• 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!

So what if man is speeding up global warming?

whateverdude said:
We know, for a 100% fact climate change existed before man, will exist as long as man exists, and we have evidence of it predating industrialization.

However, maybe CO2 omissions are making it happen faster.

I'll try to keep my mind open but given the premise, I don't give a ****. Please liberals, incentive me to care.
We cannot stop climate change, however, we can slow it.

Why should we care about slowing an unstoppable force?
Click to expand...

People always like to "be part of something larger". For many it's churches, clubs, organizations, etc. Now it's the "climate church", where apostates are shunned and heresy is punished, but the members in good standing are as thick as theives.

Yes, the climate is changing and will continue to change after man is long gone. The problem with the climatists, is they don't:
A - have no definable goals.
B - have no provable method to get there
C - have no problem spending $1000 to get $10 worth of change
D - don't account for the positive changes it other areas of the earth like better food production.
E - and really don't admit that ocean front property, is a "loan from nature", and someday will be gone and there ain't **** you can do about it.

In California, artificial pricing to alter market forces on behalf of the "environment" has cost taxpayers billions for nothing.
 
ecofarm said:
Someday, hopefully, your life will be about more than just you.
Click to expand...

In the world of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change, we don't know what the impact of our actions is, has been or will be.

We do know that the majority of projections from experts are very inaccurate and at the clip of about 95% estimate more warming than actually occurred over any defined time span.

We do know that in the last half million years, the temperature peaks of every interglacial were warmer than the peak of the current interglacial which has the highest CO2 Concentration of any of them.

We also know that the temperature peak of the current interglacial, the Holocene, occurred about 8000 years ago when the level of CO2 was far lower than the current highs. We are about a half a degree cooler now than 8000 years ago.

None of this supports the zealotry of the CACC hysteria.

Given this set of facts, the question should not concern acting quickly. The question should be whether or not to act at all given the FACT that our experts seem confused, ill informed and in disagreement.
 
Deuce said:
I think it's hilarious that you think you can handwave the entire concept because your gut says it wont be a significant problem, or that we can't have a significant impact. We've increased the CO2 levels in the atmosphere by 40% in about a century.

But hey, as long as your gut says we're fine, I'll handwave decades of research from actual scientists. I mean, you did some math to support this right?

Oh... you didn't, did you?
Click to expand...

Can you explain why the global climate is cooler now than it was 8000 years ago?

Did YOU do the math?
 
ThoughtEx. said:
The earth has the ability to heal itself, and filter out the damage we caused. The problem isn't that we are destroying it, it's that we are overwhelming its ability to right itself. 40 years after the last human dies, the earth will be right as rain. If we stopped overwhelming the earth, and found ways to aid its natural filter systems we could reverse the damage we've already caused.

I refuse to accept that we can't be the holders of our own destiny. All it takes is teamwork, effort, and a solid goal. And the great part is, we can make money doing it once we are off the fossil fuel teat. It's like a drug, and we are junkies, getting clean will be the hardest thing we ever do. But it will be worth it. Ask any recovered junkie...
Click to expand...

The issue is not whether or not we should act as a team.

The issue is whether or not the action is well advised or just plain stupid.
 
code1211 said:
The issue is not whether or not we should act as a team.

The issue is whether or not the action is well advised or just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess when most of the scientists on earth agree that we should do something to change what we're doing, and the people who don't want to change disagree because it hurts their bottom lines, it's just plain stupid to change. That's a narrative that works, sure.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Yeah, I guess when most of the scientists on earth agree that we should do something to change what we're doing, and the people who don't want to change disagree because it hurts their bottom lines, it's just plain stupid to change. That's a narrative that works, sure.
Click to expand...

And there's also the vast library of evidence that proves undeniably that we at the peak of warming during this interglacial 8000 years ago.

Every interglacial in the last half million years warmed to a point that is warmer than we are right now.

Today's scientists disagree on what the actual temperature of the globe is right now, what the rate of warming might be to date and what the rate of warming will be in the future.

At an overwhelming rate of about 95%, the predictions of the future old enough to test against real world performance are wrong and wrong on the warm side of things.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

trend



95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong « Roy Spencer, PhD
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
This actually sums up your scientific acumen on the issue quite well.
Click to expand...

You are not getting any of our money based on this BS so go just work harder rather than attempt to defraud those that do :thumbs:
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Yeah, I guess when most of the scientists on earth agree that we should do something to change what we're doing, and the people who don't want to change disagree because it hurts their bottom lines, it's just plain stupid to change. That's a narrative that works, sure.
Click to expand...

I must have missed it but when were most of the scientists on earth ever polled about their view ?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Do we want to?

If we warm the planet, it will keep it from starting a new ice age.
Click to expand...

So you agree, then, that mankind's influence can actually overwhelm natural forcings. We'd best be careful about how we go about doing that and slowdown this mass CO2 release.
 
code1211 said:
And there's also the vast library of evidence that proves undeniably that we at the peak of warming during this interglacial 8000 years ago.

Every interglacial in the last half million years warmed to a point that is warmer than we are right now.

Today's scientists disagree on what the actual temperature of the globe is right now, what the rate of warming might be to date and what the rate of warming will be in the future.

At an overwhelming rate of about 95%, the predictions of the future old enough to test against real world performance are wrong and wrong on the warm side of things.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

trend



95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong « Roy Spencer, PhD
Click to expand...

I just love how every time a denier throws up science from the one of the 3% of scientists that disagree with human climate change, they fail to check their background. This guy is connected to Evangelical groups, the Heartland Institute, which worked to deny science that linked tobacco to cancer and receives their funding form companies like Exxon. Which Exxon is fighting to keep their own research into global warming secret and losing. Yeah this guy seems totally above aboard.

https://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer

https://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute

Funny, how every climate science denier expert is somehow connected to oil companies and religious conservatives. They aren't following an agenda set forth by the same people who tried to deny tobacco caused cancer, couldn't be...
 
Then we need to adapt to our new situation.

Pretty basic stuff here....
 
Skeptic Bob said:
If we slow it down, or at least don't speed it up, it gives us more time to develope the technology we will need to adapt to the changing world.
Click to expand...

Do we need more time? What cant we do now that we need to do to deal with a hotter earth, and presumably also more unpredictable and violent weather, to include changes in usable water distribution?
 
whateverdude said:
We know, for a 100% fact climate change existed before man, will exist as long as man exists, and we have evidence of it predating industrialization.

However, maybe CO2 omissions are making it happen faster.

I'll try to keep my mind open but given the premise, I don't give a ****. Please liberals, incentive me to care.
We cannot stop climate change, however, we can slow it.

Why should we care about slowing an unstoppable force?
Click to expand...

You, your friends, and every cow you know just need to stop farting.

Problem solved.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
I just love how every time a denier throws up science from the one of the 3% of scientists that disagree with human climate change, they fail to check their background. This guy is connected to Evangelical groups, the Heartland Institute, which worked to deny science that linked tobacco to cancer and receives their funding form companies like Exxon. Which Exxon is fighting to keep their own research into global warming secret and losing. Yeah this guy seems totally above aboard.

https://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer

https://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute

Funny, how every climate science denier expert is somehow connected to oil companies and religious conservatives. They aren't following an agenda set forth by the same people who tried to deny tobacco caused cancer, couldn't be...
Click to expand...

So, apparently, you can't refute the science in the actual references so you level a personal attack.

How Inquisitional of you!

Did it occur to you to produce a chart showing the ACCURATE temperature predictions/projections? They're damn rare, but if you are so sure they exist, perhaps you could look for them. A good place to start your search might be your imagination.

Following your personal attack to avoid reality, you refuse to acknowledge the disagreement plainly displayed by chart comparing the data from the various data gathering agencies.

You're a wealth of information avoidance.

You do seem to be absolutely **** sure of the thing for which you have no evidence. I guess that's something...
 
code1211 said:
So, apparently, you can't refute the science in the actual references so you level a personal attack.

How Inquisitional of you!

Did it occur to you to produce a chart showing the ACCURATE temperature predictions/projections? They're damn rare, but if you are so sure they exist, perhaps you could look for them. A good place to start your search might be your imagination.

Following your personal attack to avoid reality, you refuse to acknowledge the disagreement plainly displayed by chart comparing the data from the various data gathering agencies.

You're a wealth of information avoidance.

You do seem to be absolutely **** sure of the thing for which you have no evidence. I guess that's something...
Click to expand...

There's a reason spencer published it on a blog, and not in a journal.

Because it's crap.

Here's one of many dismantlings:

HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception
 
code1211 said:
So, apparently, you can't refute the science in the actual references so you level a personal attack.

How Inquisitional of you!

Did it occur to you to produce a chart showing the ACCURATE temperature predictions/projections? They're damn rare, but if you are so sure they exist, perhaps you could look for them. A good place to start your search might be your imagination.

Following your personal attack to avoid reality, you refuse to acknowledge the disagreement plainly displayed by chart comparing the data from the various data gathering agencies.

You're a wealth of information avoidance.

You do seem to be absolutely **** sure of the thing for which you have no evidence. I guess that's something...
Click to expand...

Why throw up evidence and facts to counter someone that I can just as easily prove is operating from a biased position. No point in countering flawed data, and it's biased interpretation. How bout you find one credible climate scientist that is a denier and isn't connected to oil companies. Post a paper he's published in a legite peer reviewed journal, and then I will address the info provided.

The problem is, you can't find a credible climate scientist who is also a denier...

You can find credible climate scientists in peer reviewed journals in spades, however. Why don't you point out to me why they are wrong with credible sources. Don't worry, i won't hold my breath.
 
Deuce said:
So you agree, then, that mankind's influence can actually overwhelm natural forcings. We'd best be careful about how we go about doing that and slowdown this mass CO2 release.
Click to expand...

Why does that matter? Just let the world change anyway it wants. Who cares? We'll wipe out all life on the planet with pollution.

We'd achieve world peace
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Why throw up evidence and facts to counter someone that I can just as easily prove is operating from a biased position. No point in countering flawed data, and it's biased interpretation. How bout you find one credible climate scientist that is a denier and isn't connected to oil companies. Post a paper he's published in a legite peer reviewed journal, and then I will address the info provided.

The problem is, you can't find a credible climate scientist who is also a denier...

You can find credible climate scientists in peer reviewed journals in spades, however. Why don't you point out to me why they are wrong with credible sources. Don't worry, i won't hold my breath.
Click to expand...

Why trust peer review?
 
Hawkeye10 said:
With as much as our government lies to us why trust scientists back by the government?
Click to expand...

I forgot, every climate scientist in the world is backed and funded by the US government, thanks for pointing that out...

edit: that's sarcasm btw.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
I forgot, every climate scientist in the world is backed and funded by the US government, thanks for pointing that out...

edit: that's sarcasm btw.
Click to expand...

Again I ask ..... when were all these scientists ever asked for their view ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom