• 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!

AGW: The best arguments a lay person can make!

J

James972

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2016
Messages
22,166
Reaction score
808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,
2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists predicted
3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.
4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies. This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it
5) Much current debate has been on a warming hiatus when new population and carbon highs should have shot temperature off the blade of the hockey stick.
6) Good scientists like Roger Pielke are driven out of the debate by leftists in the university monoculture who dont want the truth to interfere with their political agenda to use AGW to concentrate govt under the pretense of saving the planet from AGW
7) Climate scientists were the nerds of academia until AGW, now they are rock stars saving the planet. Any good crack in the consensus will instantly destroy them all as the worst scientists in history so they must ride this wave till the bitter end regardless of the science!! It seems very similar to the scientific consensus that developed many times in the field of nutrition.

Can anyone help me with any more?
 
Man Made Climate Change is occurring, virtually the only people in the world who doubt it to absurd extremes is to be found virtually exclusively among American Conservatives.

And all this means was the Oil Lobbies money was very well spent. :shrug:
 
Jetboogieman said:
Man Made Climate Change is occurring,:
Click to expand...

you mean climate is changing for the better as temp rises 1/100 degree per year? Do you have any evidence it is changing for the worse?
 
James972 said:
you mean climate is changing for the better as temp rises 1/100 degree per year? Do you have any evidence it is changing for the worse?
Click to expand...

The bees are dying!
 
Jetboogieman said:
Man Made Climate Change is occurring, virtually the only people in the world who doubt it to absurd extremes is to be found virtually exclusively among American Conservatives.

And all this means was the Oil Lobbies money was very well spent. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Really! ? Then why do they live from the sale of automobiles like the Germans do? If they believe it is deadly harmful, that would be criminal!
 
joG said:
The bees are dying!
Click to expand...
At first, no one knew why. But as my colleague Tom Philpott has reported extensively, in the last few years scientists have accumulated a compelling pile of evidence pointing to a class of insecticides called neonicotinoids. These chemicals are widely used in commercial agriculture but can have lethal effects on bees. Other pesticides are also adding to the toll. So are invasive parasites and a general decline in the quality of bees' diets.Here's Why All the Bees Are Dying | Mother Jones
 
joG said:
Really! ? Then why do they live from the sale of automobiles like the Germans do? If they believe it is deadly harmful, that would be criminal!
Click to expand...

Humans still smoke cigarettes :shrug:
 
joG said:
Really! ? Then why do they live from the sale of automobiles like the Germans do? If they believe it is deadly harmful, that would be criminal!
Click to expand...
no idea what you mean??
 
James972 said:
1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,
2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists predicted
3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.
4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies. This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it
5) Much current debate has been on a warming hiatus when new population and carbon highs should have shot temperature off the blade of the hockey stick.
6) Good scientists like Roger Pielke are driven out of the debate by leftists in the university monoculture who dont want the truth to interfere with their political agenda to use AGW to concentrate govt under the pretense of saving the planet from AGW
7) Climate scientists were the nerds of academia until AGW, now they are rock stars saving the planet. Any good crack in the consensus will instantly destroy them all as the worst scientists in history so they must ride this wave till the bitter end regardless of the science!! It seems very similar to the scientific consensus that developed many times in the field of nutrition.

Can anyone help me with any more?
Click to expand...

The bad science of Global Warming Catastrophy[SUP]tm[/SUP] has allowed the agri lobby to create the policy of using food as fuel. This is killing people faster than WWII ever did.

The world's poorest billion people live on less than $1.25 a day. Less than that. Basic food prices are 30% to 70% more than they should be because we use food as fuel.

Crimes against humanity.
 
James972 said:
1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,
2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists predicted
3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.
.....
Click to expand...
Extreme Hockey Stick

naam-ice-031.jpg




Rising, perhaps accelerating.
Just somewhat more curvilinear than Hockey Stick.
Tho a longer period, as the graph above, would show said Gretzky utensil.

Global-Mean-Surface-Temperature-Jan-through-June-2016.jpg
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Extreme Hockey Stick

naam-ice-031.jpg




Rising, perhaps accelerating.
Just somewhat more curvilinear than Hockey Stick.
Tho a longer period, as the graph above, would show said Gretzky utensil.

Global-Mean-Surface-Temperature-Jan-through-June-2016.jpg
Click to expand...

temperature going up is what you'd expect after an ice age, and you would not expect a hiatus given the huge increase in CO2 over the last 35 years if humans we causing it.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Man Made Climate Change is occurring, virtually the only people in the world who doubt it to absurd extremes is to be found virtually exclusively among American Conservatives.

And all this means was the Oil Lobbies money was very well spent. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Neither Nir Shaviv nor Henrik Svensmark is either American or conservative.
 
Jack Hays said:
Neither Nir Shaviv nor Henrik Svensmark is either American or conservative.
Click to expand...

and why do they say its science if they kick out the scientists who disagree with them?
 
Jack Hays said:
Neither has been kicked out.
Click to expand...

Prof Roger Pielke Ph.D was kicked out!!!!

"There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather. This is a topic I’ve studied and published on as much as anyone over two decades"

He wrote the "Climate fix " for full story about religion of AGW.
 
James972 said:
1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,
Click to expand...

The so-called 'hockey stick' describes the shape of graphs estimating climate variations over the past 800+ years, and often in particular the Mann, Bradley and Hughes 1999 graph which was featured along with several others in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC in 2001. There's nothing predictive about it. Paleoclimate studies have progressed since then, but the general 'hockey stick' shape of a warm medieval period generally cooling down into the 17th century with much more rapid warming in the 20th century has been validated by numerous subsequent studies.

IPCC AR5 WG1, Figure 5.7:
Fig5-07.jpg

2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists predicted
Click to expand...

Not surprisingly, given global population and development trends, about only about one-third of net positive anthropogenic climate forcing occurred before 1970 (IPCC AR5 WG1, Figure 8.18). The 20th century saw an earlier period of warming, a slight mid-century cooling, and a more rapid period of warming from about the mid 1970s. So the period of greatest anthropogenic influence correlates quite nicely with the period of most rapid warming...
mean:121


Fig8-18.jpg

3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.
Click to expand...

As shown in the paleoclimate graphs above, the rate of warming coming out of the Little Ice Age seems to have been considerably less than the rate of warming in the 20th century; about 0.2 degrees from 1700 to 1900 compared with about 0.7 degrees in the 20th century.

There's obviously a number of factors influencing climate trends; for example the sun's Maunder Minimum occurred around the same time as the Little Ice Age, and increasing solar activity over the next few centuries would have been a major (if not sole) contributor to that 0.2 degrees' warming, and to the early 20th century warming. However solar activity reached its peak in 1958, and after a smaller peak in 1979 has been generally declining since. (Historical Total Solar Irradiance reconstruction.)

Similarly oceanic circulation is probably responsible for much of multidecadal variation found in paleoclimate reconstructions, and the early 20th century warming and mid-century cooling. But whether we're talking about El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), the thing about these oscillations is that they oscillate :lol: On longer timeframes, their net influence on the world's climate is close to zero, because they are not new energy entering the climate system, simply overturning of the vast amounts of energy stored in the oceans.
trend

Solar activity, oceanic circulation, volcanism, albedo changes... their contributions to global temperature trends have been significant, particularly the early 20th century warming and mid-century cooling: But they can't account for the more rapid warming since the 1970s.



To be continued...
 
Last edited:
4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies. This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it
Click to expand...

You'll need a reference for that - as far as I've read, the opposite hasn't happened. Off the top of my head the only example I recall being cited for this is hurricanes... but only the very specific (ie, cherry picked) case of hurricanes making landfall in the United States. Hurricane numbers in the Atlantic generally (and to a lesser extent, globally) have increased in recent decades, and in particular their average intensity has increased. Scientists were (and perhaps still are) divided/uncertain as to whether the increasing energy in the climate system would mean similar numbers of stronger storms, or just more storms of similar strength: But the fact that more energy = more storm power, one way or the other, does not seem to be in dispute.

Hurr_major_USland_count_w_Stats.png

5) Much current debate has been on a warming hiatus when new population and carbon highs should have shot temperature off the blade of the hockey stick.
Click to expand...

The 'hiatus' might not have been as big a deal as you think it is. There was a slowdown in the rate of surface warming in the 2000s with a number of contributing causes. The greenhouse effect suddenly disappearing was not one of those causes. So while it was undoubtedly an academic curiousity for climate scientists to investigate, it really changed little or nothing of what was already known about climate science. And the slowdown has now finished, by all indications.

You can barely even recognise any kind of 'hiatus' on a 10-year running mean of surface temperatures any more (purple below), but on a 5-year mean (red) or 3-year mean (blue) you can still clearly see that from about 2004 to 2014 there was little appreciable increase in temperatures. You can also see that the 'pause' is well and truly over:
offset:-0.1

One of the major contributing factors to that 'pause,' I suspect, was simply the pattern of El Nino/Southern Oscillation events over that period. From years like 1998, 2010 and 2016 we know well enough how significantly ENSO can affect global temperatures. So given the fact that the five years 2002-2006 all averaged fairly high ENSO index values, whereas in the following years (2007-2014) all but one year had fairly low values, that should have had a substantial damping effect on temperature trends on its own. How much of a contribution that was, I don't know - there were undoubtedly other factors like declining solar activity and (perhaps related to the ENSO phenomena) increased oceanic heat uptake:

heat_content700m2000myr.png



Obviously energy was still accumulating in the climate system even during that brief disruption of surface temperature trends.
 
Last edited:
Tim the plumber said:

The bad science of Global Warming Catastrophy[SUP]tm[/SUP] has allowed the agri lobby to create the policy of using food as fuel. This is killing people faster than WWII ever did.

The world's poorest billion people live on less than $1.25 a day. Less than that. Basic food prices are 30% to 70% more than they should be because we use food as fuel.

Crimes against humanity.
Click to expand...

BINGO!

Cutting off the ethanol subsidy is one of the first things President Trump should do.
 
Tim the plumber said:

The bad science of Global Warming Catastrophy[SUP]tm[/SUP] has allowed the agri lobby to create the policy of using food as fuel. This is killing people faster than WWII ever did.

The world's poorest billion people live on less than $1.25 a day. Less than that. Basic food prices are 30% to 70% more than they should be because we use food as fuel.

Crimes against humanity.
Click to expand...

For the record - for anyone who isn't familiar with Tim's constantly-repeated lies - the assertion here is that of all global hunger-related deaths (~10 million per year, and generally decreasing) more than 100% are caused by one of several factors causing food prices to fluctuate.

https://www.mercycorps.org/articles/quick-facts-what-you-need-know-about-global-hunger
2016 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics - World Hunger

Naturally, despite frequent prompting Tim has never once expressed a similar level of concern about feeding cows instead of people (a somewhat larger inefficiency in use of cropland), which leads to the inescapable conclusion that his professions of moral outrage are nothing more than thinly-veiled political propaganda. In itself there's nothing wrong with political propaganda on a political site of course; but considering how frequently Tim has personally slandered members of this forum based on these lies, the duplicity is rather disappointing to say the least.
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
For the record - for anyone who isn't familiar with Tim's constantly-repeated lies - the assertion here is that of all global hunger-related deaths (~10 million per year, and generally decreasing) more than 100% are caused by one of several factors causing food prices to fluctuate.

https://www.mercycorps.org/articles/quick-facts-what-you-need-know-about-global-hunger
2016 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics - World Hunger

Naturally, despite frequent prompting Tim has never once expressed a similar level of concern about feeding cows instead of people (a somewhat larger inefficiency in use of cropland), which leads to the inescapable conclusion that his professions of moral outrage are nothing more than thinly-veiled political propaganda. In itself there's nothing wrong with political propaganda on a political site of course; but considering how frequently Tim has personally slandered members of this forum based on these lies, the duplicity is rather disappointing to say the least.
Click to expand...

Why are you anti-cow?
 
Mithrae said:
You'll need a reference for that -.
Click to expand...

even Warren Buffett says property insurance rates are going down as storm damage goes down. And, ACE( Acumulated Cyclonic Energy) index is going down too. This means the so called scientists don't understand weather at all and cant predict it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom