• 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

Yes, there was an ice age scare during that period. 1970s Global Cooling Scare | Real Science

Could it be, like all the other scares we were warned about, that it is a scam? Why not follow the money, or look at increased government regulations and powers they received since concocting these scare stories for a gullible public? The Overpopulation Hoax – LewRockwell.com

Yeah, pretty much.

Busting Myths
During the opening dinner, meteorologist Joe Bastardi explained extreme weather events are not becoming any more frequent or severe as the planet warms. To the contrary, Bastardi documented how hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, and other extreme weather events are declining in frequency and severity. To the extent there are short-term increases in extreme weather events at some places within the overall global decline, Bastardi showed those follow weather and climate patterns that existed long before recent global warming.

During the breakfast session on Day 2, Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore chronicled the radicalization of once-noble environmentalist groups. Standing before photographs of himself leading environmental protests and provocative actions against whalers and other corporate entitites, Moore explained how Greenpeace and other environmental activist groups are now harming human health and welfare by demanding so many resources be dedicated to the fictitious global warming crisis. True environmental progress would be made fighting for land conservation and other real environmental concerns rather than trumped-up global warming claims, Moore explained.

Patrick Michaels, a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and former program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society, explained during the Day 2 luncheon how government research grants are promoting the false notion of an alarmist consensus. Large government research grants are handed out almost uniformly to scientists who will promote the idea of global warming crisis, which ensures more budgetary dollars for government agencies addressing the topic and subsequently more research grants for the participating scientists, he noted.
Myths busted at climate change conference | Human Events

Not sure if I'd call these folks 'knuckle dragging' through. That would appear to be awfully bold and needlessly and unfairly dismissive for a valid position.
 
Yeah, pretty much.

Myths busted at climate change conference | Human Events

Not sure if I'd call these folks 'knuckle dragging' through. That would appear to be awfully bold and needlessly and unfairly dismissive for a valid position.

A Heartland Institute conference (you know, the same people who were the think tank for tobacco companies fighting regulation and saying the science was not certain?)????

Thats almost the textbook definition of 'knuckle dragging'.
 
A Heartland Institute conference (you know, the same people who were the think tank for tobacco companies fighting regulation and saying the science was not certain?)????Thats almost the textbook definition of 'knuckle dragging'.
Neither the conference or the people involved concerned tobacco. You don't understand irony.
 
A Heartland Institute conference (you know, the same people who were the think tank for tobacco companies fighting regulation and saying the science was not certain?)????

Thats almost the textbook definition of 'knuckle dragging'.

During the breakfast session on Day 2, Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore

Do you consider one of the founding members of Greenpeace to be so er... I don't know what the modern form of heretical is... that you will not even consider what he has to say?
 
A Heartland Institute conference (you know, the same people who were the think tank for tobacco companies fighting regulation and saying the science was not certain?)????

Thats almost the textbook definition of 'knuckle dragging'.

Hmm.
  • Joe Bastardi - Penn State University a degree in meteorology
    Joe Bastardi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Patrick Moore - Canadian environmentalist
    Patrick Moore (environmentalist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Patrick Michaels, a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and former program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society
    Patrick Michaels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Connecticut
    Myths busted at climate change conference | Human Events
  • Dr. John Dunn, a medical doctor, attorney, and advisor for the American Council on Science and Health, debunked EPA assertions that restrictions on power plant emissions will save lives and benefit human health.
    Myths busted at climate change conference | Human Events
  • Heartland Institute Senior Fellow James M. Taylor provided a concise and compelling summary of the scientific evidence for modest instead of severe global warming.
    Taylor received his bachelor's degree from Dartmouth College where he studied atmospheric science and majored in government. He received his Juris Doctorate from Syracuse University. James M. Taylor | Heartland Institute
  • E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., founder and national spokesman of the Cornwall Alliance; Paul Driessen, J.D., a senior advisor to the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise; and Peter Ferrara, J.D., a senior fellow of The Heartland Institute.
    Panelists Beisner, Driessen, and Ferrara all argued climate alarmists tend to be radical environmentalists who view people primarily as polluters and consumers who use up Earth’s resources and poison the planet in the process, never seeing free people as voluntarily being good stewards of natural resources. Through the manmade global warming alarm, activists have used governments to deny affordable and reliable energy and other modern blessings to the developing world, panelists noted.
    Myths busted at climate change conference | Human Events

(*Sarcasm*) Yeah, you are right. They are all knuckle draggers with PhD. degrees or other advanced degrees, and / or years of experience in the subject, and really don't know anything.

I think that's a fail.
 
Hmm.
  • Joe Bastardi - Penn State University a degree in meteorology
    Joe Bastardi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Patrick Moore - Canadian environmentalist
    Patrick Moore (environmentalist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Patrick Michaels, a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and former program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society
    Patrick Michaels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Connecticut
    Myths busted at climate change conference | Human Events
  • Dr. John Dunn, a medical doctor, attorney, and advisor for the American Council on Science and Health, debunked EPA assertions that restrictions on power plant emissions will save lives and benefit human health.
    Myths busted at climate change conference | Human Events
  • Heartland Institute Senior Fellow James M. Taylor provided a concise and compelling summary of the scientific evidence for modest instead of severe global warming.
    Taylor received his bachelor's degree from Dartmouth College where he studied atmospheric science and majored in government. He received his Juris Doctorate from Syracuse University. James M. Taylor | Heartland Institute
  • E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., founder and national spokesman of the Cornwall Alliance; Paul Driessen, J.D., a senior advisor to the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise; and Peter Ferrara, J.D., a senior fellow of The Heartland Institute.
    Panelists Beisner, Driessen, and Ferrara all argued climate alarmists tend to be radical environmentalists who view people primarily as polluters and consumers who use up Earth’s resources and poison the planet in the process, never seeing free people as voluntarily being good stewards of natural resources. Through the manmade global warming alarm, activists have used governments to deny affordable and reliable energy and other modern blessings to the developing world, panelists noted.
    Myths busted at climate change conference | Human Events

(*Sarcasm*) Yeah, you are right. They are all knuckle draggers with PhD. degrees or other advanced degrees, and / or years of experience in the subject, and really don't know anything.

I think that's a fail.

Finding a bunch of nutjobs with PhDs isnt that hard when you pay them well.

These guys are mostly sort of a joke in scientific terms.
More info here: https://web.archive.org/web/2014071...titute-hitches-anti-science-wagon-freedomfest
 
Hmm.
  • Joe Bastardi - Penn State University a degree in meteorology
    Joe Bastardi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Patrick Moore - Canadian environmentalist
    Patrick Moore (environmentalist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Patrick Michaels, a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and former program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society
    Patrick Michaels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Connecticut
    Myths busted at climate change conference | Human Events
  • Dr. John Dunn, a medical doctor, attorney, and advisor for the American Council on Science and Health, debunked EPA assertions that restrictions on power plant emissions will save lives and benefit human health.
    Myths busted at climate change conference | Human Events
  • Heartland Institute Senior Fellow James M. Taylor provided a concise and compelling summary of the scientific evidence for modest instead of severe global warming.
    Taylor received his bachelor's degree from Dartmouth College where he studied atmospheric science and majored in government. He received his Juris Doctorate from Syracuse University. James M. Taylor | Heartland Institute
  • E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., founder and national spokesman of the Cornwall Alliance; Paul Driessen, J.D., a senior advisor to the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise; and Peter Ferrara, J.D., a senior fellow of The Heartland Institute.
    Panelists Beisner, Driessen, and Ferrara all argued climate alarmists tend to be radical environmentalists who view people primarily as polluters and consumers who use up Earth’s resources and poison the planet in the process, never seeing free people as voluntarily being good stewards of natural resources. Through the manmade global warming alarm, activists have used governments to deny affordable and reliable energy and other modern blessings to the developing world, panelists noted.
    Myths busted at climate change conference | Human Events

(*Sarcasm*) Yeah, you are right. They are all knuckle draggers with PhD. degrees or other advanced degrees, and / or years of experience in the subject, and really don't know anything.

I think that's a fail.

I have a degree in a scientific field, should everyone listen to me? :lol:

The point is this is all a drop in the bucket. If you were to list all of those composing the mainstream view about global warming it would cover thousands of pages of references.

Having a degree and holding a title does not necessarily mean you are not a nutcase or even remotely right about anything. Certainly it is noteworthy and elevates them above the typical science enthusiast and should be considered, but is in no way proof of anything.
 
Do you consider one of the founding members of Greenpeace to be so er... I don't know what the modern form of heretical is... that you will not even consider what he has to say?

Well, I guess I consider a guy that SAYS he was a founding member of Greenpeace but he actually seems to be, errr.. lying... to be a little suspect in the veracity department.

I guess you have no problem with someone who lies and misrepresents their past if it fits in with your beliefs, though. Good luck with that.

Greenpeace's statement in part says:

Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace
Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace.
 
Finding a bunch of nutjobs with PhDs isnt that hard when you pay them well.

These guys are mostly sort of a joke in scientific terms.
More info here: https://web.archive.org/web/2014071...titute-hitches-anti-science-wagon-freedomfest

Dunno, but if they are such a joke in scientific term, why would they be receiving awards for their standards and content?
The DeSmogBlog, founded in January 2006, is a blog that focuses on topics related to global warming. The site describes itself as "the world's number one source for accurate, fact based information regarding Global Warming misinformation campaigns."[SUP][1][/SUP] DeSmogBlog opposes what it describes as "a well-funded and highly organized public relations campaign" that it says is "poisoning" the climate change debate.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP]
Since its inception, the site has received several mentions in the media regarding its involvement in global warming issues. The site was co-founded by Jim Hoggan, president of a public relations firm based in Vancouver, Canada. The website was recognized in December 2007 with an award by a trade organization for its standards and content.[SUP][4][/SUP]
DeSmogBlog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4 - "The University of Victoria's Independent Newspaper". The Martlet The University of Victoria's Independent Newspaper. Retrieved 2010-04-21.

Why wouldn't they be dismissed, just as you have dismissed them?
 
I have a degree in a scientific field, should everyone listen to me? :lol:

The point is this is all a drop in the bucket. If you were to list all of those composing the mainstream view about global warming it would cover thousands of pages of references.

Having a degree and holding a title does not necessarily mean you are not a nutcase or even remotely right about anything. Certainly it is noteworthy and elevates them above the typical science enthusiast and should be considered, but is in no way proof of anything.

So the same observation and measure should be applied to the scientific community that are climate alarmists then?
 
So the same observation and measure should be applied to the scientific community that are climate alarmists then?

Define alarmist. I would assume you either mean "mainstream scientific opinion" or a strawman consisting of a nutty scientists screaming the world is going to end tomorrow. Either way the term doesn't apply to the larger body of science that has determined global warming is a serious long term threat.

Sure, everyone should be observed and measured, but you'll likely find a lot less "prolific" views within the mainstream community. The deniers generally consist of fringe elements of science, the mainstream is just that, solid science and views.
 
It is very easy to find sources on a lot of subjects. For example I can find soucres that ”proves” that the moanlanding is a hoax. If you are not an expert you can even believe it something is fishy about the moonlanding. That you have to look at the credibility of the sources, and then you can see all the scientific and credibility sources show that the moonlanding is not a hoax.


10 Reasons the Moon Landings Could Be a Hoax - Listverse


That if you want to look at the debate on global warming you have to first look at the diffrent sources. And if you look at this debate it only the people believing in the scientific communities that have linked to real scientific sources.


Also it is but risk taking.That I pointed to sources that show that the cost of reducing greenhouse gases can be relative little and also have benefits for example to local communities. That at the same time doing nothing is extremly costly and dangereus according to the scientific community.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...report-global-warming-climate-change-science/

Climate dollars and sense


Even American military organizations warns about the national security threath of global warming.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/u...rity-threat-by-military-researchers.html?_r=0

http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/MAB_2014.pdf

http://www.cna.org/sites/default/fi... and the Threat of Climate Change - Print.pdf

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Quadrennial_Defense_Review.pdf


Should you then take the risk and do nothing?

When you have 10 or 20 or 50 or 100 sources citing the same information, that is not the same thing as 10 or 20 or 50 or 100 independent opinions. Repeating the same assigned talking points or catch phrases or code words again and again and again does not make them any more valid.

To put it into the simplest terms, what if your contractor told you the project would be done on Saturday. But when Saturday comes around and no workmen show up he says that it didn't work out for Saturday but Tuesday should be good. But on Tuesday he moves the date again and then again and. . . .how many times will he disappoint you before you realize he probably isn't going to do the job at all?

So how many times should we believe the AGW scientists whose models again and again and again have proved wrong about conditions that exist? And each time they turn out to miss the mark they move the goal posts, change the language, redefine the expectations, and redesign the formulas, and even the terms to keep the money rolling in while never admitting that they were just flat wrong? How gullible are we supposed to be?

I know people up close and personal who work directly and indirectly for the Dept of Defense and they assure me that climate change is waaaaaaaaaay down on the list of anything they are worried about regardless of how the leftwing media spins it.

Looking to government to dictate policy, procedures, regulations re what the climate is likely to be in 50 years makes about as much sense as basing your economic planning on what your stockbroker tells you the market will look like in 50 years. Both have self-serving reasons to tell us what is advantageous to them now while neither have a clue how the world will be 50 years from now.
 
Last edited:
Define alarmist. I would assume you either mean "mainstream scientific opinion" or a strawman consisting of a nutty scientists screaming the world is going to end tomorrow. Either way the term doesn't apply to the larger body of science that has determined global warming is a serious long term threat.

Sure, everyone should be observed and measured, but you'll likely find a lot less "prolific" views within the mainstream community. The deniers generally consist of fringe elements of science, the mainstream is just that, solid science and views.

The alarmists that content it's to the benefit of all human kind to destroy most of the world's economies to that the become as carbon neutral as possible as quickly as possible.

The alarmists that content through solar, wind and sea, there'll be enough electrical generation to close all the coal fired plants. We know this not to be true.

The alarmists that content that Earth's warming is a man made artifact, when it's really not been proven that it is. My understanding is that it may yet turn out to be part of the normal, larger Earth climate cycle.

The alarmists that content their climate models are accurate, when in fact they've yet to predict a single thing with any sort of accuracy.

Yeah, those guys.

Now, I'm willing to take some simple, cheap (remember the 80/20 rule) measured steps to reduce man's impact on the planet, that's only prudent.

But I refuse to place any world economies in jeopardy without accurate models by which to accurately measure progress and severity. That's not prudent, action without a way to accurately measure.

And yet, you are calling the models, the science, on this the alarmist's cries are based, as 'solid science'? :lamo
 
To put it into the simplest terms, what if your contractor told you the project would be done on Saturday. But when Saturday comes around and no workmen show up he says that it didn't work out for Saturday but Tuesday should be good. But on Tuesday he moves the date again and then again and. . . .how many times will he disappoint you before you realize he probably isn't going to do the job at all?

Using that analogy, what if you had a contractor that told you your building would fall down if it wasnt reinforced, and you consulted 99 others - and 97 of those 100 said yes, its going to fall unless you fix it.

Would you poll passersby on the street and if only 20% agreed with the contractors, would you feel comfortable moving your kids and family in to the house?
 
Further, I'm very suspicious as to the often claimed 97% concensus.

“0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%”
PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013
A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.
A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added]

The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21[SUP]st[/SUP] year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.
The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.
This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations’ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming “95% confidence” in the imagined – and, as the new paper shows, imaginary – consensus.
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: a Rejoinder to ‘Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change’ decisively rejects suggestions by Cook and others that those who say few scientists explicitly support the supposedly near-unanimous climate consensus are misinforming and misleading the public.
Cooks ’97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors | Watts Up With That?

I'm not certain that there's 97% scientific consensus any ANYTHING.
 
The alarmists that content it's to the benefit of all human kind to destroy most of the world's economies to that the become as carbon neutral as possible as quickly as possible.

The alarmists that content through solar, wind and sea, there'll be enough electrical generation to close all the coal fired plants. We know this not to be true.
First off, I think the word you're looking for is "contend".

This would be done through a transition, not all at once. The goal is isn't necessarily to close them all, but that could be the end result. The goal is to reduce carbon emissions so working towards that as best we can is better than nothing.

The alarmists that content that Earth's warming is a man made artifact, when it's really not been proven that it is. My understanding is that it may yet turn out to be part of the normal, larger Earth climate cycle.
The science supports the notion that global warming is mostly man made through release of Co2. There is no such thing as "proving" anything. Science is about going with the best information and evidence and right now the science strongly supports AGW, this is unlikely to change but possible.

The alarmists that content their climate models are accurate, when in fact they've yet to predict a single thing with any sort of accuracy.
The models are not the end all be all of AGW, this is a myth. Another myth is that the models are flat out "wrong". They have had some issues but are still the best tool we have to predict future needs and mitigation strategies.

Yeah, those guys.

Now, I'm willing to take some simple, cheap (remember the 80/20 rule) measured steps to reduce man's impact on the planet, that's only prudent.

But I refuse to place any world economies in jeopardy without accurate models by which to accurately measure progress and severity. That's not prudent, action without a way to accurately measure.
"Those guys" have done a great job working out a tremendous amount of science that strongly supports significant international action to combat global warming.

Mitigation can be done without destroying the world economies, in fact, mitigation will save us from terrible consequences that will be far more costly than preventive measures.
 
The Koch brothers have done an admirable job making Climate Science into politics.
I don't think the Koch brothers had anything to do with cap and trade legislation. If we're going to start assigning blame to people who have politicized this issue it pretty much starts and stops with cap and trade. Take that away and does this even enter the political arena?

The issue got politicized when people started talking about "solutions" and when those solutions have the effect of raping the middle class via MUCH higher energy costs, naturally there is going to be some pretty hefty push-back. It also doesn't help when the seats at the head table of the proposed 'carbon exchange' have already been delegated to the same people who brought you the housing bubble a few years ago.

Never ceases to amaze me how the Kochs always seem to take the heat while the boards of directors on Wall Street get a free pass...
 
Using that analogy, what if you had a contractor that told you your building would fall down if it wasnt reinforced, and you consulted 99 others - and 97 of those 100 said yes, its going to fall unless you fix it.

Would you poll passersby on the street and if only 20% agreed with the contractors, would you feel comfortable moving your kids and family in to the house?

But it doesn't work like that. If a local scam artist contractor tells me my house will fall down unless I fix it, I will get a second opinion. If 97% of 10 other scam artists tell me the same thing while experts who have no personal interest in my property do not see it as a serious problem needing an immediate solution, should I listen to the 97%? Or go with common sense?

If 97% of mechanics at one repair shop tell you that you need a new engine block for XXX $$$ and you take it to another shop for a second opinion and are told your engine block is just fine, do you go with the 97%? Or do you exercise some reasoned common sense?
 
So now the deniers will be saying the temperature has been decreasing since 1936.

And the knuckle dragging crowd will agree.

No, the people who can READ now realize that the NOAA fudged the numbers to make their initial assertion that July 2012 was the hottest month on record.

And if I were you I wouldn't make fun of the " knuckle draggers ".

Their reading comprehension seems to outpace your own on a exponential scale.
 
First off, I think the word you're looking for is "contend".

Yes. Contend.

This would be done through a transition, not all at once. The goal is isn't necessarily to close them all, but that could be the end result. The goal is to reduce carbon emissions so working towards that as best we can is better than nothing.

Problem is all the green generation sachems fall well short of current demand, not to mention projected demand. Only way to provide the demanded base load is nuclear, but that's not popular at all, but would, however, be not be a source of carbon emissions. But you can't get it past the popular part.

The science supports the notion that global warming is mostly man made through release of Co2. There is no such thing as "proving" anything. Science is about going with the best information and evidence and right now the science strongly supports AGW, this is unlikely to change but possible.

I'm sorry, but I just heard from your post here that you can't prove AGW, so why do you want me to spend all this money again?

The models are not the end all be all of AGW, this is a myth. Another myth is that the models are flat out "wrong". They have had some issues but are still the best tool we have to predict future needs and mitigation strategies.

No, I'm not saying that the models are flat out wrong, just that they can't predict with any sort of accuracy. The models certainly can be used to identify certain aspects of climate requiring further study and modeling refinement.


"Those guys" have done a great job working out a tremendous amount of science that strongly supports significant international action to combat global warming.

If you buy into the whole thing, sure.

Mitigation can be done without destroying the world economies, in fact, mitigation will save us from terrible consequences that will be far more costly than preventive measures.

Again, if you buy into the whole thing, sure.

Until the models are of such a maturity that they can be used as a tool for progress measurement and severity estimation, how are we to know if we are doing too much? Doing too little? What if we do too much, and start another ice age? I see this as being a risk that is neglected as to being addressed.
 
But it doesn't work like that. If a local scam artist contractor tells me my house will fall down unless I fix it, I will get a second opinion. If 97% of 10 other scam artists tell me the same thing while experts who have no personal interest in my property do not see it as a serious problem needing an immediate solution, should I listen to the 97%? Or go with common sense?

If 97% of mechanics at one repair shop tell you that you need a new engine block for XXX $$$ and you take it to another shop for a second opinion and are told your engine block is just fine, do you go with the 97%? Or do you exercise some reasoned common sense?

If you think scientists are scam artists, that's your problem.


10561564_884616444892701_1946607602638187241_n.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom