• 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!

It's about time!

Threegoofs said:
So the solution is to say, screw it. I can't turn this bus wheel myself, and it takes some exertion, so why bother?

Lets just drive off this cliff together!
Click to expand...

What cliff are we driving off?

OK, assuming the alarmists are correct. What do we have?

We have a changing shoreline. We have more CO2 for crop efficiency. We have populations centers growing more in the newer temerate climates that will be getting closer to the poles.

What's the big deal? The earth will survive, and so will we.
 
MoSurveyor said:
No, we have more CO2 for greenhouse crop efficiency. A higher crop efficiency in the field has not been shown as yet.
Click to expand...
I would have to be shown CO2 affects non greenhouse plants differently than greenhouse plants before I give that any cautious thought. I'm more worried about what added CO2 does to birds.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I would have to be shown CO2 affects non greenhouse plants differently than greenhouse plants before I give that any cautious thought. I'm more worried about what added CO2 does to birds.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the crop plant itself, assuming the same controlled environment as a greenhouse, would do just as well. But as I pointed out earlier, in the field the crops don't exist in a controlled environment. You also have to consider the effects of the added CO2 on all the other organisms that make up that ecosystem. If the destructive organisms flourish better than the beneficial organisms, then the result will be a lower yield.
 
Henrin said:
You mean besides what has happened over the last ten years that basically makes you all look like a bunch of idiots. :lamo
Click to expand...

so you don't know anything about the science?
 
clownboy said:
You have no clue what the data shows. You've picked a side (the cult in this case) and you're sticking to it. Everything else doesn't fit your predjudice and thus you ignore. Educate yourself. Examine the stuff you've chosen to agree with with the same fervor you reflexively reject contrarian views.

And for goodness sake, at least consider studying plate tectonics.
Click to expand...

another conspiracy theorist?

Climate change denial, laissez-faire economics and conspiracy theories: A productive pairing? | The Curious Wavefunction, Scientific American Blog Network
 
Lord of Planar said:
I would have to be shown CO2 affects non greenhouse plants differently than greenhouse plants before I give that any cautious thought. I'm more worried about what added CO2 does to birds.
Click to expand...

And indeed you should be given the number currently being sliced and diced through useless windmills supposedly built to address this CO2 ......'problem' :cool:
 
MoSurveyor said:
I'm sure the crop plant itself, assuming the same controlled environment as a greenhouse, would do just as well. But as I pointed out earlier, in the field the crops don't exist in a controlled environment. You also have to consider the effects of the added CO2 on all the other organisms that make up that ecosystem. If the destructive organisms flourish better than the beneficial organisms, then the result will be a lower yield.
Click to expand...

I can't be ceratin, so I will only give this a 99+ percent certainty, but doesn't it strike you as odd that the AGW community hasn't come up with harmful effect papers on our ecosystem, other than weather, sea level rise, and heat?

Seems to me this would be a hot selling point if true. Surely someone has done extensive research...
 
flogger said:
And indeed you should be given the number currently being sliced and diced through useless windmills supposedly built to address this CO2 ......'problem' :cool:
Click to expand...

LOL...

Seems to me that issue is hyped as well as others that both sides use.

My concern with windmills is this.

1) It causes increased resistance over the winds natural path, so some part of the wind is diverted from normal.

2) It takes energy out of the wind, which diminishes the winds natural downstream effectiveness.

3) They are dangerous to build and maintain. If I recall, more human deaths are now attributed to working on windmills than any other every source outside of coal mining for the USA.

4) I read a good paper praising the windmills because in their climatic effect for the downward path, it is only 1/6th the warming effect of CO2... this paper was also attributing the 3 to 4.5 degree change for CO2 doubling... What if CO2 is only 1/10th what is claimed? this them means windmills cause more warming than CO2!
 
flogger said:
Perhaps you can enlighten us then . Please show me the Peer reviewed study showing 'empirical' proof of human culpability for the warming phase of the last 200 years ?
Click to expand...

why do you even pretend you can be enlightened?

no amount of evidence can convince a denialist fundamentalist of the facts - its against your religion.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I can't be ceratin, so I will only give this a 99+ percent certainty, but doesn't it strike you as odd that the AGW community hasn't come up with harmful effect papers on our ecosystem, other than weather, sea level rise, and heat?

Seems to me this would be a hot selling point if true. Surely someone has done extensive research...
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt that. Climatologists and ecologist exist in completely different places on the tree of science. Ecologists have been keeping track of the reactions of various animal and plant species as their habitat range changes because of climate (and that has been reported and summarily dismissed by Deniers). Why would ecologists be concerned about the causes of climate change when it's no where near their area of expertise?
 
MoSurveyor said:
I seriously doubt that. Climatologists and ecologist exist in completely different places on the tree of science. Ecologists have been keeping track of the reactions of various animal and plant species as their habitat range changes because of climate (and that has been reported and summarily dismissed by Deniers). Why would ecologists be concerned about the causes of climate change when it's no where near their area of expertise?
Click to expand...

actually, most ecologists I know (ie people who actually study ecology) are VERY concerned about climate change. Often, they see significant changes in the behaviours of the species they study because of the changes we are seeing - and climate change is pushing some species to extinction. there are of course many cases where it is not climate alone - as habitat loss and other factors are also part of what is happening - but with many marine species, ocean acidification as a result of climate change is a major concern; for a number of species in arid areas increasingly prolonged droughts are affecting survival, and then there are some species where a slight temperature increase will have major impacts on reproduction (eg the tuatara: Warming May Drive Gender-Bending Reptiles Extinct, Scientists Say )

I have not spoken to any biologist, ecologist or agricultural scientist in the last ten years who is not concerned about the impact of climate change.
 
flogger said:
I'm still waiting for that paper :yawn:
Click to expand...

...despite being very clearly told that a single paper can not give you this information- it is the entire body of literature going back 30 + years that allows science to make the claim that AGW is real.
 
Threegoofs said:
...despite being very clearly told that a single paper can not give you this information- it is the entire body of literature going back 30 + years that allows science to make the claim that AGW is real.
Click to expand...

Nonsense

I'm still waiting on it from you too :lamo
 
flogger said:
Nonsense

I'm still waiting on it from you too :lamo
Click to expand...

It's only nonsense if you don't understand the science. I posted a link explaining it quite well, but you dismissed the source because you clearly can't defend yourself in any other way.
 
Threegoofs said:
It's only nonsense if you don't understand the science. I posted a link explaining it quite well, but you dismissed the source because you clearly can't defend yourself in any other way.
Click to expand...

Unlike you I'll need a bit more than an activist cartoonists say so,so keep dodging :lol:
 
Last edited:
marywollstonecraft said:
actually, most ecologists I know (ie people who actually study ecology) are VERY concerned about climate change. Often, they see significant changes in the behaviours of the species they study because of the changes we are seeing - and climate change is pushing some species to extinction. there are of course many cases where it is not climate alone - as habitat loss and other factors are also part of what is happening - but with many marine species, ocean acidification as a result of climate change is a major concern; for a number of species in arid areas increasingly prolonged droughts are affecting survival, and then there are some species where a slight temperature increase will have major impacts on reproduction (eg the tuatara: Warming May Drive Gender-Bending Reptiles Extinct, Scientists Say )

I have not spoken to any biologist, ecologist or agricultural scientist in the last ten years who is not concerned about the impact of climate change.
Click to expand...

The debate of AGW is somewhat peculiar. This debate is characterised by the lack of any public debate. Especially with opponents who know science. Climate scientists like to lecture, but when it comes to public debate with climate skeptics or realists they run away. This is strange state of affairs given they claim the human influence on climate could be catastrophic. What better way to convince others than to debate with opponents and give convincing answers to tough questions. I've been waiting for such a public debate since modern AGW was first invented but all one hears in return is 'the debate is over' ...we dun it guv... heres what we must do next. What debate ? Does anybody remember this debate ever taking place because I must have missed it ? What I have seen is the presentation of a fait accompli which cannot be questioned or disobeyed. This is not the scientific method it is a political diktat backed up by a UN house of representatives called the IPCC :(
 
Last edited:
flogger said:
Unlike you I'll need a bit more than an activist cartoonists say so,so keep dodging :lol:
Click to expand...

But it's a referenced article with peer reviewed sources.

If you can't tolerate that, what about this?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995507/#__abstractid1190800title

Or this?

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_05/

This?
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_warming_scientific_consensus.html

All are basically saying the same thing. Just like there is no single article that can show empirical evidence of, say, evolution, or a single article that can prove the lock and key hypothesis for enzymes, or a single article that can prove receptor- agonist theory, it is the body of evidence that shows us these things are true.
 
Threegoofs said:
But it's a referenced article with peer reviewed sources.

If you can't tolerate that, what about this?

Climate Change: The Evidence and Our Options
Click to expand...

This is evidence it has warmed which is not in question and is not what was asked for

Or this?

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_05/
Click to expand...

And this is James Hansen the inventor and promoter of the current failing hypothesis 1998 opinion ..... Uh huh

This?
Global Warming: Man or Myth - The Scientific Consensus

All are basically saying the same thing. Just like there is no single article that can show empirical evidence of, say, evolution, or a single article that can prove the lock and key hypothesis for enzymes, or a single article that can prove receptor- agonist theory, it is the body of evidence that shows us these things are true
Click to expand...

And this is yet another appeal to authority citing virtually every shonky debunked opinion poll of the last 15 years.

Whats missing from this picture ? As ever HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF HUMAN CULPABILITY
 
Last edited:
So when anything gets presented, if it actually shows something, you dismiss the source out of hand.

You seem to be perseverating about a single paper.. which cannot and does not exist. Only reviews and 'opinion' pieces can exist - like only opinion pieces can exist for evolution, becasue the proof lies with the massive accumulation of evidence, and accurate predictions and models, like Hansens in both the early 80s as well as 1988 and beyond.

If you havent seen Hansens 81 paper, you might not want to look, because it will probably make you confused as to why you keep saying models dont show anything.
RealClimate: Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection
 
Threegoofs said:
So when anything gets presented, if it actually shows something, you dismiss the source out of hand.
Click to expand...

It wasnt dismissed 'out of hand' the reasons why they were dismissed were presented without ambiguity as they failed to address the central question being asked which was proof of human culpability

You seem to be perseverating about a single paper.. which cannot and does not exist.
Click to expand...

Of course it can exist . This is just idiocy

Only reviews and 'opinion' pieces can exist - like only opinion pieces can exist for evolution, becasue the proof lies with the massive accumulation of evidence, and accurate predictions and models, like Hansens in both the early 80s as well as 1988 and beyond.
Click to expand...

Absolute nonsense there is no analogy whatsoever between the AGW hypothesis and evolution. One relies on subjectivity and the other objectivity theres a difference

If you havent seen Hansens 81 paper, you might not want to look, because it will probably make you confused as to why you keep saying models dont show anything.
RealClimate: Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection
Click to expand...

Climate models are failed guesswork as has been illustrated multiple times across multiple threads so where does this 1981 study get it right where all those others got it wrong ?

Now for your activist propaganda blog

Popular Technology.net: The Truth about RealClimate.org
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom