• 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!

Top climate change myths answered [W:126]

Verax

Verax

Disappointed in Trump
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
12,240
Reaction score
4,519
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Last edited:
Verax said:
Rather than endlessly answer all the myths repeatedly thrown out in every thread, here is a nice collection that we all recognize.

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

LoL, god hates me and took the site away as soon as I linked to it. Use this instead.

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says
Click to expand...

For the true believer it is an honor to profess his belief till hell boils over or the climate turns cold.
 
Verax said:
Rather than endlessly answer all the myths repeatedly thrown out in every thread, here is a nice collection that we all recognize.

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

LoL, god hates me and took the site away as soon as I linked to it. Use this instead.

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says
Click to expand...



trend
 
Rather strange starting point for the graph. I wonder if it was chosen for a reason.
 
Robbie Loucks said:
Climate Change: Consensus

This link should totally be in the OP.
Click to expand...




Your data is accurate, but dated.

Climate consensus in free-fall - The Commentator

<snip>
A new peer-reviewed paper surveying over 1,037 engineers and geoscientists that are actually categorized under the “Comply with Kyoto” banner, confirms that while most believe global climate change is happening, only 36 percent believe the alarmist Grand Narrative that man is the chief cause.

Further, the survey researchers also found that “scepticism regarding anthropogenic climate change remains” among many actual climate scientists. They found that while 75 percent of papers published between 1993 and 2003 explicitly endorsed AGW, between 2004 and 2008 that figure had fallen to 45 percent.

A consensus view in science has always been a fragile thing. Single heretical views have a history of entirely overturning the prevailing consensus. But in the case of AGW, with global warming having been shown conclusively to have slumped to a 16-year halt, the alleged ‘science consensus’ is becoming blatantly exposed. The trenches now are mostly populated by green ideologues, a left-dominated media, and bureaucrats who are usually the last to grasp the realities.
<snip>

The panic on Global warming is based on the 20 or so years of warming from about 1978 or 80 to about 1998 or 2000. Various climate tracking primary source data gathering organizations have shown that warming trend to have ended 10 to 17 years ago.

Where I live, Indianapolis, we are suffering the bitterest winter since I moved here in 1992.

The panic over the 20 years of warming is about to be equaled by a flattening and perhaps cooling that is knocking on the door to reach 20 years quite soon.

It may be time to re-examine the justification for the panic.
 
Deuce said:
Rather strange starting point for the graph. I wonder if it was chosen for a reason.
Click to expand...



There are actually numerous starting points and, while I didn't choose the starting points, I think they were chosen for effect.

If you have the patience and the time, you can create just about any conclusion you would like. The conclusion this one reveals is that the primary sources all show a flattening or cooling that extends some time back in a range between 10 and 17 years.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
 
code1211 said:
There are actually numerous starting points and, while I didn't choose the starting points, I think they were chosen for effect.

If you have the patience and the time, you can create just about any conclusion you would like. The conclusion this one reveals is that the primary sources all show a flattening or cooling that extends some time back in a range between 10 and 17 years.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
Click to expand...

Which is not inconsistent with AGW, particularly given what the sun has been up to.

But someone not looking into the details might think it is inconsistent with AGW, hence the cherry-pick. Showing data for the last 50 years doesn't give that same "effect."
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Which is not inconsistent with AGW, particularly given what the sun has been up to.
Click to expand...



As with all "evidence" supporting AGW, it can be read as not in conflict and can be read as as a refutation.

Again the level of proof for AGW is akin to the level of proof for Ancient Aliens.
 
code1211 said:
Your data is accurate, but dated.

Climate consensus in free-fall - The Commentator

<snip>
A new peer-reviewed paper surveying over 1,037 engineers and geoscientists that are actually categorized under the “Comply with Kyoto” banner, confirms that while most believe global climate change is happening, only 36 percent believe the alarmist Grand Narrative that man is the chief cause.

Further, the survey researchers also found that “scepticism regarding anthropogenic climate change remains” among many actual climate scientists. They found that while 75 percent of papers published between 1993 and 2003 explicitly endorsed AGW, between 2004 and 2008 that figure had fallen to 45 percent.

A consensus view in science has always been a fragile thing. Single heretical views have a history of entirely overturning the prevailing consensus. But in the case of AGW, with global warming having been shown conclusively to have slumped to a 16-year halt, the alleged ‘science consensus’ is becoming blatantly exposed. The trenches now are mostly populated by green ideologues, a left-dominated media, and bureaucrats who are usually the last to grasp the realities.
<snip>

The panic on Global warming is based on the 20 or so years of warming from about 1978 or 80 to about 1998 or 2000. Various climate tracking primary source data gathering organizations have shown that warming trend to have ended 10 to 17 years ago.

Where I live, Indianapolis, we are suffering the bitterest winter since I moved here in 1992.

The panic over the 20 years of warming is about to be equaled by a flattening and perhaps cooling that is knocking on the door to reach 20 years quite soon.

It may be time to re-examine the justification for the panic.
Click to expand...
My link references to material from 2013. What caused such a sudden change in consensus that is discussed in that article and why haven't I heard about it? (If you answer the latter and say it is because I was brainwashed by left-wing american media then I'm going to throw a fit because all I read is mostly BBC and Al Jazeera)
 
code1211 said:
Your data is accurate, but dated.

Climate consensus in free-fall - The Commentator

<snip>
A new peer-reviewed paper surveying over 1,037 engineers and geoscientists that are actually categorized under the “Comply with Kyoto” banner, confirms that while most believe global climate change is happening, only 36 percent believe the alarmist Grand Narrative that man is the chief cause.

Further, the survey researchers also found that “scepticism regarding anthropogenic climate change remains” among many actual climate scientists. They found that while 75 percent of papers published between 1993 and 2003 explicitly endorsed AGW, between 2004 and 2008 that figure had fallen to 45 percent.

A consensus view in science has always been a fragile thing. Single heretical views have a history of entirely overturning the prevailing consensus. But in the case of AGW, with global warming having been shown conclusively to have slumped to a 16-year halt, the alleged ‘science consensus’ is becoming blatantly exposed. The trenches now are mostly populated by green ideologues, a left-dominated media, and bureaucrats who are usually the last to grasp the realities.
<snip>

The panic on Global warming is based on the 20 or so years of warming from about 1978 or 80 to about 1998 or 2000. Various climate tracking primary source data gathering organizations have shown that warming trend to have ended 10 to 17 years ago.

Where I live, Indianapolis, we are suffering the bitterest winter since I moved here in 1992.

The panic over the 20 years of warming is about to be equaled by a flattening and perhaps cooling that is knocking on the door to reach 20 years quite soon.

It may be time to re-examine the justification for the panic.
Click to expand...

LoL, you still pulling your bs tricks out of your hat thinking you're a magician?

Did you even read where it came from? That survey was conducted on engineers and geoscientists in Alberta, Ca. that work for the petroleum industry. :lamo

From the paper...

To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries. Not only are we interested in the positions they take towards climate change and in the recommendations for policy development and organizational decision-making that they derive from their framings, but also in how they construct and attempt to safeguard their expert status against others.
Click to expand...
 
Robbie Loucks said:
My link references to material from 2013. What caused such a sudden change in consensus that is discussed in that article and why haven't I heard about it? (If you answer the latter and say it is because I was brainwashed by left-wing american media then I'm going to throw a fit because all I read is mostly BBC and Al Jazeera)
Click to expand...

code1211 is not a reliable source of information and will spam nonsense uncontrollably when provoked. He will likely provide dozens of graphs, links, and misc. garbage unrelated to the issue at hand when he sees this.
 
I wonder.

I wonder how the CO2 levels of present compare with previous eras in the Earths history.

[TABLE="class: wikitable"]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #81AA72, colspan: 2, align: center"]Cambrian Period
541–485.4 million years ago
Є​
O​
S​
D​
C​
P​
T​
J​
K​
Pg​
N​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Mean atmospheric O

2​
 content over period duration​
[/TD]
[TD]
ca. 12.5 Vol %[SUP][1][/SUP]
(63 % of modern level)​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Mean atmospheric CO

2​
 content over period duration​
[/TD]
[TD]
ca. 4500 ppm[SUP][2][/SUP]
(16 times pre-industrial level)​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Mean surface temperature over period duration​
[/TD]
[TD]
ca. 21 °C[SUP][3][/SUP]
(7 °C above modern level)​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Sea level (above present day)​
[/TD]
[TD]
Rising steadily from 30m to 90m[SUP][4][/SUP]
​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The rapid diversification of lifeforms in the Cambrian, known as the Cambrian explosion, produced the first representatives of many modern phyla, representing the evolutionary stems of modern groups of species, such as the molluscs and arthropods.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] While diverse life forms prospered in the oceans, the land was comparatively barren – with nothing more complex than a microbial soil crust[SUP][9][/SUP] and a few molluscs that emerged to browse on the microbial biofilm[SUP][10][/SUP] Most of the continents were probably dry and rocky due to a lack of vegetation. Shallow seas flanked the margins of several continents created during the breakup of the supercontinent Pannotia. The seas were relatively warm, and polar ice was absent for much of the period.
Click to expand...
Cambrian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems like the Earth was doing quite back well then, rapid diversification of lifeforms and all.
 
Verax said:
code1211 is not a reliable source of information and will spam nonsense uncontrollably when provoked. He will likely provide dozens of graphs, links, and misc. garbage unrelated to the issue at hand when he sees this.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the warning. I knew something was fishy when I saw that they asked engineers of all people. I won't edit my post and let him post in vain.
 
Deuce said:
Which is not inconsistent with AGW, particularly given what the sun has been up to.

But someone not looking into the details might think it is inconsistent with AGW, hence the cherry-pick. Showing data for the last 50 years doesn't give that same "effect."
Click to expand...

Hot or cold , wet or dry, I wonder what kind of climatic conditions would have to exist that would be 'inconsistent' with AGW ? :D
 
eohrnberger said:
I wonder.

I wonder how the CO2 levels of present compare with previous eras in the Earths history.

Cambrian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems like the Earth was doing quite back well then, rapid diversification of lifeforms and all.
Click to expand...

The problem is that it is happening too fast.

Climate change is happening too quickly for species to adapt | Environment | The Observer

Global Warming Could Cause Mass Extinctions by 2050, Study Says

Life will go on just fine one way or another. However it is unlikely to be beneficial to humans as we are dependent on the environment for our survival. The world is approaching population limits in the next few decades and if agriculture yield is compromised 5%, 10%, 20%, that's a huge deal. That means some people are going to starve. This is not a game we want to play. And that example is merely a tiny sliver of the big picture of consequences.
 
Verax said:
The problem is that it is happening too fast.

Climate change is happening too quickly for species to adapt | Environment | The Observer

Global Warming Could Cause Mass Extinctions by 2050, Study Says

Life will go on just fine one way or another. However it is unlikely to be beneficial to humans as we are dependent on the environment for our survival. The world is approaching population limits in the next few decades and if agriculture yield is compromised 5%, 10%, 20%, that's a huge deal. That means some people are going to starve. This is not a game we want to play. And that example is merely a tiny sliver of the big picture of consequences.
Click to expand...

More shroud waving speculation. The Earth is currently greening due to increasing CO2 levels and this has been observed by satellites since 1982. Most species will thrive due to this phenomenon because greener is always better.

Deserts 'greening' from rising CO2 | CSIRO
 
Verax said:
LoL, you still pulling your bs tricks out of your hat thinking you're a magician?

Did you even read where it came from? That survey was conducted on engineers and geoscientists in Alberta, Ca. that work for the petroleum industry. :lamo

From the paper...
Click to expand...
You say this with contempt, as if the Scientist and Engineers who work in the petroleum industry
are somehow less qualified than the Scientist who work for the AGW industry.
Some vary significant (and useful) technologies have come out of the petroleum industry.
What significant discoveries have come from the monies spent on AGW?
 
3 "It's not bad" Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
Click to expand...

What are the down sides of a little more heat, a little more rain and more CO2 to use in photosynthesis;- more fertility?

I know it's annoying when I just keep asking the same question all the time but what are we actually afraid of?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom