That there is no such thing as anthropogenic global warming or that it's not as bad as they say?

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42
anthropogenic : of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature

Anthropogenic Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Hi, ZeusAres42 You have made me look up a word in the dictionary online and now you must pay! …………….. evil laugh, Moi………LOL

 

First, in my argument I am going to introduce a theoretical scenario describing the events of climate manipulation in scale outside the map of institutional understanding dealing with human involvement. We need to have a realistic map of climate expectations before a declaration of influence can be accurately measured and to do so what would the climate look like without humanity and why. As you may already know, understanding, or not quite grasp in total understanding I do not share some of the more dominate principles like Time, Pi, Algebra, Trigonometry, and calculus measurement methods used and shared with science as accurate and reliable. This debate though is for looking at a total image so let’s say a clean slate and achieve this objective. The scenario is for the new readers who have yet read, or those people who may follow already stated points of understanding. My observational viewpoint as base is my introduction to debate argument. Yes, I do in advance described it myself as confusing and theoretical as observed, however everything we observe in nature when it happens does not necessarily have to make sense to us it does not need our permission.  As any moment of force is observed and connected to known facts such as projections, energy. States general relativity. Jumping from gravity to energy in formula arbitrarily.

Non-human Scenario I:

         Pools of raw crude oil have spent centuries seeping into the oceans and large reserves are resting on the service of earth as well as below ground. As there is no such thing as wildfires some pools of oil burn simply set on fire by acts of nature, not man. Along with this cycle of fire there are several natural forest fires that are also burning out of control between the two types of fires hundreds, even thousands of square miles may be set ablaze at one time on earth. At this moment on earth there is no such thing as flooding as streams, rivers, lakes, and other forms of water estuaries have no restrictions and are allowed to flow as gravity allows until they interact with the seas and oceans of earth naturally.

        Volcanic and seismic activity still happens and is a major player in shaping how earth’s weather unfolds day by day, year by year, and even century to century with celestial events such as asteroid impacts at the top of the influence chain by duration of change created. Something else which has remained unchanged is the expectation that earth will become a desolate dry planet sometime in the future while all this takes place as the solar system of the sun grows and ages. How long will it take for the sun’s activities to shape the earth’s course in this unsee history as there are no humans, there is no point of measurement, and it doesn’t matter. It is just going to happen when it does happen everything goes poof!

        We can call this earth’s end event "the great Seafood Chowder Experience." The oceans become a great big bowl of fresh salty chowder as potatoes, parsnips, and carrots had been washed into the ocean and mix with life there to simmer like a slow cooker with nothing left alive on earth to eat it.

ZeusAres42

@John_C_87

John_C_87 said:

@ZeusAres42
anthropogenic : of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature

Anthropogenic Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Hi, ZeusAres42 You have made me look up a word in the dictionary online and now you must pay! …………….. evil laugh, Moi………LOL

 

First, in my argument I am going to introduce a theoretical scenario describing the events of climate manipulation in scale outside the map of institutional understanding dealing with human involvement. We need to have a realistic map of climate expectations before a declaration of influence can be accurately measured and to do so what would the climate look like without humanity and why. As you may already know, understanding, or not quite grasp in total understanding I do not share some of the more dominate principles like Time, Pi, Algebra, Trigonometry, and calculus measurement methods used and shared with science as accurate and reliable. This debate though is for looking at a total image so let’s say a clean slate and achieve this objective. The scenario is for the new readers who have yet read, or those people who may follow already stated points of understanding. My observational viewpoint as base is my introduction to debate argument. Yes, I do in advance described it myself as confusing and theoretical as observed, however everything we observe in nature when it happens does not necessarily have to make sense to us it does not need our permission.  As any moment of force is observed and connected to known facts such as projections, energy. States general relativity. Jumping from gravity to energy in formula arbitrarily.

Non-human Scenario I:

         Pools of raw crude oil have spent centuries seeping into the oceans and large reserves are resting on the service of earth as well as below ground. As there is no such thing as wildfires some pools of oil burn simply set on fire by acts of nature, not man. Along with this cycle of fire there are several natural forest fires that are also burning out of control between the two types of fires hundreds, even thousands of square miles may be set ablaze at one time on earth. At this moment on earth there is no such thing as flooding as streams, rivers, lakes, and other forms of water estuaries have no restrictions and are allowed to flow as gravity allows until they interact with the seas and oceans of earth naturally.

        Volcanic and seismic activity still happens and is a major player in shaping how earth’s weather unfolds day by day, year by year, and even century to century with celestial events such as asteroid impacts at the top of the influence chain by duration of change created. Something else which has remained unchanged is the expectation that earth will become a desolate dry planet sometime in the future while all this takes place as the solar system of the sun grows and ages. How long will it take for the sun’s activities to shape the earth’s course in this unsee history as there are no humans, there is no point of measurement, and it doesn’t matter. It is just going to happen when it does happen everything goes poof!

        We can call this earth’s end event "the great Seafood Chowder Experience." The oceans become a great big bowl of fresh salty chowder as potatoes, parsnips, and carrots had been washed into the ocean and mix with life there to simmer like a slow cooker with nothing left alive on earth to eat it.

It appears as if you're describing a hypothetical and imaginative scenario where various natural processes and events lead to noticiable changes on Earth over long periods of time. However, the scenario you're describing does not align with our current scientific understanding of Earth's processes and the interactions between its different aspects.

Let's go over some key points:

1. Oil Seepage and Fires: Oil seepage and natural fires do occur, however, the extent and scale you describe are not backed up by scientific observations. Furthermore, the idea of "pools of oil" randomly igniting due to natural acts is uncommon. 

2. Uncontrolled Fires: Natural forest fires do occur, but the extent you propose, covering hundreds or thousands of square miles, would be very odd and inprobable without human activities or other aspects.

3. Water Flow: The concept of unrestricted water flow until interacting with the seas oversimplifies the complex hydrological systems on Earth. Natural barriers, topography, and various geological features influence the flow of water.

4. Solar System Evolution: While the Sun's activities do influence Earth's climate and environment over geological timescales, the idea of Earth becoming a "desolate dry planet" is not a well-established scientific prediction. The future of the Earth involves a multitide  of factors, including the Sun's evolution, geological processes, and potential interactions with other celestial bodies.

5. "Great Seafood Chowder Experience": This metaphorical term for Earth's end event is very inventive, but it does not accurately highlight the potential outcomes of Earth's long-term evolution.

Moreover, just because the Earth has a tendancy to climate changes over millions to billions of years still doesn't prove that anthropogenic global warming isn't happening or that it's not as bad is it made out to be. Our understanding of current climate change is based on extensive scientific research that examines various factors, including natural processes and human activities.

The concern about anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change arises from the rapid and unprecedented rate of change that is occurring in recent decades. The current warming trend is fundamentally attributed to the noticeable increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic activities such as burning fossil fuels (oil, coal, and natural gas), deforestation, and industrial processes. These activities release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which trap heat and contribute to the warming of the planet.

The evidence for human-caused climate change is supported by a wide range of observations, including:

1. Carbon Isotope Signatures: The carbon dioxide released from burning fossil fuels has a distinct isotopic signature that matches the composition of fossil fuels.

2. Temperature Trends: The rate of global temperature increase over the past century is much faster than any natural variations.

3. Ocean Acidification: Increased carbon dioxide levels lead to ocean acidification, impacting marine ecosystems.

4. Glacier Retreat and Sea Ice Loss: Rapid melting of glaciers and reduction in Arctic sea ice are consistent with warming due to human activities.

5. Computer Models: Climate models that incorporate both natural and human factors can accurately reproduce observed temperature changes only when human influence is included.

6. Historical Records: Temperature records, ice core samples, and other historical data show that the current warming trend is anomalous.

7. Consensus Among Scientists: The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the current warming trend is primarily driven by human activities. This consensus is supported by extensive research, including climate models that incorporate both natural and human factors.

References, Glossary, reasources, further reading, etc but no means limited to: 

• IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

• Evidence, Carbon Dioxide, Effects, Scientific Consensus  (Explanations from NASA)
  

• Understand Climate Change (Global Change website)

• World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Homepage

• Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

• World Wildlife Fund: WWF - Endangered Species Conservation

Bogan

That human produced CO2 can possibly change the earth's climate by warming the globe is feasible but unprovable.       That humanity should consider moving away from fossil fuels as a precaution is a good idea.     My problem is, that there are people who demand that modern civilization must immediately go to zero carbon.     They claim without any proof that our present, perfectly natural ,and right on schedule warming period could only be caused by human carbon emissions,      How potty this thinking is can be seen by a number of ways.     

The first is, it is promoted by the left side of politics, the very same nut jobs who get everything wrong, every time.      Examples, CRT, Black Lives Matter, Defund the Police, socialism, and Joe Biden. 

The second is, the numerous predictions about how a warming planet would melt the ice caps and drown the world by 2000, 2013, and now 2050.     Didn't happen.

The third relates to the left side of politics present campaign in every western country to muzzle free speech.     The lefties are very sensitive to anybody refuting their ideologies and reasoning with logic. 

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42

It appears as if you're describing a hypothetical and imaginative scenario where various natural processes and events lead to noticiable changes on Earth over long periods of time. However, the scenario you're describing does not align with our current scientific understanding of Earth's processes and the interactions between its different aspects.

Appears is the wrong word ZeusAres42 do not question it the scenario is hypothetical and imaginary, it is a perfect world that has existed without humanity in any way shaper or from sinsce its beginings of life on earth. In order to build a true base line scinetific models will need to establish a relistic point on what earth will be like without people. I am asking for you help withthis taks first then I will get to the part of backing mathmatical values when we are finished building a base-line model. Are you sure you want to procced, it is not clear of a understand in the magnitude of this debate has ever been set clear. A different type scenario target has been set up held in a artifical state of inteligence, a so called glass or maybe better said "Glass Key" agenda? 

Let's go over some key points:

1. The world will be destroyed by radiation when the solar system’s sun emits solar flares that reach earth in abundancy this normally means as the sun grows during the life relative to the cycle of a type of star located in our solar system.

2. In order to predict a influence of human life on earth we need a realistic view of how the world climate would be without people, so yes at the beginning crude oil was observed to be on the ground seeping into fresh water supplies before it was used to be refined into heating fuel then gasoline.

3. How is picking a moving average describing a bias scientific method, we are taking a past collection of averages as data weather patterns and assuming always negative input as a pattern without then negative being contradictive to mankind’s positive human intervention.

4. Under all scenario mankind must leave earth even at the best possible outcome of scientific facts. Science is not saving earth it is impossible, we people might prolong the inevitable at best.

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42

The evidence for human-caused climate change is supported by a wide range of observations, including:

Addressing Carbon Isotope Signatures Part 1_A.

Then call it what it is climate human manipulation. In this debate what I am to do is prove that nature has the potential to burn fossil fuels at an equal or greater rate than mankind. That is the end of my obligation to anthropogenic global warming. Surface crude or even tar was around in larger amounts than what may had been in truth stated as fact by educational. Now that it is gone the land may hold a higher interpretation of value as resource in living space. The first written record of the Tar pit is 1769 keep in mind however animal remains from the pit itself can date back much further than that.

La Brea Tar Pits - Wikipedia

John_C_87

@Bogan

That human produced CO2 can possibly change the earth's climate by warming the globe is feasible but unprovable.

It isn't unprovable that the amount of Co2 can be calculated. The argument is that the comparison is not being made in a biased way by science. Would the earth in fact produce less CO2 without humans and how do protein skimmers influence the filtering of co2 in the air. When the earth is doommed to be destroyed by solar radiation from the sun the words climate change and global warming are true without doubt and human intervention is not really even required for the goal to take place.

The first is, it is promoted by the left side of politics, the very same nut jobs who get everything wrong, every time.      Examples, CRT, Black Lives Matter, Defund the Police, socialism, and Joe Biden. 

The argument of two political parties is fake and the action is being taken by one political party not one side of the political process. As it is performing an advertisement for the promotion of spending money to try and ensure repayment of federal loans from education-based investment. Federal Laon Educational Investment ( F.L.E.I.)  This is a United States Constitutional argument and comes from a lack of work in preserving states of the union to preamble guidelines by both Professional political parties. A name describing the democrat and republican voting groups as the one association they both are as United State of law. This is a different argument and is a distraction to facts in human climate manipulation. It is a different category of openly publicly filed grievance.

The second is, the numerous predictions about how a warming planet would melt the ice caps and drown the world by 2000, 2013, and now 2050.     Didn't happen.

We can say that the planet has been getting warmer all along and it was science that was wrong the first time when predicting the ice age is an event which will not change and repeat as a cycle. Science has always known the earth will be destroyed by the sun. What science has not known is the timeframe of the end of life. Science has some serious mathematical issues in calculation. Time, algebra, trigonometry, geometry, and calculus are all affected by the influence of human error. Again, an argument for a different debate. The scientific fact is global warming will take place from now till the end of the planet earth.

       The third relates to the left side of politics present campaign in every western country to muzzle free speech.     The lefties are very sensitive to anybody refuting their ideologies and reasoning with logic.

Free speech is not muzzled by a political force, it is silenced by legal fact as we wait for the principle of free to be proven in writing before the people, we are waiting on council who have used free speech a broken state of the American Constitutional union in court, so it is documented for filing as free meaning without any cost to anyone. We as Americans are waiting for legal counsel in America to provide their proof of no cost in writing from their clients as so some events as protest can be established beyond reasonable doubt to be in the connection of free. Else it was only a imperfect broken state of the union set without self-evident truth in United States of law in connection to truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth. By a limited number of people.

The political grievance is over clean energy and America's reliance on energy sources outside of America for power grids and storage. Free speech is challenged by the United States Constitution preamble in describing the more perfect union openly in public as a re-establishment of a new outside source form of energy resource is to be held in storage built around batteries requiring by right the same means of dependnece on fossil fuel for America. How does America become less reliant on foreign sources for transportation inside the nation’s infrastructure going to evolve as a one goal in the most perfect way. Batteries require outside recources to be built and manufactured for storage we are still in the same boat.

ZeusAres42

Bogan said:

That human produced CO2 can possibly change the earth's climate by warming the globe is feasible but unprovable.       That humanity should consider moving away from fossil fuels as a precaution is a good idea.     My problem is, that there are people who demand that modern civilization must immediately go to zero carbon.     They claim without any proof that our present, perfectly natural ,and right on schedule warming period could only be caused by human carbon emissions,      How potty this thinking is can be seen by a number of ways.     

The first is, it is promoted by the left side of politics, the very same nut jobs who get everything wrong, every time.      Examples, CRT, Black Lives Matter, Defund the Police, socialism, and Joe Biden. 

The second is, the numerous predictions about how a warming planet would melt the ice caps and drown the world by 2000, 2013, and now 2050.     Didn't happen.

The third relates to the left side of politics present campaign in every western country to muzzle free speech.     The lefties are very sensitive to anybody refuting their ideologies and reasoning with logic. 

It's evident that you have strong feelings on this topic. Let's try to unpack your statement and look at the underlying questions and concerns.

1. Human-caused Climate Change: There is a vast consensus among scientists and researchers that human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, are increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which is leading to global warming. This is based on extensive research, including observations of increasing global average temperatures, the decreasing extent of Arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.

2. Moving Away from Fossil Fuels: Even outside the context of climate change, there are good reasons to transition from fossil fuels. Renewable energies are becoming more economical, and moving away from fossil fuels can reduce air pollution, improve public health, and reduce dependency on finite resources.

3. Zero Carbon: The demand to move to zero carbon is based on models that show that to keep global temperature rises within certain limits (to prevent more catastrophic impacts), we need significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. However, the timeline and methods for these reductions can vary widely and are points of contention.

4. Political Ideologies and Climate Change: While climate change has become a polarizing political issue in some countries, it's crucial to remember that the underlying science is not inherently political. In many countries around the world, there's bipartisan support for addressing climate change. Associating scientific consensus with the perceived failures or policies of a political group can muddy the waters of an objective assessment.

5. Predictions: It's important to differentiate between predictions made by reputable scientific bodies and those that might be misrepresented or taken out of context in the media or by certain groups. Some predictions about the impacts of climate change are about probabilities or potential risks, not certainties. Some claims made in the media or by advocates might not accurately represent the scientific consensus.

6. Free Speech and Climate Change: It's crucial for a healthy democracy to have open discussions on all issues, including climate change. However, it's also essential to differentiate between suppressing free speech and criticizing or challenging misinformation. Fact-checking and peer-review are cornerstones of the scientific process.

In conclusion, addressing climate change and its causes and effects is a complex issue that goes beyond partisan politics. While there's room for debate about solutions, strategies, and timelines, the consensus within the scientific community about the human influence on recent climate change is robust. It's beneficial to approach the topic with an open mind and a willingness to engage with the evidence and research.

@Bogan

John_C_87

In conclusion, addressing climate change and its causes and effects is a complex issue that goes beyond partisan politics. While there's room for debate about solutions, strategies, and timelines, the consensus within the scientific community about the human influence on recent climate change is robust. It's beneficial to approach the topic with an open mind and a willingness to engage with the evidence and research.

 What is the scientific presumed CO2 rate on earth without people? What is earths Maximum and Minimum average of CO2 production. Not a past average what is the maximum the earth might produce at a given year what is the minimum it has in energy potentail to create. These are also important scientific facts to know in clculation. Are there worse ways to offset a balance of nature out there other than CO2, as we change the form a.k.a. state of energy to other like with solar electricity. The laws of Conservation of Energy. " Energy is never created or destroyed it simple changes form." I will go into more detail and provide cite of mathmatics as the debate progresses.

When talking to a lawyer in a relationship of any kind during working arrangements we are advised to get our deals in writing, get the agreement in writing. Yet with education we are told we are to receive only money for money spent in writing this in the way of job. I never had heard any clarification on receiving knowledge which is infowlable as, so we are never clear on the outcomes as fact. Do you Agree? Do you have any such agreement in writing? Why would or why is it so hard to get it writing when asked from anyone before costs of money are spent on instruction. Pi a precise ratio, if so, can't get it in writing. How can any algebra formulas move variables across the board with values of numbers which do not hold zero and therefore have no negative. Can' t get it in writing.   

Bogan

ZuesaRies quote     It's evident that you have strong feelings on this topic. Let's try to unpack your statement and look at the underlying questions and concerns.

 Oh, goody.

 

ZueAaries quote1.      Human-caused Climate Change: There is a vast consensus among scientists and researchers that human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, are increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which is leading to global warming. This is based on extensive research, including observations of increasing global average temperatures, the decreasing extent of Arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.

 First, I would counter that, by saying that we do not know what consensus there is among scientists because as the Climategate Emails demonstrated, and the sacking of professor Peter Ridd from Queensland University, if you are a scientist who opposed HIGW, then you not only lose your job, you will lose your career, and end up flipping burgers in McDonalds for a living.

 Second, the historical record of the last 600 million years of terran history shows that there is no causal link between CO2 levels and planetary warming.      There were times when CO2 went up and temperatures went down, and vice versa.    That is not conclusive, as other factors may have influenced these phenomena.    But it at least introduces doubt into the idea that CO2 has much influence on global temps. at all.

 Third.    The earth warms and cools every thousand years or so, and our present warming period is right on schedule.      Since industialisation and CO2 had no roll to play in the Medieval Warming Period, the Roman Warming Period, the Egyptian Warming Period, or any others before them, it is reasonable to assume that CO2 has little or no effect on what is causing our present warming period.

 Fourth.   The ocean’s of the world hold 20 times the dissolved CO2 of the atmosphere.    Cold water holds more CO2 than warm water.    When the globe warms, the oceans warm, and vast quantities of CO2 is released into the atmosphere.      If CO2 had such a huge impact on global warming, then what would happen every time the planet warmed, would be a runaway greenhouse effect.   That this has never happened, once again reinforces the idea that CO2 has minimal effect of Terran climate.  

 Fifth.   In a Freudian Slip, the IPCC itself admitted in it’s very first report that there were so many factors affecting global climate that it was impossible to say which factor was more important.    I will bet they are still kicking themselves for that clangor, and they hope that ZuesAries either does not know about it, or has forgotten it.   

 

ZuesAries quote   2.      Moving Away from Fossil Fuels: Even outside the context of climate change, there are good reasons to transition from fossil fuels. Renewable energies are becoming more economical, and moving away from fossil fuels can reduce air pollution, improve public health, and reduce dependency on finite resources.

 I can’t argue against that.    But what I do argue against, is democratic governments acting like totalitarians and restricting free speech on this subject, refusing to fund the scientists who oppose HIGW, and introducing laws which impact and impoverish their own people, while simultaneously exempting themselves from their own laws.    Like climate czar John Kerry taking his private jet to a climate conference.        Or Leonardo Di Caprio cavorting on a Titanic sized luxury yacht owned by a Saudi oil billionaire.     Or Bono sending his private jet to London from Rome, to pick up his favourite hat, which he forgot to pack.      If you ever watched Burt Lancaster in “Elmer Gantry”, I think you might be able to smell a rat. 

 

ZeusAries quote     Zero Carbon: The demand to move to zero carbon is based on models that show that to keep global temperature rises within certain limits (to prevent more catastrophic impacts), we need significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. However, the timeline and methods for these reductions can vary widely and are points of contention.

 If you want zero carbon, get used to the idea of going back to living in caves wearing animal skins, and presumably eating tofu.      Civilisation is based upon energy and metals.     To smelt metals you need energy.  To make steel you need coal.  No coal, no carbon, no steel, no civilisation.

 

ZuesAries quote     Political Ideologies and Climate Change: While climate change has become a polarizing political issue in some countries, it's crucial to remember that the underlying science is not inherently political. In many countries around the world, there's bipartisan support for addressing climate change. Associating scientific consensus with the perceived failures or policies of a political group can muddy the waters of an objective assessment.

 That is where you are totally and completely wrong.     I could elaborate forever on that point, but this post is already too long.

 

ZuesAries quote      Predictions: It's important to differentiate between predictions made by reputable scientific bodies and those that might be misrepresented or taken out of context in the media or by certain groups. Some predictions about the impacts of climate change are about probabilities or potential risks, not certainties. Some claims made in the media or by advocates might not accurately represent the scientific consensus.

 That is a nice bit of spin you have there, Zues.     But the fact remains that climate scientists have been making predictions for decades which have never eventuated.    I smart person would think, that if a group of people who claimed that they are experts in their particular field of work, make predictions that never eventuate, then that smart person would conclude that they do not have clue what they are talking about. 

ZuesAries quote      Free Speech and Climate Change: It's crucial for a healthy democracy to have open discussions on all issues, including climate change. However, it's also essential to differentiate between suppressing free speech and criticizing or challenging misinformation. Fact-checking and peer-review are cornerstones of the scientific process.

 Professor Peter Ridd of Queensland university “peer reviewed” his colleagues who published a scientific paper on the negative effects of climate change on The Great Barrier Reef.      He criticised their scientific methodology and was sacked.  

 

ZuesAries quote      In conclusion, addressing climate change and its causes and effects is a complex issue that goes beyond partisan politics. While there's room for debate about solutions, strategies, and timelines, the consensus within the scientific community about the human influence on recent climate change is robust. It's beneficial to approach the topic with an open mind and a willingness to engage with the evidence and research.

 In other words, just and believe everything we say.    Forget all of our failed predictions.   Forget the exemptions we put on ourselves.    Don't think for yourself.   Heretics will be burned at the stake.  

John_C_87

@Bogan

Let me start by saying there is no warming tend to go up and down the earth will get warmer, and all life will end on earth that is the scientific consensus. Still. What changes is only the timetable that this is expected to happen and there are, many variables that can change that timeframe.

More importantly keep in mind this year the orbit of the solar system our universe has changed. Look at what creates the galactic year.

How long to orbit Milky Way's center? | Astronomy Essentials | EarthSky

Galactic year - Wikipedia

 That is a nice bit of spin you have there, Zues.     But the fact remains that climate scientists have been making predictions for decades which have never eventuated.    I smart person would think, that if a group of people who claimed that they are experts in their particular field of work, make predictions that never eventuate, then that smart person would conclude that they do not have clue what they are talking about. 

To be clear science has never changed its one view on climate change ever. The position is that earth will in fact be destroyed by fire pardon the connection and religious pun and every second in that process is needed to create the best opportunity for everyone on earth to get of planet before time runs out. Being done ahead of schedule is not a bad thing. The sun will destroy all life on earth as it has helped created it unless humanity moves off planet. We can go as far as to say it may be best for humans to leave a planet type living arrangement, move to a satellite environment and never return to living on a planet. Staying on a planet is more in line with becoming a form of vacation a person may take in the distant future.

Forget all of our failed predictions

There is no failed prediction of science what has taking place. This argument is nothing more than an effort to manipulate political ideas to shape International Maritime law as to blur conservation of land legislation to not include all planetary international holdings. America has been purchased from many nations and then Americans had been allowed to obtain legal claims as deeds on the purchased property. You do understand this is not the case with planets in our solar system. A shared right has not been purchased from any nation to make ownership exclusive. I am not going to detail names of those who may believe otherwise we are only stating fact, it hasn't occurred as of yet and it is likely it will not do to past poor connections made to established justice in not just America but many Nations globally.

I am not for you, I am not for ZuesAries42 in the debate, while the United States Constitution doesn't have a singular freedom of speech which belongs to a corporation or person that idea is a process of separation conducted by a lawyer who is selling a practice of law publicly. Again, we need to have the request from the respected legal parties to provide how as common defense toward the general welfare sets conditions of no cost held to the people in how talks are conducted publicly.

Bogan, pack your bags, we are not staying on earth, it is an impossible dream. Long term zero human interaction can be achieved on earth it fits in with the natural order of things in the universe and solar system. By the way solar energy may turn out to be a much bigger pollutant or risk than fossil fuel as we ground electricity that is made from a source off planet. This does hold a form of environmental impact as the source does touch earth directly with electromagnetic forces itself. Hence my concerns over the poopy emoji mathematics with whole in scale large enough for galaxies to fly through, literally.

Bogan

@John_C_87 ;    There is no failed prediction of science what has taking place.

Hi John-C-97.   Congratulations, you managed to submit an almost legible argument.     I will focus on what you said here, because you obviously have a poor memory.   

 The first IPCC meeting was held in 1988 in Europe, during the one of the worst snow storms that Europe had ever recorded.

"Entire nations" were not "wiped off the Earth by 2000", predicted by Noel Brown, the director of the UN environment Program in 1989.

 

On November 4, 1998, the BBC, quoting "European scientists", claimed that Italian ski fields would snow free by 2008, while skiing in Germany would be "impossible" as the snow would simply fall as rain.

 

 The Washington Post. 2019   "AOC claims the world will end in 12 years unless we do something now."

 

On the 15th January, 2018, Harvard professor James Anderson opined that "The chance of any permanent ice being left in the Arctic is essentially zero."

 

Then of course comes climate saint Greta Thurnburg who wrote on 21/6/18 that "A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years."    That was five years ago, John.

 

In 2007, the BBC reported that the Arctic would be "ice free" by 2013.    The Arctic ice cap grew by 533,000 square miles between August 2012 and August 2013.

 

In 2006, NASA's James Hanson said that "Manhattan would be underwater by 2008."

 

In 2006, In December 2009, Al Gore claimed that the Arctic would be ice free by 2014.    Private jet owning John Kerry  proclaimed 2014, as the year the arctic would melt, the seas would rise, and they would drown low lying island chains and coastal cities.   The BBC predicted that New Orleans and Miami would be underwater by 2014.      In 2014 when the arctic was certainly not ice free, and the oceans of the world had stubbornly refused to rise to drown cities and subways, and entire nations had not been wiped off the Earth, the Third U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA), released May 6, 2014, reported that the Arctic Ocean is expected to be ice free in summer before mid-century.      Seems like if the "expert" predictions sadly do not eventuate, the "expert" alarmists just put the date for the end of times back another decade or two.

 

Oddly, Coastal real estate prices all over the world have not crashed, and nobody with a water front property (including Australia's climate commissioner Tim Flannery) are trying to sell their waterfront properties at giveaway prices.    As a matter of fact, waterside real estate prices just keep climbing.       Perhaps it is because the equity managers, the real smart guys, who are responsible for investing trillions in real estate, regard HIGW as complete malarkey?

Australian "Climate Change Commissioner" Tim Flannery's 2006 prediction that "the dams will never fill again" looks funny when the dams overfilled and they drowned Brisbane, Penrith, and Townsville.    Sydney's Warragamba dam had to open it's floodgates twice.  When the dams overflowed, Tim Flannery then claimed that "climate change can not be ruled out" as the reason for the flooding rains.    Not bad.   Drought?    Blame climate change.   Flooding rains?   Blame climate change.   Temperatures hotter and bad bushfires?    Blame climate change.    Northern hemisphere buried in snow?    Blame climate change for that too.

 

Other predictions from Climate Commissioner  Tim Flannery. 

Predicted 2004. Climate change would be so quick we would not have time to build desalination plants.

Predicted 2004. Perth would be the world's first ghost Metropolis

Predicted 2005/6/7.  The eastern coastal suburbs of Sydney would be under water

Predicted 2007 Brisbane and Adelaide would run dry of water.

Predicted 2013. The Arctic would be ice free by 2018

Predicted 2015. Hurricanes would be more frequent (they aren't)

On 16th of October, 2008, the British parliament passed the British Climate Change Act, which is the most expensive piece of legislation it has ever passed, committing the UK to cut emissions of CO2 by 80%, at the cost of some $400 billion pounds.   On that very day it snowed in London in October, for the first time since 1934.  $400 billion pounds in the UK alone?    Somebody is sure making big money out of this farce.

 

 Climate "Scientist" Dr David Viner, of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University. (you remember them, the Climategate guys) predicted that “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

  

In February 2019, (and in 2020) the USA, all of Europe, and Russia were all up to their eyeballs in snow.    It was even snowing in Los Angeles, which it just like saying is snowing in Brisbane.

The Himalayan Glaciers did not melt.

The "ship of fools", consisting of an expedition from Sydney University which set sail to Antarctica in a taxpayer funded chartered Russian icebreaker, to prove that the East Antarctic Ice Shelf was melting. Instead it got stuck in record amounts of thick sea ice and had to be rescued by carbon belching rescue ships and helicopters.

The "urgently" needed (and hugely expensive) desalination plants in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide which still rot away unused.

The Climategate scandal where supposed "scientists" from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit discussed among themselves how to fudge the data which clearly displayed that global temperature rises were levelling out.   And, they also discussed the sacking of one EACR scientist, who was a climate change sceptic.

And whaddya know, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology themselves got caught red handed "adjusting" the historical temperature data to "prove" rising temperatures, by the families of people who have been recording temperatures in their own districts for over 100 years, and who still have their families hand written records to prove it was complete .

John_C_87

@Bogan

"Entire nations" were not "wiped off the Earth by 2000", predicted by Noel Brown, the director of the UN environment Program in 1989.

The point is still science argues the earth will do nothing but lose all means to suport life naturally it is only the timeframe that appears to be in question.

John_C_87

@Bogan

"Entire nations" were not "wiped off the Earth by 2000", predicted by Noel Brown, the director of the UN environment Program in 1989.

The point is still science argues the earth will do nothing but lose all means to support life naturally during the planet’s aging process. Science never new when precisely this event started, we can assume at the start of life itself on earth. However, thanks to an introduction of forms of measuring durations all called time, we might not ever precisely find when the process began. The life supporting features of our earth are only questioned by their timeframe to which they will all disappear from earth leaving it empty of all life. The debate is stating there is no such thing as anthropogenic climate change, (OR) the human cause is not as bad as what I am calling then nature event of change "Total loss of life on planet Earth." 

You are pointing out who is wrong not how it establishes that climate change is better or worse than the end destination of natural change driving earth to become inhabited by people and all life. Spoiler alert humans to go extinct by the destructive powers of nature, all life on earth goes with us. All the well-educated and science information is trying to do at this point is discredit whole truth.

John_C_87

Argument Topic: Please.

My debate argument is human climate manipulation is not as bad as the natural processes ending all life on earth by the slow increase of heat. The one which is coming and will end only at the end of all life on earth. Please try and make sense and stick to the argument I am making and do not act like the lobster in the cook’s pot.

John_C_87

@Bogan

The argument about a use or nonuse of fossil fuels is made on the idea of American dependencies on foreign sources or storage of energy is better than a energies overall pollution risks and relationship to people. The standard of using power source by level of pollution is a constitutionally pan into the fire type guideline.