• 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!

Which part of AGW theory do you not accept?

Which part of AGW theory do you not accept?

  • The existence of the greenhouse effect

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • That the world is getting warmer

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • CO2 being a greenhouse gas and is influencing the current warming trend

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • That mankind is adding to CO2 levels

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    17
Deleting correspondence and "losing" raw data is viewed as blatant by some.

I'm not sure a lot of people realize that the CRU isn't the group that actually holds the raw data. CRU deleted their copies of the raw data because in the 1980's they didn't have very good data storage options.

Weather services hold the original data. If the skeptics were really intent on checking the data rather than just throwing up smoke, they'd have done so by now.

Of course, it's probably a wasted effort because the temperature records from the CRU match those of other groups.

Climategate has been thoroughly debunked, but facts just don't matter to the right-wing, and the so-called liberal media doesn't bother because controversy sells, and non-controversy...doesn't.
 
Climategate has been thoroughly debunked, but facts just don't matter to the right-wing, and the so-called liberal media doesn't bother because controversy sells, and non-controversy...doesn't.

Frankly, this kind of attitude just isn't helpful if you're trying to win people over to environmentalism.

For one thing, if anybody in science talks about a "consensus" of any kind bells should be going off. Science thrives of dissent, and any field with no dissent is stagnant. If science can't stand up to thorough questioning then it is no good to begin with. Some of the claims coming from the most prominent spokespeople for the Global Warming movement are demonstrably untrue, alarmist claptrap. Al Gore springs immediately to mind. You have to be able to acknowledge the lies and exaggerations within the movement before somebody on the other side of the aisle can even being listen.

All that being said, environmentalism is important. I've never met anybody who thinks recycling or energy independence is a bad idea. We just all have different ways to go about it. Framing the discussion in terms of whether or not some abstract concept called "global warming" (what is that, anyway, like El Nino?) just puts the fulcrum in the wrong position. The debate itself becomes a distraction. "if there's global warming how come its cold?" or "in fifty years the polar ice caps will melt and Florida will become submerged." This kind of idiocy isn't helpful.

Environmentalism should not be pinned to global warming. We should focus on issues of sustainability and responsible environmental stewardship.
 
Last edited:
Deleting correspondence and "losing" raw data is viewed as blatant by some.

As duece has pointed out they were unfounded allegations whereas I can take virtually any denialist website and show you the cherry picked data and misrepresentations and for not a few the money trail back to big oil and energy
 
Frankly, this kind of attitude just isn't helpful if you're trying to win people over to environmentalism.

For one thing, if anybody in science talks about a "consensus" of any kind bells should be going off. Science thrives of dissent, and any field with no dissent is stagnant. If science can't stand up to thorough questioning then it is no good to begin with. Some of the claims coming from the most prominent spokespeople for the Global Warming movement are demonstrably untrue, alarmist claptrap. Al Gore springs immediately to mind. You have to be able to acknowledge the lies and exaggerations within the movement before somebody on the other side of the aisle can even being listen.

All that being said, environmentalism is important. I've never met anybody who thinks recycling or energy independence is a bad idea. We just all have different ways to go about it. Framing the discussion in terms of whether or not some abstract concept called "global warming" (what is that, anyway, like El Nino?) just puts the fulcrum in the wrong position. The debate itself becomes a distraction. "if there's global warming how come its cold?" or "in fifty years the polar ice caps will melt and Florida will become submerged." This kind of idiocy isn't helpful.

Environmentalism should not be pinned to global warming. We should focus on issues of sustainability and responsible environmental stewardship.

Wow, straw man much?
1) "Consensus" has never meant "100% agreement on everything."
2) There's always more research to be done, nobody ever claimed that the field was somehow settled, complete, or lacking dissent
3) The science does stand up to thorough review
4) It is important to acknowledge errors or lies, but "climategate" is a proven spin-job. Most of the allegations are easily disproven with five minutes on google, as they depended on blatant spin and deception, and the rest were investigated. Multiple independent investigations cleared the scientists at the CRU of wrongdoing. The strongest criticisms leveled against the CRU came down to some sloppyness.
5) Al Gore is not a scientist. It is important to realize that the things Gore says are not inherently representative of climate science. He's a spokesman and a politician.
6) Environmentalism is not pinned to global warming alone, and anyone who thinks it is hasn't been paying attention.
7) The science never claimed the ice caps would melt in 50 years.
 
Last edited:
As duece has pointed out they were unfounded allegations whereas I can take virtually any denialist website and show you the cherry picked data and misrepresentations and for not a few the money trail back to big oil and energy

Are we to pretend that warmist scientists don't have a vested interest in getting the next grant, or that the money trail from them does not lead back to government officials and/or individuals who are heavily invested in "green" energy? That's a pretty disengenuous argument.

I'll have a look back at the "unfounded" allegations, but I will tell you this. If I am doing a major research project, I keep copies of my raw data. It's kind of important....
 
Are we to pretend that warmist scientists don't have a vested interest in getting the next grant, or that the money trail from them does not lead back to government officials and/or individuals who are heavily invested in "green" energy? That's a pretty disengenuous argument.

I'll have a look back at the "unfounded" allegations, but I will tell you this. If I am doing a major research project, I keep copies of my raw data. It's kind of important....

In 1980 with gigabytes of data you might decide differently, especially when you can easily access the raw data at any time.

Everything else you just wrote is a conspiracy theory. Every scientist is dependent on his next grant. Clearly, we should shut down all of our nuclear power plants because the science behind them is unreliable!! They'd have twice as much research to do if they discovered global warming was not a result of CO2, because now there's a giant amount of energy entering the system and nobody knows where the hell it's coming from.

I mean, it's not like we'd suddenly lose interest in what our climate has done, is doing, and is going to do, just because it turned out to be not our fault.

edit: Also, you ignored the part about the blatant cherry picking and deception, which leads to the blogosphere spouting things like "global warming stopped in 1995!" or "in the 70's, the scientific consensus was we were headed for an ice age!"
 
Last edited:
Are we to pretend that warmist scientists don't have a vested interest in getting the next grant, or that the money trail from them does not lead back to government officials and/or individuals who are heavily invested in "green" energy? That's a pretty disengenuous argument.

I'll have a look back at the "unfounded" allegations, but I will tell you this. If I am doing a major research project, I keep copies of my raw data. It's kind of important....

And so did the researchers who got data from CRU - which is why CRU felt it did not need to keep all that data. This was in the eighties, remember the paper files, the BIG floppies that nothing can read anymore?


And are you REALLY telling me that the poor schmuck in Antarctica freezing his tushie off counting snowflakes is so wedded to that job that he is going to "cook the books" to keep it.

And it STILL gets back to the sheer size of a "conspiracy" to defraud that you are suggesting.

If this were only a couple of scientists - maybe, if it were a hundred scientists - less likely but it is not even just a couple of thousand it is tens of thousands AT LEAST - particularly if you look over the history of the accumulation of knowledge from the late 1800's to today - were all of THOSE scientists also "on the graft"?

As Deuce has previously pointed out some of the pivotal research into CO2 and infrared actually occurred in the 1950's funded by military science to determine the best guidance systems for missiles - it had NOTHING to do with today's climatology are they too worthy of derision as part of your conspiracy theory?

So please connect the dots - how does a scientist in Australia doing research into atmospheric composition at Cape Grim going to profit from some engineer in China making better solar panels?
 
The majority of this board's members are conservative, and conservatives are more likely to disagree with AGW theory. (how this became a right/left issue is beyond me)

So, I'm wondering what the general distribution of the skepticism is. I'm sure some of you would like to say "everything, the scientists are lying about everything!" but that's not really an answer. Being skeptical of CO2's warming influence doesn't make sense if you don't believe the world is getting warmer. The main categories of contention I've come across:

1) The existence of the greenhouse effect
2) That the world is getting warmer
3) That CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is affecting the current warming trend
4) Mankind as contributing to increases in CO2 levels
5) The calculations of how much influence CO2 has, relative to other influences
6) The impact of AGW/a warming climate
7) I accept AGW theory
8) Other


Also, please expand on your view.

I first looked at who was trying to espouse this idea, and to find Al Gore as the leading media focus icon should be a wake-up call. Mr. Gore is a politician, traveling around in his SUV caravan and preaching some non-science mantra, with "fear" being the leading factor, it was a no-brainer. For those who've been around the block a few times, the era of the 70's, should offer clues. It was the idea that a looming Ice Age was to destroy the planet back then.

Learning that the ratio of scientists who actually side with this fable compared to the real science observers who oppose, it's a 1 to 30 checkmate. See Petition. Then look at the government funding behind the scenes.

It's not like this type of bologna hasn't existed before, Copernicus and Galileo should be prime examples of historic "heresy." But what changes things today, evidence is no longer a qualifying factor. Illustrate just one "credible" witness in a particular subject (with no facts or scientific evidence) and the burden of proof shifts to the skeptic.

Science today has become what one desires to believe! WOW!! God help us if this type of idealism moves into the Judiciary System!
 
Frankly, this kind of attitude just isn't helpful if you're trying to win people over to environmentalism.

You can only explain something so many times before you get frustrated with people ignoring your logic.
 
You can only explain something so many times before you get frustrated with people ignoring your logic.

Hey, I sympathize. And it's one thing when we're talking about an issue of partisan politics. But with something as important as environmentalism, it's much more important to win people over than to score points in a debate.
 
I first looked at who was trying to espouse this idea, and to find Al Gore as the leading media focus icon should be a wake-up call. Mr. Gore is a politician, traveling around in his SUV caravan and preaching some non-science mantra, with "fear" being the leading factor, it was a no-brainer. For those who've been around the block a few times, the era of the 70's, should offer clues. It was the idea that a looming Ice Age was to destroy the planet back then.

Learning that the ratio of scientists who actually side with this fable compared to the real science observers who oppose, it's a 1 to 30 checkmate. See Petition. Then look at the government funding behind the scenes.

It's not like this type of bologna hasn't existed before, Copernicus and Galileo should be prime examples of historic "heresy." But what changes things today, evidence is no longer a qualifying factor. Illustrate just one "credible" witness in a particular subject (with no facts or scientific evidence) and the burden of proof shifts to the skeptic.

Science today has become what one desires to believe! WOW!! God help us if this type of idealism moves into the Judiciary System!

Two standard denialist myths in one post, nice!
The petition project. Do I really have to go over this piece of nonsense again?

1) That petition project comes from a right-wing group that is a known shill for the oil industry and tobacco industry.
2) Even the organizer of the petition admits they did NO checking of signatures. That, of course, was obvious to people who noticed names like Mickey Mouse and Michael J. Fox on the original list.
3) Virtually none of the signatures on that list are climatologists... even if you take them all at their word. More than a third are "Bachelor's or equivalent." In what universe does a bachelor's degree make you a "scientist?" No offense to doctors (3,046), engineers (7,280), or metallurgists (384), but they're not exactly what I would call "experts" on climate science.
4) 97% of active climatologists support AGW
Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN
5) The "in the 70's people thought there'd be an ice age" deal is a myth. Virtually all published papers in that period either predicted warming or said they didn't yet have enough information to make an accurate prediction.

Poke around this subforum a bit. The petition project comes up constantly. It's getting old, and responding to the same denialist tropes over and over is getting dull. What's next, you're going to claim global warming stopped in 1995 and then you're going to say it's solar activity causing the current warming, right?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35383
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ&feature=mfu_in_order&playnext=1&videos=QE7odDT0NTU
 
Last edited:
I voted other. I do not believe in the man made global warming theory. I actually believe that climate change is naturally occurring regardless of how minute or severe those changes are.

I agree 100% with the fact that its not man made. But I believe it is due to the fact that Earth is moving closer to the sun.
 
I agree 100% with the fact that its not man made. But I believe it is due to the fact that Earth is moving closer to the sun.

....

I admit, that's a new one.

It's also wrong. The earth is not getting closer to the sun. In fact, the earth will slowly increase its orbital distance as the sun loses mass.
 
Hey, I sympathize. And it's one thing when we're talking about an issue of partisan politics. But with something as important as environmentalism, it's much more important to win people over than to score points in a debate.

You should win people over based on the merits of your theory, rather than what you say. The facts speak for themselves, but people don't listen to them.
 
....

I admit, that's a new one.

It's also wrong. The earth is not getting closer to the sun. In fact, the earth will slowly increase its orbital distance as the sun loses mass.

It took restraint not to say something more drastic to that lol
 
I agree 100% with the fact that its not man made. But I believe it is due to the fact that Earth is moving closer to the sun.

ummmm - I agree THIS is a new one! Errrr - don't you think SOMEONE in the Astronomy field would have noticed??

And even if you think that this is all being covered up by a conspiracy then I have to tell you Astronomy is one of those fields where there are a huge number of amateurs who WOULD notice something like this
 
It took restraint not to say something more drastic to that lol

You have no idea how many times I had to retype that post to avoid an infraction.
 
You have no idea how many times I had to retype that post to avoid an infraction.

I can only imagine. Sometimes, I find its worth the infration points to just say, "you're an idiot" :D
 
Last edited:
....

I admit, that's a new one.

It's also wrong. The earth is not getting closer to the sun. In fact, the earth will slowly increase its orbital distance as the sun loses mass.

No, it's not actually a new one. Has the Milankovitch Theory of orbital variances been disproven?
 
In 1980 with gigabytes of data you might decide differently, especially when you can easily access the raw data at any time.

I'll look into what you're saying here. If I'm wrong about it, I'll admit it. If I'm not, I'll expect the same from you...


Everything else you just wrote is a conspiracy theory. Every scientist is dependent on his next grant. Clearly, we should shut down all of our nuclear power plants because the science behind them is unreliable!! They'd have twice as much research to do if they discovered global warming was not a result of CO2, because now there's a giant amount of energy entering the system and nobody knows where the hell it's coming from.

Everything I wrote about funding for science is a conspiracy theory, but then it's exactly correct (according to what you just said). I'm not the one who said there is necessarily anything wrong with anyone's source of funding. That was bowerbird. EDIT: And that was you, as well.

I mean, it's not like we'd suddenly lose interest in what our climate has done, is doing, and is going to do, just because it turned out to be not our fault.

I beg to differ. Many scientists would still have a great deal of interest, but many of their sources of funding would lose interest altogether if they were not able to use the information to their benefit.


edit: Also, you ignored the part about the blatant cherry picking and deception, which leads to the blogosphere spouting things like "global warming stopped in 1995!" or "in the 70's, the scientific consensus was we were headed for an ice age!"

I didn't ignore it. I just didn't respond to it because I don't care. Cherry picking and deception happens on both sides. I think you know that...besides, in the 70's, they did say that we were headed for an ice age. Personally, I think that's much more likely than warming (when looking at the historical trend) and would be much more devastating on the population.
 
Last edited:
1) That petition project comes from a right-wing group that is a known shill for the oil industry and tobacco industry.

I thought we weren't dealing in conspiracy theories and this had nothing to do with politics?
 
No, it's not actually a new one. Has the Milankovitch Theory of orbital variances been disproven?

Axial tilt precesses and eccentricity changes, but the earth's average orbital distance is not decreasing. If you have evidence to the contrary, please show me, because it means that I'm probably doing some of this astronomy homework incorrectly.

I'll look into what you're saying here. If I'm wrong about it, I'll admit it. If I'm not, I'll expect the same from you...
It's pretty straight forward. Temperature readings in the United States are not kept by some British university's research department. (CRU is at the U of East Angalia) The National Weather Service has that data. Similarly, if you want the raw data for temperature stations in Germany you should talk to whatever weather service operates in Germany.

I beg to differ. Many scientists would still have a great deal of interest, but many of their sources of funding would lose interest altogether if they were not able to use the information to their benefit.

I disagree.


I didn't ignore it. I just didn't respond to it because I don't care. Cherry picking and deception happens on both sides. I think you know that...besides, in the 70's, they did say that we were headed for an ice age. Personally, I think that's much more likely than warming (when looking at the historical trend) and would be much more devastating on the population.

The majority of scientists in the 70's predicted warming, a sizeable portion said we didn't yet have enough data to make accurate predictions, and only very few papers published actually predicted cooling. The "70's ice age" deal is largely the result of journalists sensationalizing or misunderstanding what was told to them. The National Academy of Science, for instance, very clearly stated they were predicting that CO2 would overwhelm any cooling tendency created by particulates.

So, tell me, who is "they," exactly? Because this study
Let me google that for you
(first link PDF)
says that from 1965 to 1979, the majority of published papers predict warming, a sizeable portion were neutral (saying we didn't have enough information yet) and only a few papers predicted cooling. 42 warming, 19 netural, 7 cooling. (check towards the end, page 11 starts the table where they break it down) The National Academy of Science stated clearly that they predicted warming.

Who is "they?"

Yes, Milankovitch cycles dictate that we will eventually restart a cooling trend towards an ice age. One issue: these cycles occur over thousands of years. The next one isn't due for a few thousand at least, and the current warming trend appears to outpace any typical natural cycle. (significant warming in 200 years instead of 2000!)
 
Last edited:
And so did the researchers who got data from CRU - which is why CRU felt it did not need to keep all that data. This was in the eighties, remember the paper files, the BIG floppies that nothing can read anymore?

And this is not the 80's. The data they got rid of can be kept on a thumb drive now. If I remember the issue correctly, a scientist who wanted to review the raw data used in a particular report was told that the data was lost (by the people at CRU). If it was lost, then they are shoddy scientists. If it was deleted, they are shoddy, fraudulent scientists. If it wasn't lost and they knew it, they're shoddy, dishonest scientists. Again, I'll look a little further into it.


And are you REALLY telling me that the poor schmuck in Antarctica freezing his tushie off counting snowflakes is so wedded to that job that he is going to "cook the books" to keep it.

It could be, yeah. Have you seen how much it costs to go to Antarctica? It's something I'd like to do, but I'm not about to pay that much to do it.

And it STILL gets back to the sheer size of a "conspiracy" to defraud that you are suggesting.

If this were only a couple of scientists - maybe, if it were a hundred scientists - less likely but it is not even just a couple of thousand it is tens of thousands AT LEAST - particularly if you look over the history of the accumulation of knowledge from the late 1800's to today - were all of THOSE scientists also "on the graft"?

I'm not impressed by the number of people signing on to the issue and I'm thus far unimpressed by the science. Hitler was able to take over most of Europe and kill several million people in the process. I'm not comparing, just making a comment on the possibilities of scale for a fraud.

As Deuce has previously pointed out some of the pivotal research into CO2 and infrared actually occurred in the 1950's funded by military science to determine the best guidance systems for missiles - it had NOTHING to do with today's climatology are they too worthy of derision as part of your conspiracy theory?
This has only been an issue demagogued by politicians and green energy tycoons for the last few of decades, no. I'm not suspicious of them. And again, for the record, I believe that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. I'll appreciate it if you and Deuce stop trying to convince me on that point.


So please connect the dots - how does a scientist in Australia doing research into atmospheric composition at Cape Grim going to profit from some engineer in China making better solar panels?

Global warming drives investments into green energy, green energy funds additional global warming research. Dots connected. It's exactly the opposite for oil companies. Global warming drives investment away from fossil fuels, so the companies who deal in fossil fuels fund studies to defend themselves. Please, let's don't pretend that both sides are free from vested interests. It's dishonest and not useful to the debate.
 
Axial tilt precesses and eccentricity changes, but the earth's average orbital distance is not decreasing. If you have evidence to the contrary, please show me, because it means that I'm probably doing some of this astronomy homework incorrectly.

I do not profess to be an expert by any means, or even well-educated for that matter, in the Earth's orbital patterns. I do, however remember reading a journal article in my Astronomy 101 class as an undergrad (it was a science elective :shrug:) I do agree that the Earth's average orbital distance from the Sun is predicted to remain relatively constant for at least a billion years or so. however; I also vaguely remember our class discussion on the Milankovitch Theory and the correlation of the three Earth orbital patterns and glaciation/deglaciation. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this theory suggest that the Earth indeed "wobbles" in it's orbital patterns and that there are periods when the Earth may be closer to the sun than during a "typical" cycle through said pattern? Didn't Milankovitch attempt to show global climate changes which corresponded to these "irregularities" in orbital pattern or in axial tilt? I'm seriously trying to learn here, no sarcasm intended. Damn, I wish that I could find that original journal article. Anyway I just found this in a limited search and I do realize it comes from an oversimplified summary of Milankovitch's Theory. I go back to my original question: has this theory been disproven as of yet?

From the site:
Milankovitch Cycles
Taken in unison, variations in these three cycles creates alterations in the seasonality of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface. These times of increased or decreased solar radiation directly influence the Earth's climate system, thus impacting the advance and retreat of Earth's glaciers.

It is of primary importance to explain that climate change, and subsequent periods of glaciation, resulting from the following three variables is not due to the total amount of solar energy reaching Earth. The three Milankovitch Cycles impact the seasonality and location of solar energy around the Earth, thus impacting contrasts between the seasons.
Perhaps the suggestion of the earlier poster was that we may be entering a "point" of one of the particular "cycles" in which the Earth is closer to the Sun than during a typical revolution?
 
Last edited:
I disagree.

If it was proven with certainty tomorrow that man is not causing global warming, you think funding levels for climate research would stay the same? Really? I have more respect for your intelligence than that...
 
Back
Top Bottom