• 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!

A Republican Case for Climate Action

All I can tell you is that the guys who have devoted their entire lives to this subject are telling me that CO2 is causing acidification.
Do you mean like a priest devotes his life to the church, to preach the dogma?
 
No, there is considerable doubt that 1) Predictions of future climate are correct and 2) Anything that can be done by man that is financially or politically fesible will have any effect on the climate.

All action along that line will be a boondoggle and a waste of resources.

The average global temperature stopped rising 17 years ago and the rise still hasn't resumed. Whether the warming trend eventually continues at some point (your guess is as good as anyone's on that) isn't as important as the fact that the climate models people are relying on to make predictions about future climate completely failed to predict this pause in warming.

By the way, the remark about the deep oceans warming is probably not correct.

so - if the doctor told you that based on your lifestyle you were heading for major health problems in the future, you'd just say - there's nothing I can do about it, no matter what the evidence to the contrary?
 
Do you mean like a priest devotes his life to the church, to preach the dogma?

so what you are saying is that you don't understand the difference between religion (based on myth) and the "scientific method" which is based on empirical and measurable evidence and the testing of hypotheses.

is that correct?
 
I think there was quite a bit of information. Sorry it wasn't enough data for you.

Check here if you want corroborating data.

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change



This is so obviously a political organization, why do you bother with it?

Their work is divided into three discreet parts according to them from your link:

<snip>
he Working Group (WG) Reports and Synthesis Report will be completed in 2013/2014:

WG I: The Physical Science Basis
23-26 September 2013, Stockholm, Sweden
WG II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
25-29 March 2014, Yokohama, Japan
WG III: Mitigation of Climate Change
7-11 April 2014, Berlin, Germany (tbc)
<snip>

When 2/3 of their process is political and the science part is just the grist for the mill, this would reveal their agenda to all bit those who share their agenda. Their agenda is continuously evolving as is their raw data. They collect the data needed to support their agenda even if they need to change it after it has been published.

I will charitably assume that their agenda is a mystery to you.
 
How do you know this stuff?

Science?

Then why don't you listen to the scientists who are telling you you ate wrong about denying AGW?

Because science tells us CO2 has always been an important driver of climate.

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf





Science tells us that CO2 has always been a reactive effect of climate that is the effect, not the cause of temperature rise and fall. CO2 is always lowest when the Ice ages begin to warm. Are you asserting that CO2 being low causes warming?

CO2 is always at its peak in any interglacial when the cooling begins. Are you asserting that CO2 being high causes cooling.

The paper you posted concluded with the following:

<snip>
A growing number of cool, putatively non-glacial peri- ods have been identified in the Phanerozoic. A pervasive pattern with these events is their brevity, typically <3 my and often <1 my. These cool periods are marked by either low-to-moderate levels of CO2 (<1000 ppm) or no CO2 coverage. Crucially, none of the cool periods are associated with CO2 levels exceeding 1000 ppm.

Many factors are important in controlling the average surface temperature of the Earth, including solar luminos- ity, albedo, distribution of continents and vegetation, orbi- tal parameters, and other greenhouse gases. The message of this study is not that atmospheric CO2 is always the dom- inant forcing (see Section 3.7 for an early Paleogene exam- ple).

Instead, given the variety of factors that can influence global temperatures, it is striking that such a consistent pattern between CO2 and temperature emerges for many intervals of the Phanerozoic. This correspondence suggests that CO2 can explain in part the patterns of globally aver- aged temperatures during the Phanerozoic.
<snip>

Your source opposes your view point. Too bad. Real science undermines your notion of what the party line science has led you to believe.

Additionally, neither the Phanerozoic levels of CO2 exceeded the 7000 ppm level nor the "low to moderate" levels at about 1000 ppm were not the trigger for runaway global warming. In truth, they produced temperatures far lower than those on Venus which is the prediction of dire consequence wheeled out by the AGW Diehards whenever they get the chance. Also, those levels were both produced and reduced by nature. Man did not exist and therefore had no affect on this.

I have to hand it to you,though, this is real, live scientific data. That's probably why it does not support your case.
 
Last edited:
Yep.

I haven't been able to get Goofs to explain this one yet:



Follows CO2 real well.... NOT!



The problem with the AGW Diehards is that they see a shiny object and grab it saying, "Here it is! I found it! This is the proof that shows that CO2 is bad and Americans are bad and we are smarter than you."

They get so excited that they rarely notice that whatever it was that was shiny had nothing at all to do with their assertion and will probably just show them to be as stupid as they actually are.
 
They can't get published if they don't chant the dogma. Besides, it does not disagree with what I said.

Yes, the acidity increases with CO2. Are you too blind to see that if a 0.01 pH increase is due to CO2, and a 0.1 pH increase by other forces, that the statement is still true?

Why not quote this part?



It's like a dog that sees a squirrel. Threegoofs just can't control himself.
 
Science tells us that CO2 has always been a reactive effect of climate that is the effect, not the cause of temperature rise and fall. CO2 is always lowest when the Ice ages begin to warm. Are you asserting that CO2 being low causes warming?

CO2 is always at its peak in any interglacial when the cooling begins. Are you asserting that CO2 being high causes cooling.

The paper you posted concluded with the following:

<snip>
A growing number of cool, putatively non-glacial peri- ods have been identified in the Phanerozoic. A pervasive pattern with these events is their brevity, typically <3 my and often <1 my. These cool periods are marked by either low-to-moderate levels of CO2 (<1000 ppm) or no CO2 coverage. Crucially, none of the cool periods are associated with CO2 levels exceeding 1000 ppm.

Many factors are important in controlling the average surface temperature of the Earth, including solar luminos- ity, albedo, distribution of continents and vegetation, orbi- tal parameters, and other greenhouse gases. The message of this study is not that atmospheric CO2 is always the dom- inant forcing (see Section 3.7 for an early Paleogene exam- ple).

Instead, given the variety of factors that can influence global temperatures, it is striking that such a consistent pattern between CO2 and temperature emerges for many intervals of the Phanerozoic. This correspondence suggests that CO2 can explain in part the patterns of globally aver- aged temperatures during the Phanerozoic.
<snip>

Your source opposes your view point. Too bad. Real science undermines your notion of what the party line science has led you to believe.

Additionally, neither the Phanerozoic levels of CO2 exceeded the 7000 ppm level nor the "low to moderate" levels at about 1000 ppm were not the trigger for runaway global warming. In truth, they produced temperatures far lower than those on Venus which is the prediction of dire consequence wheeled out by the AGW Diehards whenever they get the chance. Also, those levels were both produced and reduced by nature. Man did not exist and therefore had no affect on this.

I have to hand it to you,though, this is real, live scientific data. That's probably why it does not support your case.

If you read the abstract, it plainly states that CO2 is an important climate driver.

You whine about how I don't post links, then when I post one, you actually interpret it to be the exact opposite of what it says.

In case you haven't noticed,BTW, my viewpoint is the established scientific one. Yours is the one that derives science from Blogs, Monckton, and the Heartland Institute.
 
Ok, then we can use the entire span of time that has passed since the IPCC published the predictions of the climate models. I mean we can hardly go back any further than that in terms of comparing real world data to the models.

Here you go.

No matter which way you cut it the models are worthless.

Again, the important point is not that there is a warming trend, a fact that hardly anyone disputes. It's the reliability of the models that is called into question.

er uh low, your current post disproves your first post. The lying forbes 'editorial' says there has been no warming (or at least you claimed it did) for 17 years. Your new climate hero believes in global warming. He also believes in man made global warming. He just says it wont be as bad as predicted. So can we agree that your first 'editorial' was lying?

Oh this is from Spencer in his 2010 book:
“A careful examination of the satellite data suggests that manmade warming due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide could be less than 1ºC – possibly much less.”

"As Arnold Schwarzenegger said about the diversity of views of climate scientists, if your child is ill and 98 out of 100 doctors call for life-saving surgery and 2 say it is not necessary, your decision is obvious."

RealClimate: Review of Spencer’s ‘Great Global Warming Blunder’
 
This is so obviously a political organization, why do you bother with it?

Their work is divided into three discreet parts according to them from your link:

<snip>
he Working Group (WG) Reports and Synthesis Report will be completed in 2013/2014:

WG I: The Physical Science Basis
23-26 September 2013, Stockholm, Sweden
WG II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
25-29 March 2014, Yokohama, Japan
WG III: Mitigation of Climate Change
7-11 April 2014, Berlin, Germany (tbc)
<snip>

When 2/3 of their process is political and the science part is just the grist for the mill, this would reveal their agenda to all bit those who share their agenda. Their agenda is continuously evolving as is their raw data. They collect the data needed to support their agenda even if they need to change it after it has been published.

I will charitably assume that their agenda is a mystery to you.

what do you think the American Academy for the Advancement of Science is?

in 2006 the organization published as statement on climate change and has consistently published statements since that time that reinforce this.
 
Why do you think conservatives disagree with that?

How many times must we remind you warmers. Those of us who do not drink from that chalice of AGW water aren't claiming that warming isn't occurring.
Again... We do not claim warming has not been occurring! We do not disagree that the oceans have been rising in sea level. We do not disagree that the Arctic ice is retreating..
chalice of AGW ? ever the melodramatic Lord of Planar seems to just get the facts wrong again. Instead of working on your euphemisms you work on your facts. No Lord, a lot of cons are still stuck on Republican Lie #1: its a hoax. You should poll your fellow cons (see the Forbes "editorial" lowdown posted). Some like you seemed to have moved on to Republican Lie # 2: Its real but natural. And the latest republican hero Spencer is already starting with the next Republican Lie #3. Its real and man made but wont be as bad as predicted. (sadly I hoped he was right but since his work was so easily discredited I feel its okay to call that Lie #3)

What is causing the deep ocean to warm faster than the atmosphere when CO2 has no direct effect on it?
ah, the simplistic question designed to prove years of research from thousands of scientists is all wrong. But I wish you would use your 'brain power' to fact check your own posts instead of casting juvenile aspersions. See how how Lord slips in “warming faster than the atmosphere” into his question as if its a fact. (he does that a lot) Other than you Lord, who says that? (he wont answer)

Anyhoo Lord, I’ll explain why the deep oceans are warming. CO2 traps heat. Energy that would have dissipated into space stays in the atmosphere. (am I going too fast?). The oceans are giant thermal batteries. As the atmosphere warms up, the oceans absorb the heat. Its just another part of the climate models actual climate scientists use. But based on your never ending “falsehoods” about the volt, I know your agenda is to obfuscate the facts.
 
er uh low, your current post disproves your first post. The lying forbes 'editorial' says there has been no warming (or at least you claimed it did) for 17 years. Your new climate hero believes in global warming. He also believes in man made global warming. He just says it wont be as bad as predicted. So can we agree that your first 'editorial' was lying?

No. Spenser proves the point that the models overestimated warming predicted to occur after 1979. The graph he provides shows actual temperatures to be pretty flat after 1999. But yes, he agrees that there is a warming trend overall. You can see that within a warming trend there can be a period where temperatures remain the same that goes on for a number of years, right?

Again, the important point was that the models failed to foresee this pause in warming and can't explain it. It follows that they can't be relied on to tell us what will come next.



Oh this is from Spencer in his 2010 book:
“A careful examination of the satellite data suggests that manmade warming due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide could be less than 1ºC – possibly much less.”

A climate sensitivity of less than 1 degree would mean that all efforts to reduce global warming would be a waste of time, money, and effort.
 
Again, the important point was that the models failed to foresee this pause in warming and can't explain it. It follows that they can't be relied on to tell us what will come next.

A climate sensitivity of less than 1 degree would mean that all efforts to reduce global warming would be a waste of time, money, and effort.

and that's pretty much what Spencer is saying. the problem is that his work has been discredited. Again Arnold says it best

" As Arnold Schwarzenegger said about the diversity of views of climate scientists, if your child is ill and 98 out of 100 doctors call for life-saving surgery and 2 say it is not necessary, your decision is obvious."
 
If you read the abstract, it plainly states that CO2 is an important climate driver.

You whine about how I don't post links, then when I post one, you actually interpret it to be the exact opposite of what it says.

In case you haven't noticed,BTW, my viewpoint is the established scientific one. Yours is the one that derives science from Blogs, Monckton, and the Heartland Institute.




You say that I misinterpret what the author of the paper said, but this is exactly what he said from his conclusion:

"The message of this study is not that atmospheric CO2 is always the dom- inant forcing (see Section 3.7 for an early Paleogene exam- ple)."

He cannot be more direct than that in opposing the basis of your belief.

If it IS NOT always the dominating forcing, then you must prove that in this case of the current climate change, you must PROVE that it is.

It clearly is not, so the job of finding that proof will be as elusive for you as it has been for the entire group of AGW Diehards that are still supporting this.

Apparently, only about 36% of scientists agree with you. Funny how that number keeps cropping up, isn't it?

In the canard about the 97% of scientists endorsing this tripe that can't be proven which is reached only by discarding the 66% who do not endorse it, we find the level of agreement with the AGW diehards is only in the mid 30% range.

Now we have another study that again finds the Diehards in the mid 30% range. Funny how the lack of proof is wearing away the support.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

<snip>
It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
<snip>
Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.
<snip>


How does it feel to be a flat Earther?
 
Anyhoo Lord, I’ll explain why the deep oceans are warming. CO2 traps heat. Energy that would have dissipated into space stays in the atmosphere. (am I going too fast?). The oceans are giant thermal batteries. As the atmosphere warms up, the oceans absorb the heat. Its just another part of the climate models actual climate scientists use. But based on your never ending “falsehoods” about the volt, I know your agenda is to obfuscate the facts.

Were I a cynical sort I would suspect that Trenberth is blaming the deep ocean for soaking up all the heat energy because he knows that there are no comprehensive measurements of deep ocean temperatures to contradict his suppositions. And that's all they are. Trenberth used a computer model to show how transfer of heat to the deep ocean could explain why heat is missing from the climate system, he didn't prove that is actually happening. As it is, it's impossible to either prove or disprove the idea because we are talking about changes in deep ocean temperatures that would be impossible to measure even if the instruments needed to make the measurements existed and were in place. The changes in temperature predicted would be on the order of one one hundredth of a degree.

As Spencer points out, there has been no increase in ocean winds, so that mechanism can't explain why the transfer of heat energy to deep oceans increased. Nor is there any other likely explanation for it. There is no reason known for the ocean to suddenly start sucking up heat energy just over the past 15 years or so.
 
what do you think the American Academy for the Advancement of Science is?

in 2006 the organization published as statement on climate change and has consistently published statements since that time that reinforce this.



Then it should be easy for them to provide the proof that backs their claims.

Why is the globe a full degree cooler right now than it was 8000 years ago?
 
er uh low, your current post disproves your first post. The lying forbes 'editorial' says there has been no warming (or at least you claimed it did) for 17 years. Your new climate hero believes in global warming. He also believes in man made global warming. He just says it wont be as bad as predicted. So can we agree that your first 'editorial' was lying?

Oh this is from Spencer in his 2010 book:
“A careful examination of the satellite data suggests that manmade warming due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide could be less than 1ºC – possibly much less.”

"As Arnold Schwarzenegger said about the diversity of views of climate scientists, if your child is ill and 98 out of 100 doctors call for life-saving surgery and 2 say it is not necessary, your decision is obvious."

RealClimate: Review of Spencer’s ‘Great Global Warming Blunder’



And if all of those 98 doctors were proven to be wrong in every single diagnosis they have ever made?

What do you do then? Continue to bleed the child and "freeze out the fever" or provide the new drugs and antibiotics?

Witch doctors are not always the best bet. Sometimes it's better to go with the guys that are showing real world results and using real world data.

Out of curiosity, do you always base life decisions on the words on weight lifters?
 
I find it fascinating that in order to believe the scientific reality, you have to like the solution first.

First things first. Identify the problem. Then fix it. Don't look at the fixes and then get scared and pretend the problem doesn't exist.



That's a good process.

Now find and prove the cause and then you might be able to formulate a plan to create a solution. Might not, too. It depends on what the cause is.
 
You say that I misinterpret what the author of the paper said, but this is exactly what he said from his conclusion:

"The message of this study is not that atmospheric CO2 is always the dom- inant forcing (see Section 3.7 for an early Paleogene exam- ple)."

He cannot be more direct than that in opposing the basis of your belief.

If it IS NOT always the dominating forcing, then you must prove that in this case of the current climate change, you must PROVE that it is.

It clearly is not, so the job of finding that proof will be as elusive for you as it has been for the entire group of AGW Diehards that are still supporting this.

Apparently, only about 36% of scientists agree with you. Funny how that number keeps cropping up, isn't it?

In the canard about the 97% of scientists endorsing this tripe that can't be proven which is reached only by discarding the 66% who do not endorse it, we find the level of agreement with the AGW diehards is only in the mid 30% range.

Now we have another study that again finds the Diehards in the mid 30% range. Funny how the lack of proof is wearing away the support.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

<snip>
It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
<snip>
Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.
<snip>


How does it feel to be a flat Earther?

Oh my god. You are such a tool.

If you read the study, you'll see that it was a survey of 'institutional resistance' of petroleum engineers, to better understand how they can be smart enough to understand the science, but how resistant they are to change.

Here's a paragraph from the actual study, not the Forbes fabrication.

---------------------------
To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries. Not only are we interested in the positions they take towards climate change and in the recommendations for policy development and organizational decision-making that they derive from their framings, but also in how they construct and attempt to safeguard their expert status against others. To gain an understanding of the competing expert claims and to link them to issues of professional resistance and defensive institutional work, we combine insights from various disciplines and approaches: framing, professions literature, and institutional theory. This addresses the call from Zald and Lounsbury (2010, p. 970) for a systematic re-engagement ‘of the critical and expanded role of experts and communities of expertise – especially the international dimension … [as] opportunities for scholarship in Organization Studies’. Using a qualitative methodology and induction, we find a variety of frames and the strategies used to promote them. Our study demonstrates that the majority of ‘command posts’ (Zald & Lounsbury, 2010, p. 963) within organizations, especially in the petroleum industry, seem to be manned with opponents to the IPCC and anthropogenic climate science who are actively engaged in defensive institutional work
 
"EACH of us took turns over the past 43 years running the Environmental Protection Agency. We served Republican presidents, but we have a message that transcends political affiliation: the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change, at home and internationally. "

(attention cons, read this next part very slowly. read it as many times as necessary)

There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/a-republican-case-for-climate-action.html?_r=0

I don't know if the earth is warming or cooling. After reading this article it just seems screwed up.

North Pole Sees Unprecedented July Cold
 
Back
Top Bottom