• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

24 Hours of Reality

What about Bill Nye's obvious mistake with the little experiment?
 
Whoppletraps said:
What about Bill Nye's obvious mistake with the little experiment?
Click to expand...

Nye was demonstrating known principles of science. What mistake did he make in his demonstration?
 

Ok, fine... it's only CAUSED a singular person to die... happy now?? How many deaths is "appropriate" for you to still consider a venture a success??

I don't get why you are dancing around this, because the fact is that the higher prices, that is in part a result of ethanol / VAST MAJORITY of biofuels (aquaculture seemed to be something promising however), has led to people going from a subsistence level existence to a starvation level of existence where most die from the malnutrition and succumbing to something like the common cold. That this is directly attributable as a FACTOR... in AGW speak, there is a consensus that it is the cause of starvation in the world.



Ya, they were talking about that up until, what 10 years ago, 15? Now, all these greenies ever want to discuss is CO2. There was actually some level of validity to the concerns about acid rain (which is a result of SULFUR NOT CARBON, btw), and CFC's have since been banned (side issue, that had more to do with protecting patents and standards for monopoly reasons than it did actual damage), because of the damage it did cause (because CFC's were bad news)... it should have went to dioxins next, but instead we are now stuck with a blanket issue of CO2, and then government can arbitrarily shut off societies... or like the post you conveniently skipped... kill farmers whose land was being taken in order to plant trees so that companies like Al Gore's company can then sell the carbon offsets.

Whatever GOOD there is in environmentalism as it's being pushed is only there to gloss over then genocidal intentions of those that are the largest investors and pushers, ie; those that have the most to gain from installing their "solutions"...
 
Catawba said:
Nye was demonstrating known principles of science. What mistake did he make in his demonstration?
Click to expand...

He did not put CO2 in one of the bottles, and the earth would have CO2 regardless of pollution. Of course the only bottle with CO2 would get warmer.
 
Whoppletraps said:
He did not put CO2 in one of the bottles, and the earth would have CO2 regardless of pollution. Of course the only bottle with CO2 would get warmer.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect. Air, which contains CO2, was in both bottles before additional CO2 was added to the one bottle.

"Here are 10 gases that make up clean air: In order of highest to lowest concentration they are Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, Carbon dioxide, Neon, Helium, Methane (CH4), Krypton, Hydrogen, and Xenon."
Air we breathe: Air Composition
 
What if...? said:
And you can die from drinking too much water.

Your point?
Click to expand...

My point is the politics of CO2 is a difficult one. While yes, it is a main source of the air that we breathe is nitrogen, CO2 has varied between 280ppm 400 ppm in our history. My point is, that CO2 being declared a pollutant is a red herring... it's meant to move forward a political and environmental policy - nothing more.

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf
 

Your source is an outdated draft that has the specific disclaimer that it is not to be cited:

"This is an unofficial extract of E-G Beck's comprehensive draft paper and is for discussion not citing"
 
Catawba said:
Your source is an outdated draft that has the specific disclaimer that it is not to be cited:

"This is an unofficial extract of E-G Beck's comprehensive draft paper and is for discussion not citing"
Click to expand...

Aren't we discussing it? :lol:
 
Catawba said:
So is methane, and all the other gases in air, in too high of concentrations. What is your point?
Click to expand...

Huh.. I even pointed out my point very clearly 2 posts ago. Here it is again...

Post #209
 
Ockham said:
Aren't we discussing it? :lol:
Click to expand...

It looks like you are the only one claiming that an outdated draft somehow proves your point that excess CO2 is not a pollutant.
 
Catawba said:
It looks like you are the only one claiming that an outdated draft somehow proves your point that excess CO2 is not a pollutant.
Click to expand...


So does that now mean you understand my point or are you changing the topic because you don't want to discuss the topic any longer?
 
Catawba said:
So the outdated draft is all you have???
Click to expand...

If you're interested you could Google it and find the updated version - I'm content with the draft as it's enough to make my point--- do you want the point again? Here it is:

Post #209
 

Lung cancer existed before cigarettes existed. This is not evidence in itself that cigarettes are safe. The past cycles were obviously natural, but this one is not.

2. Global Warming alarmist have been caught in one lie after another. Huge scandals have been continuously revealed since the early 1980’s when the campaign began. Some of these are listed below:
Click to expand...

And just about every one of those so-called scandals turns out to not actually be a scandal once you actually investigate.


Al Gore is not a scientist. He can lie all he wants and it doesn't impact the science.

4. The ClimateGate affair exposed the utter corruption of the Warmist community with their exposed emails speaking of how they intended to “hide the decline” and how to manipulate data and the peer-review process in their favor.
Click to expand...

Climategate allegations were disproven by multiple independent investigations. "The decline" wasn't a reference to global temperatures, but you went ahead and assumed it was because some blogger or radio talk show host told you. Similar investigation of the context behind what appeared to be peer-review problems proves that the scientists involved wanted to keep a paper out because they thought it was a crappy paper that made several serious technical errors, not merely because its conclusion disagreed with theirs.


5. Then there is the fact that the globe isn’t even warming anymore and the small amount of warming experienced from the 1900’s to 2001 time frame was negligible and well within the envelope of normal.
Click to expand...

This "fact" you cite is false. The world is still warming. You were tricked by people who counted on the assumption that you never took a statistics class. (or never bothered to read beyond the blog article and actually check the statistics for yourself)

6. During this same period of marginal warming, scientists also noticed that other planets in our solar system were warming. What do these planets have in common ? --- the Sun.
Click to expand...

The sun has not increased its overall output in the last 50 years. Also, climate is a complex system as any skeptic would agree. Why would you assume the only variable affecting Mars is the sun? Of course, the idea that other planets are warming isn't even all that well-established: we don't actually have a lot of data to go on with Mars, let alone Neptune. Mars, for example, had some apparent melting of part of the northern ice caps, but can you necessarily extrapolate that to a global increase in temperature? It could very well be regional, or not even related to temperature at all.


Love the game over comment. It's true that there was no statistically significant global warming from the period 1995-2009. This is not the same thing as saying there was no warming. Incidentally, if you expand that period even one year in either direction (1994-2009 or 1995-2010) you once again have statistically significant warming.

There has now been statistically significant global warming since 1995. (since 2010 is over we can now add that data to the set) This is another case of them hoping you never took a statistics class. For a more detailed explanation from a college professor, check out this video. He explains this pretty well:

Fool Me Once: "Global warming has stopped"


8. Warmist like Al Gore refuse to engage in any formal debate on the issue. That’s because on the few occasions Warmist have debated openly, they lose, and they lose big . Lord Monckton utterly destroys them time and time again.
Click to expand...

Lord Monckton knows how to do his homework and debate along a line that the scientists he debates against is not an expert in. He also knows how to falsely cite information. In a live debate, he can say whatever he wants and the sources he supposedly cites cannot be checked until later. Lord Monckton has literally fabricated data and attributed it to the IPCC. He has been caught in several lies.

He knows how to "win" a debate, but he does so by lying in a manner that can't be immediately called out.

I started a thread on Monckton a while back. Check it out.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...-good-video-series-moncktons-distortions.html


Again with the Gore straw man. Whether or not Gore benefits from CO2 policy does not affect the scientific reality.
 
"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr[SUP]-1[/SUP] since 2000. The global concentration of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration)."

Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions
 
I thought I had shut you up for a change, but once again like usual when your position shows yourself to be aligned with genocidal ventures you tuck your tail and run, but let's go over more of your nonsense.

Deuce said:
Lung cancer existed before cigarettes existed. This is not evidence in itself that cigarettes are safe. The past cycles were obviously natural, but this one is not.
Click to expand...

Ok, PROVE IT!!

Nature handled the climate for 5 + BILLION years and suddenly in the past 150 years (or 3 X 10^-7 % of the earths existence) CO2 becomes the driving factor.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof... and the best you got to offer is to show a few graphs showing a CORRELATION and say "what else could it be". THAT IS NOT PROOF by any standard.

Sorry to crush your hubris, but man AT MOST has a NEGLIGIBLE influence on the climate; that's not to say there is not pollution that is a concern, but I think that adding something to the atmosphere that will only cause plants to grow faster is NOT going to be a productive venture, and actually, when you try to "stop" this non-problem, you end up creating a situation that winds up costing the lives of those who are most vulnerable (those already poor and on the verge of starvation).


And just about every one of those so-called scandals turns out to not actually be a scandal once you actually investigate.
Click to expand...

Because you love corrupt people that won't recuse themselves when there is a clear and demonstrable conflict of interest. We know, they are self-proclaimed "eco-fascists" for a reason.

Al Gore is not a scientist. He can lie all he wants and it doesn't impact the science.
Click to expand...

Ya, all the science that showed that virtually every point made in the documentary (which was based on the IPCC's documents) was demonstrably false... to the extent that in many countries a warning concerning the "solely for entertainment value" must be added prior to the movie in some countries.


LMAO... coming from the guy who still thinks that this was the result of a hacker, when the reality was that one of those people was a silent whistleblower, which the media helped cover up until the story got too big. It took 6 investigations ALL of them involving conflicts of interests (which you are clearly in approval of) where people that had vested interests in the success of the AGW agenda "vindicated" these scientists.


Unsourced claim...


Solar activity is cyclical in both long and short cycles... and is STILL only a SINGULAR factor in the climate. The fact that other planets who are not adding artificial CO2 into their atmospheres were seeing warming and cooling trends coinciding with what we are seeing on earth ALONE is proof that the AGW "science" is not much better than the 50 years of tobacco science that showed that there was no problems.


Oh, it's gotta be true, I saw it on someones BLOG somewhere. Damn, for a "scientist" you're really dropping your standards... of course you also have a demonstrable confirmation bias, but, I won't bore everyone.


You mean he wins the debates every single time and nobody will debate him even, that is, when people actually have the fortitude to actually debate him.

The funny thing though, even when you "correct" whatever "fabrications" monkton makes, it actually just goes to serve the point he was making anyway, because the points he's making don't even really change much. I remember that one "correction" of monktons that instead of being below the projections almost completely, was just scraping the bottom end of the projections.

Again with the Gore straw man. Whether or not Gore benefits from CO2 policy does not affect the scientific reality.
Click to expand...

Again, this is a diversion of the topic, you know as well as everyone else here that the ONLY proposals for solutions are CO2 taxes or carbon trading schemes... and we've already gone over how "team green" has been going around evicting people from their homes and / or killed in the name of these schemes... so the land stolen can be used to plant trees for the purpose of selling carbon offsets through Al Gores company.

It must be nice when you selectively live in denial as you do.
 
Ockham said:
So does that now mean you understand my point or are you changing the topic because you don't want to discuss the topic any longer?
Click to expand...

It is settled science today, what is to discuss???
 
If I could get grant money to research it like those scientists do I would probably believe in this liberal doomsday theory as well.
 
Whoppletraps said:
If I could get grant money to research it like those scientists do I would probably believe in this liberal doomsday theory as well.
Click to expand...

Ah, full circle now, to a world wide conspiracy dating back a century.
 
Deuce said:
No, it really doesn't. The hard science proves nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. Actual hard physical science indicates that CO2 is an essential trace gas that is very beneficial to our environment.


CO2 leads to a greener environment for everyone.
 
Muhammed said:
Yes it does. Actual hard physical science indicates that CO2 is an essential trace gas that is very beneficial to our environment.
Seeing is Believing - YouTube

CO2 leads to a greener environment for everyone.
Click to expand...


Only if you ignore all the negatives:

"Here’s a list of cause and effect relationships, showing that most climate change impacts will confer few or no benefits, but may do great harm at considerable cost.

Agriculture

While CO2 is essential for plant growth, all agriculture depends also on steady water supplies, and climate change is likely to disrupt those supplies through floods and droughts. It has been suggested that higher latitudes – Siberia, for example – may become productive due to global warming, but the soil in Arctic and bordering territories is very poor, and the amount of sunlight reaching the ground in summer will not change because it is governed by the tilt of the earth. Agriculture can also be disrupted by wildfires and changes in seasonal periodicity, which is already taking place, and changes to grasslands and water supplies could impact grazing and welfare of domestic livestock. Increased warming may also have a greater effect on countries whose climate is already near or at a temperature limit over which yields reduce or crops fail – in the tropics or sub-Sahara, for example.

Health

Warmer winters would mean fewer deaths, particularly among vulnerable groups like the aged. However, the same groups are also vulnerable to additional heat, and deaths attributable to heatwaves are expected to be approximately five times as great as winter deaths prevented. It is widely believed that warmer climes will encourage migration of disease-bearing insects like mosquitoes and malaria is already appearing in places it hasn’t been seen before.

Polar Melting

While the opening of a year-round ice free Arctic passage between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans would confer some commercial benefits, these are considerably outweighed by the negatives. Detrimental effects include loss of polar bear habitat and increased mobile ice hazards to shipping. The loss of ice albedo (the reflection of heat), causing the ocean to absorb more heat, is also a positive feedback; the warming waters increase glacier and Greenland ice cap melt, as well as raising the temperature of Arctic tundra, which then releases methane, a very potent greenhouse gas (methane is also released from the sea-bed, where it is trapped in ice-crystals called clathrates). Melting of the Antarctic ice shelves is predicted to add further to sea-level rise with no benefits accruing.

Ocean Acidification

A cause for considerable concern, there appear to be no benefits to the change in pH of the oceans. This process is caused by additional CO2 being absorbed in the water, and may have severe destabilising effects on the entire oceanic food-chain.

Melting Glaciers

The effects of glaciers melting are largely detrimental, the principle impact being that many millions of people (one-sixth of the world’s population) depend on fresh water supplied each year by natural spring melt and regrowth cycles and those water supplies – drinking water, agriculture – may fail.

Sea Level Rise

Many parts of the world are low-lying and will be severely affected by modest sea rises. Rice paddies are being inundated with salt water, which destroys the crops. Seawater is contaminating rivers as it mixes with fresh water further upstream, and aquifers are becoming polluted. Given that the IPCC did not include melt-water from the Greenland and Antarctic ice-caps due to uncertainties at that time, estimates of sea-level rise are feared to considerably underestimate the scale of the problem. There are no proposed benefits to sea-level rise.

Environmental

Positive effects of climate change may include greener rainforests and enhanced plant growth in the Amazon, increased vegitation in northern latitudes and possible increases in plankton biomass in some parts of the ocean. Negative responses may include further growth of oxygen poor ocean zones, contamination or exhaustion of fresh water, increased incidence of natural fires, extensive vegetation die-off due to droughts, increased risk of coral extinction, decline in global photoplankton, changes in migration patterns of birds and animals, changes in seasonal periodicity, disruption to food chains and species loss.

Economic

The economic impacts of climate change may be catastrophic, while there have been very few benefits projected at all. The Stern report made clear the overall pattern of economic distress, and while the specific numbers may be contested, the costs of climate change were far in excess of the costs of preventing it. Certain scenarios projected in the IPCC AR4 report would witness massive migration as low-lying countries were flooded. Disruptions to global trade, transport, energy supplies and labour markets, banking and finance, investment and insurance, would all wreak havoc on the stability of both developed and developing nations. Markets would endure increased volatility and institutional investors such as pension funds and insurance companies would experience considerable difficulty.

Developing countries, some of which are already embroiled in military conflict, may be drawn into larger and more protracted disputes over water, energy supplies or food, all of which may disrupt economic growth at a time when developing countries are beset by more egregious manifestations of climate change. It is widely accepted that the detrimental effects of climate change will be visited largely on the countries least equipped to adapt, socially or economically."
Positives and negatives of global warming
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…