• 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!

Global warming study finds no grounds for climate sceptics' concerns

Last edited:
This bit of the first link was fascinating...

"...Iaffaldano stressed that his study did not mean that global warming would translate to stronger earthquakes happening more often, with the relevant patterns developing over “the order of millions of years.”

“Of course earthquakes do occur at the boundaries between plates because of plate motions, but our work doesn’t imply at all that we will see an increase in these types of events,” he told AFP. ... "
 
Deuce said:
Did you.... read these? Or just the headlines?
Click to expand...

The other 5 articles in 3 other MSM news papers DID blame the Fukushima earthquake on global warming. The problem was that they were blogs and so I did not add them.

But : Climate change affects tectonic plate movement, causing earthquakes: study | The Raw Story

These people showed that climate can impact plate tectonics. then he states that he's not implying that this would cause MORE earthquakes. Which is ABSOLUTELY asinine, because if the climate is increasing the speed of tectonic movement then this MUST translate into either an increase in the number and or the intensity of earthquakes. That's still based on the knowledge of the high school science class where this topic was discussed.

Article 2 now : First the title :
Climate change: melting ice will trigger wave of natural disasters

Scientists at a London conference next week will warn of earthquakes, avalanches and volcanic eruptions as the atmosphere heats up and geology is altered. Even Britain could face being struck by tsunamis
Click to expand...

Are you going to try and tell me that I misinterpreted what these people are saying?? Or are you going to try and tell me that these people are not saying what they are saying but instead they MEAN something that they are not saying?? If that's the case, how is it that these alarmists have so much difficulty saying what they mean and meaning what they say???

Basically their mentality is : CO2 added -> melting ice -> triggering avalanches / mudslides - > triggering earthquakes -> increasing volcanoes (but then they stop and forget to mention, even assuming this asinine garbage has a SHRED of validity) Volcanoes -> colder temperatures -> more ice

So, yes, I DID read those articles... AGAIN, just because you made me think I missed something.... so tell me, what is it that you are disputing??
 
Last edited:
BmanMcfly said:
The other 5 articles in 3 other MSM news papers DID blame the Fukushima earthquake on global warming. The problem was that they were blogs and so I did not add them.

But : Climate change affects tectonic plate movement, causing earthquakes: study | The Raw Story

These people showed that climate can impact plate tectonics. then he states that he's not implying that this would cause MORE earthquakes. Which is ABSOLUTELY asinine, because if the climate is increasing the speed of tectonic movement then this MUST translate into either an increase in the number and or the intensity of earthquakes. That's still based on the knowledge of the high school science class where this topic was discussed.

Article 2 now : First the title :

Are you going to try and tell me that I misinterpreted what these people are saying?? Or are you going to try and tell me that these people are not saying what they are saying but instead they MEAN something that they are not saying?? If that's the case, how is it that these alarmists have so much difficulty saying what they mean and meaning what they say???

Basically their mentality is : CO2 added -> melting ice -> triggering avalanches / mudslides - > triggering earthquakes -> increasing volcanoes (but then they stop and forget to mention, even assuming this asinine garbage has a SHRED of validity) Volcanoes -> colder temperatures -> more ice

So, yes, I DID read those articles... AGAIN, just because you made me think I missed something.... so tell me, what is it that you are disputing??
Click to expand...

See, there's your problem. You're reading articles by journalists and bloggers.

That first one you linked had a quote from the scientist very explicitly saying this does not cause an increase in earthquakes and pointing out it's over a multi-million year timescale. If you think climate influencing tectonics on a time scale that large is somehow unreasonable, I don't know what to tell you. I don't give a crap how some blogger manages to misunderstand that to mean that CO2 is responsible for earthquakes.

Stop getting your science information from bloggers and you'll suddenly realize the science isn't actually all that "alarmist."

BmanMcfly said:
And the n I almost forgot about this little gem :
Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists | Science | The Guardian



At least the article admits this to not be the most compelling argument....
Click to expand...
This one was hilarious. People actually thought this was a study done by "NASA scientists."

They were graduate students who picked a weird topic for a thesis paper. It was brainstorming different reactions aliens might have to us. Another "possibility" in their "paper" was that the aliens decide to eat us.

They aren't scientists and that's not a research paper. NASA had no affiliation with this "work," one of the guys involved just happened to also have an internship at NASA or some crap.

That's all you got, Bman? :lamo

If we want to play that game, does that mean I get to say:

CLIMATE SKEPTICS THINK GLOBAL WARMING NOT A PROBLEM BECAUSE GOD WILL FIX IT

No, really, that's what a "prominent" skeptic said. Therefore, it represents you, Bman.
 
Last edited:
BmanMcfly said:
Climate change affects tectonic plate movement, causing earthquakes: study | The Raw Story
Global warming threatens Earth with wave of natural disasters | Environment | The Observer

They even have scientific papers making their case how even VOLCANOES can be a result of carbon emissions.

Wait a second, is this the one where they've gone too far, even for you??
Click to expand...

That's funny, because in that very article the paper's author is quoted as saying it DOES NOT mean there's a link between earthquake severity and global warming on timescales shorter than millions of years. Did you read it?
 
Deuce said:
See, there's your problem. You're reading articles by journalists and bloggers.
Click to expand...

See, here's YOUR problem, you don't understand the link about how a perfectly reasonable article (though most papers from AGW scientists are quite ludicrous when you really look at their methods, EX : Using 5X current atmospheric levels in order to obtain desired results, in other words, anecdotally interesting, but intellectually useless. This in turn shows up in the media as "oceans turning into acid, but Al Gore will save you."
That first one you linked had a quote from the scientist very explicitly saying this does not cause an increase in earthquakes and pointing out it's over a multi-million year timescale. If you think climate influencing tectonics on a time scale that large is somehow unreasonable, I don't know what to tell you. I don't give a crap how some blogger manages to misunderstand that to mean that CO2 is responsible for earthquakes.

Stop getting your science information from bloggers and you'll suddenly realize the science isn't actually all that "alarmist."
Click to expand...

What's hilarious is that you actually NOW BUY INTO WHAT ONLY 3 POSTS EARLIER YOU CALLED A JOKE!!!!

What happened?? Did your programming kick back in, where you feel like everyone's forgotten WHAT YOU JUST SAID...
"Deuce... ONE FRIGGIN PAGE AGO said:
I'm pretty sure that came as a joke from YOUR side.
Click to expand...

So, now that you realize, "Oh, this is not a joke, I must defend it with my honor"... Give me a break, you are so bent into your position that you gotta use this ridiculous fallacious logic spinning around justifying everything in your mind.

This one was hilarious. People actually thought this was a study done by "NASA scientists."

They were graduate students who picked a weird topic for a thesis paper. It was brainstorming different reactions aliens might have to us. Another "possibility" in their "paper" was that the aliens decide to eat us.

They aren't scientists and that's not a research paper. NASA had no affiliation with this "work," one of the guys involved just happened to also have an internship at NASA or some crap.

That's all you got, Bman? :lamo

If we want to play that game, does that mean I get to say:

CLIMATE SKEPTICS THINK GLOBAL WARMING NOT A PROBLEM BECAUSE GOD WILL FIX IT

No, really, that's what a "prominent" skeptic said. Therefore, it represents you, Bman.
Click to expand...

No, because that dude is not acting in international authority at the behest of interests that you are voicing your concerns about in an open forum. They are acting AS YOUR REPRESENTATIVES (and mine, which is why I MUST speak out against these would-be tyrants), whereas this skeptic priest is at MOST speaking ONLY on behalf of his congregation.

Don't you get the difference?? Does it make you feel any better if I say it like this : People are being killed and turned into refugees on OUR behalf in their feeble minded and delusional efforts that there is a problem to fix and that it is somehow these peoples jobs to kill and displace people in order to fix it... because through OUR TAX DOLLARS we are SUPPORTIVE of these ventures.

Now, if I don't pay my taxes I go to jail, so I pick my battles and I openly speak out against these things.... On the other hand, you are ONLY BARELY willing to voice a half-felt opinion on the matter and that's only after 10 pages of alluding to your SUPPORT of these matters.

Yes, that's offensive, but wake up and realize what you are really helping to create by your support...

Also noteworthy is how willing you are to just accept that these "papers" even found the credulity to manage to get reported on as legitimate science...

Why can't you just admit these are stupid theories that people push forward, but they get credence because people just lap up and throw money at anything supporting the agenda???


nijato said:
That's funny, because in that very article the paper's author is quoted as saying it DOES NOT mean there's a link between earthquake severity and global warming on timescales shorter than millions of years. Did you read it?
Click to expand...

That's completely missing the point... Co2 does NOT IMPACT PLATE TECTONICS!!! That is asinine. Not even on the "millions of year scales". How they hell are you even going to try to pass this off as legitimate??

It's AT BEST a joke someone thought up to see if he could actually get it to pass a peer-review... Seriously, for people that allude to being men of science, you guys SERIOUSLY need to learn to be a TOUCH more skeptical yourselves.
 
bowerbird said:
View attachment 67118071

Do you NOT understand the British sense of humour??
Click to expand...

In case I got it wrong, explain the joke. Oh, and I got about a half dozen OTHER british "Jokes" you might want to clarify for me...

Ok, just got back.... sorry your logic fails on this one, the Guardian is NOT a satirical paper, not a bunch of jokes.

So, while the writer may have wanted to add a bit of comedy into what are clearly asinine topics, the CONTENT, the POINT of these articles was NOT to give people a laugh.
 
The article is speculating about first contact with aliens, not climate. Didn't you read that one either?
 
Manc Skipper said:
The article is speculating about first contact with aliens, not climate. Didn't you read that one either?
Click to expand...

Well, ya... But they were saying how aliens would be a threat because of the environmental issues and would make us a threat.

I get that this was based on a hoax, but oddly, in the face of this there has been, after searching, to my knowledge, no retraction or correction to this article.

Nor was there any indication that this has been a joke article in any way. At best they accept that this was speculation and not the strongest argument to make.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Well, ya... But they were saying how aliens would be a threat because of the environmental issues and would make us a threat.

I get that this was based on a hoax, but oddly, in the face of this there has been, after searching, to my knowledge, no retraction or correction to this article.

Nor was there any indication that this has been a joke article in any way. At best they accept that this was speculation and not the strongest argument to make.
Click to expand...

The paper wasn't retracted because it wasn't fake or a hoax. You're just failing to understand the premise of the paper. They weren't presenting anything as likely possibilities of an alien encounter. It was more of a thought exercise in categorizing possible outcomes.

They were also saying the aliens might decide to eat us.

Of course it was speculation. They're talking about aliens. It is literally a brainstorm of whatever random possible reactions a person could think of. It wasn't a paper about environmental issues, they just happened to mention environmental issues in one of many ridiculous possibilities and some idiot journalist decided this would be worth writing about.

Strongest argument? Nobody was making an argument in the first place.
 
Last edited:
BmanMcfly said:
Well, ya... But they were saying how aliens would be a threat because of the environmental issues and would make us a threat.

I get that this was based on a hoax, but oddly, in the face of this there has been, after searching, to my knowledge, no retraction or correction to this article.

Nor was there any indication that this has been a joke article in any way. At best they accept that this was speculation and not the strongest argument to make.
Click to expand...

Yes but Brits and Aussies don't require jokes to be explained to us - after watching American TV though I can see where you might be used to that happening
 
Deuce said:
The paper wasn't retracted because it wasn't fake or a hoax. You're just failing to understand the premise of the paper. They weren't presenting anything as likely possibilities of an alien encounter. It was more of a thought exercise in categorizing possible outcomes.

They were also saying the aliens might decide to eat us.

Of course it was speculation. They're talking about aliens. It is literally a brainstorm of whatever random possible reactions a person could think of. It wasn't a paper about environmental issues, they just happened to mention environmental issues in one of many ridiculous possibilities and some idiot journalist decided this would be worth writing about.

Strongest argument? Nobody was making an argument in the first place.
Click to expand...

Actually, you admitted that it was a hoax LAST PAGE!!!! So, on page 23, how are you going to back track on what you've said on page 22??

You're a funny character, not many people I've ever met that can actually flip-flop on their position in the next breath after making a statement, and actually pretend like it's all one coherent position.

Remember :
Deuce said:
This one was hilarious. People actually thought this was a study done by "NASA scientists."
Click to expand...

So, this article was published in the guardian on the false pretenses that these were NASA scientists BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION!!! And then now you are treating this like a legitimate article that legitimately was worthy of the recognition it was given in the media.

Jesus you've got a convoluted thought process... people were CLEARLY making that argument, or else it wouldn't have even been worthy of getting media attention.

You should ALSO add to your study load that I've recommended to you, a course on logic... though your head might explode when you realize how illogically you form your positions.


bowerbird said:
Yes but Brits and Aussies don't require jokes to be explained to us - after watching American TV though I can see where you might be used to that happening
Click to expand...

Ya, I don't REQUIRE the joke to be explained, because none of this is a JOKE, and the fact that you can't back up your position in a coherent way is further evidence that you cannot or will not elaborate on your previous position.

Remember the "no pressure" "joke"?? The one that showed people KILLING anyone that was not supporting doing their part for the earth. Ya, that one was a good joke. (Government sponsored terrorism is the closest term that this ad could be defined as)

Or then there was the other government sponsored "joke" called "planned-opolis"; where everyone lives in a tightly controlled society "for the earth", all resources allocated by a giant super-computer.

Ya... HAHAHA real funny, we could live as a new-peasant class for the earth, OR if you prefer the other on... "hahaha do what the green people say or we'll kill you. No pressure"... Hahaha real good jokes.

EPIC GREEN FAIL!!!! - YouTube
and
Megacities on the move - Planned-opolis - YouTube
(In case you are unfamiliar with these specific ads that are government sponsored)
 
BmanMcfly said:
Actually, you admitted that it was a hoax LAST PAGE!!!! So, on page 23, how are you going to back track on what you've said on page 22?



You're a funny character, not many people I've ever met that can actually flip-flop on their position in the next breath after making a statement, and actually pretend like it's all one coherent position.

Remember :

So, this article was published in the guardian on the false pretenses that these were NASA scientists BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION!!! And then now you are treating this like a legitimate article that legitimately was worthy of the recognition it was given in the media.

Jesus you've got a convoluted thought process... people were CLEARLY making that argument, or else it wouldn't have even been worthy of getting media attention.

You should ALSO add to your study load that I've recommended to you, a course on logic... though your head might explode when you realize how illogically you form your positions.




Ya, I don't REQUIRE the joke to be explained, because none of this is a JOKE, and the fact that you can't back up your position in a coherent way is further evidence that you cannot or will not elaborate on your previous position.

Remember the "no pressure" "joke"?? The one that showed people KILLING anyone that was not supporting doing their part for the earth. Ya, that one was a good joke. (Government sponsored terrorism is the closest term that this ad could be defined as)

Or then there was the other government sponsored "joke" called "planned-opolis"; where everyone lives in a tightly controlled society "for the earth", all resources allocated by a giant super-computer.

Ya... HAHAHA real funny, we could live as a new-peasant class for the earth, OR if you prefer the other on... "hahaha do what the green people say or we'll kill you. No pressure"... Hahaha real good jokes.

EPIC GREEN FAIL!!!! - YouTube
and
Megacities on the move - Planned-opolis - YouTube
(In case you are unfamiliar with these specific ads that are government sponsored)
Click to expand...

There wasn't a flip flop. You just, yet again, failed miserably to comprehend what I'm saying.

The paper wasn't a hoax because it physically did exist. The Guardian inaccurately reported it as being in any way affiliated with NASA. YOU incorrectly believed the paper to be proposing that the alien -> global warming thing was something they expect is probable.

You don't understand the paper. It's not that the paper isn't "legitimate," it's that the paper isn't actually predicting things. No, Bman, people were not actually arguing that this is how aliens would react. Read the ****ing paper already and maybe you'll have a chance at figuring that out yourself.

When you criticize a paper you haven't read, you will often end up looking foolish.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
There wasn't a flip flop. You just, yet again, failed miserably to comprehend what I'm saying.
Click to expand...

No, you are the one that clearly doesn't really grasp what you are saying...

The paper wasn't a hoax because it physically did exist. The Guardian inaccurately reported it as being in any way affiliated with NASA. YOU incorrectly believed the paper to be proposing that the alien -> global warming thing was something they expect is probable.

You don't understand the paper. It's not that the paper isn't "legitimate," it's that the paper isn't actually predicting things. No, Bman, people were not actually arguing that this is how aliens would react. Read the ****ing paper already and maybe you'll have a chance at figuring that out yourself.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you were lying previously on that one and have decided to shift to the truth now that you feel that the truth might serve you better. (Which isn't really truth, it's just that you've forgiven those claiming expertise with NASA because you agree with their points (somehow)).

When you criticize a paper you haven't read, you will often end up looking foolish.
Click to expand...

Actually, I had read the papers, you made one statement and then when you make yourself look like a moron two seconds later you shift your opinion to make that less so...
 
Really, folks? This thread has degenerated into fighting about alien invasions and the reliability of the Guardian? No wonder nothing gets done on climate.
 
nijato said:
Really, folks? This thread has degenerated into fighting about alien invasions and the reliability of the Guardian? No wonder nothing gets done on climate.
Click to expand...

It kind of has to when people want to debate scientific issues without using science. I agree, it's pretty ridiculous.
 
whysoserious said:
It kind of has to when people want to debate scientific issues without using science. I agree, it's pretty ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Well, there's the science, which really shows that there's no cause for alarm... (well, framed as cause for alarm but no actual proof)

Bug then, there's the political and business elements of this issue which take the grains of truth of this issue and blow them out of proportion for a specific agenda.

You can't truly separate the two either.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Well, there's the science, which really shows that there's no cause for alarm... (well, framed as cause for alarm but no actual proof)

Bug then, there's the political and business elements of this issue which take the grains of truth of this issue and blow them out of proportion for a specific agenda.

You can't truly separate the two either.
Click to expand...

You can, and people do. We call them "scientists." As for "alarm," that's a subjective term. That being said, there's plenty to be alarmed about, from sea-level rise to climate-exacerbated extinction rates.
 
nijato said:
You can, and people do. We call them "scientists." As for "alarm," that's a subjective term. That being said, there's plenty to be alarmed about, from sea-level rise to climate-exacerbated extinction rates.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but NONE of those papers have an actual scientific leg to stand on.

The MAX level of sea-level rise is in the INCHES (That gets exaggerated into METERS).

Extinction rates; take polar bears, since the polar bear has become symbolic to global warming issues. Polar bear numbers have been SKYROCKETING IN SPITE of there being longer distances for them to swim. It turns out that polar bears CAN swim. (Also, across the north, the Inuit people have been BEGGING to take polar bears off the protected list because the threats of these bears and being prohibited from shooting these bears). You may not be aware, but polar bears see humans as no different than any other animal that they view as food.... I would view the people that actually LIVE with this animals as having more merit than a "scientist" who is counting their numbers by doing a fly-over.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Sorry, but NONE of those papers have an actual scientific leg to stand on.

The MAX level of sea-level rise is in the INCHES (That gets exaggerated into METERS).

Extinction rates; take polar bears, since the polar bear has become symbolic to global warming issues. Polar bear numbers have been SKYROCKETING IN SPITE of there being longer distances for them to swim. It turns out that polar bears CAN swim. (Also, across the north, the Inuit people have been BEGGING to take polar bears off the protected list because the threats of these bears and being prohibited from shooting these bears). You may not be aware, but polar bears see humans as no different than any other animal that they view as food.... I would view the people that actually LIVE with this animals as having more merit than a "scientist" who is counting their numbers by doing a fly-over.
Click to expand...

First... inches are not a SI unit... outing you as NOT A SCIENTIST. Also, IPCC sea level rise predictions include ZERO increase from land ice melt, because the dynamics were not understood to a high enough precision in 2007. Hopefully the next report will address this. Furthermore, inches matter, especially in highly populated low-lying developing countries, e.g. Bangladesh.

Second, I was talking about the biodiversity crisis, not one single species, which you correctly identified as being more adaptable than most. Interestingly though, the disappearance of Artic Sea ice has lead to some hybridization between polar bears and grizzly bears as they spend more time on land.

None of this changes the fact that species are going extinct at a rate higher than any time since the K-T extinction that wiped out most of the dinosaurs 65 MYA. Of course, this is not entierly do to climate change, but it is a well-documented contributing factor.

As usual, you have trouble debating the specific scientific claims presented and resort to strawman arguments and appeals to incredulity- two logical practices not acceptable to scientific debate.
 
nijato said:
First... inches are not a SI unit... outing you as NOT A SCIENTIST. Also, IPCC sea level rise predictions include ZERO increase from land ice melt, because the dynamics were not understood to a high enough precision in 2007. Hopefully the next report will address this. Furthermore, inches matter, especially in highly populated low-lying developing countries, e.g. Bangladesh.
Click to expand...

Ahh, so, you used inches so your opinions don't matter either anymore.... Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it?

We're still talking about potential increases of a few centimeters, but tidal effects are greater, and even this all is based on the assumption that co2 drives the climate...

But physicists have come out to explain that the physics involved puts a limit on how much ice can melt over a period of years and the ipcc assessment was grossly over exaggerated.

Second, I was talking about the biodiversity crisis, not one single species, which you correctly identified as being more adaptable than most. Interestingly though, the disappearance of Artic Sea ice has lead to some hybridization between polar bears and grizzly bears as they spend more time on land.
Click to expand...

Source that please.

Beyond that, what do you think is going to have a greater impact on this : co2 increases or things like chemical pesticides, heavy metal pollution, or other forms of toxic pollution?

None of this changes the fact that species are going extinct at a rate higher than any time since the K-T extinction that wiped out most of the dinosaurs 65 MYA. Of course, this is not entierly do to climate change, but it is a well-documented contributing factor.
Click to expand...

Same as above...

As usual, you have trouble debating the specific scientific claims presented and resort to strawman arguments and appeals to incredulity- two logical practices not acceptable to scientific debate.
Click to expand...

Strawman... Do I have to dig up those papers containing those claims?

Or how about just take my claims and correct them with the actual claims since you're accusing ms of using these fallacies.

Btw, 90% of the "scientific" debate boils down to appeal to emotion, confusing cause-effect relationships with correlations, and many times outright lies and fraud.
 
Last edited:
Bman, you might have a different impression if you'd ever in your life read a scientific paper. They are the least emotional things on the planet.
 
Deuce said:
Bman, you might have a different impression if you'd ever in your life read a scientific paper. They are the least emotional things on the planet.
Click to expand...

Oh, ya... like the scientific paper showing CO2's impact on marine life?? That very dryly and objectively showed the "major impact" that Co2 would have on crustaceans, all you have to do is add 4X the atmospheric Co2 levels worth before you start seeing the studied effects (which were mostly negligible as it is).

That's fine... but then by the time it gets one hand over, suddenly they neglect that far-fetched nature of the study, and get into a hysteria about how Co2 is going to destroy marine life, blah blah blah (I'm exaggerating but only to illustrate).

Or, you start showing kids cartoons showing puppies drowning because of sea level increases (in the centimeters) and tell them it's because of driving cars, etc... continue this program of shocking children like that and suddenly they are fully indoctrinated into this belief system which is only loosely based on fact.

All I'm saying is that scientific papers can be written in an objective fashion while simultaneously creating an appeal to emotion (ie: get the reader to say "OMG somebody's gotta do something", or "OMG we gotta sign all our resources )over to Al Gore and his carbon trading company so that he can fix this")

But really, I'm not surprised that you don't understand cause-effect, you continue to maintain that a correlation is a cause...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom