Thoughts on climate change?

Dee

@Dreamer

Still no responses to my 3 questions on climate change or my 4th on Ethanol usage?   No response regards my destruction of your covid / racism claims you got from a trash 1 star rated site?  No response on why you think costs to  the working classes you detest don't matter?

No response on why you think blacks have the mentality on infants?  No reponse as to why you posted up a piece you said supported your PC super sensitivity when in fact it called people like you snowflakes?

You're only here to preach as you post non stop links to material you don't even read.

Dee

@Dreamer

Linking to a questionable source is polluting the Internet.

 

Yet you keep doing it your latest source has a one star rating from professionals, why do you worship trash links?

John_C_87

@Dreamer

The ocean is increasing in acidification due to excess Co2 from industrial activity.

As the ocean Ph level falls the water in the ocean becomes acid this is due to a process called protine skimming. Co2 is not the cause it is part in a long list of other chemicals and agents that work their way into the water ways. The earths oceans base line Hp level in climate change is however is pool of acid. Where as the protine skimming is not the chemical process which took place to convert the acids to water and salt as the earth evolves and devolves. Climate manipulation can describe the difference between truth and whole truth my information is not any better then the other information it simple shares the blame as there is plenty to go round. 

Put together a marine aquarium and manage it with as much detail as possible for a couple years. Give the aquarium tide, moon light, sun light, waves, surf, and a spectrum of marine life including some hard and soft corals and crustations. See what happens. In climate manipulation the earth does not know what levels of what is good for us as people, and it simply does not care. As of 2023 the biggest threat to human existence on earth is time and how we keep track of it for navigation. Is clean air important yes but then are so many other things as well. The number of active volcanos is increasing are we going to cork them to keep earth inhabitable of life? Is it more practical to move off earth and evolve?

I know fare to well about the abuse a person may receive from giving warning to dangerous practices of people. Look like the grievance set by Pi and other mathematical errors and what happens when it is openly debated. These are the fundamental building blocks science had needed to find and measure the issues accurately in the first place. Using GPS to compensate for precise calculation does not make up for the inaccuracies it only allows for a very limited increase in navigation or physical movement around areas of life we can triangulate. 

John_C_87

@Dreamer

For the record and according to applications of science within United States Constitutional states of the union the largest pollutant to enter the oceans is salt and chemical deicers. The human negligence is to be measured in believing that putting salt in the ocean comes without higher risk. Which is the better connection to established justice putting Co2 in the air or salt and chemicals in the ocean. Describe how many wats nature dumps millions of tons of salt and ice-melting chemicals in the ocean? Nature other than tectonic movement and a process of converting acid to salt does not place any salt in its ocean. Not at anywhere near the speeds in which humans do. We shape temperature on earth by moving ice on roads that measure in Kelvin and takes place in multiples of the heat generated from the sun.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I forgot videos and courses. I highly recommend taking the edx101 course and playing the Crankyuncle game.

As for being in the middle of a sixth mass extinction.

"60% of the world’s ecosystems are now degraded and the global rate of extinction is already at 100 to 1000 times that of the “normal” background rate on geological timescales." fhaychap

https://skepticalscience.com/Can-animals-and-plants-adapt-to-global-warming.htm

Videos can often give information better and faster than just peer reviewed journals.

I am done with thread for now, at least a week. At this point the information is out there. Anyone can look up the links I've posted, books, edx101 course and learn, more about the subject.

Thanks again for the conversation, goodbye.

MayCaesar

Dreamer said:

@MayCaesar

Hi MayCaesar,

Many of the best literature out there on critical thinking is in book format. For example the book I mentioned earlier by Richard Sloan, Science Goes Viral, Quack Quack the Threat of Psuedoscience, Fad, Fakes, and Hoaxes by Tomasz Witkowski, and many more.

There is also blogs of scientists. Sciencebased medicine, skepticalscience, quackwatch, and crankyuncle.

Let me give an example of how peer reviewed articles can go horribly wrong. There is a Dr. Michael Greger who pulls all the cheap tricks to promote vegan propaganda. He links to peer reviewed articles a lot.

"Overall, we rate NutritionFacts.org a moderate Pseudoscience source due to exaggerated health claims."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/nutritionfacts-org/

As for the sixth mass extinction the extinction rate is much higher than the background extinction rate. The acidifying enough to devastate coral reefs.

I will need a break soon, so lets wrap up this conversation. Thank you for this long and difficult conversation.

The fact that someone "links to peer-reviewed articles a lot" does not indicate any problems with those articles. It rather indicates that the author misrepresents the content of those articles, just as you misrepresented the content of the article you drew your claim about the 5 million deaths from.
SkepticalScience and the like are not scientific websites; they are websites on which author provide their interpretation of scientific findings in a way digestible to the public. Is that interpretation accurate? Well, we have already seen here what kind of claims those who take it as such make.

"Much higher than the background extinction rate" does not make for a "great extinction". No such terminology is ever used in science.
Okay, let us say I grant you that. How does devastation of coral reefs suggest that the apocalypse is imminent?

This was not a very difficult conversation for me; I have had much more difficult ones on this topic. Apologies for being blunt, but you really have not put forward any defense of your argument challenging me in any way.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Thanks for your feedback

@MayCaesar

"The fact that someone "links to peer-reviewed articles a lot" does not indicate any problems with those articles. It rather indicates that the author misrepresents the content of those articles, just as you misrepresented the content of the article you drew your claim about the 5 million deaths from." MayCaesar

I agree, the misrepresentation was accidental on my part.

"SkepticalScience and the like are not scientific websites; they are websites on which author provide their interpretation of scientific findings in a way digestible to the public. Is that interpretation accurate? Well, we have already seen here what kind of claims those who take it as such make."

They are scientific websites.

"Overall, we rate Skeptical Science, Pro-Science based presenting credible peer-reviewed scientific evidence that supports the consensus on climate change."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/skeptical-science/

I am just one person, there are many many others who link to skeptical science. 

""Much higher than the background extinction rate" does not make for a "great extinction". No such terminology is ever used in science."  MayCaesar

Rubbish national geographic uses and defines the term mass extinction.

"At least a handful of times in the last 500 million years, 75 to more than 90 percent of all species on Earth have disappeared in a geological blink of an eye in catastrophes we call mass extinctions."

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/mass-extinction

"How does devastation of coral reefs suggest that the apocalypse is imminent?"

Hold on a second, I never said the apocalypse was imminent. We are nearing tipping points. For example a doubling of Co2 can equal 1 degree C in direct heating, another 2 in short term amplification and another 3 in long term feedback cycle. Meaning a doubling of Co2 can eventually in a hundred year plus equal 6 degree raise in Co2.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-not-urgent.htm

"This was not a very difficult conversation for me; I have had much more difficult ones on this topic. Apologies for being blunt, but you really have not put forward any defense of your argument challenging me in any way. " MayCaesar

Thank you for your feedback. Do you have any advice on how to improve my arguments?

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Trustpilot is a rubbish website.

@Dee

Quackwatch is one of the best websites on the Internet. Yet, some random person nobody has heard of can make false accusations and give a one star rating. As reliable as the average rating on Yelp or Amazon.

https://ie.trustpilot.com/review/quackwatch.org

MayCaesar

@Dreamer

Very simple ways to improve your arguments:

1. Stop saying things that are not true.
2. Make logical arguments rather than appeals to (questionable) authority.

Skeptical Science, Media Bias Check and National Geographic are not scientific sources. Skeptical Science is a platform for authors to publish their opinion pieces regarding interpretation of various scientific findings, Media Bias Check is not even related to science, and National Geographic is a media company focusing on educational entertainment.

Regarding other people "linking to Skeptical Science", there can be many of them indeed - however, none of them do so in the role of scientists. You will never find a reference to Skeptical Science as a source of a scientific claim in a peer reviewed paper published in a respectable scientific journal.

I thought we were going to talk about the science behind the climate claims you mentioned, but I have yet to see anything whatsoever that constitutes a proper citation and interpretation of a verified scientific result. That is not a good sign, my friend.

Dee

@Dreamer

Argument Topic: Trustpilot is a rubbish website.

Argument Topic: Dreamer resorts to lying yet again 

@Dee

Quackwatch is one of the best websites on the Internet.

It's not actually the founder has been heavily criticised for his bias and unfounded opinion pieces

 Yet, some random person nobody has heard of can make false accusations and give a one star rating.

It wasn't a " random" person there are 100's of 1 star ratings by medical professionals,  why are you such a compulsive ?


 As reliable as the average rating on Yelp or Amazon.

Says a troll like you who keeps citing medical news today the most biased site online 

https://ie.trustpilot.com/review/quackwatch.org

DREAMER THE COMPULSIVE WAS SENT SEVERAL 1 STAR REVIEWS TO TRUST PILOT YETS PRETENDS THERE WAS ONLY ONE , HERES FUTHER INFOMATION SHOWING 75 PERCENT 1 STAR REVIEWS , DREAMER THE HAS BEEN CAUGHT LYING YET AGAIN 



https://ie.trustpilot.com/review/www.medicalnewstoday.com

Dee

@Dreamer

Argument topic :Dreamer fled for a week and promised he would address my arguments yet he's still pretending ne cannot see them 

Still no responses to my 3 questions on climate change or my 4th on Ethanol usage?   No response regards my destruction of your covid / racism claims you got from a trash 1 star rated site?  No response on why you think costs to  the working classes you detest don't matter?

No response on why you think blacks have the mentality on infants?  No reponse as to why you posted up a piece you said supported your PC super sensitivity when in fact it called people like you snowflakes?

You're only here to preach as you post non stop links to material you don't even read.

 

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I read my links.

@Dee

I do read my links. I never said anything related to mentality on infants.

Dee

@Dreamer

Argument Topic: I read my links.

Argument Topic  : Dreamer caught lying persists in lying 

I do read my links.

Why do you continously lie then? You posted a latest  link claiming claiming medical news today only had one negative reviews despite me demonstrating each time that you're a compulsive . Tell me this I get it you're dreadful at debating but when corrected why do you post yet another link to cover your lies on previous claims?

 I never said anything related to mentality on infants.

There you go again you don't even understand simple statements , you posted up a link by one of your favourite snowflakes talking about race and you didn't even realise that blacks found her article deeply offensive as it made them out to have the intellect of infants, your st-pidity is truly disturbing 

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Your talking about the book White Fragility by Robin Diangelo.

@Dee

White Fragility was overall well received well by Black people.

Dee

@Dreamer

Argument Topic: Your talking about the book White Fragility by Robin Diangelo.

Argument Topic : Dreamer again quotes the obvious 

White Fragility was overall well received well by Black people.

That as usual totally ignored the point I made also if you even did a bit of research you would see that the book has been heavily criticised for talking down to black people . All you ever do is quote other people and when challenged say " well some people agree with me etc , etc " , have you ever formulated an opinion of your own without constantly quoting others who you always misrepresent? 

ZeusAres42

Same old cliche arguments on this topic I see from several people. These arguments been going on for decades. This definitely ain't a scientific debate anymore. It's a political one if you can even call it that.

Please change the boring old fuking record already!

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Do you have any advice for making the debate non-political?

@ZeusAres42

In my opinion, a political element as well as metaphysical can be added to any argument. Science shouldn't be political, but big fossil fuel tries their best to make it into a political argument. Thank you for your input.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Here's a balanced article on what is happening with climate change.

https://harpers.org/archive/2023/04/the-incredible-disappearing-doomsday-climate-catastrophists-new-york-times-climate-change-coverage/

"The best course for many journalists may be to take a break from narratives and reconnect with the science. It is, I promise, not quite as bad as you once imagined, but it is worse than you’ve lately been led to believe. The seas will rise, the summers will get hotter. There will be more red-sky days, more storms, more jungles turned into savannas and savannas turned into deserts." Kyle Paoletta

Basically, after Trump go elected emissions spiked and there was a bunch of doomsday or alarmist narratives. Then, emissions got cut and more information became available and the situation was better than expected. Yet, people like me didn't get the memo and were acting like it was 2018. That would explain why some of my claims went too far, I was simply working with obsolete information.

MayCaesar

Dreamer said:

https://harpers.org/archive/2023/04/the-incredible-disappearing-doomsday-climate-catastrophists-new-york-times-climate-change-coverage/

"The best course for many journalists may be to take a break from narratives and reconnect with the science. It is, I promise, not quite as bad as you once imagined, but it is worse than you’ve lately been led to believe. The seas will rise, the summers will get hotter. There will be more red-sky days, more storms, more jungles turned into savannas and savannas turned into deserts." Kyle Paoletta

Basically, after Trump go elected emissions spiked and there was a bunch of doomsday or alarmist narratives. Then, emissions got cut and more information became available and the situation was better than expected. Yet, people like me didn't get the memo and were acting like it was 2018. That would explain why some of my claims went too far, I was simply working with obsolete information.

Tell that to all those hypothetical jailed people who, in the alternative timeline where your proposals were implemented, became a victim of your "claims going too far".

It is not about your claims going too far, buddy. It is about you trying to shove your opinion down other people's throats while hiding behind a goon in a uniform's gun. Whether your opinion is wrong or not, this attitude in itself is despicable.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Even when I am incorrect there are mitigating factors.

@MayCaesar

"One of the challenges of air pollution policy (more with climate change, but also pollution in general) is that the costs of mitigation are local and immediate while the benefits are perceived to be global and distant. But this is not true when it comes to the healthcare benefits. There is increasing evidence that the health benefits are immediate and regional." Steven Novella on August 31, 2022

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/healthcare-costs-of-air-pollution/

We should close all coal plants in 1st world countries as soon as possible.

Bogan

The whole idea of anthropogenic gloabl warming  has little to do with the environment.    It is simply a tactic by a bunch of One World Government dreamers, neo Marxists, public service empire builders, left wing teachers federations, self aggrandising publically funded scientists, vegans and other kooks, extreme green environmentalists, sensation seeking shock/horror media people, self interested corporations, and a now class of usually well off educated elitists, to whom virtue signaling and class identification is everything, to panic the public they all despise into finally accepting a totalitarian government of their own caste's worldview, to control the lives of The Great Unwashed, and to redistribute the wealth of the advanced nations to the dysfunctional nations.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Climate change is real, people only believe conspiracies because of big tech greed.

@Bogan

"Climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time, and it affects us all. Yet greedy, unregulated social media and search engine companies have enabled a cascade of misinformation and disinformation about climate change."

https://counterhate.com/blog/climate-change-is-real-but-why-do-some-say-its-a-hoax/

I find this interesting about the difference between disinformation and greenwashing.

"Climate change disinformation is focused on spreading false or misleading information about climate change, while greenwashing is focused on marketing products or services as environmentally friendly when they are not."

"Despite their differences, greenwashing and the spread of climate disinformation can be done by the same company."

https://counterhate.com/blog/climate-change-disinformation-vs-greenwashing-the-difference/

In the end it all comes down to greed. The greedy big fossil fuel and big tech.

Bogan

Gee willackers, Dreamer, we fianlly agree on something?    Yes, power, money, and sex is the primary motivator of those who are drunk on the drug of power.      What differs between you and me, is that I see a different set of villains who use climate to get their way.

For many years, I sat on the fence so far as anthropogenic global warming was concerned.    I leaned to the pro global warming side because I knew that, according to the media, science supported this idea    I have great respect for science, and the idea that the vast amounts of CO2 that humans were releasing into the atmosphere could change the world wide climate, was at least credible and could be easily understood.

What made me skeptical, was that those who were the most ardent supporters of Human Induced Global warming (HIGW) were the same bunch of leftist anti everything losers who to my knowledge, always get everything wrong.   So, I did what intelligent people are supposed to do.    I divested myself of all my preconditioned ideas and did some impartial research.     I watched Youtube articles on HIGW which were from the pro and anti camp, and I listened to their arguments impartially to figure out who was telling the truth.     What struck me about the pro camp was that there were so many sites pushing the idea of HIGW.     These sites were very well funded, with all sorts of expensive photography to :"prove" their point of view, interlaced with stirring and evocative music.   It was obvious that big money and power were backing the climate alarmist camp.    The anti vids were of very poor and amateurish quality.  Often, it was just some scientist making a home movie which he posted up on Youtube.

But you know what?    The anti HIGW vids just made a lot more sense to me than the slick pro HIGW productions.    The anti's often gleefully showed how the pro side was lying through it's teeth, and I had to admit that they convinced me.     Crucial to understanding HIGW is the fact that the planet warms and cools, warms and cools, every thousand years.      Every ten thousand years, we plunge into a mini ice age.     The anti's p[pointed out that we today are living through yet another warming period which is right on schedule, and so far is less warm than the 9 proceeding ones in our ten thousand year cycle.       Our previous one was a thousand years ago, and it was called the Medieval Warming Period,    A thousand years before that, it was the Roman Warming Period.     And so on, and so on.    The Egyptian warming Period, The Sumerian Warming Period, and the Minoan warming period.    I knew that this was correct because I know my history.     

I also knew that in 1970, climate scientists predicted that the planet was going to freeze and everybody was going to either freeze, or starve to death through crop failure.     The reason why they claimed this was because from the years 1930 to 1970, planetary climate cooled.     Since the scientists knew that our present warming period was the last in the cycle, so they predicted that the measured fall in global temperatures was a portent of the coming ice mini age.       All over the planet, climate scientists were running around demanding that governments everywhere combine together to put soot all over the polar ice caps to ward off global cooling.     Arn't you glad now that governments around the world in that period were more skeptical then the id-iots we have today?   

For the last 30 years I have listened to the doom and gloom of the climate alarmists and laughed at their always wrong predictions.    If somebody claims that they are an expert, and they make predictions based upon what they claim is their expert knowledge, and those predictions always fizzle out, I think it is fair to say that they don't have  single clue what they are talking about.       Every time their predictions about the date of end of times falls flat, they just put the date back another couple of decades and hope that Dreamer will not notice. 

Vaulk

Argument Topic: Climate Change is the biggest hoax to have been perpetrated on the World

If you were to "Follow the science", then the World ended in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020, and is going to end again at the turn of the next decade.

The ONLY thing consistent about climate change Science is that it imposes broad and apocalyptic predictions on the public every 2-3 years, none of which come true.  

If ANY other Scientific field made predictions about the end of times as often and as frequently as climate science currently does, it would be removed from the Scientific Community and handed over to the National Inquirer.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: There will always be a minority of apocalyptic claims. Yet, the ICPP tends to understate the severity of the problem.

@Vaulk

There will always be a minority of apocalyptic claims. Yes, you can find a some liberal website who make mistakes and overstate the problem, but that isn't following the science.

"Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response."

https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus-basic.htm

Glacial ice is melting. Sea level are rising. People will be displaced and there will be more refugees.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: That is climate myth no 11. The vast majority of papers in the 70s predicted hotter tempatures.

@Bogan

The myth of the ice age in the 1970's is a cherry picking fallacy. By only looking at select evidence you can come to the incorrect conclusion.

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

The problem with doing your own research is you can easily fall down the rabbit hole of sensationalism and hype. I've fallen down the rabbit hole when doing research on anti-vaxxers.

Bogan

@Dreamer

Oh, it was was it?

Bogan

@Dreamer

Bogan

@Dreamer

Bogan

You were saying, Mr Dreamer?

Bogan

Bogan

Bogan

Would you like some more evidence, Mr Dreamer?      How about in 1979 the cry was "the world is running out of oil!"    Then there was Millenium Bug.    The hole in the ozone layer meant that everybody was going to die of skin cancer.    There was not enough food to feed everybody and mass starvation, even in the advanced societies, was imminent.     It seems as if in every decade, another bunch of charlatans figure out how to enrich themselves by screaming that the sky is falling, and they can bet that there are always plenty of Chickenlittle's like you who will believe them.       As PT Barnum once quipped, "there is one born every minute."

Bogan

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Took me 15 seconds to debunk this argument.

False

About this rating

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-coming-ice-age/

Bogan

Hi Mr Dreamer, if you had spent more than 15 seconds deciding that HIGW was valid, then we would not be having this conversation.     Normally, I will not debate against links.    This is a debate site, and if you read any article which convinces you of the validity of your position, then summarise it, and submit it in your own words.     I have three issues with submitting links.     The first, is that I have seen previously debates rapidly just turn into "link wars" instead of debates.  The second, was where I was debating on another site a contributor who only used links.    He submitted a link as evidence against one of my arguments, but he mis-read the article heading (which was a sarcastic heading) and he submitted it as an argument without even reading it.    The article supported my argument.   Thirdly, it is just damned lazy.     It means that you are not prepared to do any work yourself to verbalize the ideas you so passionately hold, but can not justify to even yourself. 

Be warned, I will not continue debating against you if you do not debate fairly.

That being said, I decided to read your link because I was curious about what kind of argument a supposed "expert" climate alarmist would use to explain away an embarrassing  fact he knows invalidates his own position.   I have no idea how on earth you were impressed by the "logic" of the article you submitted?      I suppose it is a matter of hanging onto any piece of flotsam to stop your argument from sinking.?        The only point he had was that he claimed that the TIME cover was fraudulent, and he even displayed what he claimed was the valid cover.    That "valid" cover was no less damaging that the supposed "fraudulent" cover.   Since there is no reason for a skeptic to submit a damaging fraudulent Time cover, when the supposed valid one is no less damaging, I suspect that there were probably TWO similar valid TIME covers which displayed how important the story was in the media at the time.    His "fraudulent" TIME cover story could be true, but if it is, then it does not make sense.   

Next, he downplays the whole embarrassing idea that previously, the climate scientists got it wrong.    He suggests that it was only some sort of inconsequential news story in some media outlets which nobody took seriously.    What you don't know was that I was in High school in the 1970's and I can assure you that is not the case.    I was there at the time, and I can personally assure you that what this author is suggesting is pure bunkum.     The fact remains that during the 1970's, climate scientists claimed that the earth was heading for an ice age, that story was all over the media, and it frightened a lot of people,  The climate scientists got it wrong.   I know why the scientists thought that way and I don't think them fools for connecting the available data dots and coming to a reasonable conclusion which was wrong.        But the fact remains that they were wrong.   So, at the very least, when they start making alarming "end of times" perditions once again, then skepticism is appropriate when it is remembered that they have got it wrong before.    Especially since they have been sprouting this nonsense for over thirty years now, and making wildly inaccurate predictions that never come true. 

  

Barnardot

@Bogan ; How about in 1979 the cry was "the world is running out of oil!"    Then there was Millenium Bug.  

Well its easy to lump all the theories in 1 basket and say there all the same and I reckon it must be like lumping all the darkies in one basket and saying there all the same to. But at least we can take some thing that were all concerned about and make lemon aid out of it. For example because were all conscious about climate change were starting to get smarter about our energy. When you think about it using oil is real crude and were been using it for 200 years and its wasteful where as now were getting electric cars and soon all the red necks will be put in there place when they cant go round in there mussel cars with there elbows hanging out the window and being a total pain to every one else. Just like were you live I bet the bogins wont be able to do noisy smelly donuts in there holdin utes any more.

Bogan

@Barnardot

I don't re[ply to trolls.    Try and grow up.

Barnardot

@Bogan ;I don't re[ply to trolls.    Try and grow up.

Let me translate what you posted then. 

I dont agree with what he said.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I was very short on time. As you have said the time cover was altered. You rely upon anecdotal fallacy.

@Bogan

I was very short on time. As you have said the time cover was altered. You rely uses the anecdotal fallacy.

https://www.logicalfallacies.org/anecdotal.html

Your big rebuttal after I link to both snopes and skeptical science that the vast majority of papers predicted warming is your personal testimony. Your high school experience might have been a statistical outlier. There is also the fallibility of memory, you may simply misremember which everyone does all the time. 

"This fallibility of memory includes not only the omission of details from the original experience, but extends to errors of commission including the creation of memory illusions."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4409058/

Bogan

Dreamer quote      I can't respond in great detail to everyone of your posts.

 Of course you can’t.    You know nothing, you did not impartially try to figure out which side was telling the truth and which side was lying before you embraced your peer’s expectations, and all you can do is to cut and paste an argument from some silly “How To Debate Climate Sceptics” site.      Unlike yourself, I am interested in reading what the Alarmists say, which is why I broke my rule to never reply to links on debate sites, and clicked on your link.     It was exactly as I suspected it would be.    Your author claimed that the Time magazine article was fraudulent which is interesting, and I will check that “fact” out.       But his biggest piece of B-S was to claim that the fact that climate scientists had got in wrong in the 1970’s was no big deal.    I know for a fact that it was a big deal.     Since his second premise is a blatant and monstrous lie, I will take his first premise with a pinch of salt.

 

Dreamer quote     This is not laziness it just is simply unfeasible.

 One wonders why you bother to debate then if it is all too hard for you?  

 

Dreamer quote   In 2019 fifteen percent of the USA population was climate deniers.

 Then I think it is reasonable to say that 15% of US citizens have above average intelligence. 

Dreamer quote    That's approximately 45 million deniers in the US alone. There are at least 219 climate change myth. That is also only one topic. Anti-vaxxers and antisemitic 9/11 truthers are others and many many more. 45 million times 219 times the number of topics = billions of responses to debunk. I could debunk both online and in person 24/7/365 and it would be liking trying to empty the Pacific Ocean using a thimble it would make nil difference. 

 There are a lot more low IQ chickenlittle’s who have been brainwashed into thinking that the climate sky is falling, and that the world will come to an end.    Unless, of course, we destroy western economies while handing over what remains of our wealth to always dysfunctional third world countries , allow China to rule the world, stop eating meat, and accept the fact that those who do not have degrees are not fit to rule themselves.    But unlike yourself, I don’t have any problem attempting to deprogram any of them, no matter how many there are.   Throughout history, great minds have usually found themselves swimming against the tide of public opinion.

 

 Dreamer quote     This is how Democracy fails the reversal of polarity and firehose of misinformation.

 I have no idea what you mean by “the reversal of polarity”?     Please explain?     As for “the firehose of misinformation”, it is the Left side of politics who support HIGW, it is the Left which largely controls the media, it is the Left who seem to be awash in funds tpo spread propaganda, and it is the Left side of politics who are today’s political censors.       If you had an inquiring mind, you might ask your self “why does the Left want to censor the media?”        If you can answer that question yourself, you will be on the road to figuring out what really drives this HIGW rubbish.

 Democracy dies in darkness.     Free speech is the foundation stone of democracy.   Once it was the Right side of politics in the west who were the political censors, the totalitarians, and the moral puritans, now it is the Left.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: You double posted and didn't respond to my comment on this thread.

@Bogan

Reverse of polarity is when an accusation is so extreme that suddenly the burden of proof shifts to the accused. Witchcraft and McCarthyism style communism accusations are two examples. Deniers can use this too in conspiracy thinking.

Bogan

.@Dreamer

Have you ever heard of the Medieval Warming Period?        How about the Roman Warming Period?     If so, could you please tell me if motor cars and the coal generation of electricity was responsible for these two, 1000 year apart warming periods?      500 years after the Medieval Warming Period came The Little Ice Age, and right on schedule.       Now the planet is warming again.     Just for your edification, the present warming period in the 1000 year cycle is called "The Modern Warming Period, and it too is right on schedule.     Could you please refer to your little web site "How to Debate Climate Deniers" and see if the dishonest dim-wit who wrote it addressed that subject and tried to explain his way round those inconvenient facts?       I will even let you post me the link

This entire charade of HIGW alarmism is dependent upon the fact that most people never pick up a book and have no idea of history.    

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Climate myth #27 Medieval Warm Period

@Bogan

https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

There was many areas that were much cooler during the medieval warm period than today. The medieval warm period was caused by higher than average solar activity and low volcanic activity.

Bogan

Okay, so what caused the Roman Warm Period, the Minoan Warm Period, the Egyptian Warm period, The Sumerian Warm Period, the Saharan Warm Period, The first Saharan Warm Period.......etc, etc.    Was it cars, or coal fired power stations?    Unfortunately, when my old 10 year old hard drive burned out I lost a lot of data, but I just googled "Images warming periods last 10000 years" and these came up.   They are not as good as my old images, but they will have to do.

   

Bogan

Bogan

Bogan

Please note.    Global temperatures rise and fall in 1000 year increments, and every 10,000 years we go into a mini ice age.     That was why in the 1970's, climate scientists had reason to believe that the world was about to go into a new ice age, with catastrophic consequences for the human race.      They counted back the warming periods since our last interglacial ice age, and they knew that out present warming period was number 10.   The last in the series before we plunged back into an ice age.   If you don't believe me, then count them yourself.      From 1930 to 1970 global temperatures went into steady decline.     This made the climate scientists in 1970 think that the new ice age was beginning.    But the reason why catastrophic global cooling it did not become as big an issue as global warming is today, is because they no sooner announced global catastrophe to the world, when global temperatures began climbing again during the late 1970's.     

There are some important points you might like to reflect on just looking at the graph.    The first is, that as warming periods go, out present warming period is not yet as warm as previous warming periods, despite the increase in CO2.       The second, not shown on this graph, was that global temperatures began to dip again in 2000, which lad to that famous "Climategate" email from the East Anglia Climate Research facility where researchers discussed using underhanded methods to hide the decline.     Here in Australia, the Meteorological Bureau got caught red handed altering the historical temperatures of regional parts of Australia to make it like like Australia was heating up.       They were called out as frauds by the relatives of the people in remote areas, who's families had been keeping the records of temperatures for the Meteorological Bureau for many decades.    They told the media that the climate scientists were fiddling the figures and they had the hand written records from their ancestors to prove it.

I admire your child like faith in the people who think that you are easy to fool, and who are lying to you.    

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Your saying the climate has changed before. Myth #1.

@Bogan

As for the the fake scandal of Climate gate the scientists have been cleared. Cooling in the 1970s was from aerosol puncturing the ozone layer.

https://skepticalscience.com/fake-scandal-Climategate.html

Bogan

"Cooling was caused by aerosols picturing the ozone layer?"      Never heard that one before.    Those self seeking "scientists" who told you that cr-ap are getting creative.

Okay, now let us see if you can make a logical conclusion?     Your link claimed that the TIME front cover was a fraud, and that if climate scientists once told the public that the earth was heading for a new Ice Age, then it was no big deal and nobody took it seriously.    I have already told you from my persoal experience that this is not the case, and I have even helpfully displayed in my above submissions, newspaper cuttings and another TIME front cover, which clearly indicates that you are being lied to.    But even if you will not concede that yet, then consider this.    I have already explained to you the reason why climate scientists in the early 1970's really did think that the earth was headed for a catastrophic ice age.    The reason was, and I have shown you the graph which proves I am right, that they all knew that the temperature of the earth rose and fell every 1000 years, and every ten thousand yours the earth experienced an interglacial ice age.   

 They counted back the 1000 year cycles of warming and cooling, and much to their horror, they realised that the present warming period that we are experiencing right now is the last one of the ten.    When the earth's temperatures fell between 1930 and 1970, these scientists made a reasonable assumption that the beginning of the ice age had begun.    Now, why didn't that "expert" who wrote that B-S website that you seem so enamoured of, tell you that?    Use your brain and think.    Do you think perhaps it was because if he told you the reason why climate scientists in the early 1970's really did think that the earth was headed for another ice age, then he would have had to tell you all about the normal 1000 year warming and cooling cycles?   And if he did that, then the penny might have dropped with you, and you might have realised that our present warming cycle is just another normal recurring event?    And that will never do. 

This is how you are being lied to.    The "scientists" who want lavish taxpayer funds for their supposedly world saving research, and who are pushing this nonsense, will only tell you half truths.   And a half truth told as a full truth is a complete lie.