• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

"Skeptics" or those interested - try here first.

Sauwan said:
Before posting a thread, I just found a great little FAQ that you should probably check before posting a common question.

He's got good answers to the common objections. Take a read.

A Few Things Ill Considered: How to Talk to a Global Warming Sceptic

It's even worth a read if you aren't questioning GW.
Click to expand...

A typical AGW blog. He quotes peer reviewed papers supporting his position while completely ignoring other peer reviewed papers that refute his position.

Completely worthless...
 
Gill said:
A typical AGW blog. He quotes peer reviewed papers supporting his position while completely ignoring other peer reviewed papers that refute his position.

Completely worthless...
Click to expand...
I'll bite. Show me.
 
Sauwan said:
Show me what papers he's ignored.
Click to expand...

Ok...here's two easy ones.

Thus one can reasonably believe that it is warmer now than at any other time in the last 12,000 years.
Click to expand...
A 2006 NAS study completely undermines this assertion.

WASHINGTON -- There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National Research Council. Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, said the committee that wrote the report, although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900. Very little confidence can be placed in statements about average global surface temperatures prior to A.D. 900 because the proxy data for that time frame are sparse, the committee added.
Click to expand...
High Confidence That Planet Is Warmest in 400 Years


The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today...
There is actually no good evidence that the MWP was indeed a globally warm period comparable to today.
Click to expand...
The following paper shows this was not the case at all. And, for good measure they throw in a line destroying the first lie claiming that it is warmer now than at any time in the past 12,000 years.

March 2003
Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes
of the Past 1000 Years: A Reappraisal
Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas

Climate proxy research does yield an aggregate and broad perspective on questions regarding the reality of the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period and the 20th century surface thermometer global warming. The picture emerges from many localities that both the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period are widespread and perhaps not precisely timed or synchronous phenomena, easily within the margin of viewpoints conceived by Bryson et al. (1963), Lamb (1965) and numerous other researchers like J. Grove (1996, 2001a, 2001b). Our many local answers confirm that both the Medieval Climatic Anomaly and the Little Ice Age Climatic Anomaly are worthy of their respective labels. Furthermore, thermometer warming of the 20th century across the world seems neither unusual nor unprecedented within the more extended view of the last 1000 years. Overall, the 20th century does not contain the warmest or most extreme anomaly of the past millennium in most of the proxy records.
Click to expand...
http://www.kolumbus.fi/boris.winterhalter/EnEpreprintFeb03.pdf
 
I suppose I shouldn't have set you up for such an easy reply. For even I can find sources that state the earth is flat.
 
Gill said:
High Confidence That Planet Is Warmest in 400 Years

Very little confidence can be placed in statements about average global surface temperatures prior to A.D. 900 because the proxy data for that time frame are sparse, the committee added.
Click to expand...

This is because they chose "specific" proxies to look at, and ignoring other "proxies." Some of the things that they measured were "corals, ocean and lake sediments, ice cores, cave deposits, and documentary sources, such as historic drawings of glaciers" which is fine and dandy. They claim that they couldn't find any good variables to rely on when they wanted to look at temperatures prior 900 AD. But this is false, precipitation can be traced via the Malthusian Theory. I've shown this point in another thread:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/Environment/18196-malthusian-catastrophe-applied-gw.html

Rainfall is limited during cooler weather, thus less concentration of food in the center of continents, and thus causing nomads to invade countries/nations that are closer to the coasts. This is a measure of temperature "proxy" that can be taken, and it goes beyond 900 AD and well into Ancient History during the Pre-Helenic Era. I'm talking about the nomads of Macedonia who invaded the whole of Greece and even the whole of Persia. Yes, Alexander the Great was from a nomadic society. Some sources will tell you that Alexander was from a kingdom, but it was a kingdom in which it based its sustenance on cultivating and sheepherding, also it was not only ruled by a king but by semiautonomous clans who controled various political affairs. It became a kingdom when it started invading, like all the other nomadic tribes that invaded the great empires in various eras.

I've shown a good amount of evidence that the Malthusian pattern correlates to the patterns in which nomadic tribes invade. Whenever the temperature drops, there is less precipitations in certain areas, which triggers these nomads into invasion mode. Is this not a worthy form of measurement? Is food production levels not a worthy indicator of temperature change?
 
Sauwan said:
I suppose I shouldn't have set you up for such an easy reply. For even I can find sources that state the earth is flat.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll bite... Post some peer reviewed papers proving the flat earth theory.
 
Gill said:
Ok, I'll bite... Post some peer reviewed papers proving the flat earth theory.
Click to expand...
Would you like me to spell out what I meant by that or will you be able to figure it out on your own?
 
Sauwan said:
Would you like me to spell out what I meant by that or will you be able to figure it out on your own?
Click to expand...

Nope, you answered just as I thought you would.... no substance and refusal to back up your outlandish claims.
 
Gill said:
Nope, you answered just as I thought you would.... no substance and refusal to back up your outlandish claims.
Click to expand...
Outlandish claims?
 
Sauwan said:
Before posting a thread, I just found a great little FAQ that you should probably check before posting a common question.

He's got good answers to the common objections. Take a read.

A Few Things Ill Considered: How to Talk to a Global Warming Sceptic

It's even worth a read if you aren't questioning GW.
Click to expand...

Here is citation for a peer reviewed journal

Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth
COPENHAGEN, Denmark, March 15 (UPI) -- A Danish scientist said the idea of a "global temperature" and global warming is more political than scientific.
University of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andresen has analyzed the topic in collaboration with Canadian Professors Christopher Essex from the University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph...................


"He says the currently used method of determining the global temperature -- and any conclusion drawn from it -- is more political than scientific.
The argument is presented in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics."



United Press International - NewsTrack - Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth
 
agaglio said:
Damn man, quit stalling or doing whatever you're doing. Can you or can't you refute his argument?
Click to expand...

Of course he can't refute it... all talk no substance like many on here.
 
agaglio said:
Damn man, quit stalling or doing whatever you're doing. Can you or can't you refute his argument?
Click to expand...
All Gill has done is present two papers which cast a small shadow of doubt on how reliable some of the data is. His first article here is then explained here. Ok, so some of Mann's methodology may be flawed, but his overall conclusion is correct.

He then follows it up by presenting a paper discussing information based on the medieval warming period. Little did he realize that his first article he presented entirely undermined his second one. Once again, he has proven his objectivity in the matter entirely skewed. Had one accepted the claims in the first article, he or she should never have presented the second one. Gill consistently proves he is not interested in discussing and thinking about the actual science; his entire goal is to undermine any sensible debate on the subject at hand and his pathetic attempts have grown wearisome.
 
Pretty pathetic...

sauwan said:
All Gill has done is present two papers which cast a small shadow of doubt on how reliable some of the data is. His first article here is then explained here. Ok, so some of Mann's methodology may be flawed, but his overall conclusion is correct.
Click to expand...

So, his overall conclusions are correct?? Mann et al concluded that the decade of the 1990's was the hottest in thousands of years.

The NAS paper clearly stated that Mann's conclusions are not supported by the data. That's a pretty damning statement. In other words, the National Academy of Science plainly states that Mann is WRONG!

gill said:
Ok, I'll bite... Post some peer reviewed papers proving the flat earth theory.
Click to expand...

:waiting:
 
Gill said:
Pretty pathetic...

So, his overall conclusions are correct?? Mann et al concluded that the decade of the 1990's was the hottest in thousands of years.

The NAS paper clearly stated that Mann's conclusions are not supported by the data. That's a pretty damning statement. In other words, the National Academy of Science plainly states that Mann is WRONG!
Click to expand...
Hahaha, you CLEARLY didn't even read the link I posted and completely ignored the rest of the post. Are you trying to show everyone your lack of objectivity in the matter or does it just come through naturally?


:waiting:
Click to expand...
Move along folks, nothing to see here but more continued attempts at undermining serious discussion.
 
Sauwan said:
Hahaha, you CLEARLY didn't even read the link I posted and completely ignored the rest of the post. Are you trying to show everyone your lack of objectivity in the matter or does it just come through naturally?
Click to expand...

I've read it many times... same old garbage. How do you explain the NAS paper. Are they being paid off by big oil?? Have you read it?? How about the Wegman report? Have you read it. Dr. Wegman COMPLETELY destroys Mann et al and their theories on AGW.

No, probably not.. you and your ilk don't read anything that dares question your deity, Gaia.

Move along folks, nothing to see here but more continued attempts at undermining serious discussion.
Click to expand...

Translation: I don't have a clue how to respond, so I'll insult. When you learn something about the subject, maybe we can have some serious discussion. Until then, you are just an annoyance.
 
Gill said:
I've read it many times... same old garbage. How do you explain the NAS paper. Are they being paid off by big oil?? Have you read it?? How about the Wegman report? Have you read it. Dr. Wegman COMPLETELY destroys Mann et al and their theories on AGW.

No, probably not.. you and your ilk don't read anything that dares question your deity, Gaia.
Click to expand...
The NAS came to the same conclusions as Mann, they just don't agree that his methodology was the proper way of arriving there.

From my link said:
The academy essentially upholds Mann's findings, although the panel concluded that systematic uncertainties in climate records from before 1600 were not communicated as clearly as they could have been. The NAS also confirmed some problems with the statistics. But the mistakes had a relatively minor impact on the overall finding, says Peter Bloomfield, a statistician at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, who was involved in the latest report. "This study was the first of its kind, and they had to make choices at various stages about how the data were processed," he says, adding that he "would not be embarrassed" to have been involved in the work.
Click to expand...

Gill said:
Translation: I don't have a clue how to respond, so I'll insult. When you learn something about the subject, maybe we can have some serious discussion. Until then, you are just an annoyance.
Click to expand...
:roll: The only annoyance in our "intellectual" debate is your perpetual red herrings. I'm not replying to you because it is not on topic. How does my not providing any peer reviewed papers on a flat earth further your position AT ALL?
 
*sigh* It hasn't even been proven that CO2 causes global warming.
 
agaglio said:
*sigh* It hasn't even been proven that CO2 causes global warming.
Click to expand...

A couple of questions if you don't mind.

1) Do you agree or disagree that co2 is a "greenhouse" gas?

2) If yes, do you believe it is a "significent" (Concerning climate change) greenhouse gas in high concentrations? By high concentrations I mean much higher than at present.

Regards,

"C.J."
 
suggest you watch the global warming swindle and debunk that.
 
Perhaps I missed the response. The first link provides an explanation that says that CO2 didn't start the warming periods, but once they started, CO2 contributed to them. If that were true, how would it be possible for temperatures to drop? The CO2 levels, lagging behind temperature would still be at their peak when temperatures start to drop again. How could this CO2 cause the temperature to rise, but then allow it to fall for no apparent reason? This theory provides no evidence that CO2 causes warming.

The second link doesn't work.

The third link doesn't pertain to this specific piece of evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom