• 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!

We won't Burn UP for over a Billion Years!

People really need to take the time and read and interpret the data themselves, or at least listen to both sides of the coin. Just because some headline says something, doesn't mean that it is going to come to pass. I'm sure there have been many instances where the headlines weren't accurate, and I am very skeptical on the scientific community knowing enough to predict the next billions of years.

And I am sure the counter arguments would be that there were headlines that were accurate. People think that scientists are void of skill. That they just follow some method. This isn't completely true. There is interpretation of data which ranges from all kinds of possibilities and are debatable from many parties.

All I am saying, is I would draw a conclusion not from an article of this. Read arguments of the scientists, or read the data yourselves.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Unless we send up a nuke to blow it out of the sky, of course.

I can hear the debate going on now:
"The asteroid is coming, we must act!"
"You're just an alarmist, wanting to expand government. It's a hoax, I tell you."
"It's real, and it is headed our way.
"Says who?"
"Says every scientific organization on Earth."
"But, here's a blog saying that it's a hoax. Who are we to believe?"

Wups. Too late. The rock hit the Pacific Ocean, causing a tidal wave thousands of meters high, sending plumes of steam into the air and disrupting ecosystems all over the Earth. The few humans who survive the flood have to contend with famine. After it is over, and homo sapiens is once again only a few roving bands of hunter gatherers, then they retell legends about how the scientists tried to put one over on us.
Click to expand...

Let's make that conversation a bit more realistic shall we?


I can hear the debate going on now:
"The planet is warming and it's your fault, we must act!"
"If we are warming so badly, why hasn't there been any warming for almost 15 years now?"
"It's true, here look at these reconstructions created with a modeling program we have.
"Why don't your models match the observed data?"
"DENIER!!! The goreacle, praise his name, saidf it is warming so it's warming."
"But, why should I believe him when he lied all through that documentary even by your sides standards?"
"BLASPHEMER!!!! If you don't pass every climate bill, and pay a carbon tax, you will kill the planet! Is that what you want? Planet killer!

That's more realistic...
 
Paschendale said:
Actually no. While Scientology looks more obviously nutty, it's only because we're more used to the nuttiness of old religions. And I have yet to hear of any murders, crazed torturers, child rapes, or any other heinous crimes committed for Scientology.
Click to expand...

Give em time... They're still in the startup phase. Gotta get a loyal following of more than just a few weird celebrities..
 
gslack said:
Let's make that conversation a bit more realistic shall we?


I can hear the debate going on now:
"The planet is warming and it's your fault, we must act!"
"If we are warming so badly, why hasn't there been any warming for almost 15 years now?"
"It's true, here look at these reconstructions created with a modeling program we have.
"Why don't your models match the observed data?"
"DENIER!!! The goreacle, praise his name, saidf it is warming so it's warming."
"But, why should I believe him when he lied all through that documentary even by your sides standards?"
"BLASPHEMER!!!! If you don't pass every climate bill, and pay a carbon tax, you will kill the planet! Is that what you want? Planet killer!

That's more realistic...
Click to expand...

You are making it far too complicated. If we eat the rich the planet will be 'saved' ...... simple :D
 
gslack said:
Let's make that conversation a bit more realistic shall we?


I can hear the debate going on now:
"The planet is warming and it's your fault, we must act!"
"If we are warming so badly, why hasn't there been any warming for almost 15 years now?"
"It's true, here look at these reconstructions created with a modeling program we have.
"Why don't your models match the observed data?"
"DENIER!!! The goreacle, praise his name, saidf it is warming so it's warming."
"But, why should I believe him when he lied all through that documentary even by your sides standards?"
"BLASPHEMER!!!! If you don't pass every climate bill, and pay a carbon tax, you will kill the planet! Is that what you want? Planet killer!

That's more realistic...
Click to expand...

True, making up crap like "there hasn't been any warming for the past 15 years", then spreading it around like gospel of some new age religion is pretty realistic.
 
Dittohead not! said:
True, making up crap like "there hasn't been any warming for the past 15 years", then spreading it around like gospel of some new age religion is pretty realistic.
Click to expand...

The difference is you actually DID make your crap up..mine was accurate.. Except for the blasphemer part, I had some fun there..LOL
 
gslack said:
The difference is you actually DID make your crap up..mine was accurate.. Except for the blasphemer part, I had some fun there..LOL
Click to expand...

Interesting how the no warming for 15 years meme doesn't seem to fit with the past decade being the warmest on record, but, then we don't dare go against scripture. That really would be blasphemy.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Interesting how the no warming for 15 years meme doesn't seem to fit with the past decade being the warmest on record, but, then we don't dare go against scripture. That really would be blasphemy.
Click to expand...

This guy disagrees

'The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing'

Dr James Hansen

Nuff said :roll:
 
flogger said:
This guy disagrees

'The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing'

Dr James Hansen

Nuff said :roll:
Click to expand...

Nuff said, indeed. Nuff nonsense said.

The first decade of the 21st century was the hottest on record, marked by unprecedented climate and weather extremes that killed more than 370,000 people, the United Nations weather agency said Wednesday.
The period from 2001 to 2010 was the warmest decade for both hemispheres since records began in 1850, was the second-wettest since 1901 and saw the most tropical cyclones since 1855, the World Meteorological Organization said in a new report.


Read more: Past decade hottest on record, marked by extremes: UN | Fox News
Click to expand...
 
Dittohead not! said:
Nuff said, indeed. Nuff nonsense said.
Click to expand...

So are you arguing Hansen didnt say that ? Prove it ?

Our records go back only a short while and the truly reliable satellite record just 34 years , so claiming something is the hottest on record is as meaningless as saying Antarcticas ice coverage has broken all records .
 
gslack said:
Let's make that conversation a bit more realistic shall we?


I can hear the debate going on now:
"The planet is warming and it's your fault, we must act!"
"If we are warming so badly, why hasn't there been any warming for almost 15 years now?"
"It's true, here look at these reconstructions created with a modeling program we have.
"Why don't your models match the observed data?"
"DENIER!!! The goreacle, praise his name, saidf it is warming so it's warming."
"But, why should I believe him when he lied all through that documentary even by your sides standards?"
"BLASPHEMER!!!! If you don't pass every climate bill, and pay a carbon tax, you will kill the planet! Is that what you want? Planet killer!

That's more realistic...
Click to expand...

Here's an example of the conversations I've had on it:

"Let's just start from the premise that the sky is falling arguments are overblown. That doesn't change the fact that we are pumping pollution out into the world and, even if its only in it's earliest phases, the fact of the matter is that AGW is an inetable reality if we don't do something to curb the output of these gasses now in order to prevent long term damage. Common sense stuff like creating some stronger regulations regarding pollution and creating incentives for research into more sustainable energy so that we can spur proactive changes rather than reactive ones which will definitely leave us scrambling in the future."

"AAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH! GLOBAL WARMING DOESN'T EXIST!!!!!!"

"OK. Let's accept that premise. Even if it doesn't exist now, it will certainly exist one day in the future if we do nothing today to prevent it. At best we're at a precipice of a cliff where we can make a choice to not **** over the future generations, or we can **** everything up. At worst, we've already ****ed everything up and now we can only mitigate it's effects."

"It's all lefty-socialist bull****!"

"That's nice. What's wrong with being proactive, looking at it from a common sense perspective, disregarding the sky is falling arguments, but also acknowledging that something should be done to prevent such scenarios form occurring?"

"It's too much and it'll tank the economy!"

"OK, so what's your solution to the problem if, by some bizarre and totally unexpected twist of fate, the majority of the scientific community is correct and this is a problem?"

"..."
 
trfjr said:
New study says threat of man-made global warming greatly exaggerated

A peer-reviewed climate change study released Wednesday by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change finds the threat of man-made global warming to be not only greatly exaggerated but so small as to be “embedded within the background variability of the natural climate system” and not dangerous.

Read more: New study says threat of man-made global warming greatly exaggerated | Fox News

Is that better

Its a bitch when for years you been told a lie and you make fun of the skeptics to have it turn around and bite you in the ass kinda makes you feel foolish doesn't it
Click to expand...

I can understand you posting a link about another failed finding put out by the Exxon funded Heartland Institute. But I would think a news organization like 'Fox News' might actually vet a story before reporting on it.

Heartland Institute - SourceWatch
 
Tucker Case said:
Here's an example of the conversations I've had on it:

"Let's just start from the premise that the sky is falling arguments are overblown. That doesn't change the fact that we are pumping pollution out into the world and, even if its only in it's earliest phases, the fact of the matter is that AGW is an inetable reality if we don't do something to curb the output of these gasses now in order to prevent long term damage. Common sense stuff like creating some stronger regulations regarding pollution and creating incentives for research into more sustainable energy so that we can spur proactive changes rather than reactive ones which will definitely leave us scrambling in the future."
Click to expand...

That deliberately conflates the pollution argument with CO 2. No skeptic I know has ever argued against combating pollution, combating CO 2 is something else entirely

"OK. Let's accept that premise. Even if it doesn't exist now, it will certainly exist one day in the future if we do nothing today to prevent it. At best we're at a precipice of a cliff where we can make a choice to not **** over the future generations, or we can **** everything up. At worst, we've already ****ed everything up and now we can only mitigate it's effects."
Click to expand...

That presupposes that there is something unprecedented going on . If you look at the paleoclimatic ice core record since the last glaciation you can see that theres nothing at all unusual about todays temperatures or rate of change. They are well within natural variation

Ice Cores

"That's nice. What's wrong with being proactive, looking at it from a common sense perspective, disregarding the sky is falling arguments, but also acknowledging that something should be done to prevent such scenarios form occurring?"
Click to expand...

Being proactive is fine if there is anything requiring us to be proactive about. The scary scenarios only exist within shonky climate models which have a very poor accuracy to date

"It's too much and it'll tank the economy!"
Click to expand...

It will. Especially in terms of vastly increased energy tariffs and increased energy poverty especially in the third world. Making ourselves voluntarily poorer simply means we have less resources to adapt to whatever climate change might happen next. Climate change happens whether we are here or not

"OK, so what's your solution to the problem if, by some bizarre and totally unexpected twist of fate, the majority of the scientific community is correct and this is a problem?"
Click to expand...

My problem is that the great mass of the scientific community have never actually been canvassed for an opinion on this and that soundbite media polls of 97% yadda yadda yadda have no basis in reality whatsoever once you analyse the methodologies used in the compilation of such polls.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
Do NOAA, NASA, CERN, and the National Geographic Society count as good sources?

How about Fox News, where my link came from?
Click to expand...

I simply pointed out that he had used an anti capitalist anti science smear site as a counter nothing more
 
▲
flogger said:
Wow ! Sourcewatch eh ? Your sources aren't exactly beyond reproach either.

Popular Technology.net: The Truth about SourceWatch
Click to expand...

lol - touché

There are tons of places that expose the Heartland Institute. I was lazy and posted the first one. Admittedly I have never heard of sourcewatch until now and I will be sure not to use them as a source in the future. How embarassing.

Heartland Institute

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute

Heartland Institute and its NIPCC report fail the credibility test | Climate Science Watch
 
flogger said:
That deliberately conflates the pollution argument with CO 2. No skeptic I know has ever argued against combating pollution, combating CO 2 is something else entirely
Click to expand...

CO2 is just one part of the AGW problem, and it is part of pollution.



That presupposes that there is something unprecedented going on .
Click to expand...

There is. Human pollution.

Being proactive is fine if there is anything requiring us to be proactive about.
Click to expand...

there is.


It will.
Click to expand...

OK, so what's your solution to the problem if, by some bizarre and totally unexpected twist of fate, the majority of the scientific community is correct and this is a problem?"


My problem is that the great mass of the scientific community have never actually been canvassed for an opinion on this and that soundbite media polls of 97% yadda yadda yadda have no basis in reality whatsoever once you analyse the methodologies used in the compilation of such polls.
Click to expand...

OK, so what's your solution to the problem if, by some bizarre and totally unexpected twist of fate, the majority of the scientific community is correct and this is a problem?
 
Tucker Case said:
CO2 is just one part of the AGW problem, and it is part of pollution.
Click to expand...

Do you believe your respiration cycle now represents pollution ?

There is. Human pollution.
Click to expand...

Agreed . And I'm all for tackling that not wasting hundred of billions 'combating' (?) a benign beneficial naturally occurring gas.

there is.
Click to expand...

I disagree. What is wrong with todays climate and what sort of climate is the right one ?

OK, so what's your solution to the problem if, by some bizarre and totally unexpected twist of fate, the majority of the scientific community is correct and this is a problem?"
Click to expand...

It will have to be some twist then ! Their projections to date have been laughably inaccurate despite the hundreds of billions of taxpayer monies lavished on this nonsense. My solution would be to stop paying them to play with any more models and spend that cash on the real environmental problems of the day rather than the most lucrative ones they can invent :roll:
 
flogger said:
Do you believe your respiration cycle now represents pollution ?
Click to expand...

No, I believe waste that is in excess of what is biologically sustainable is pollution.



Agreed . And I'm all for tackling that not wasting hundred of billions 'combating' (?) a benign beneficial naturally occurring gas.
Click to expand...

It's not benign. Nor is it only occurring "naturally".



I disagree. What is wrong with todays climate and what sort of climate is the right one ?
Click to expand...

Why are you under the misguided impression I am talking about today's climate? The problem that requires a proactive solution is the man-made pollution that will eventually cause Global warming, even if you don't believe it is happening now, it will occur at some point if we continue to pollute as we are.



It will have to be some twist then !
Click to expand...

Hypothetically. Let's just pretend that the people who are supposed to know what they are talking about actually know what they are talking about and that you just happen to be wrong.

I know it's impossible to imagine that you aren't the world's foremost expert on the subject, but try for just a minute.
 
Tucker Case said:
No, I believe waste that is in excess of what is biologically sustainable is pollution
Click to expand...

CO 2 is not 'waste' ! Do you realise that the ideal growing conditions for plants are at levels of CO 2 three times that of today ?

Plants Need CO2 - Carbon Dioxide Emissions - Global Warming Climate Change Facts

It's not benign. Nor is it only occurring "naturally".
Click to expand...

We have had levels up to 8 times that we see today and these eras coincided with a flourishing of life of all sorts both land and sea

Why are you under the misguided impression I am talking about today's climate? The problem that requires a proactive solution is the man-made pollution that will eventually cause Global warming, even if you don't believe it is happening now, it will occur at some point if we continue to pollute as we are.
Click to expand...

But its not playing out the way they wrote that script is it ? The warming has stopped and may even turn to cooling now and historically that is always worse both in terms of increased mortality lower crop yields and shorter growing seasons. Why would that be more desirable ?

Hypothetically. Let's just pretend that the people who are supposed to know what they are talking about actually know what they are talking about and that you just happen to be wrong.
Click to expand...

I dont 'pretend' that the majority of the people you refer to have ever been asked what they think

I know it's impossible to imagine that you aren't the world's foremost expert on the subject, but try for just a minute
Click to expand...

I never claimed I was but if I could I'd present them with this then ask them why they are ignoring them it would be a start

Popular Technology.net: 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom