Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Has the Global Warming debate finally ended?

RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 8:06:27 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 6:24:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I sure hope so.

S: The climate's changing: it's getting warmer, and man's causing it
D: It's not changing -- that's just weather.
S: Yes it is;we have corroborated longitudinal data sourced and verified across the world to show it's changing.
D: Well, it's not getting warmer.
S: Yes it is. See the trends?
D: Well, man's not causing it.
S: Yes we are. Here's the statistically significant correlation with CO2 and methane concentrations. It's human activity causing that.
D: Well, there's nothing we can do about it. We may as well get comfortable.
S: Yes there is. There's plenty we can do about it..
D: Well, it shouldn't be us doing it. Someone else should pay.
S: Yes it should. Our emissions are among the world's highest.
D: Well, it shouldn't be us going first. We shouldn't do anything until the other guys do everything.
S: Yes we should. Because if we do, others will follow, while if we don't, our inactivity will be the excuse others don't.


My point being: there has never been just one debate. :)
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 10:26:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 6:24:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I sure hope so.

Now that you mention it, I haven't had to deal with denyers in a long time, but as mentioned, they are still out there. The debate has shifted somewhat. I don't think I have seen an outright denyer in years now. They moved on to "not man made". I know there are still plenty who want to talk about all the crooked scientists and hockey sticks, but not like it was a handful of years ago.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 10:44:20 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 8:06:27 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
My point being: there has never been just one debate. :)

It's obvious that human activity is warming the globe. The anti-global warming people are neocons, the same as the #NeverTrump people led by William "Krist-Killer" Kristol who wishes to destroy Christianity. Even though this movement is led by anti-Christians, the rank and file is made up of Dispensationist Christian Idiots who think the future is set in stone, and that the end of the world is imminent. So, to them, there's nothing we can do, and it doesn't matter.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 11:17:29 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 10:44:20 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 6/18/2016 8:06:27 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
My point being: there has never been just one debate. :)

It's obvious that human activity is warming the globe. The anti-global warming people are neocons, the same as the #NeverTrump people led by William "Krist-Killer" Kristol who wishes to destroy Christianity. Even though this movement is led by anti-Christians, the rank and file is made up of Dispensationist Christian Idiots who think the future is set in stone, and that the end of the world is imminent. So, to them, there's nothing we can do, and it doesn't matter.

Why did you drag religion into this? -_-
Meh!
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 11:39:40 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 11:17:29 PM, Axonly wrote:

Why did you drag religion into this? -_-

Because Global Warming is a religion debate. The Deniers are religious Dispensationalists. The strongest Advocates think themselves gods, or are at least are controlling busybodies (Democrats/Liberals think they have to control everything).

Drag religion into this? Fair enough, but most "science" controversies involve religious attitudes on both sides. If the science itself were overwhelming, there wouldn't be significant controversy (in the general public). That's why we don't debate whether the Earth is flat or whether creatures "evolve" through acquired characteristics.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 11:43:05 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 11:39:40 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 6/18/2016 11:17:29 PM, Axonly wrote:

Why did you drag religion into this? -_-

Because Global Warming is a religion debate. The Deniers are religious Dispensationalists. The strongest Advocates think themselves gods, or are at least are controlling busybodies (Democrats/Liberals think they have to control everything).

Drag religion into this? Fair enough, but most "science" controversies involve religious attitudes on both sides. If the science itself were overwhelming, there wouldn't be significant controversy (in the general public). That's why we don't debate whether the Earth is flat or whether creatures "evolve" through acquired characteristics.

Why are you so hateful?
Meh!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 12:31:59 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 10:26:36 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/18/2016 6:24:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I sure hope so.

Now that you mention it, I haven't had to deal with denyers in a long time, but as mentioned, they are still out there. The debate has shifted somewhat. I don't think I have seen an outright denyer in years now. They moved on to "not man made". I know there are still plenty who want to talk about all the crooked scientists and hockey sticks, but not like it was a handful of years ago.

I remember back in 2011 when there were so many deniers saying that we had stopped warming.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 12:35:23 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 11:43:05 PM, Axonly wrote:
Why are you so hateful?

Good science is hate, because it doesn't pander to Political Correctness.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 1:55:05 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 12:35:23 AM, Rukado wrote:
At 6/18/2016 11:43:05 PM, Axonly wrote:
Why are you so hateful?

Good science is hate, because it doesn't pander to Political Correctness.

Why are you so hateful.
Meh!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 4:09:53 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 12:35:23 AM, Rukado wrote:
At 6/18/2016 11:43:05 PM, Axonly wrote:
Why are you so hateful?

Good science is hate, because it doesn't pander to Political Correctness.

Actually, good science is logic based and free from emotions such as hate.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 5:26:57 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 4:09:53 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Actually, good science is logic based and free from emotions such as hate.

For Democrats/Liberals, logic is hate. I'm accused of being hateful for making a logical observation that the Global Warming debate is more about religion than science.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 5:45:56 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
In a way its not good if debate is ended because it probably means people think the problems have gone away or been solved. If people get bored with the whole AGW thing and it is off the media radar then there will be little political incentive to do anything about it and CO2 emissions etc. will start to creep up.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 12:06:33 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 10:44:20 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 6/18/2016 8:06:27 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
My point being: there has never been just one debate. :)
It's obvious that human activity is warming the globe. The anti-global warming people are neocons, the same as the #NeverTrump people led by William "Krist-Killer" Kristol who wishes to destroy Christianity. Even though this movement is led by anti-Christians, the rank and file is made up of Dispensationist Christian Idiots who think the future is set in stone, and that the end of the world is imminent. So, to them, there's nothing we can do, and it doesn't matter.

I don't believe this post has anything constructive or relevant to contribute to topic.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 12:37:17 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 11:17:29 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/18/2016 10:44:20 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 6/18/2016 8:06:27 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
My point being: there has never been just one debate. :)

It's obvious that human activity is warming the globe. The anti-global warming people are neocons, the same as the #NeverTrump people led by William "Krist-Killer" Kristol who wishes to destroy Christianity. Even though this movement is led by anti-Christians, the rank and file is made up of Dispensationist Christian Idiots who think the future is set in stone, and that the end of the world is imminent. So, to them, there's nothing we can do, and it doesn't matter.

Why did you drag religion into this? -_-

Because science can't make it's case using science.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 6:12:58 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I think it's clear that the global warming alarmists have lost. We were all supposed to have died by 2010, and we're still here. Q.E.D. "Deniers" have never denied the earth is warming or that CO2 contributes to warming. From the beginning the debate has been about two things (1) What is the likely rate of future warming? and (2) Do projections of future warming mean that government should be given authoritarian power to control energy, lifestyle, and economic progress? The verdict is the predictions are bogus, and authoritarian control means economic death.

The last twenty years have proven that the global warming computer models were wrong, and even the alarmists admit. The models cannot be adjusted to even go through past data, Temperatures are running below the two-sigma error band for the models, and even alarmist scientists like von Storch publish papers admitting the models cannot be tweaked to fit the data. What is observed is a rise in temperatures of about one degree C per century. That means a longer growing season, greater crop yields (CO2 is plant food), and more rainfall. The global warming hockey stick is in the trash bin. The lack of confirming evidence doesn't bother alarmists, but it has taken the air out of the alarmist balloon, with Europe retreating from the huge expenses of wind and solar, and India and China only promising to think about restrictions many years in the future.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 6:14:56 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 6:24:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I sure hope so.

If something exists there will always be deniers of it.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 6:40:09 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 6:12:58 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I think it's clear that the global warming alarmists have lost. We were all supposed to have died by 2010, and we're still here. Q.E.D. "Deniers" have never denied the earth is warming or that CO2 contributes to warming. From the beginning the debate has been about two things (1) What is the likely rate of future warming? and (2) Do projections of future warming mean that government should be given authoritarian power to control energy, lifestyle, and economic progress? The verdict is the predictions are bogus, and authoritarian control means economic death.

The last twenty years have proven that the global warming computer models were wrong, and even the alarmists admit. The models cannot be adjusted to even go through past data, Temperatures are running below the two-sigma error band for the models, and even alarmist scientists like von Storch publish papers admitting the models cannot be tweaked to fit the data. What is observed is a rise in temperatures of about one degree C per century. That means a longer growing season, greater crop yields (CO2 is plant food), and more rainfall. The global warming hockey stick is in the trash bin. The lack of confirming evidence doesn't bother alarmists, but it has taken the air out of the alarmist balloon, with Europe retreating from the huge expenses of wind and solar, and India and China only promising to think about restrictions many years in the future.

Bit of a shift in the goal posts. Who was saying we were all gonna die by 2010? Certainly wasn't the 97% of scientists (or whatever the number was) that were in agreement. I mean, if your only defense is to point at the utter most extremists then you are strawmaning the group as a whole. None of the IPCCs made that claim. Additionally, even if the models are imperfect, that doesn't disprove global warming. It only shows the system is too complex for us to nail down perfectly.

I do remember you, frequently, toting that global warming had ended and that we hadn't seen any meaningful tempurature rises since the 90's. Well, now that is bunk. Now it seems you're shifting to "global warming isn't that bad. We get longer growing seasons and it may actually be good."

I've long said that rising temps will make some places no longer able to support farming, while other places will be able to start supporting farming (such as Canada and Russia). But that doesn't mean it will be beneficial to blindly go down that road.

https://www.newscientist.com...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 6:44:14 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 5:26:57 AM, Rukado wrote:
At 6/19/2016 4:09:53 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Actually, good science is logic based and free from emotions such as hate.

For Democrats/Liberals, logic is hate. I'm accused of being hateful for making a logical observation that the Global Warming debate is more about religion than science.

But it isn't. It is only about science. There is no religion involved. Some people may have emotions thrown into the mix ("think of the children and animals!"), but that is not religion. Many people may rely on an appeal to emotion (while those are not logically sounds, they are often every effective for persuasion) but you shouldn't respond one logical fallacy (appeal to emotion) with another (broad brushing).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 7:22:10 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 6:40:09 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Bit of a shift in the goal posts. Who was saying we were all gonna die by 2010? Certainly wasn't the 97% of scientists (or whatever the number was) that were in agreement. I mean, if your only defense is to point at the utter most extremists then you are strawmaning the group as a whole. None of the IPCCs made that claim. Additionally, even if the models are imperfect, that doesn't disprove global warming. It only shows the system is too complex for us to nail down perfectly.

I was invoking the implication of panic used to promote alarmism. or example, look at the hockey stick. It showed that nothing had ever happened in climate until the 1980s when temperature took off exponentially. That was official IPCC stuff. Are you saying that everyone was supposed to understand that the hockey stick was not intended to have any implications about the future? Baloney, There were endless claims of having reached a tipping point around 2000, where death would ensue is authoritarian rule were not established immediately. All Gore won a Nobel Prize for alarmist predictions, and now you are claiming he was an extremist outlier? Did he get the Nobel Prize for alarmism in spite of sober IPCC scientists denying his every claim? I can give you a lot list of riduculuous alarmist predictions that were believed for a long time, and are now known to be nonsense.

I do remember you, frequently, toting that global warming had ended and that we hadn't seen any meaningful tempurature rises since the 90's. Well, now that is bunk. Now it seems you're shifting to "global warming isn't that bad. We get longer growing seasons and it may actually be good."

Recent global warming has been at the rate of one degree per century. That's exactly what Patick Michaels said was likely in his book "The Satanic Gasses," in 2004 at the height of the global warming panic. You can go read the books if you like. The same arguments about slow warming were made by "deniers" at the height of the alarmism. Nothing has changed, you've just become aware of it. All the models predicting dramatic climate change are dead wrong, and are no basis for prediction. BTW, this is an El Nino year, so there is a lot of warming, as there was in the El Nino, c. 2000. The pattern is that there a couple of colder years after the El Nino that cancels it out in the trend.

I've long said that rising temps will make some places no longer able to support farming, while other places will be able to start supporting farming (such as Canada and Russia). But that doesn't mean it will be beneficial to blindly go down that road.

https://www.newscientist.com...

The article you cite says that CO2 promotes plant growth, but that lack of water and nitrogen ultimately limits the extra growth, duh. Global warming means more rain, a 2% increase so far, and lack of nitrogen means fertilizer is needed to grow plants. So provide water and fertilizer. The article is pure desperation. There are hundreds of journal articles confirming CO2 as a powerful aid to plant growth; greenhouse farmers artificially double or triple CO2 levels. We are not blindly wondering what happens if the earth gets warmer or has more CO2. It's happened before in history. In the Medieval Warm Period, grapes were grown in northern Europe and Greenland was named for its greenery. That's what happens.

Everyone seems to agree that global warming affects the arctic much more than the tropics, the tropics get little warming and poles a lot more. (If Antarctica warms from -45 to -35, it still doesn't melt.) So it's unlikely that any place will get too warm to farm, but large areas will open up in the north. Climate patterns change, so while net rain increases, some places with go dry. In the warming about 5000 years ago, which was greater than now, the region of the Sahara Desert was wet.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 12:41:28 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 12:06:33 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

I don't believe this post has anything constructive or relevant to contribute to topic.

You don't think a blunt explanation for Global Warming denial has anything constructive to contribute to the topic? I think you mean you're a tool who wishes to condemn anyone who points to the elephant in the room.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 12:47:44 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 12:41:28 AM, Rukado wrote:
At 6/19/2016 12:06:33 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I don't believe this post has anything constructive or relevant to contribute to topic.
You don't think a blunt explanation for Global Warming denial has anything constructive to contribute to the topic? I think you mean you're a tool who wishes to condemn anyone who points to the elephant in the room.

I don't think trolling and insulting are constructive either.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 12:40:12 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 12:47:44 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/20/2016 12:41:28 AM, Rukado wrote:
At 6/19/2016 12:06:33 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I don't believe this post has anything constructive or relevant to contribute to topic.
You don't think a blunt explanation for Global Warming denial has anything constructive to contribute to the topic? I think you mean you're a tool who wishes to condemn anyone who points to the elephant in the room.

I don't think trolling and insulting are constructive either.

+1
Meh!