• 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!

Anthropogenic Global Warming 101

It still amazes me that people are so easily scared into believing this AGW crap.

You're right, it's the fear & not the mountains of evidence, experimental results and consensus among 95% of the world's scientists that make me 'belief' this "crap."

Wow, I can't help but be sarcastic in this thread - maybe if there was actually serious discussion or real debate from the other side...

Heretic said:
I love that pic.

Me too. I have the T-shirt.

p.s. do you go by the name Heretic on any other forums? You seem familiar for some reason..
 
If you repeat a lie often enough, the masses will believe it. Mass media just makes it easier to pull off.
 
I noticed you ran and hid like you normally do rather than prove me wrong.
As in how you've cut and run from providing a single scientific source without lying by omission to prove AGW is bogus?
 
Wow, I can't help but be sarcastic in this thread - maybe if there was actually serious discussion or real debate from the other side...

These phony skepticism discussions usually bring that out. They quickly devolve into the usual crank denial, which is never anything other than hilarious.

p.s. do you go by the name Heretic on any other forums? You seem familiar for some reason..

I did, though they are all pretty much dead. The avatar has been the same for all but the very first, but that one was shut down years ago.
 
These phony skepticism discussions usually bring that out. They quickly devolve into the usual crank denial, which is never anything other than hilarious.
Bingo, all too often the argument from the otherside has become, how is it scientific to prevent skepticism, that's not science that's religion.:roll:
Is it religious then to acknowledge that stepping off a high rise building without a parachute will result in splattering death?
 

It is a lie. Sorry Jfuh you cannot accept that others see the data, read both sides and decide that the hysteria of AGW is just that... a new Y2K scare.

Sadly, unlike Y2K which had a deadline, we're gonna have to listen to the hysteria for another decade before it's obvious to all but the faithful few like yourself before AGW is finally put into the junk pile of bad science that has littered history since records were first kept.

The story of "chicken little" is one you should read apply to your life.
 
It is a lie. Sorry Jfuh you cannot accept that others see the data, read both sides and decide that the hysteria of AGW is just that... a new Y2K scare.

Sadly, unlike Y2K which had a deadline, we're gonna have to listen to the hysteria for another decade before it's obvious to all but the faithful few like yourself before AGW is finally put into the junk pile of bad science that has littered history since records were first kept.

The story of "chicken little" is one you should read apply to your life.
Go right ahead vic and ignore all the scientific literature that supports AGW.
Fact of the matter is there is no other side of the scientific debate, there would be peer reviewed publication that supports the position of the other side. To date, I've not seen a single publication that supports "the other side".
All I've seen are political discussions presented by a group that refuses to accept anything that goes against their ideological standing and insist it all to be "just a lie".
There's another group of such people, they refuse to accept that we landed on the moon, refuse to accept that there is no lockness monster, insist that aliens have visited us, we call them the tin foil hat group of conspirators.
tin-foil-hat.jpg
 
Last edited:
If you repeat a lie often enough, the masses will believe it. Mass media just makes it easier to pull off.

Interesting because the mass media is the one promoting the existence of a controversy, while scientists are nearly universally agreed on the matter.

...others see the data, read both sides and decide that the hysteria of AGW is...

jfuh said:
Fact of the matter is there is no other side of the scientific debate, ...

Yeah, what other side? You said yourself, MrVicchio, that the media can repeat a lie often enough for the masses to believe it, but among scientists (ya' know, the guys & gals that actually study the subject and know what they're talking about) there really isn't any other side anymore.

:doh
 
Last edited:
Beyond Belief: Candles in the Dark - Naomi Oreskes

Demonstrating quite clearly (once again) that the science of AGW had been established decades before Al Gore and the IPCC got involved, much to the chagrin of skeptics.

The history of the Jason Defense Advisory Group is another interesting read:

Since the early 1990s there has been a furious debate about global warming. So-called climate change “sceptics” have spent years disputing almost every aspect of the scientific consensus on the subject. Their arguments have successfully delayed significant political action to deal with greenhouse gas emissions. Recent research reveals how the roots of this argument stretch back to two hugely influential reports written almost 30 years ago.

These reports involve a secret organisation of American scientists reporting to the US Department of Defense. At the highest levels of the American government, officials pondered whether global warming was a significant new threat to civilisation. They turned for advice to the elite special forces of the scientific world – a shadowy organisation known as Jason. Even today few people have heard of Jason. It was established in 1960 at the height of the cold war when a group of physicists who had helped to develop the atomic bomb proposed a new organisation that would – to quote one of its founders – “inject new ideas into national defence”.

. . .

In 1979 they produced their report: coded JSR-78-07 and entitled The Long Term Impact of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Climate. Now, with the benefit of hind-sight, it is remarkable how prescient it was.

Right on the first page, the Jasons predicted that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would double from their preindustrial levels by about 2035. Today it’s expected this will happen by about 2050. They suggested that this doubling of carbon dioxide would lead to an average warming across the planet of 2-3C. Again, that’s smack in the middle of today’s predictions. They warned that polar regions would warm by much more than the average, perhaps by as much as 10C or 12C. That prediction is already coming true – last year the Arctic sea ice melted to a new record low. This year may well set another record.

Nor were the Jasons frightened of drawing the obvious conclusions for civilisation: the cause for concern was clear when one noted “the fragility of the world’s crop-producing capacity, particularly in those marginal areas where small alterations in temperature and precipitation can bring about major changes in total productivity”.
 
Interesting because the mass media is the one promoting the existence of a controversy, while scientists are nearly universally agreed on the matter.
In the scientific literature (the only place that matters of any scientific debate) they are universally agreed on this matter of AGW.

MDM said:
Yeah, what other side? You said yourself, MrVicchio, that the media can repeat a lie often enough for the masses to believe it, but among scientists (ya' know, the guys & gals that actually study the subject and know what they're talking about) there really isn't any other side anymore.

:doh
Actually, in 30 years of scientific literature, there never was an "other" side. There has never been a single paper that ever rejected or questioned the validity of AGW. Several have questioned methodologies that have concluded in AGW but interestingly not a single paper has ever rejected AGW theory.
 
Demonstrating quite clearly (once again) that the science of AGW had been established decades before Al Gore and the IPCC got involved, much to the chagrin of skeptics.

The history of the Jason Defense Advisory Group is another interesting read:

You seem to be creating a controversy that doesn't exist. I know of no one that knows anything about GW that doesn't know it was discussed long before Al Gore.

Got anything interesting or new to contribute??
 
I know of no one that knows anything about GW that doesn't know it was discussed long before Al Gore.

Really? It was only a few weeks ago I was involved in a heavy discussion on this very board with an individual who attempted to paint Al Gore and the IPCC in the center of some ridiculous Club of Rome conspiracy. It's not a universal argument, no, but even you have to admit that within the skeptic literature, Gore and the IPCC are villanized as if they'd manufactured "the hype" only a few years ago, ignoring the warnings from well established government scientists decades ago.

Got anything interesting or new to contribute??

You're confused. I'm not doing this for you.
 
Really? It was only a few weeks ago I was involved in a heavy discussion on this very board with an individual who attempted to paint Al Gore and the IPCC in the center of some ridiculous Club of Rome conspiracy. It's not a universal argument, no, but even you have to admit that within the skeptic literature, Gore and the IPCC are villanized as if they'd manufactured "the hype" only a few years ago, ignoring the warnings from well established government scientists decades ago.

You must have missed what I said:

Gill said:
I know of no one that knows anything about GW that doesn't know it was discussed long before Al Gore.

No, we don't think that Gore manufactured GW, we think he sensationalized it, at least I do. The IPCC is a travesty of science and will be seen as such by history.

[You're confused. I'm not doing this for you.

I don't recall stating that you did.
 
No, we don't think that Gore manufactured GW, we think he sensationalized it, at least I do.

You may not, but a large percentage of skeptics still do. A simple google search is more than enough to demonstrate that.

The IPCC is a travesty of science and will be seen as such by history.

It's such a good thing you're here to protect us from all those brain dead elitists working at NASA, NOAA, and the Pentagon.

I don't recall stating that you did.

Your insistence for something new/interesting seemed to suggest otherwise. But alas, AGW hasn't reversed itself, so I'm unable to offer anything other than more of the same. Sorry to disappoint...
 
You may not, but a large percentage of skeptics still do. A simple google search is more than enough to demonstrate that.

Links??

It's such a good thing you're here to protect us from all those brain dead elitists working at NASA, NOAA, and the Pentagon.

You keep doing the same thing.... did you go to public schools? Where did I mention NASA, NOAA, and the Pentagon???

Your insistence for something new/interesting seemed to suggest otherwise. But alas, AGW hasn't reversed itself, so I'm unable to offer anything other than more of the same. Sorry to disappoint...

As I've shown time and again, it most certainly reversed itself for the past 5+ years. Will it continue? I don't know and you certainly don't know.
 
You keep doing the same thing.... did you go to public schools? Where did I mention NASA, NOAA, and the Pentagon???
Given that they have the same position as the IPCC as well as sourcing to the IPCC reports, you are then claiming all of these are clueless and "manufacturing" a false premise.

Gill said:
As I've shown time and again, it most certainly reversed itself for the past 5+ years. Will it continue? I don't know and you certainly don't know.
There has been no reversal whatsoever gill, stretch it as far as you possibly could, these last 5 years have done nothing of reversing the trend of the last hundred years.
Global cooling in 2007 - has global warming ended?
 
You keep doing the same thing.... did you go to public schools? Where did I mention NASA, NOAA, and the Pentagon???

I never said you did. However, you hilariously stated:

The IPCC is a travesty of science and will be seen as such by history.

Which is in stark contradiction to the organizations that I mentioned. which is why I pointed it out. I'm just trying to figure out what you could possibly know that our scientific industry does not.

As I've shown time and again, it most certainly reversed itself for the past 5+ years.

No, you just keep posting the same temperature trend believing it to be a reversal (again, in contradiction to the very people who made those measurements). The planet, however, is still absorbing more heat than it's releasing and the oceans are still warming, which wouldn't be the case if this were a true cooling and not the fluctuations from a PDO.

Will it continue? I don't know and you certainly don't know.

This is why you should trust your government, hippie. They have a lot of award winning people working really hard on this topic, and as I pointed out just a few posts ago, they've been trying to warn us for several decades now.
 
Seriously? That's your definition of alarmism? :lol:
 
Gill said:
You may not, but a large percentage of skeptics still do. A simple google search is more than enough to demonstrate that.

Links???

Well, consider this statement from rebelbuc in True Debate #6:

Jfuh, the great problem with your "facts" is your reliance on so-called "peer-reviewed" data that has received the stamp of approval from the incestuous, politicized IPCC. There is ample circumstantial evidence that the IPCC was set up to promote their political agenda that man's CO2 emissions are the primary force for temperature change.

Who then posts a litany of nonsensical articles painting the IPCC at the center of some grand conspiracy of deception, as if what they said was new and not the consensus of published literature that it was. Odd considering that the conclusions of the IPCC, which have either been endorsed or confirmed by every scientific organization on the planet, aren't all that different than the warnings the scientific community has been issuing for decades now - disruption of food supply, sea level rise, infectious disease control, etc.

And given how often I've come across such memes in similar discussions, I hardly think I'm the one manufacturing the controversy.
 
What peer reviewed publication was this published in??

Oops, never mind. I see it's just an another alarmist blog.
You're right, there hasn't been any peer review publication about the recent cooling. But you know what gill? Equally, there has been no peer reviewed publication about the beginning of a cooling trend or a cooling the cancels out 100 years of global warming.
So what exactly is your source to claim that this is the start of something?
 
Back
Top Bottom