Getting Started In The Global Warming Debate[W:296]

[pdog]

I'd like to understand both sides of this better. Most of the time I can read a thread and catch up but there is severe fatigue on both sides of this debate, so people are tired of repeating themselves (which is bad for people that HAVEN'T read the last 100 threads). So I guess I'm asking for everybody to first respond to this OP on what your primary points are for or against climate change, after that if you'd like to counter other arguments that would also be great, but if you could pretend that you don't know your normal antithesis for a few posts I would greatly appreciate it.

It seems there are 3 sides to this debate:
1) Global warming is not occurring
2) Global warming is occurring but is not caused by man
3) Global warming is occurring and it is caused by man

If you could post which of those you believe and your best pieces of evidence, I would be grateful. I'll be honest and say I would lean towards #3, but I can see the counterpoint in proving the cause in such a chaotic system is an uphill battle. However, it is because of that same chaos, that I also believe that #1 is also a tough sell as any short term pause is of little significance.

 

[Dovkan]

I'd like to understand both sides of this better. Most of the time I can read a thread and catch up but there is severe fatigue on both sides of this debate, so people are tired of repeating themselves (which is bad for people that HAVEN'T read the last 100 threads). So I guess I'm asking for everybody to first respond to this OP on what your primary points are for or against climate change, after that if you'd like to counter other arguments that would also be great, but if you could pretend that you don't know your normal antithesis for a few posts I would greatly appreciate it.

It seems there are 3 sides to this debate:
1) Global warming is not occurring
2) Global warming is occurring but is not caused by man
3) Global warming is occurring and it is caused by man

If you could post which of those you believe and your best pieces of evidence, I would be grateful. I'll be honest and say I would lean towards #3, but I can see the counterpoint in proving the cause in such a chaotic system is an uphill battle. However, it is because of that same chaos, that I also believe that #1 is also a tough sell as any short term pause is of little significance.

I align with #3, here we go:
- For 650,000 years, atmospheric carbon dioxide has never been even close to 400 parts per million as it was in 2014
- The evidence is there, it exists, and it is accepted, the only "evidence" I find against it involves ignorance, misinterpretation, debunked studies, and studies that aren't peer reviewed, and even if they are true, do nothing to global warming, as their are many variables and long term trends are measured.
- Sea levels rising
- Global surface temperature has been rising since 1880, in regards to industrialization.
- Warming Oceans
- Shrinking ice sheets (Prepare for completely hilarious satellite images that literally go like this: http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/th...012_med.gif/350px-ArcticEscalator2012_med.gif)
- Glacial Retreat
- Record high temperature events in the US that have been increasing, low temperature events decreasing.
- Ocean acidification
- Decreased snow cover
- 97% of climate scientists actually agree, deal with it. Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus (Show me one national or international scientific body that rejects global warming)
- Entrenched interests who benefit from spreading bull**** about global warming, such as exxon.
- The height of the tropopause is increasing
- Biological changes are even occurring (A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems : Abstract : Nature) (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n8/full/nclimate1259.html) Many more.
I'd love to see the deniers arguments, quite fun to point out the bull****.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'd like to understand both sides of this better. Most of the time I can read a thread and catch up but there is severe fatigue on both sides of this debate, so people are tired of repeating themselves (which is bad for people that HAVEN'T read the last 100 threads). So I guess I'm asking for everybody to first respond to this OP on what your primary points are for or against climate change, after that if you'd like to counter other arguments that would also be great, but if you could pretend that you don't know your normal antithesis for a few posts I would greatly appreciate it.

It seems there are 3 sides to this debate:
1) Global warming is not occurring
2) Global warming is occurring but is not caused by man
3) Global warming is occurring and it is caused by man

If you could post which of those you believe and your best pieces of evidence, I would be grateful. I'll be honest and say I would lean towards #3, but I can see the counterpoint in proving the cause in such a chaotic system is an uphill battle. However, it is because of that same chaos, that I also believe that #1 is also a tough sell as any short term pause is of little significance.

4) Global warming is caused by man and nature both.

On that point, I think you will find those of us saying this argue against those who claim it is #3. The people who argue this point say any event we have is because of AGW.

The problem is quantifying the amount that nature has to play, and man. Man contributes to AGW by changing the natural surroundings, releasing greenhouse gasses, and aerosols. My contention is that soot on ice is the greatest anthropogenic component. I contend that CO2 at most, has around 1/4 the effect claimed by alarmists.

The side that espouses man an the primary cause of change is loosing their battle, as their predictions of the past into today are proving to be wrong and unlikely.

The papers written for modern climatology are written very elusive and are full of weasel words. When the pundits refer to these papers, they take their biased perception and claim things these papers do not explicitly claim. The common theme among most of what people read about climate change is simply propaganda.

I've been arguing this topic for over a decade now, and rather than post again why I believe what I do, search my posts in the subforum. Climate change is an extremely complex topic, and there are too many aspects of it to comply with what you ask. It is a topic that I find maybe "97%" of the people arguing it, are simply parroting the political pundits.

 

[Dovkan]

4) Global warming is caused by man and nature both.

On that point, I think you will find those of us saying this argue against those who claim it is #3. The people who argue this point say any event we have is because of AGW.

The problem is quantifying the amount that nature has to play, and man. Man contributes to AGW by changing the natural surroundings, releasing greenhouse gasses, and aerosols. My contention is that soot on ice is the greatest anthropogenic component. I contend that CO2 at most, has around 1/4 the effect claimed by alarmists.

The side that espouses man an the primary cause of change is loosing their battle, as their predictions of the past into today are proving to be wrong and unlikely.

The papers written for modern climatology are written very elusive and are full of weasel words. When the pundits refer to these papers, they take their biased perception and claim things these papers do not explicitly claim. The common theme among most of what people read about climate change is simply propaganda.

I've been arguing this topic for over a decade now, and rather than post again why I believe what I do, search my posts in the subforum. Climate change is an extremely complex topic, and there are too many aspects of it to comply with what you ask. It is a topic that I find maybe "97%" of the people arguing it, are simply parroting the political pundits.

Oh god, here we go, please, look at my post and try to say it's wrong, denialism is hilarious.

The papers written for modern climatology are written very elusive and are full of weasel words. When the pundits refer to these papers, they take their biased perception and claim things these papers do not explicitly claim.

- They use actual data and evidence, all around the world, climate scientists accept climate change, it's not just America, and I'm sure you're an informed scientist.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Oh god, here we go, please, look at my post and try to say it's wrong, denialism is hilarious.
- They use actual data and evidence, all around the world, climate scientists accept climate change, it's not just America, and I'm sure you're an informed scientist.

Yes, the scientists do. It is the pundits then that spin the material written from papers. Then there are a few pundits within the climatology field, where they will take possibilities from one paper, and use it in a new paper as fact.

Have you read any papers, and traced assumed facts from the sources listed in their endnotes? It appears you have never done that.

 

[Dovkan]

Yes, the scientists do. It is the pundits then that spin the material written from papers. Then there are a few pundits within the climatology field, where they will take possibilities from one paper, and use it in a new paper as fact.

Have you read any papers, and traced assumed facts from the sources listed in their endnotes? It appears you have never done that.

Of course the scientists do, it's all a great conspiracy! Spin the material? Who, like nasa, all international scientific organizations? Yes, a few pundits who are thrown out, the data and evidence is real. It's simply fear mongering, and yes, I have read papers, the sources aren't a great conspiracy.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Of course the scientists do, it's all a great conspiracy! Spin the material? Who, like nasa, all international scientific organizations? Yes, a few pundits who are thrown out, the data and evidence is real. It's simply fear mongering, and yes, I have read papers, the sources aren't a great conspiracy.

I see you need to look up the definition of conspiracy.

When you counter my arguments with the way you just did, you lose, because words have meaning.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Personally from my reading of the evidence I believe AGW is happening, but I think manmade co2 is only amplifying a natural trend, also the climate models that predict doom show a logarithmic increase in emissions that's not possible since we've peaked our ability to produce fossil fuels.

Also I think trying to reduce co2 will kneecap our economy worse then simply dealing with the consequences as they arise

But at this point, there is no legitimate science that disproves AGW, the debate is really about the potential effects

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Good luck pdog. I am a total science geek and always try to understand to the best of my lay ability interesting science topics. But when it comes to researching climate change you have to dig through a mountain of political crap to find that one piece of unbiased scientific data. I get the distinct impression their are powerful parties at play that spend a lot of money to bury the facts under all that misleading crap so people either get frustrated and ignore it altogether or just resign themselves to believing whatever their favorite TV talking heads tell them is the truth.

 

[Dovkan]

I see you need to look up the definition of conspiracy.

When you counter my arguments with the way you just did, you lose, because words have meaning.

The fact is, AGW is happening. You refuse to show that it is not, or refute my evidence.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Personally from my reading of the evidence I believe AGW is happening, but I think manmade co2 is only amplifying a natural trend, also the climate models that predict doom show a logarithmic increase in emissions that's not possible since we've peaked our ability to produce fossil fuels.

I'm glad to see you have a reasonable perspective. I would say CO2 adds to the trend. I wouldn't say it amplifies it. Amplify relates to a form of feedback. If all else was equal, and no CO2 added by mankind but there was natural warming, then CO2 would be a feedback as the oceans absorption of CO2 decreases as temperature increases.

Also I think trying to reduce co2 will kneecap our economy worse then simply dealing with the consequences as they arise

It depends on the severity of reduction you attempt. Look at the auto market with government imposed CAFE standards. Cars are rising in price, out of range of many citizens. I have no problem with reasonable reductions, but we have already crossed that live.

But at this point, there is no legitimate science that disproves AGW, the debate is really about the potential effects

AGW is real. I have no doubt about it. I simply understand that it is a small component of warning, not the majority of it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The fact is, AGW is happening. You refuse to show that it is not, or refute my evidence.

I never said AGW isn't happening. Again, words have meaning. If you cannot comprehend what I say, please don't argue with me.

 

[Dovkan]

I never said AGW isn't happening. Again, words have meaning. If you cannot comprehend what I say, please don't argue with me.

AGW is the majority .-. The data shows this.

 

[Lord of Planar]

AGW is the majority .-. The data shows this.

That is debatable. I disagree with that contention, and you believe it to be so.

Can we start that we agree to disagree there?

Please don't use your own bias to argue against things I didn't say. Ask for me to elaborate rather than making one of us look foolish. Oh... It isn't me that looks foolish when that happens. Agree or disagree with me, but don't make the mistake of arguing with me, against something I didn't say.

 

[McBane]

How about split between 2&3. There are a whole lot of inputs into a system that complex. Once someone has a model that can accurately predict future results I'll be inclined to believe that we understand how much is contributed by natural cycles vs man. Until then it's probably wise not to rock the boat too much.

 

[Jack Hays]

I'd like to understand both sides of this better. Most of the time I can read a thread and catch up but there is severe fatigue on both sides of this debate, so people are tired of repeating themselves (which is bad for people that HAVEN'T read the last 100 threads). So I guess I'm asking for everybody to first respond to this OP on what your primary points are for or against climate change, after that if you'd like to counter other arguments that would also be great, but if you could pretend that you don't know your normal antithesis for a few posts I would greatly appreciate it.

It seems there are 3 sides to this debate:
1) Global warming is not occurring
2) Global warming is occurring but is not caused by man
3) Global warming is occurring and it is caused by man

If you could post which of those you believe and your best pieces of evidence, I would be grateful. I'll be honest and say I would lean towards #3, but I can see the counterpoint in proving the cause in such a chaotic system is an uphill battle. However, it is because of that same chaos, that I also believe that #1 is also a tough sell as any short term pause is of little significance.

To me the work of Nir Shaviv and Henrik Svensmark, sometimes referred to as cosmoclimatology, is most persuasive. Here is the OP article from a recent thread I started to put some of their recent work into the forum.

From the platform of Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study, Nir Shaviv outlines some major themes in cosmoclimatology. There has been much talk that Shaviv and his colleague/collaborator Henrik Svensmark have some significant results forthcoming this year. This letter may be the preamble.

https://www.ias.edu/ias-letter/2015/shaviv-cosmic-rays

". . . The results have two particularly interesting implications. First, they bring yet another link between the galactic environment and the terrestrial climate. Although there is no direct evidence that cosmic rays are the actual link on the 32-million-year time scale, as far as we know, they are the only link that can explain these observations. This in turn strengthens the idea that cosmic ray variations through solar activity affect the climate. In this picture, solar activity increase is responsible for about half of the twentieth-century global warming through a reduction of the cosmic ray flux, leaving less to be explained by anthropogenic activity. Also, in this picture, climate sensitivity is on the low side (perhaps 1 to 1.5°C increase per CO2 doubling, compared with the 1.5 to 4.5°C range advocated by the IPCC), implying that the future is not as dire as often prophesied. . . .
It should be noted that the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate is by no means generally accepted. The link is contentious and it has attracted significant opponents over the years because of its ramifications to our understanding of recent and future climate change. For it to be finally accepted, one has to understand all the microphysics and chemistry associated with it. For this reason, we are now carrying out a lab experiment to pinpoint the mechanism responsible for linking atmospheric ions and cloud condensation nuclei. This should solidify a complete theory to explain the empirical evidence. . . ."​

 

[Mithrae]

It seems there are 3 sides to this debate:
1) Global warming is not occurring
2) Global warming is occurring but is not caused by man
3) Global warming is occurring and it is caused by man

If you could post which of those you believe and your best pieces of evidence, I would be grateful. I'll be honest and say I would lean towards #3, but I can see the counterpoint in proving the cause in such a chaotic system is an uphill battle. However, it is because of that same chaos, that I also believe that #1 is also a tough sell as any short term pause is of little significance.

In my experience, there are quite a few more than three sides:
A) We don't even know whether global warming is occuring - the temperature records are unreliable.
B) Okay, they're pretty reliable, but the global warming has stopped now!
C) Well, maybe a decade's pause which seems to be over now doesn't prove anything. But the warming is natural.
D) Yeah okay, the greenhouse effect of CO2 is pretty hard science, but it's less than half the warming.
E) No, fair enough, I can't prove that, and over 80% of experts disagree with me. But the warming isn't harmful.
F) So there's been a bit of harm already, and more expected. But getting rid of fossil fuels would be worse!
G) Well yeah, maybe it would've been better to phase out fossil fuels 20 years ago. Too late to be much use now though.

The very fact that opposition to mainstream climate science is so fragmented - often with a single source trying to push several mutually exclusive objections simultaneously - is itself a reasonably heavy hint that what we're looking at here is more rhetorical and ideological than rational and sceptical. And that's without even touching on the various conspiracy-theory-type objections which seem to touch a chord with conservatives scared of socialists finding a new way to take over the world or (paradoxically) scientists and/or Big Business making a fortune off the scam :lol:



On the other side, some noteworthy points of rhetorical BS are:
> The 97% 'consensus'; numerous studies suggest that ~85%+ of scientists active in climate research conclude that half or more of the last 100 years' warming is anthropogenic, but the 97% figure is obtained only by the broadest imaginable questioning (and then often even further abused, to imply belief in catastrophic consequences and support for such-and-such policies to avert them)

> Exaggerated alarmism; from what I've found, the median estimates for the impacts of climate change by the end of this century seem to be somewhere in the order of a few hundred million to a couple of billion people moderately to severely impacted. Whether such consequences are worth acting on depends on one's values and priorities, I suppose - the worst affected will likely be poorer countries and tropical regions, after all - but all the rhetoric which implies that the very survival of humanity or technical civilization is threatened by climate change seems, as far as I've yet found, to be unfounded at best

> Rarely if ever seen on this forum, but worth mentioning nonetheless, the absurdity of those environmentalists who think that GHG emissions can be dramatically reduced whilst still opposing nuclear power. Hydro-electric power might fill those requirements, but obviously only in areas blessed with the potential for it. By contrast, even disregarding climate change coal power kills more people when it goes right than nuclear does when it goes wrong. Arbitrarily excluding it from the mix of a transition to lower-carbon economies seems rather foolish

Edit: Admittedly I haven't answered your question

 

[longview]

I'd like to understand both sides of this better. Most of the time I can read a thread and catch up but there is severe fatigue on both sides of this debate, so people are tired of repeating themselves (which is bad for people that HAVEN'T read the last 100 threads). So I guess I'm asking for everybody to first respond to this OP on what your primary points are for or against climate change, after that if you'd like to counter other arguments that would also be great, but if you could pretend that you don't know your normal antithesis for a few posts I would greatly appreciate it.

It seems there are 3 sides to this debate:
1) Global warming is not occurring
2) Global warming is occurring but is not caused by man
3) Global warming is occurring and it is caused by man

If you could post which of those you believe and your best pieces of evidence, I would be grateful. I'll be honest and say I would lean towards #3, but I can see the counterpoint in proving the cause in such a chaotic system is an uphill battle. However, it is because of that same chaos, that I also believe that #1 is also a tough sell as any short term pause is of little significance.

Good Morning pdog!
Most here I suspect fall into #3) on your list, but that is not the end of the story.
Human activity is very likely causing some of the warming observed since 1880,
The question is weather the warming will accelerate and hit the IPCC targets?
The IPCC, says there are several types of warming caused by doubling the CO2 level.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-01.pdf
The direct response (happens within seconds) is an energy imbalance of about 3.71 Wm-2,
this would result in a temperature increase of about 1.1 C
And the amplified response caused by feedback to the direct response,
which will cause warming between 1.5 and 4.5 C, but likely 3 C.
This secondary warming could take decades to show up.
So How are the predictions doing?
CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to 400 ppm
GISS temperatures have increased by .9 C. since 1880
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
The doubling curve of added CO2 shows the 41% towards doubling, should have have about 51%
of the effect, so about .55 C
Nasa says as much as .3 C could be from increases in solar intensity, although
we have lost some intensity in the last decade.
Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) Fact Sheet : Feature Articles
We could reasonably say .7 C of the observed .9 is from the
direct response of CO2, and the increase in solar intensity, (Picking the middle of the NASA range, .15 C).
This leaves .2 C of unaccounted variables in 134 years.
At the current rate of growth in CO2 emissions we could hit the doubling mark of 560 ppm
by 2075.
If the same (unknown variables) are applied to the 60 years that have existed
for the last 134 years, what would the likely temperature be?
We know we will get another .55 C from the direct response of the CO2,
and while we do not know what all the feedbacks and variables are, for the first 51%,
they averaged out to .2 C, so will likely do so for the next half.
.9 C + .55 C + .2 C= 1.65 C
This is a little over half of the IPCC prediction of 3 C.
Would that 1.65 C of warming be dangerous?
This is really unknown, but the 200 years before 1880 saw a similar increase,
and humanity survived.
Also worth considering is that most of the observed warming is not daytime
highs, but nighttime lows not going as low.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1995/1995_Hansen_etal_2.pdf

They find that the average minimum temperature increased 0.84°C
while the average maximum temperature increased only 0.28°C.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I'd simply say it's not science if there is a profit margin and a tax increase assigned to every solution.

If the solutions were practical and effective, I'd be all for governments around the world making those solutions the economic choice everyone will choose. If green energy is the solution to climate change, make green energy so cheap and efficient that fossil fuels become expensive dinosaurs.

But no, what you'll find is that those who pimp for climate change disaster are pushing significant tax increases and increases in the cost of living in order to fund wealth redistribution and government spending programs. The United Nations itself, one of the prime movers in the scam, has said exactly that.

As a result, I'm strongly resistant to giving up my way of life to fund a scam.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I'd like to understand both sides of this better. Most of the time I can read a thread and catch up but there is severe fatigue on both sides of this debate, so people are tired of repeating themselves (which is bad for people that HAVEN'T read the last 100 threads). So I guess I'm asking for everybody to first respond to this OP on what your primary points are for or against climate change, after that if you'd like to counter other arguments that would also be great, but if you could pretend that you don't know your normal antithesis for a few posts I would greatly appreciate it.

It seems there are 3 sides to this debate:
1) Global warming is not occurring
2) Global warming is occurring but is not caused by man
3) Global warming is occurring and it is caused by man

If you could post which of those you believe and your best pieces of evidence, I would be grateful. I'll be honest and say I would lean towards #3, but I can see the counterpoint in proving the cause in such a chaotic system is an uphill battle. However, it is because of that same chaos, that I also believe that #1 is also a tough sell as any short term pause is of little significance.

Number 4.

I don't know but I know I'm being snowed.

I bought it all once. Now I see the politics of it, the lies and bull**** "fixes" like the Kyoto accord that would do nothing buy move wealth and frankly I started looking deeper.

There's nothing to believe, the "scientists" predict stuff that never happens and, here, the stupid bastards studied "glaciers" only they weren't glaciers. The stupid asses didn't know the difference between a permanent snow cap and an ice field.

And when you look at history and see the globe heated up much more allowing the growing of grapes what is now Newfoundland, grain in "Greenland" nothing passes the smell test.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I'd simply say it's not science if there is a profit margin and a tax increase assigned to every solution.

If the solutions were practical and effective, I'd be all for governments around the world making those solutions the economic choice everyone will choose. If green energy is the solution to climate change, make green energy so cheap and efficient that fossil fuels become expensive dinosaurs.

But no, what you'll find is that those who pimp for climate change disaster are pushing significant tax increases and increases in the cost of living in order to fund wealth redistribution and government spending programs. The United Nations itself, one of the prime movers in the scam, has said exactly that.

As a result, I'm strongly resistant to giving up my way of life to fund a scam.

Ever notice we never see a study that says "no" this particular area will not have much of an impact?

It seems all these predictions are always dire, immediate and they love the word "catastrophic". A study of snow on the Himalayas says the ice cap there will melt in ten years and the people will be without resources..

The, oops, we find out the guy had it all wrong, the ice isn't even melting...and he says "we know we're right, it's only a matter of getting he right data."

Several years ago I learned the truth...if you want research money, you study on the mating habits of the Pacific Northwest tree squirrel have to be presented in regard "the mating habits of tree squirrels and the danger they face with global warming"

 

[Verax]

The "debate" boils down to a single small crux imo. Either you trust the mainstream climate science community and think that they do reputable work. Or you do not trust the scientists and think they are either corrupt and or incompetent.

If you trust the science then you would also trust the conclusions that global warming is primarily caused by man, is a significant problem, it needs addressed through government policy, and there is a high degree of scientific confidence in this assessment.

If you do not trust the science then you would be in the denier camp which supports any conclusion that doesn't involve needing to do anything about global warming. That can be many things such as "its not caused by man", "it isn't happening", "it's happening but we can't do anything about it". The main underlying factor here is to not be inconvenienced by it which is at the heart of the issue. Deniers do not want to believe there will be consequences (except for self imposed consequences or a scam implemented by "warmists") and thus build an alternate reality to try and accomplish this.

Now if you want to talk exclusively about the actual science involved there is mainstream science published in respectable journals that cover all the bases, and then there are denier blogs that purport to have the "real truth". Which one you choose to listen to may depend on what is said up above. I would recommend taking a look at both.

In my personal opinion the only valid information is peer reviewed science straight out of journals, the IPCC publications, and a few websites that are pretty reputable (NOAA, NASA, etc.). Outside of that you have to watch out for a lot of biased crap on both sides of the issue. I'm in the science camp and don't think blogs are reputable but that's just me.

 

[pdog]

I align with #3, here we go:
- For 650,000 years, atmospheric carbon dioxide has never been even close to 400 parts per million as it was in 2014
- The evidence is there, it exists, and it is accepted, the only "evidence" I find against it involves ignorance, misinterpretation, debunked studies, and studies that aren't peer reviewed, and even if they are true, do nothing to global warming, as their are many variables and long term trends are measured.
- Sea levels rising
- Global surface temperature has been rising since 1880, in regards to industrialization.
- Warming Oceans
- Shrinking ice sheets (Prepare for completely hilarious satellite images that literally go like this: http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/th...012_med.gif/350px-ArcticEscalator2012_med.gif)
- Glacial Retreat
- Record high temperature events in the US that have been increasing, low temperature events decreasing.
- Ocean acidification
- Decreased snow cover
- 97% of climate scientists actually agree, deal with it. Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus (Show me one national or international scientific body that rejects global warming)
- Entrenched interests who benefit from spreading bull**** about global warming, such as exxon.
- The height of the tropopause is increasing
- Biological changes are even occurring (A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems : Abstract : Nature) (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n8/full/nclimate1259.html) Many more.
I'd love to see the deniers arguments, quite fun to point out the bull****.

The best debates seem to be between those that agree on the majority of your points which support that global warming does exist. I also agree. However the tough part is that man specifically has caused it. Is the 1880 date the heel of the infamous hockey stick graph? Is this the primary point that attributes global warming to man?

 

[pdog]

4) Global warming is caused by man and nature both.

On that point, I think you will find those of us saying this argue against those who claim it is #3. The people who argue this point say any event we have is because of AGW.

The problem is quantifying the amount that nature has to play, and man. Man contributes to AGW by changing the natural surroundings, releasing greenhouse gasses, and aerosols. My contention is that soot on ice is the greatest anthropogenic component. I contend that CO2 at most, has around 1/4 the effect claimed by alarmists.

The side that espouses man an the primary cause of change is loosing their battle, as their predictions of the past into today are proving to be wrong and unlikely.

The papers written for modern climatology are written very elusive and are full of weasel words. When the pundits refer to these papers, they take their biased perception and claim things these papers do not explicitly claim. The common theme among most of what people read about climate change is simply propaganda.

I've been arguing this topic for over a decade now, and rather than post again why I believe what I do, search my posts in the subforum. Climate change is an extremely complex topic, and there are too many aspects of it to comply with what you ask. It is a topic that I find maybe "97%" of the people arguing it, are simply parroting the political pundits.

I agree that placing "blame" is the most difficult part of the debate and I'm certainly willing to listen. Admittedly though, the counter point is extremely vauge. My thinking is that there should be science for both sides. For example what source would you choose to counter the hockey stick? These are the parts of the argument that I'm interested in and I figured somebody that has been having this debate for a while has already navigated thru the ocean of B.S. and has found the links that best support their beliefs.

 

[longview]

The "debate" boils down to a single small crux imo. Either you trust the mainstream climate science community and think that they do reputable work. Or you do not trust the scientists and think they are either corrupt and or incompetent.

If you trust the science then you would also trust the conclusions that global warming is primarily caused by man, is a significant problem, it needs addressed through government policy, and there is a high degree of scientific confidence in this assessment.

If you do not trust the science then you would be in the denier camp which supports any conclusion that doesn't involve needing to do anything about global warming. That can be many things such as "its not caused by man", "it isn't happening", "it's happening but we can't do anything about it". The main underlying factor here is to not be inconvenienced by it which is at the heart of the issue. Deniers do not want to believe there will be consequences (except for self imposed consequences or a scam implemented by "warmists") and thus build an alternate reality to try and accomplish this.

It must be nice to perceive the world in such a black and white digital format!
Unfortunately the world is analog grey. It is not as cut and dry as trusting Science vs not trusting Science.

Your comments link "global warming is primarily caused by man" (very likely true) with,
"is a significant problem, it needs addressed through government policy,"
when the two may not be related.
Just the direct response of CO2 at 1.1 C would make "global warming is primarily caused by man" true,
but it would not be a significant problem, or need to be addressed by government.