CDZ Climate Change "almost entirely man's fault"!

[Saigon]

Why bother to debate? After all, "the science is settled".

It is largely settled, I agree, but there should be discussion, because discussion is healthy.

There is also a lot that we still don't know, and it is imperative that we have strong, objective scientific research into issues like deep ocean warming and coral bleaching so that we can find solutions.

It's also clear that there is still a small group of people who don't understand the science, and I think it's important that we can continue to make science available to them so that they can also make up their own minds. On this fourm there are probably 10-12 posters who still deny the human role in climate change, and I think that's quite amazing.

 

[Stephanie]

wow, did you know you all were that powerful?

Now you can change the climate of the earth and it was in just 200 years

gawd people wake the hell up from these fearmongering scare tactics

There isn't anything wrong with discussing it rationally. And dismissing it out of hand prior to investigation isn't rational.

The data is good, but the interpretations of it are rank with special interest bias.

To me the question shouldn't be what caused it.

The question should actually be two..."can we do anything about it", and if so "do we need to do whatever that is"

Really? what's rational about the title that says it's all mans fault for climate change?

Wry actually asked if it could be discussed rationally, ya know like in debate class..... Or did you not attend debate class?
Here's a question, what's rational about your "approach" (at this point in the discussion).
We already know Wrys bias on this issue but at least he didn't come out with the usual "told ya so you evil republicans". Looks to me like he actually want's a true debate, at least for now.

We've debated this same crap to death already. Maybe most of the people are sick of it and being beat over the head with it

 

[Ringel05]

Why bother to debate? After all, "the science is settled".

It is largely settled, I agree, but there should be discussion, because discussion is healthy.

There is also a lot that we still don't know, and it is imperative that we have strong, objective scientific research into issues like deep ocean warming and coral bleaching so that we can find solutions.

It's also clear that there is still a small group of people who don't understand the science, and I think it's important that we can continue to make science available to them so that they can also make up their own minds. On this fourm there are probably 10-12 posters who still deny the human role in climate change, and I think that's quite amazing.

That's because the science behind causation is still hotly debated among scientists. There are those who think like you and others who state the evidence shows a normal cyclical pattern.

 

[Ringel05]

wow, did you know you all were that powerful?

Now you can change the climate of the earth and it was in just 200 years

gawd people wake the hell up from these fearmongering scare tactics

There isn't anything wrong with discussing it rationally. And dismissing it out of hand prior to investigation isn't rational.

The data is good, but the interpretations of it are rank with special interest bias.

To me the question shouldn't be what caused it.

The question should actually be two..."can we do anything about it", and if so "do we need to do whatever that is"

Really? what's rational about the title that says it's all mans fault for climate change?

Wry actually asked if it could be discussed rationally, ya know like in debate class..... Or did you not attend debate class?
Here's a question, what's rational about your "approach" (at this point in the discussion).
We already know Wrys bias on this issue but at least he didn't come out with the usual "told ya so you evil republicans". Looks to me like he actually want's a true debate, at least for now.

We've debated this same crap to death already. Maybe most of the people are sick of it and being beat over the head with it

Fine. There's a solution, if one is sick of it one should excuse themselves from the debate........

 

[Saigon]

That's because the science behind causation is still hotly debated among scientists. There are those who think like you and others who state the evidence shows a normal cyclical pattern.

I don't think it is hotly debated anymore - it was 10 years ago, perhaps, but I don't remember the last time I heard a scientific study suggest that issues like glacial melt, Arctic ice melt or rising sea levels weren't settled science. There are some issues that are not settled, I agree, but the basic concepts seem fairly clear and accepted.

Perhaps a year ago someone posted an overview that suggested that something like 0.7% of all scientific paper published reject human involvement in climate change - I wouldn't call that very hot dispute.

 

[Stephanie]

wow, did you know you all were that powerful?

Now you can change the climate of the earth and it was in just 200 years

gawd people wake the hell up from these fearmongering scare tactics

There isn't anything wrong with discussing it rationally. And dismissing it out of hand prior to investigation isn't rational.

The data is good, but the interpretations of it are rank with special interest bias.

To me the question shouldn't be what caused it.

The question should actually be two..."can we do anything about it", and if so "do we need to do whatever that is"

Really? what's rational about the title that says it's all mans fault for climate change?

Wry actually asked if it could be discussed rationally, ya know like in debate class..... Or did you not attend debate class?
Here's a question, what's rational about your "approach" (at this point in the discussion).
We already know Wrys bias on this issue but at least he didn't come out with the usual "told ya so you evil republicans". Looks to me like he actually want's a true debate, at least for now.

We've debated this same crap to death already. Maybe most of the people are sick of it and being beat over the head with it

Fine. There's a solution, if one is sick of it one should excuse themselves from the debate........

If you don't like others opinions you can leave. I believe many people are tired of being told they don't know what the hell is happening in the world because a few scientist claims we are the cause of warming up the earth. I mean really

 

[konradv]

There isn't enough CO2 to make a difference. You are talking about 2% or less.

Where'd you get the 2% figure? Most estimates hover in the 30-40% range.

The global annual mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased markedly since the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm to 395 ppm as of 2013, with the increase largely attributed to anthropogenic sources, particularly the burning of fossil fuels.

1. NOAA/ESRL. "Annual Mean Carbon Dioxide Data". NOAA/ESRL.

ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_gl.txt

 

[konradv]

Give it up, fewer and fewer people are falling for the scam.

True, if you live in the right wing echo chamber. Not true, if you live in the real world.

 

[Ringel05]

That's because the science behind causation is still hotly debated among scientists. There are those who think like you and others who state the evidence shows a normal cyclical pattern.

I don't think it is hotly debated anymore - it was 10 years ago, perhaps, but I don't remember the last time I heard a scientific study suggest that issues like glacial melt, Arctic ice melt or rising sea levels weren't settled science. There are some issues that are not settled, I agree, but the basic concepts seem fairly clear and accepted.

Perhaps a year ago someone posted an overview that suggested that something like 0.7% of all scientific paper published reject human involvement in climate change - I wouldn't call that very hot dispute.

No, only about 20% of the population believe the debate is over. By the way, I never claimed "issues like glacial melt, Arctic ice melt or rising sea levels weren't settled science.", I stated the debate still rages around causation, man made or cyclical.

 

[Ringel05]

There isn't anything wrong with discussing it rationally. And dismissing it out of hand prior to investigation isn't rational.

The data is good, but the interpretations of it are rank with special interest bias.

To me the question shouldn't be what caused it.

The question should actually be two..."can we do anything about it", and if so "do we need to do whatever that is"

Really? what's rational about the title that says it's all mans fault for climate change?

Wry actually asked if it could be discussed rationally, ya know like in debate class..... Or did you not attend debate class?
Here's a question, what's rational about your "approach" (at this point in the discussion).
We already know Wrys bias on this issue but at least he didn't come out with the usual "told ya so you evil republicans". Looks to me like he actually want's a true debate, at least for now.

We've debated this same crap to death already. Maybe most of the people are sick of it and being beat over the head with it

Fine. There's a solution, if one is sick of it one should excuse themselves from the debate........

If you don't like others opinions you can leave. I believe many people are tired of being told they don't know what the hell is happening in the world because a few scientist claims we are the cause of warming up the earth. I mean really

Funny how projection works, isn't it. Basically what I told you........

 

[Zander]

The most unscientific statement in the history of science is: "the science is settled".

 

[Stephanie]

I think what you snobs are seeing and just can't stand. is the majority of the people in this country isn't just going to ROLL over SO these UN scientist and politicians, like Albert Gore who has no degrees in science, climate or the weather so they can come in and rape us of our monies and our way of living

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The UN IPCC is on record that "Climate change" has nothing to do with science and is just a cover for Marxist redistribution. Amazing that so many people who think they're so smart can be taken in by a ruse without any lab evidence. Maybe they're not as smart as they think they are?

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy...

The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War....

One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

IPCC Official Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World 8217 s Wealth Watts Up With That

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you point to a single experiment that demonstrates how a 120PPM increase in CO2 can raise temperature?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Warning signs you're looking at pseudoscience devotee:

1. Declarations of how all the mainstream data is fraudulent
2. Paranoid theories concerning a vast secret conspiracy
3. Refusal to do actual science by making a falsifiable prediction.
4. Frantic cherrypicking of data
5. Membership in an extremist fringe political cult.

Global warming deniers display all of those warning signs.

AGWCult Membership
Application

1. Any contrary opinion is branded a "DENIER!!!!"
2. Hide the Decline
3. Refusal to do actual science by making a falsifiable prediction.
4. Frantic cherrypicking of data, when that fails, data is adjusted to fit our foregone conclusion
5. Membership in an extremist fringe political cult
6. Any contrary opinion is branded a "DENIER!!!!"
7. Tell 'em about those Oregon Oysters!!
8. There hasn't been a 2 decade pause, see, the ocean ate all the warming
9. Any contrary opinion is branded a "DENIER!!!!"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why bother to debate? After all, "the science is settled".

It is largely settled, I agree, but there should be discussion, because discussion is healthy.

There is also a lot that we still don't know, and it is imperative that we have strong, objective scientific research into issues like deep ocean warming and coral bleaching so that we can find solutions.

It's also clear that there is still a small group of people who don't understand the science, and I think it's important that we can continue to make science available to them so that they can also make up their own minds. On this fourm there are probably 10-12 posters who still deny the human role in climate change, and I think that's quite amazing.

Oh, if the science is settled, you should have no problem telling us how much of a temperature increase or decrease is caused by 5PPM increments of CO2, right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

^ Why we know Climate science is a fraud

 

[PredFan]

Give it up, fewer and fewer people are falling for the scam.

True, if you live in the right wing echo chamber. Not true, if you live in the real world.

It's VERY true in the real world. Ironically you deny reality, that makes you a denier.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Seems the comment above applies to both sides of he debate:

The most unscientific statement in the history of science is: "the science is settled".

The issue in my mind is this: What if they're wrong? If the vast majority of scientists are wrong there is still much to be gained in terms of green energy development and renewable energy sources; if they are right and we do nothing, what might we lose (or what might our posterity lose)?

 

[Zander]

Seems the comment above applies to both sides of he debate:

The most unscientific statement in the history of science is: "the science is settled".

The issue in my mind is this: What if they're wrong? If the vast majority of scientists are wrong there is still much to be gained in terms of green energy development and renewable energy sources; if they are right and we do nothing, what might we lose (or what might our posterity lose)?

I agree with your sentiment. But the blatant dishonesty with "the science is settled" is beyond the pale. AGW is not about science, it's about politics and agendas.

I agree with and believe we should pursue alternative energy. I want an "all of the above" approach to energy. We should use solar, wind, hydroelectric, nuclear, oil, everything we can. The cleaner the better.

Government should use its resources to fund alternate energies, within reason. I don't see the benefit of funding a dozen more Solyndras....I just think we need to be careful where we invest our money. We also need to be sensible- oil is still the best and cheapest source of energy we've got.