Global Warming

[Blasted Child]

Originally Posted by The Leader

A solid case? Blasted Child, all he does is post links to biased websites. That and he clearly doesn't understand what the theory of global warming actually is or rudimentary science.

Is it just me or has i-mockery suddenly turned very strict when it comes to debating standards?
Usually when we debate stuff over the internet, we link to articles. What is coolinator supposed to do, record himself as he travels with a weather balloon to collect the data?
We're all laymen here, all we can do is refer to stuff.

I think at least a few of the articles he linked to deserve some merit, and I like to consider myself equiped with a fairly critical set of eyes, but still, sure, everything can be dismissed as biased.

This being said, I'm still skeptical towards the conspiracy movement and the climate deniers, and heck, I agree that coolinator comes across as a tad sanctimonious, but hey he's probably young and going through a phase.

dunno, just thought this debate turned out a bit one-sided.

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Blasted Child

What is coolinator supposed to do, record himself as he travels with a weather balloon to collect the data?

LOL

dunno, just thought this debate turned out a bit one-sided.

Don't worry about it, I'm used to it. I got what I wanted to say out and we all enjoyed a nice conversation.

[The Leader]

Originally Posted by Blasted Child

Is it just me or has i-mockery suddenly turned very strict when it comes to debating standards?
Usually when we debate stuff over the internet, we link to articles. What is coolinator supposed to do, record himself as he travels with a weather balloon to collect the data?
We're all laymen here, all we can do is refer to stuff.

dunno, just thought this debate turned out a bit one-sided.

To address this, the problem is that few if any of his sources could be regarded as valid. That and I am trying to debate with him except I have no idea what his point is and he isn't really... Posting anything... It's like the same stuff over and over and he still hasn't stated what he means.

[Colonel Flagg]

Originally Posted by Blasted Child

Is it just me or has i-mockery suddenly turned very strict when it comes to debating standards?
Usually when we debate stuff over the internet, we link to articles. What is coolinator supposed to do, record himself as he travels with a weather balloon to collect the data?
We're all laymen here, all we can do is refer to stuff.

I think at least a few of the articles he linked to deserve some merit, and I like to consider myself equiped with a fairly critical set of eyes, but still, sure, everything can be dismissed as biased.

This being said, I'm still skeptical towards the conspiracy movement and the climate deniers, and heck, I agree that coolinator comes across as a tad sanctimonious, but hey he's probably young and going through a phase.

dunno, just thought this debate turned out a bit one-sided.

The way I see it, (and feel free to disagree, for everyone has an opinion) the real problem witrh this highly emotional and politically charged topic is that people begin arguing viewpoints without a clear understanding of the fundamental principles. Thus, they tend to gravitate toward those arguments that most closely align with their beliefs. It's true in science, economics, health care, and, yes, even politics. (hows that for an oxymoron) This isn't factual, it's faith. (Hence the Latin aphorisms)

Coolie and his blogosphere are arguing based largely on faith. So are most of the proponents of the AGW hypothesis. (It's why you need to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.) What both sides either fail to realize or refuse to speak about is that global climate change is documented and real. Causality is the issue over which there is much debate.

Does mankind have an adverse impact on the global climate? Define adverse. We are as much as any animal products of this environment. Yet we have either developed or have been granted (depending on your conceit) the intelligence and/or desire to alter said environment for our own purposes. Does this process pose a danger to the ecosystem? If we continue burning fossil fuels (incidentally generating tons and tons more CO2 than all other pollutants combined (and that can be calculated independently without resorting to faith)), dumping chemical and biological wastes, continue with irresponsible handling of nuclear waste byproducts, then yes, we do. The degree of that impact is what is at issue. Does it matter, on a global scale what mankind chooses to do with the environment, or is it merely a perturbation in a much larger and complex global climatary framework?

I recently looked at a similar situation on a much smaller scale - flooding on the Delaware River. Admittedly, I have a vested interest, but as a scientist, I was also curious. I found that there were two factions (surprise!) - those that want the upstate NY reservoirs (feeding fresh water to NYC) cut back to an 80% capacity to reduce the incidence of flooding downstream, and those that want the reservoirs kept at full or nearly full capacity year round, and use the spillways to regulate flow into the Delaware river.

The data for the river flow was readily available, and after some analysis, yielded a rather surprising result - neither side was completely correct. It seemed the real root cause was more likely increased development along the Delaware and in through upstate NY, and insufficient storm water handling provisions. It remains to be seen if keeping the reservoirs at a level slightly less than capacity during the wintertime will help, but the actual creation of the reservoir system has nothing to do with flooding.

I assume that a similar result would be found for the current issue at hand, if one wanted to analyze the data. That's why I don't like taking sides - it also involves narrowing your worldview, and the science suffers.

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Colonel Flagg

arguing based largely on faith............. global climate change is documented and real

Oh come on......

I at least gave more examples then that to support my argument. Real examples from real sources from all over the world. Publicly documented confessions of climate scientists changing numbers to create the appearance of a changing climate because of CO2 emissions. Top scientists that have stopped believing in the myth because of lack of accurate data.

You guys have been calling me every name in the book while looking down your condescending elitists noses at me. All of which end in "You don't know SCIENCE" or "You don't know the principles" like it's some magical formula that only trained wizards are taught after years of apprenticeship and on top of that every single article that is literally common knowledge is condemned as "BIASED".

If we continue burning fossil fuels (incidentally generating tons and tons more CO2 than all other pollutants combined)

CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 has no affect on the climate. There is no evidence that links CO2 to rising temperatures. The sun controls the heat of the globe as it controls the temperature of every single other celestial body in the solar system.

Al Gore's Carbon Tax will not save the world from the Sun.

dumping chemical and biological wastes, continue with irresponsible handling of nuclear waste byproducts, then yes, we do. The degree of that impact is what is at issue.

No, Global Warming proponents don't care about chemicals, wastes, and spend nuclear fuel rods. They only care about Carbon and they center everything on CO2. I've been saying this from the beginning.

Originally Posted by The Leader

CONVINCE ME COOLINATOR

I'm tired.....ask me a question tomorrow and I will attempt to answer it to the best of my ability.

[The Leader]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

Al Gore's Carbon Tax will not save the world from the Sun.

Why do you keep talking about solutions to the problem? That is not the issue we are discussing. I am trying to understand what scientific evidence you have that supports that there is not global warming. You have only posted links to articles which talk about people who have manipulated data to make it appear that climate change is occurring at a faster rate than it is. Some studies which are invalid do not negate all of the data that has been gathered over the past few hundred years which supports the theory of climate change.

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

No, Global Warming proponents don't care about chemicals, wastes, and spend nuclear fuel rods. They only care about Carbon and they center everything on CO2. I've been saying this from the beginning.

That doesn't affect the validity of what he posted. We are not discussing what some idiots believe. We are trying to discern what information you have that supports the idea that the theory of global warming is false. We do not want to hear about how people have taken advantage of this theory but what scientific evidence you have found.

[Supafly345]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

Oh come on......

I at least gave more examples then that to support my argument. Real examples from real sources from all over the world. Publicly documented confessions of climate scientists changing numbers to create the appearance of a changing climate because of CO2 emissions. Top scientists that have stopped believing in the myth because of lack of accurate data.

This is a fallacious arguing tactic called "shifting of burden" where one challenges a person to prove them wrong when challenged to provide evidence in the first place. It is not honest.

As far as these publicly documented confessions of climate scientists forging data to forward an unfounded appearance of climate change- I know of only one example you could possibly be referring to. This wasn't an actual study of climate change that was under investigation, but rather the use of tree-ring data to be used as a valid measurement of temperature. The fudging of data was speculated in private documents, where they discussed replacing the temps of the tree ring data, which showed the earth cooling, to that of the actual temperatures which showed the earth warming. The actual temperatures it was changed to was taken from satellite measurements, so they are accurate. In the end the paper that was published never included this fudged data so the whole controversy didn't matter in the first place, even though the scientist in question has stepped down temporarily while an investigation over the matter is taking place.

There are no top scientists that have stopped believing in climate change, the top scientists that don't believe in climate change now have always been skeptics. In fact the number of climate scientists that support anthropogenic climate change has only grown in the past 20 years. In many climate denilist websites there is a common mis-reporting of interviews, distortion of data, and outright lies in them.
One of the most recent ones was the story that the top climate scientist Phil Jones has completely changed his mind and now claims that "there has been no global warming since 1995" because he said there was no significant data- which can be see here DAILY MAIL. But if you read the original article HERE he says over and over that anthropogenic climate change is real and that its 100% certain we have been warming since then.
So what happened? Well it turns out that the minimum amount of time that a scientifically significant measurement can be taken is 15 years, so when asked the question "has there been significant warming since 1995" he has to honestly say no, because that is one year shy of being significant, and the daily mail and other fact spinners can claim "there has been no significant warming" according to climatologist Phil Jones.

You see? Do you understand now that where you are getting your information is so twisted from reality that you have been completely disconnected?

There, I have taken the time to explain, and use examples in SHOWING you why. Not just linking to shit and claiming its proof, but giving detailed explanations. Now obviously I don't have time to give you months and months worth of data and hundreds of examples, but I shouldn't have to. Just stop letting yourself get lied to by conspiracy theorist.


I also just noticed the argument about means for climate change OTHER than CO2, well the only other 2 factors that are anywhere near capable right now of changing our climate is by Volcanic and Solar forcing. And both of those have been constant. You can pull up negligible arguments including methane, increased precipitation, oxygen, yadda yadda, but they don't have enough significance. The environmentalists focus on CO2 because thats what the scientists have been claiming the problem to be. Yes all these other arguments COULD potentially be the cause of climate change, IF IF IF they were increasing, but they arent.

[Colonel Flagg]

Originally Posted by Supafly345

As far as these publicly documented confessions of climate scientists forging data to forward an unfounded appearance of climate change- I know of only one example you could possibly be referring to. This wasn't an actual study of climate change that was under investigation, but rather the use of tree-ring data to be used as a valid measurement of temperature. The fudging of data was speculated in private documents, where they discussed replacing the temps of the tree ring data, which showed the earth cooling, to that of the actual temperatures which showed the earth warming. The actual temperatures it was changed to was taken from satellite measurements, so they are accurate. In the end the paper that was published never included this fudged data so the whole controversy didn't matter in the first place, even though the scientist in question has stepped down temporarily while an investigation over the matter is taking place.

There are no top scientists that have stopped believing in climate change, the top scientists that don't believe in climate change now have always been skeptics. In fact the number of climate scientists that support anthropogenic climate change has only grown in the past 20 years. In many climate denilist websites there is a common mis-reporting of interviews, distortion of data, and outright lies in them.
One of the most recent ones was the story that the top climate scientist Phil Jones has completely changed his mind and now claims that "there has been no global warming since 1995" because he said there was no significant data- which can be see here DAILY MAIL. But if you read the original article HERE he says over and over that anthropogenic climate change is real and that its 100% certain we have been warming since then.
So what happened? Well it turns out that the minimum amount of time that a scientifically significant measurement can be taken is 15 years, so when asked the question "has there been significant warming since 1995" he has to honestly say no, because that is one year shy of being significant, and the daily mail and other fact spinners can claim "there has been no significant warming" according to climatologist Phil Jones.

You see? Do you understand now that where you are getting your information is so twisted from reality that you have been completely disconnected?

There, I have taken the time to explain, and use examples in SHOWING you why. Not just linking to shit and claiming its proof, but giving detailed explanations. Now obviously I don't have time to give you months and months worth of data and hundreds of examples, but I shouldn't have to. Just stop letting yourself get lied to by conspiracy theorist.


I also just noticed the argument about means for climate change OTHER than CO2, well the only other 2 factors that are anywhere near capable right now of changing our climate is by Volcanic and Solar forcing. And both of those have been constant. You can pull up negligible arguments including methane, increased precipitation, oxygen, yadda yadda, but they don't have enough significance. The environmentalists focus on CO2 because thats what the scientists have been claiming the problem to be. Yes all these other arguments COULD potentially be the cause of climate change, IF IF IF they were increasing, but they arent.

Now THIS is a measured, well-reasoned argument.

[Colonel Flagg]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

Oh come on......

I at least gave more examples then that to support my argument. Real examples from real sources from all over the world. Publicly documented confessions of climate scientists changing numbers to create the appearance of a changing climate because of CO2 emissions. Top scientists that have stopped believing in the myth because of lack of accurate data.

You need to go back and read my previous post for comprehension. You obviously failed Geology or Natural Science somewhere down the line, because you completely missed the Ice Age reference. What you've been pontificating about is the AGW hypothesis, and this is something completely different.

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

CO2 is not a pollutant.

from www.dictionary.com:

Pollutant (n.) - any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.

You can try living in an enclosed room with only CO2 to breathe, and see how long it takes before you asphyxiate. Pollutants come in many forms, and too much of of anything can be bad for the environment.

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

CO2 has no affect on the climate. There is no evidence that links CO2 to rising temperatures. The sun controls the heat of the globe as it controls the temperature of every single other celestial body in the solar system.

CO2 is a strong IR absorber, and as the concentration of CO2 goes up, so does its ability in the air to absorb and store heat (for lack of a better term). If global atmospheric CO2 levels reached a sufficiently high level, then yes, they would significantly contribute to the warming of the planet. The key word here, however, is "if". As for the sun controlling the heat of the globe ... well mere words cannot describe the incredible intuitive grasp you have of the obvious.

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

Global Warming proponents don't care about chemicals, wastes, and spend nuclear fuel rods. They only care about Carbon and they center everything on CO2. I've been saying this from the beginning.

Bullshit. I brought these points up because (drumroll) I agree with this part of your mostly inept argument. We need to look at mankind's impact on the environment from all sources, and CO2 is only one source.

In closing, please take my advice, and reread my previous post for comprehension, scanning all areas for the word "warming". You'll find it does not occur (with one exception - and it's minor). This is intentional.