• 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

cabse5 said:
You kinda explained my point for me, thanks. That the scientific community has strong biases as a theory is first introduced... even though they call themselves 'scientists'. However, as the data and consequent testing helps to prove (if no other qualified scientist can find major errors in testing results or interpretation) or disprove a theory, scientists finally come around to accepting or not accepting the validity of a theory, unless the theory has a HUGE amount of ideology to overcome sometimes scientists like, for example, Galileo are disproved even though they have no errors in their logic or findings. Or theories like AGW are 'proved' without any evidence.
Click to expand...

Have you ever looked for the evidence? You might be shocked at what you find...
 
eohrnberger said:
How does Evolution imply matter evolving into a complex state?

From my understanding, Evolution is the result of selective reproduction, in that those with genetic variances that have a positive survival impact propagate those genetic variances to a greater extent than those without it. Accumulated long enough, a new species comes to rise.
Click to expand...
Doesn't the first sentence of your post summarize the second second sentence of your post succinctly? If it doesn't you'd better explain that to me.
 
Verax said:
Have you ever looked for the evidence? You might be shocked at what you find...
Click to expand...
All I know is believers in global warming don't use greenhouse gases (the base explanation for global warming) to explain global warming, they use man's pollution of the environment as an explanation of global warming, and besides, their data is inconclusive (unless one believes in AGW).
 
cabse5 said:
Doesn't the first sentence of your post summarize the second second sentence of your post succinctly? If it doesn't you'd better explain that to me.
Click to expand...

No I don't think so.

The second sentence describes the evolution of living things, which are already complex systems.

Isn't your post saying that matter, that would be non-living materials, evolve, as you call it, into living things? Isn't that a different question? Or am I not understanding you correctly?

To me, your question is specifically raising the question about the instant that non-living matter transformed into a living thing, the origination of life forms itself.

Miller–Urey experiment - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At least so it is currently hypothesized, to my understanding anyway.
 
That a majority of scientists believe in the AGW explanation before corroborating evidence can be found to support the AGW hypothesis, shows their biases. Those who test and don't agree are unbelievers. Are 'blasphemers'. Let's find some facts on this, OK. I'm sick of your ideologies.
 
eohrnberger said:
No I don't think so.

The second sentence describes the evolution of living things, which are already complex systems.

Isn't your post saying that matter, that would be non-living materials, evolve, as you call it, into living things? Isn't that a different question? Or am I not understanding you correctly?

To me, your question is specifically raising the question about the instant that non-living matter transformed into a living thing, the origination of life forms itself.

Miller–Urey experiment - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At least so it is currently hypothesized, to my understanding anyway.
Click to expand...
OK, for you, I've always been referring to living organisms...
 
cabse5 said:
All I know is believers in global warming don't use greenhouse gases (the base explanation for global warming) to explain global warming, they use man's pollution of the environment as an explanation of global warming, and besides, their data is inconclusive (unless one believes in AGW).
Click to expand...

"Believers in global warming"? I'm a trustee of the scientific community and if they say AGW is happening and the evidence is strong I believe them. Greenhouse gas, mostly Co2, is the main culprit for GW. I have never heard somebody say pollution (but not Co2) is causing GW.

You're not really making much sense here.
 
cabse5 said:
That a majority of scientists believe in the AGW explanation before corroborating evidence can be found to support the AGW hypothesis, shows their biases. Those who test and don't agree are unbelievers. Are 'blasphemers'. Let's find some facts on this, OK. I'm sick of your ideologies.
Click to expand...

Given the fact that the corroborating evidence is quite clear, I think YOU are the one showing your ideology. And its incompatible with science.

For the corroborating evidence, just check my sig.
 
Verax said:
"Believers in global warming"? I'm a trustee of the scientific community and if they say AGW is happening and the evidence is strong I believe them. Greenhouse gas, mostly Co2, is the main culprit for GW. I have never heard somebody say pollution (but not Co2) is causing GW.

You're not really making much sense here.
Click to expand...
Even though AGW reduces CO2 (less than 5 percent of all earthly greenhouse gases) AGW doesn't target the reduction of greenhouse gases because:
(1) water vapor is about 95 percent of all earthly greenhouse gases. Water vapor is always in earth's atmosphere in the cycle of rain to evaporation to rain.
(2) methane, another greenhouse gas, has been tested to be approximately 25 times MORE EFFECTIVE in trapping heat in earth's atmosphere than CO2.

AGW doesn't attempt to reduce great portions of greenhouse gases, just CO2, because of the belief that man is the main (only) causer of global warming. Maybe this global warming disaster you predict isn't imminent?
 
Last edited:
eohrnberger said:
Yeah, so any opinion or position that you disagree with are 'opinions not of any worth whatsoever'? Hmm. Let me ponder that for awhile.

Besides, if only 20% of the people believe the matter to be settled, how do you expect to effect legislation and policy with such a minority position? Isn't that the real question besides impugning those that disagree with you?
Click to expand...

Actually (and sadly) that is the only tangible conclusion one can derive from the poll: not the quality of the opinions expressed (they're uneducated), but the failure of the science community's effort to convince the public in the face of 24/7 propaganda against global warming. And yes, as you said, the resulting difficulty in creating legislation that adequately combats it.
 
cabse5 said:
Even though AGW reduces CO2 (less than 5 percent of all earthly greenhouse gases) AGW doesn't target the reduction of greenhouse gases because:
(1) water vapor is about 95 percent of all earthly greenhouse gases. Water vapor is always in earth's atmosphere in the cycle of rain to evaporation to rain.
(2) methane has been tested to be approximately 25 times MORE EFFECTIVE in trapping heat in earth's atmosphere than CO2.

AGW doesn't reduce all the greenhouse gases, just CO2, because they believe man is the main (only) causer of global warming.
Click to expand...

Well said. You clearly understand the issues quite well. Have another boilermaker.
 
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...

Over?

Well for me it's not so much 'over' as it's 'the same **** that people keep repeating and it's nothing new' at this point.

So over no - tiring yes.
 
Cardinal said:
Actually (and sadly) that is the only tangible conclusion one can derive from the poll: not the quality of the opinions expressed (they're uneducated), but the failure of the science community's effort to convince the public in the face of 24/7 propaganda against global warming. And yes, as you said, the resulting difficulty in creating legislation that adequately combats it.
Click to expand...

But your entire premise is founded on assumption that global warming, specifically human caused global warming, is correct.

I submit that this, as of yet, not a proven assumption, as would 80% of the people surveyed.

Further, you are so convinced in the assumption that that global warming, specifically human caused global warming, is correct and without a doubt, that any information or opinions that counter this are dismissed as propaganda and uneducated people.

I'm guessing that you can tell by now that you aren't going to get very far with this attitude that you (and others of the global warming front) hold, which is that you all are so convinced that human caused global warming is correct, and the rest of the dissenters need to just shut up and go away and be overruled. This isn't how you go about making friends and influencing enemies, you know.

All in all, seems that you and others are playing Don Quixote, and the greater resistance is simply the reaction to the attitude. And the resistance is of your own making. In the end this'll lose for that very reason.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Over?

Well for me it's not so much 'over' as it's 'the same **** that people keep repeating and it's nothing new' at this point.

So over no - tiring yes.
Click to expand...

I'll second that Spike....I swear sometimes it's like trying to talk with the guy wearing the sandwich board on the corner, screaming "Repent your sins, the end is near".....
 
j-mac said:
I'll second that Spike....I swear sometimes it's like trying to talk with the guy wearing the sandwich board on the corner, screaming "Repent your sins, the end is near".....
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's all getting to be a bit much.
 
cabse5 said:
Even though AGW reduces CO2 (less than 5 percent of all earthly greenhouse gases) AGW doesn't target the reduction of greenhouse gases because:
(1) water vapor is about 95 percent of all earthly greenhouse gases. Water vapor is always in earth's atmosphere in the cycle of rain to evaporation to rain.
(2) methane, another greenhouse gas, has been tested to be approximately 25 times MORE EFFECTIVE in trapping heat in earth's atmosphere than CO2.

AGW doesn't attempt to reduce great portions of greenhouse gases, just CO2, because of the belief that man is the main (only) causer of global warming. Maybe this global warming disaster you predict isn't imminent?
Click to expand...

The natural composition of the atmosphere contains water and methane and yes they are greenhouse gases. However they are also natural and belong there because of the history of the Earth. This natural cycle is longstanding and slow, its changes happen over thousands of years. Life has adapted to these conditions, slowly, over billions of years.

Man venting Co2 into the atmosphere is not natural, it is changing the composition of it. This effect is changing the climate through global warming. Why would we not address the man made changes that are causing this change?

We need some greenhouse gases to keep the Earth warm, it is a balance that has been worked out over millions of years. We are upsetting this balance.
 
eohrnberger said:
But your entire premise is founded on assumption that global warming, specifically human caused global warming, is correct.

I submit that this, as of yet, not a proven assumption, as would 80% of the people surveyed.

Further, you are so convinced in the assumption that that global warming, specifically human caused global warming, is correct and without a doubt, that any information or opinions that counter this are dismissed as propaganda and uneducated people.

I'm guessing that you can tell by now that you aren't going to get very far with this attitude that you (and others of the global warming front) hold, which is that you all are so convinced that human caused global warming is correct, and the rest of the dissenters need to just shut up and go away and be overruled. This isn't how you go about making friends and influencing enemies, you know.

All in all, seems that you and others are playing Don Quixote, and the greater resistance is simply the reaction to the attitude. And the resistance is of your own making. In the end this'll lose for that very reason.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the premise of my argument. I'll cut and paste my argument for J-mac for you here. He couldn't handle it and was forced to run away, but maybe you can tackle it.

But all of this is a detour from my main point of interest which is this: why are you more interested in the "opinions" of people who have no training in a scientific field than those who do? What makes you think listening to those uneducated people will give you a more informed understanding of the topic? Let's say I'm trying to get my head around the topic of fixing my car. Which method of research is going to leave me more informed on the matter, and which will make me more ignorant?

1) Reading blogs and comments by art and philosophy majors, or
2) Going to forums specifically dedicated to car repair or, better yet, just asking a car mechanic directly

Now, keep in mind, people who are legitimately qualified to repair cars disagree with each other frequently, but which of those options is guaranteed to have me walking away even more of an idiot than I began?
 
Verax said:
Man venting Co2 into the atmosphere is not natural, it is changing the composition of it. This effect is changing the climate through global warming. Why would we not address the man made changes that are causing this change?
Click to expand...

You realize your saying that "Man venting Co2 into the atmosphere is not natural", you are thereby saying that man should stop breathing because we exhale Co2...So in the spirit of addressing the problem I suggest that all these AGW nuts contribute first by ceasing their exhalations....
 
j-mac said:
I'll second that Spike....I swear sometimes it's like trying to talk with the guy wearing the sandwich board on the corner, screaming "Repent your sins, the end is near".....
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that the guy with the sandwich board is not really saying that, and what his sign says is agreed upon by virtually every scientist who studies the issue and virtually every major scientific organization on the planet.

Only you guys think you understand the science better than the National Academy of Sciences.
 
j-mac said:
You realize your saying that "Man venting Co2 into the atmosphere is not natural", you are thereby saying that man should stop breathing because we exhale Co2...So in the spirit of addressing the problem I suggest that all these AGW nuts contribute first by ceasing their exhalations....
Click to expand...

You're funnier than you are educated, but not very funny.
 
j-mac said:
You realize your saying that "Man venting Co2 into the atmosphere is not natural", you are thereby saying that man should stop breathing because we exhale Co2...So in the spirit of addressing the problem I suggest that all these AGW nuts contribute first by ceasing their exhalations....
Click to expand...

Seems like a guy that disputes the conclusions of most scientists might want to UNDERSTAND the scientific issues before he comments.

But I guess you think that respiration = disruption in the carbon cycle....
 
j-mac said:
You realize your saying that "Man venting Co2 into the atmosphere is not natural", you are thereby saying that man should stop breathing because we exhale Co2...So in the spirit of addressing the problem I suggest that all these AGW nuts contribute first by ceasing their exhalations....
Click to expand...

Yup. I'm all for that. :lamo
 
Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over (part 1 of 2)

Cardinal said:
That wasn't the premise of my argument. I'll cut and paste my argument for J-mac for you here. He couldn't handle it and was forced to run away, but maybe you can tackle it.

But all of this is a detour from my main point of interest which is this: why are you more interested in the "opinions" of people who have no training in a scientific field than those who do? What makes you think listening to those uneducated people will give you a more informed understanding of the topic? Let's say I'm trying to get my head around the topic of fixing my car. Which method of research is going to leave me more informed on the matter, and which will make me more ignorant?

1) Reading blogs and comments by art and philosophy majors, or
2) Going to forums specifically dedicated to car repair or, better yet, just asking a car mechanic directly

Now, keep in mind, people who are legitimately qualified to repair cars disagree with each other frequently, but which of those options is guaranteed to have me walking away even more of an idiot than I began?
Click to expand...

I dispute the assertion that there is broad based consensus on the matter in the scientific community.

Many are listed here (with their accreditation): List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

as well as in these articles.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

Climate Study: Evidence Leans Against Human-Caused Global Warming

31,000 scientists say "no convincing evidence". — OSS Foundation

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer: The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' - WSJ
 
Threegoofs said:
Says: The NOAA fudges the data.

Says: You can tell by looking at the NOAA data.
Click to expand...


LOL !!

No, I can tell by their decision to quietly change their minds and admit that July 2012 was NOT the Hottest month on record.

You DO understand the concept of the Scientific method, don't you ?

Deliberately altering data to achieve the desired end result is only " Science " to the Liberals who are ideologically predisposed to believe what their politicians and the media tell them to believe .
 
Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over (part 1 of 2)

eohrnberger said:
I dispute the assertion that there is broad based consensus on the matter in the scientific community.

Many are listed here (with their accreditation): List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

as well as in these articles.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

Climate Study: Evidence Leans Against Human-Caused Global Warming

31,000 scientists say "no convincing evidence". — OSS Foundation

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer: The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' - WSJ
Click to expand...

You're actively (and super obviously) avoiding the question. Why are you attending a meeting of art and philosophy majors in discussing car repair instead of a meeting of car mechanics?

You can try like everybody else in this thread to draw me away from my point into a debate on global warming all day long, I guarantee you it won't work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom