you notice the ice is most definitely following that trend. So it could be off by a few years? Is this really your big doomsday prediction that has come and gone and proves AGW is all a bunch of nonsense?

This is just grasping at straws on your part.

Sorry but the ice seems to be doing quite nicely. They have only been keeping records for 33 years and there are at least five other years that the ice melt exceeded this summer. So I'm sorry, but your post just doesn't hold up under scrutiny on what I have claimed or on what you are claiming. Debate points for you -zero. :)
 
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:

Apparently note everyone got the memo changing the lunacy to global climate change.
 
Well maybe to some here, your post makes sense. But I am apparently too stupid to make much sense out of it, so I will leave the deciphering to somebody else. Do have a nice day.

It was a reply to a post of yours.

Sorry but the ice seems to be doing quite nicely. They have only been keeping records for 33 years and there are at least five other years that the ice melt exceeded this summer. So I'm sorry, but your post just doesn't hold up under scrutiny on what I have claimed or on what you are claiming. Debate points for you -zero. :)

Do you know what variability is? It is when the value of a variable fluctuates. The value can reach highs and lows. Generally with variability scientists look at averages and trends over time.

400px-Arctic_sea_Ice_September_Extent_Anomalies.png


See how the points go up and down? So you'll notice the last point is a bit higher than the others preceding it, so you can say "5 other years had more ice". So look at the trend, what does that look like to you?

There's even a whole encyclopedia entry dedicated to just this phenomena of the the ice in decline.

Arctic sea ice decline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arctic sea ice decline describes the sea ice loss observed in recent decades in the Arctic Ocean. The IPCC AR5 report concluded with high confidence that sea ice continues to decrease in extent and there is robust evidence for the downward trend in Arctic summer sea ice extent since 1979.[1] It has been established that the region is at its warmest for at least 40.000 years and the Arctic-wide melt season has lengthened at a rate of 5  days per decade (from 1979 to 2013), dominated by a later autumn freezeup.[2] Sea ice changes have been identified as a mechanism for polar amplification.
 
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:

Actually only 15% of Americans think GW is a hoax......




"...The first group, "The Alarmed," is made up 16% of the public. They believe climate change is an urgent problem but have no clear idea of how to fix it.

The second group (27%) is "The Concerned." They believe climate change is a problem but think it's more about polar bears and tiny islands than a problem that directly affects them.

The third group, "The Cautious" (23%), are people on the fence. They haven't made up their minds whether global warming is real or if it's a man-made problem.

The fourth group, "The Disengaged" (5%), doesn't know anything about climate change.

The fifth group, "The Doubtful" (12%), do not think climate change is man-made. They think it's natural and poses no long-term risk.

Leiserowitz says it's the sixth group, "The Dismissives," that is the most problematic, even though it comprises just 15% of the public.

"They say it's a hoax, scientists are making up data, it's a U.N. conspiracy (or) Al Gore and his friends want to get rich."
....read..."

Opinion: Why are we still debating climate change? - CNN.com
 
So then you opine that the first Amendment should be rolled back and limited to what Liberal dogma permits?

You mean like all thes phoney Green companies & folks like AlGore that need the lies to continue in order for there profits to keep coming?

Is this not somewhat simliar to all the fudged data found in East Anglia E-mails that proves they were lying but now despite this evidence they are full steam ahead with the lies despite the evidence of lying?

First of all I'm not an American so I have no say in your first amedment. I can just talk in general and to continue my extreme example from my last post, you can say that the moon landing is a hoax and even start your own newspaper saying that the moonl landing is a hoax. But if you want to run a serius newspaper you don't give place in your newspaper for such conspiracy belifies.

You can look at the worlds biggest countries, and see that oil companies not green companies is on the top.

http://www.forbes.com/global2000/#p...stries_filter:All countries_filter:All states

East Anglia controversy is a good exampel how the wellfunded climate deniers works.

Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is also impressive that with soo many scientists and scientist findings involved in making the IPCC report the deniers can't find so little to attack. Just look at the massive scoop of the latest report.

Fifth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013
 
I forgot about that. See the problem here is he took some numbers from the IPCC and then he drew conclusions himself from the data that are very different from the IPCC. I asked for backing of his conclusions and he responded by posting the source of the data which isn't in question.
Actually, let's look at my reply, from Post #29.
I cited the IPCC's link to Baede et al, as the bases for their prediction,
Both the direct response of CO2, and the predicted additional amplified forcing.
Included in that citation, is Baede et al number for CO2 direct response sensitivity,
(1.2 °C for each doubling).
I cited the actual temperature record by the GISS, (.8 °C since 1880)
I cited the NOAA CO2 level. (401 ppm)
I fit a curve to Baede et al number for CO2 sensitivity,
and used that curve to find the direct response of CO2 at 401 ppm.
4X(log560)-4X(log401)=.580 (this is the remaining part so) 1.2 °C- .580 °C= .62 °C
I then subtracted the direct response temperature for CO2 at the 401 ppm level,
from the total observed warming,(leaving a difference of .18 °C).
Up until this point there are no conclusions, Please feel free to point out any errors in my math.
(If there is a better curve fitting method, I will try it).
As to conclusions, all of the catastrophic predictions from the IPCC are from the mid to high range
of their predictions, say between 3 and 4.5 °C.
This is between 1.8 and 3.3 °C above the direct response.
We are past the halfway point of the direct response,
and so far there is only .18 °C that is not part of the direct response.
This .18 °C is only 10% of the amount necessary to reach the mid range of the
IPCC predictions, yet the direct response level is above 50%.
 
The Koch brothers have done an admirable job making Climate Science into politics.
(like Evangelicals have made Evolution 'controversial')
Indeed, look at where that otherwise 'Science' topic is on this board: "General Political Discussion"!
Hook, l!ne, and s!nker!
One Science is now a populist political football.
Many people with -0- posts in the Science section are now 'interested', even highly opinionated, in Only this one.
Hmm. This OP too.

As to being Highly insulting about it?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/environment-and-climate-issues/163446-warmers-mentaly-ill.html

no the IPCC did a good job of that first. the koch brothers are simply a reaction to a polictial organization making horrible models that are about 95% wrong most of the time.
 
Actually, let's look at my reply, from Post #29.
I cited the IPCC's link to Baede et al, as the bases for their prediction,
Both the direct response of CO2, and the predicted additional amplified forcing.
Included in that citation, is Baede et al number for CO2 direct response sensitivity,
(1.2 °C for each doubling).
I cited the actual temperature record by the GISS, (.8 °C since 1880)
I cited the NOAA CO2 level. (401 ppm)
I fit a curve to Baede et al number for CO2 sensitivity,
and used that curve to find the direct response of CO2 at 401 ppm.

I then subtracted the direct response temperature for CO2 at the 401 ppm level,
from the total observed warming,(leaving a difference of .18 °C).
Up until this point there are no conclusions, Please feel free to point out any errors in my math.
(If there is a better curve fitting method, I will try it).
As to conclusions, all of the catastrophic predictions from the IPCC are from the mid to high range
of their predictions, say between 3 and 4.5 °C.
This is between 1.8 and 3.3 °C above the direct response.
We are past the halfway point of the direct response,
and so far there is only .18 °C that is not part of the direct response.
This .18 °C is only 10% of the amount necessary to reach the mid range of the
IPCC predictions, yet the direct response level is above 50%.

Look at what you're modeling though, a logarithmic input and logarithmic output. One would expect almost all of the effects to come very late in the model. You're cutting it short not even halfway through the curve and saying "where is all the warming?" and drawing conclusions about the feedback loop being much less than stated.
 
Look at what you're modeling though, a logarithmic input and logarithmic output. One would expect almost all of the effects to come very late in the model. You're cutting it short not even halfway through the curve and saying "where is all the warming?" and drawing conclusions about the feedback loop being much less than stated.
Actually it is the opposite, each additional unit has less effect than the one that came before it.
CO2_response.jpg
If you think about it much, you will agree.
70 ppm to 140 ppm 1.2 °C
140 ppm to 280 ppm 1.2 °C
280ppm to 560 ppm 1.2 °C
560 ppm to 1120 ppm 1.2 °C
 
It is fundamental - that's why I challenged the hypocrisy of your post.

Attempts at exerting superiority, feigned or otherwise, seldom bring you converts to your side of an argument
.


But what it does do is tend to stick in one's mind such that they get a reputation that's easily portrayed in other parts of the site.
 
Apparently note everyone got the memo changing the lunacy to global climate change.

Yup. Once one 'crisis' isn't working for them any more, and even they are embarrassed to move the goal posts in their failed models yet again, change the terminology and we're off to the races again. :)
 
Actually it is the opposite, each additional unit has less effect than the one that came before it.
View attachment 67169702
If you think about it much, you will agree.
70 ppm to 140 ppm 1.2 °C
140 ppm to 280 ppm 1.2 °C
280ppm to 560 ppm 1.2 °C
560 ppm to 1120 ppm 1.2 °C

Yes but look at the Co2 input, it is far steeper as almost all of the Co2 has been released in the last 30 years.

Climate3_co2-temp.jpg


We're also at a solar minimum and the oceans are soaking up far more of the heat than we had thought. It is way, way too early to draw conclusions from your simple model and dismiss everything.
 
The thread OP however was not yet another among dozens and dozens of threads inviting a debate on anthropogenic global warming. It referred to Rasumussen's poll reflecting the attitudes of the general public as to whether it is settled science and no longer subject to debate much as many look at Evolution or the Big Bang theory, etc. And obviously, based on the OP, a very large number of Americans appear to believe it is not yet settled science.

When you have liberal newspapers no longer accepting 'letters to the editor' that reflect skepticism or denial, when you have skeptic scientists barred from the 'politically correct' scientific community, and when you have governments pushing the AGW doctrine to the max--all this in the face of failed model after failed model presented as 'evidence' by the AGW scientific proponents. . . .

. . .and the only ones pushing this to the max are those receiving lucrative grants to study it and/or politicians who use it to increase their powers or CEOs who are making out like bandits receiving tax payer monies to promote green energy projects. . .

. . .when you have all that, how can any thinking person believe it is 'settled science'? From my office chair, it is not settled science but becomes increasingly suspect. But then, libertarian types have never been too keen on sheep mentality generated by political correctness.
 
Simply put, the credibility of the Democratic party these days is so bloodied, battered, and beaten, that any issue they trumpet is summarily dismissed by an increasing portion of the population.

Instead of asking the question of possible climate change, they had to take monumental political leaps to put cause and blame against their political enemies. Likewise from these anything-but-objective "scientists" they've recruited. Scientific Theory be damned.

It's transparent, overreaching, and frankly, immature. And it smells to a weary citizenry that just rolls it eyes and turns the channel.
 
. . .when you have all that, how can any thinking person believe it is 'settled science'?

Well, because THE SCIENTISTS THEMSELVES ARE TELLING YOU THIS.

Climate Change: Consensus

Expert credibility in climate change

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Climate Change Consensus? | Weather Underground

About that consensus on global warming: 9136 agree, 1 disagrees. | The Curious Wavefunction, Scientific American Blog Network

Maybe you want to argue on the definition of 'settled'. Its pretty clear that no scientific issue is totally settled. Evolution, gravity, electron orbitals..... all are constantly challenged and revised and improved. But the simple, basic fact that AGW exists because of CO2 and other manmade greenhouse gas emissions is not really a scientifically argued point. The magnitude of the effect is being argued, yes, but as you see above, the vast majority of scientists recognize it as a problem, and often a very large problem. And the more they understand it, the more they are concerned (although this does tend to be self-reinforcing, obviously, but thats the case in all science).

Now to combat this point, you'll need to come up with references that show this consensus is not real, but those references need to be from scientific sources. Not blogs. Not opinion polls. Not polls of mining engineers where you pretend they are scientists. Not polls conducted by Mark Morano - political consultant to James Inhofe and now, apparently, a respected scientific figure in the denier community.

So my question is... how can any thinking person believe this is NOT established science? Its pretty crystal clear - so much so that the scientific community is going out of their way to tell you this fact because they keep getting this odd pushback from politicians and oilmen that gullble citizens (often on the right wing...seems to be a trend) believe.
 
Last edited:
Yes but look at the Co2 input, it is far steeper as almost all of the Co2 has been released in the last 30 years.

We're also at a solar minimum and the oceans are soaking up far more of the heat than we had thought. It is way, way too early to draw conclusions from your simple model and dismiss everything.
The CO2 rate of change has nothing to do with the response to a given CO2 level.
I am not dismissing anything, but rather questioning the predictions of the IPCC.
Those predictions are based on an feedbacks which will amplify the direct response of CO2.
From Baede et al,
It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase
to 1.5 to 4.5°C.
At more than 50% of the direct response, none of these predicted feedbacks are visible
beyond the natural variability.
 
I just did a poll...95% of people would not use public opinion polls to determine what is scientifically accurate. The 5% of course were unsure because they were just north of mentally handicapped.

If its so scientifically accurate, why are scientists faking the evidence?
 
The CO2 rate of change has nothing to do with the response to a given CO2 level.
I am not dismissing anything, but rather questioning the predictions of the IPCC.
Those predictions are based on an feedbacks which will amplify the direct response of CO2.
From Baede et al,

At more than 50% of the direct response, none of these predicted feedbacks are visible
beyond the natural variability.

The variability is in a very steep zone of the curve, it is much more sensitive than say at the beginning. A small anomaly can skew the results much more than the 10% variability suggests. I would expect to see much faster warmer in the near future, 30 years is not much time for it all to play out on the steep end.
 
Back
Top Bottom