• 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!

Investigating the Climate Change Skeptics/Deniers?

ataraxia said:
Solar activity, along with its GCR, has been decreasing, not increasing. The subsequent model predicts that we should be getting cooling, not heating. So clearly the model is wrong. It doesn't take much nuance to understand that.

View attachment 67223251

For comparison, here are graphs of solar activity, along with several other natural factors, compared to temperatures as measured. As you can see, the only graph which the measured temperature tracks is the anthropogenic component:

View attachment 67223252
Click to expand...

There is a very long TCS and ECS associated with the sun. Decades long and centuries long. Your thinking is too simplistic.
 
longview said:
I don't know if you realize this, but companies like Exxon give money to both political
parties, so they are on record for helping whoever wins.
These types of "it doesn't matter who wins" strategies also work for things like climate science.
Some might say they are playing both sides, but it has worked for them for a long time.
At some point oil will loose it's cost effectiveness, the oil companies know this.
Knowing this and being able profit from it are two different things,
If the Exxons of the world are AGW proponents, it is because they know how to profit from it.
Click to expand...

That's why effective CEO's get paid allot. They know how to make money. Part of it is looking like a saint.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

A lot of well-researched data, and this is what you get. Jack isn't a scientist, and he doesn't have a science degree. Don't waste your breath and intelligence.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Wow...

Did you really do that? What ignorance...

Please look at the graph I was referring to, instead of your knee jerk reactive post.
Click to expand...

The only ignorance is on your part, for not understanding how to read a graph. The units are degrees Kelvin, and it starts in 1985. See the down-tick in 1985, which also appears on my graph. The rest is the same, just on a different scale.
 
Media_Truth said:
The only ignorance is on your part, for not understanding how to read a graph. The units are degrees Kelvin, and it starts in 1985. See the down-tick in 1985, which also appears on my graph. The rest is the same, just on a different scale.
Click to expand...

Wow...

What about the graph I was responding to... Not yours, but the one I was responding to...

Your level of ignorance is something else...

The top one of these two is what I responded to...

View attachment 67223251

Please check your ignorance at the door...
 
Lord of Planar said:
Wow...

What about the graph I was responding to... Not yours, but the one I was responding to...

Your level of ignorance is something else...

The top one of these two is what I responded to...

View attachment 67223251

Please check your ignorance at the door...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get that. Learn how to read a graph...
 
Media_Truth said:
Yeah, I get that. Learn how to read a graph...
Click to expand...
I am just amazed you do not see the difference between the two temperature graphs you posted.
Here they are together.
two temp graphs.jpg
 
Media_Truth said:
A lot of well-researched data, and this is what you get. Jack isn't a scientist, and he doesn't have a science degree. Don't waste your breath and intelligence.
Click to expand...

Yes. I was fascinated by the psychology of all this denialism, that's why I got involved in this discussion. But what I have learned is that the psychopathology is really just too bizarre and complex. I think it would take a full time researcher (or several) to really try to sort through such morass of psychopathology and complex sociological issues at the root of this kind of denialism in the face of overwhelming evidence- whether it's with this issue of climate change or things like creationism. Paranoia and neuroses about "big government", lack of proper science education, media bubbles, the rise of fake news, etc...

But I found out there are already entire academic departments and fields of study out there trying to study this phenomenon and how to deal with it. Maybe I'll take a class on this and not try to figure it out all by myself. But this kind of denialism indeed it is a very bizarre, and dangerous, social phenomenon.

Climate Change Education Program Works - Yale Program on Climate Change Communication
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
Yes. I was fascinated by the psychology of all this denialism, that's why I got involved in this discussion. But what I have learned is that the psychopathology is really just too bizarre and complex. I think it would take a full time researcher (or several) to really try to sort through such morass of psychopathology and complex sociological issues at the root of this kind of denialism in the face of overwhelming evidence- whether it's with this issue of climate change or things like creationism. Paranoia and neuroses about "big government", lack of proper science education, media bubbles, the rise of fake news, etc...

But I found out there are already entire academic departments and fields of study out there trying to study this phenomenon and how to deal with it. Maybe I'll take a class on this and not try to figure it out all by myself. But this kind of denialism indeed it is a very bizarre, and dangerous, social phenomenon.

Climate Change Education Program Works - Yale Program on Climate Change Communication
Click to expand...

Or perhaps I hold a different opinion from you, and you should respect that.
 
longview said:
I am just amazed you do not see the difference between the two temperature graphs you posted.
Here they are together.
View attachment 67223289
Click to expand...

1. Time axis is different.
2. Temp units are different. One is in degrees Kelvin, one in Celcius.
3. The second graph used the Hadley Center numbers for their data.

Then the graphs match up nicely. Pretty simple, cut and dry.
 
ataraxia said:
I certainly respect your right to have an opinion.

https://michaelshermer.com/2002/09/smart-people-believe-weird-things/
Click to expand...

Nice link. This was very interesting:

60 percent believe in ESP; 40 percent think that astrology is scientific; 32 percent believe in lucky numbers; 70 percent accept magnetic therapy as scientific; and 88 percent accept alternative medicine.

Although I also believe that SOME alternative medicine is actually valid, in that it is often based on some time-tested practices, and conventional medicine has often borrowed from the alternatives. Blood letting used to be conventional...
 
Last edited:
longview said:
I don't know if you realize this, but companies like Exxon give money to both political
parties, so they are on record for helping whoever wins.
These types of "it doesn't matter who wins" strategies also work for things like climate science.
Some might say they are playing both sides, but it has worked for them for a long time.
At some point oil will loose it's cost effectiveness, the oil companies know this.
Knowing this and being able profit from it are two different things,
If the Exxons of the world are AGW proponents, it is because they know how to profit from it.
Click to expand...

Bingo. And there so far is little to convince us that scientific groups are likely AGW as a serious problem proponents because it is quite profitable to be an AGW as a serious problem proponent.
 
ataraxia said:
I certainly respect your right to have an opinion.

https://michaelshermer.com/2002/09/smart-people-believe-weird-things/
Click to expand...

Doesn't really make a case that a presumed 'majority of scientists' would have it right does it.

Opinion of the general population on global warming:
In U.S., Most Do Not See Global Warming as Serious Threat

But I can't find a poll of scientists on the subject done by Gallup or anybody else. And the only reason I can think of for not conducting such a poll is because of fear of what that poll might show.

Which is why I think intelligent people would ethically want all sides of the debate to be included in a national conversation on this subject before any policy mandates are put into effect.
 
ataraxia said:
I certainly respect your right to have an opinion.

https://michaelshermer.com/2002/09/smart-people-believe-weird-things/
Click to expand...

Media_Truth said:
Nice link. This was very interesting:

60 percent believe in ESP; 40 percent think that astrology is scientific; 32 percent believe in lucky numbers; 70 percent accept magnetic therapy as scientific; and 88 percent accept alternative medicine.

Although I also believe that SOME alternative medicine is actually valid, in that it is often based on some time-tested practices, and conventional medicine has often borrowed from the alternatives. Blood letting used to be conventional...
Click to expand...

Arrogance has been the cause of many failures in human history. At one point in my career I had a role in leadership development. One segment I taught was based on the novel A Road We Do Not Know, an account of the Battle of Little Bighorn. I recommend it to you both.
 
Media_Truth said:
1. Time axis is different.
2. Temp units are different. One is in degrees Kelvin, one in Celcius.
3. The second graph used the Hadley Center numbers for their data.

Then the graphs match up nicely. Pretty simple, cut and dry.
Click to expand...
Wow.

Just wow...

So damn indoctrinated, you don't see the difference. All the traces of your graph show a warming from 2003 to 2013.

Hint...

K and C when used in a relative manner are identical! What an ignorant thing to say the temperature units are different when it doesn't matter.

BS in EE... Total BS! Not understanding K and C... That is one on the simplest of science concepts.

The top graph has average K changing by under 0.5 degrees from 1980 to ~2013. The bottom graph during the same time period has C changing by about 0.3C.

Now you jumped in berating me when I said "Funny how you pick a graph that shows global cooling over the last 10+ years, but you say its warming."

During the last 10 years, maybe 12, that graph I was referring to showed a very slight average cooling. 15 years has about level, maybe a slight warming.

I specified 10+ years! Not the length of the graph.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Doesn't really make a case that a presumed 'majority of scientists' would have it right does it.

Opinion of the general population on global warming:
In U.S., Most Do Not See Global Warming as Serious Threat

But I can't find a poll of scientists on the subject done by Gallup or anybody else. And the only reason I can think of for not conducting such a poll is because of fear of what that poll might show.

Which is why I think intelligent people would ethically want all sides of the debate to be included in a national conversation on this subject before any policy mandates are put into effect.
Click to expand...

And your own link states that more than 65% of Americans believe Climate Change is happening.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Wow.

Just wow...

So damn indoctrinated, you don't see the difference. All the traces of your graph show a warming from 2003 to 2013.

Hint...

K and C when used in a relative manner are identical! What an ignorant thing to say the temperature units are different when it doesn't matter.

BS in EE... Total BS! Not understanding K and C... That is one on the simplest of science concepts.

The top graph has average K changing by under 0.5 degrees from 1980 to ~2013. The bottom graph during the same time period has C changing by about 0.3C.

Now you jumped in berating me when I said "Funny how you pick a graph that shows global cooling over the last 10+ years, but you say its warming."

During the last 10 years, maybe 12, that graph I was referring to showed a very slight average cooling. 15 years has about level, maybe a slight warming.

I specified 10+ years! Not the length of the graph.
Click to expand...

Maybe someday you'll become an adult, and learn how to read and interpret a graph.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom