• 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!

A Grab Bag of Global Warming Misconceptions

LowDown

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Sea Level:

The AGW line is that the rate of sea level rise is increasing, but sea levels adjusted for isostatic movement show no such increase.

Polar Bears:

The AGW line is that polar bears are dying off due to warming, but polar bear populations have increased since 1970.

Mosquitoes:

The AGW line is that warmer weather will bring malarial mosquitoes into temperate zones like the continental US, but malaria was endemic to the continental US in the 1880s. Malaria was eliminated from the continental US by advances in technology. The idea that malarial mosquitoes require tropical weather is a fallacy.

Death Due to Extreme Weather:

The AGW line is that more people die from extreme heat due to global warming, but deaths from extreme weather have declined since 1970, when most of the AGW has supposedly taken place. Many more people die from extreme cold than extreme heat. And, in any case, the frequency of heat waves has not increased globally..

Hurricanes:

The AGW line is that hurricanes will become more numerous and intense with global warming, but there has been no increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes compared to most previous decades.

http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part4_ClimaticEvents.htm#sea
 
This just in: internet forum poster knows more than the entire scientific community.

If climate change is bull****, publish your findings and collect your nobel prize. Massive fame and fortune await you. What are you waiting for?
 
The gig is up on global warming alarmism for sure..
 
RabidAlpaca said:
This just in: internet forum poster knows more than the entire scientific community.

If climate change is bull****, publish your findings and collect your nobel prize. Massive fame and fortune await you. What are you waiting for?
Click to expand...

Climate change is not BS, it has happened many times, but defining the "ideal" climate as that of any particular period in the planet's history is BS. A global climate agreement is just as attainable as a global peace agreement.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Climate change is not BS, it has happened many times, but defining the "ideal" climate as that of any particular period in the planet's history is BS. A global climate agreement is just as attainable as a global peace agreement.
Click to expand...

You can't make an agreement when both sides won't even admit there's a problem. The ideal climate is a climate that allows us, and our food, be it plants or animals, to grow and thrive.

Climate deniers reject even considering the possibility that humans have an impact on the environment. It comes purely from a place of ignorance and self-centeredness. If they had a single ounce of integrity or conviction in their beliefs they would publish their findings and change the course of history. Of course, they don't, so they're confined to making up bull**** on internet forums.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
You can't make an agreement when both sides won't even admit there's a problem. The ideal climate is a climate that allows us, and our food, be it plants or animals, to grow and thrive.

Climate deniers reject even considering the possibility that humans have an impact on the environment. It comes purely from a place of ignorance and self-centeredness. If they had a single ounce of integrity or conviction in their beliefs they would publish their findings and change the course of history. Of course, they don't, so they're confined to making up bull**** on internet forums.
Click to expand...

OK, but that now varies by climate zone or region. Is the climate of Guam more or less "ideal" than that of Siberia? Obviously, you can't grow oranges in Canada or hunt moose in Costa Rica but humans do fine in either climate.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, but that now varies by climate zone or region. Is the climate of Guam more or less "ideal" than that of Siberia? Obviously, you can't grow oranges in Canada or hunt moose in Costa Rica but humans do fine in either climate.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about micro-managing every region of the earth to optimize for the best climate, we're trying to keep the earth as a whole livable for us and our food. For the vast majority of earth's history it was completely incompatible with human life. We should be talking about how to keep it that way. It's a fact that human beings on America's coastline can't breath water.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
You can't make an agreement when both sides won't even admit there's a problem. The ideal climate is a climate that allows us, and our food, be it plants or animals, to grow and thrive.

Climate deniers reject even considering the possibility that humans have an impact on the environment. It comes purely from a place of ignorance and self-centeredness. If they had a single ounce of integrity or conviction in their beliefs they would publish their findings and change the course of history. Of course, they don't, so they're confined to making up bull**** on internet forums.
Click to expand...

No. We, who are accused of being climate science deniers agree that the science shows a warmoing. That the impact of humanity on climate is to warm it. You deny that we have told you this many many times.....

I would like it to warm to the upper end of the IPCC's predictions but I don't see any data to suggest that it will. I think that we should expect that any human induced warming will only get to the lower end of the IPCC's range of increase.

It's a shame because the slight improvement in agricultural productivity that we get with the lower end is not at all as good as the upper end and I just can't see anything that is at all bad about an increase of +3c.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
We're not talking about micro-managing every region of the earth to optimize for the best climate, we're trying to keep the earth as a whole livable for us and our food. For the vast majority of earth's history it was completely incompatible with human life. We should be talking about how to keep it that way. It's a fact that human beings on America's coastline can't breath water.
Click to expand...

Do you know what the sea level increase projections are? According to the science that is????
 
Tim the plumber said:
No. We, who are accused of being climate science deniers agree that the science shows a warmoing. That the impact of humanity on climate is to warm it. You deny that we have told you this many many times.....

I would like it to warm to the upper end of the IPCC's predictions but I don't see any data to suggest that it will. I think that we should expect that any human induced warming will only get to the lower end of the IPCC's range of increase.

It's a shame because the slight improvement in agricultural productivity that we get with the lower end is not at all as good as the upper end and I just can't see anything that is at all bad about an increase of +3c.
Click to expand...
Tim the plumber said:
Do you know what the sea level increase projections are? According to the science that is????
Click to expand...

If you admit the climate is changing and that we as humans have an effect on it, you're not really a climate denier. I don't know why you would lump yourself in with a group of people who say not only do humans have no effect, the climate isn't changing at all. We can discuss the magnitude and possible solutions for the problem, not that it exists in the first place. Unfortunately it looks like Trump is going to appoint a young-earth-creationist-level climate denier to head the EPA.
 
Tim the plumber said:
It's a shame because the slight improvement in agricultural productivity that we get with the lower end is not at all as good as the upper end and I just can't see anything that is at all bad about an increase of +3c.
Click to expand...

Well if you don't mind the states of Florida, Louisiana, and Hawaii being under water, and far more violent tornado and hurricane seasons, about entire nations and islands around the world being sunk under water and the rest of the world having to deal with the refugees from all those places, then... yeah, there's nothing to worry about. It's all cool.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
It's a fact that human beings on America's coastline can't breath water.
Click to expand...


Those poor souls! If only there was some way we could migrate them a few miles inland over the next couple of centuries. Alas, no joy...
 
jeffchap said:
Those poor souls! If only there was some way we could migrate them a few miles inland over the next couple of centuries. Alas, no joy...
Click to expand...

I listed one consequence of many. I think it's interesting that as a "conservative" you'll completely dismiss trillions of dollars in damage and millions of Americans losing their homes over something that could be solved with billions of dollars.

If you think climate change is bull****, publish your evidence and become mind-blowingly rich and famous.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
We're not talking about micro-managing every region of the earth to optimize for the best climate, we're trying to keep the earth as a whole livable for us and our food. For the vast majority of earth's history it was completely incompatible with human life. We should be talking about how to keep it that way. It's a fact that human beings on America's coastline can't breath water.
Click to expand...

It is also a fact that people move as the climate (environment?) dictates unless they get massive subsidies like New Orleans.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
... Climate deniers reject even considering the possibility that humans
have an impact on the environment ...
Click to expand...
That's a lie.

Suppose you list the prominent PhDs on my side of the coin or any one for that matter
that reject the possibility of human impact on the environment.
 
Steve Case said:
That's a lie.

Suppose you list the prominent PhDs on my side of the coin or any one for that matter
that reject the possibility of human impact on the environment.
Click to expand...

Sure. Here the next president of the United States:
"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Climate deniers reject even considering the possibility that humans have an impact on the environment.
Click to expand...

None of us in this thread is a denier.

Please go elsewhere with your horse pucky.

We acknowledge AGW is real. Just not has bad as claimed, and those of you who cry wolf should be ignored.
 
ataraxia said:
Sure. Here the next president of the United States:
"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."
Click to expand...

I looked in your response for something indicating a rejection of human impact on the environment.

Global warming and environment aren't the same thing.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
This just in: internet forum poster knows more than the entire scientific community.

If climate change is bull****, publish your findings and collect your nobel prize. Massive fame and fortune await you. What are you waiting for?
Click to expand...

Everything I posted here is already published, as per the links provided.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
We're not talking about micro-managing every region of the earth to optimize for the best climate, we're trying to keep the earth as a whole livable for us and our food. For the vast majority of earth's history it was completely incompatible with human life. We should be talking about how to keep it that way. It's a fact that human beings on America's coastline can't breath water.
Click to expand...

I have good news. Climate change is real, CO2 has an effect on the environment, humans increase CO2 emissions, and there is nothing to worry about.

And yes, I think that climate science has been completely corrupted by government money, and nothing those guys say can be trusted. We are left to try to figure it out for ourselves.

Advocacy of some sort of world wide government effort to change the climate, an effort that would cost trillions and trillions and intrude oppressively on the lives of billions of people, would not pass muster with Hayek, I'm thinking.
 
LowDown said:
I have good news. Climate change is real, CO2 has an effect on the environment, humans increase CO2 emissions, and there is nothing to worry about.

And yes, I think that climate science has been completely corrupted by government money, and nothing those guys say can be trusted. We are left to try to figure it out for ourselves.

Advocacy of some sort of world wide government effort to change the climate, an effort that would cost trillions and trillions and intrude oppressively on the lives of billions of people, would not pass muster with Hayek, I'm thinking.
Click to expand...

Please present the evidence of your conspiracy theory that all the world's scientists are in on a world domination scheme. Then you can collect your nobel prize and fame.

ttwtt78640 said:
It is also a fact that people move as the climate (environment?) dictates unless they get massive subsidies like New Orleans.
Click to expand...

So what is your point exactly? We should ignore climate change because we can migrate? Away from the global climate?
 
Steve Case said:
I looked in your response for something indicating a rejection of human impact on the environment.

Global warming and environment aren't the same thing.
Click to expand...

So you don't think global warming is an environmental issue?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Please present the evidence of your conspiracy theory that all the world's scientists are in on a world domination scheme. Then you can collect your nobel prize and fame.
Click to expand...

It's very simple. These guys are being paid to hue to the AGW party line, and that's what they are doing. Dissenters are punished with loss of funding and loss of jobs. The overall result is inevitable -- corruption of the science.
 
ataraxia said:
So you don't think global warming is an environmental issue?
Click to expand...

Global Warming/Climate Change is not the same thing as environmentalism.
You want to claim it is? Go ahead, knock yourself out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom