Climate change; fact, scam, or both?

Factfinder

Bogan said:

Geologists have become the main opponents of AGW.     Here in Australia, Emeritus Professor of Geology Ian Plimer is the bane of the alarmists.      He has now written two books proving that AGW is just malarky.   Opposition to AGW was once rare, and sceptics treated by the press as cranks.    But today, opposition to AGW is becoming much more mainstream.    The alarmists are losing the debate.  

You realize I've told you repeatedly the alarmists are not invincible and that we can address the fact climate change is real without them, don't you? Just like on your video, the geologist said they look at climate change differently than most 'common' people. Then he went on to explain how geologists see it today as a "sliver" of time of what it is in the long run over history. That's what geologists do. There was no irrational denial like you proclaim. 

Do you get how the facts about climate change caused the shift from the calling it agw to acc? Your coconspirator phite supplied this link:  https://e360.yale.edu/features/air-pollutions-upside-a-brake-on-global-warming in a futile effort to disprove agw. But it supported anthropogenic climate change. His and your continued use of the out dated agw is evident of self deception and delusion. 

The alarmist and the scammers are losing, being outed as I told you from day one. The scientist are winning the debate. (that too I told you). Thankfully about 98% of them agree anthropogenic climate change is real and are studying it.

Phite

@Factfinder

I'm going to steal a well thought-out play from Bogan's playbook because it perfectly puts the ball in your court.

There is a 97% scientific consensus on climate change.

Okay, who was the person or organization which conducted this mythical poll?  How was it conducted?  How many "scientists" were polled?  Every scientist in the world, or just a  representative example?     If a representative example, how big was the representative example?  How many scientists are there in the world?  Was it a secret ballot ?  Or, was it possible, even probable, that any negative statement made about climate change could be made public and therefore a danger to a scientists continued career as a scientist?

Start with the first one.

Factfinder

Phite said:

@Factfinder

I'm going to steal a well thought-out play from Bogan's playbook because it perfectly puts the ball in your court.

There is a 97% scientific consensus on climate change.

Okay, who was the person or organization which conducted this mythical poll?  How was it conducted?  How many "scientists" were polled?  Every scientist in the world, or just a  representative example?     If a representative example, how big was the representative example?  How many scientists are there in the world?  Was it a secret ballot ?  Or, was it possible, even probable, that any negative statement made about climate change could be made public and therefore a danger to a scientists continued career as a scientist?

Start with the first one.

Google it.

Barnardot

@Phite @Bogan ;I'm going to steal a well thought-out play from Bogan's playbook because it perfectly puts the ball in your court.

Well first of all you need to accept the fact that there is no such thing as a well throught out play from Bogans Playbook. That is because it has been proven that @Bogan has only half a brain and that nullifies the well thought out theory straight a way. Hes been asked that question before any way and he was unable to answer because guess what? He would have to use the other half of of his brain which he doesnt use. And even if he did he would be smaked in the head with a brick that every thing he comes up with is total 100% made up crapola or comes from scam web sites. And be sides it would take ages for him to chew through all the corks dangling from his Acruba before he would even get a round to even think about addressing such a question. 

Phite

Factfinder said:

Google it.

In other words, you couldn't find anything.  

If you don't know, that's okay.

Factfinder

Phite said:

Factfinder said:

Google it.

In other words, you couldn't find anything.  

If you don't know, that's okay.

Words you've admittedly and demonstrated you live by. Thanks for proving acc to be real.

elijah44

Argument Topic: The Earth warms and cools way less often

Earth's temperature fluctuates naturally over tens of thousands to millions of years. Today, we are experiencing very rapid change in temperature, which is caused by humans (the greenhouse effect). Not only that, but there are many other problems that humans have created:
Deforestation, habitat deconstruction, overfishing, resource depletion from overconsumption, urbanization, waste generation, marine ecosystem depletion, overfishing, water pollution, industrialization, soil degradation, and much more. I don’t think you will agree with me, but I just wanted to point that out. Edit: I am new to this so I accidentally posted twice so my bad.

elijah44

Argument Topic: The Earth warms and cools way less often

Earth's temperature fluctuates naturally over tens of thousands to millions of years. Today, we are experiencing very rapid change in temperature, which is caused by humans (the greenhouse effect). Not only that, but there are many other problems that humans have created:
Deforestation, habitat deconstruction, overfishing, resource depletion from overconsumption, urbanization, waste generation, marine ecosystem depletion, overfishing, water pollution, industrialization, soil degradation, and much more. I don’t think you will agree with me, but I just wanted to point that out.

Barnardot

@Phite @Factfinder In other words, you couldn't find anything.  If you don't know, that's okay.

Wrong. He is asking you to get off your lazy phat ace and read for yourself. If you have even the slightest desire to argue descently then you will find that correct evidence and links have all ready been posted in this topic. I counted at least three times.. @Factfinder and me and other responsible debaters simply get pizzed off at the bully boy half brain attitude of dum coughs like you and @Bogan who make stu pid comments like that.

Bogan

@elijah44

Today, we are experiencing very rapid change in temperature, which is caused by humans (the greenhouse effect). Not only that, but there are many other problems that humans have created:

Prove it.

elijah44

@Bogan, “ Over at least the past million years, glacial and interglacial cycles have been triggered by variations in how much sunlight reaches the Northern Hemisphere in the summer, which are driven by small variations in the geometry of Earth’s axis and its orbit around the Sun. But these fluctuations in sunlight aren’t enough on their own to bring about full-blown ice ages and interglacials. They trigger several feedback loops that amplify the original warming or cooling.” -Climate.gov article: Hasn’t Earth warmed and cooled naturally throughout history?
(By, David Herring and Rebecca Lindsey)

Phite

Barnardot said:

@Phite @Factfinder In other words, you couldn't find anything.  If you don't know, that's okay.

Wrong. He is asking you to get off your lazy phat ace and read for yourself.

Uh, yeah.  When he provides something, I'll read it.  But so far he's being answer reluctant.  And I can think of only one thing that causes that.  But since you're hear speaking for him, why don't you post something that will help him with his deficiencies here?

Factfinder

Phite said:

Barnardot said:

@Phite @Factfinder In other words, you couldn't find anything.  If you don't know, that's okay.

Wrong. He is asking you to get off your lazy phat ace and read for yourself.

Uh, yeah.  When he provides something, I'll read it.  But so far he's being answer reluctant.  And I can think of only one thing that causes that.  But since you're hear speaking for him, why don't you post something that will help him with his deficiencies here?

I soundly defeated you. You even produced a source backing my position. You think you got something? Cool, tell me if you believe anthropogenic climate change is real. Your source said it was. Said it was cooling the planet, climate change. Then predicted a rebound in which it would warm up. Remember? Go from there. Don't like cook? So, doesn't change the fact all the other censuses he didn't take part of; with accurately revised methods of conducting them say the same thing. Anthropogenic climate change is real, as your source pointed out as well.

Bogan

@elijah44 ;   Hi Elijah.    As an amateur astronomer, I can confirm to you that around the year 2000 (I can not remember the exact year), the amateur astronomy magazines that i read were abuzz with the news that astronomers were predicting that our climate might be headed for a new interglacial Ice Age.     The reason was, that during the Little Ice Age, astronomers at the time noted no sun spot activity on the sun's surface.   Astronomers surmised that a lack of sun spot activity was indicative of a solar minimum event.    Around 2000, astronomers were shocked to find that sun spot activity had again ceased.     There was  collective sigh of relief when sun spots once again appeared, and they marched across the sun's surface again.  

Bogan

elijah44

@Bogan, Peter Foukal of the Massachusetts-based firm Heliophysics, Inc, has been researching the intensities of sunspots around the globe from the past 400 years. He concluded that sunspots have had little effect on global warming. Even other scientists with some of the best technology they agree. But, we would have to cut back on carbon emissions to really get a good observation and conclusion on sunspots. (Kind of ironic)

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Hi, welcome to debate island, waves. :)

@elijah44

Thank you for debunking some. I got tired of debunking a long time ago. I recommend skepticalscience and crankyuncle websites by John Cook.

Factfinder

Dreamer said:

@elijah44

Thank you for debunking some. I got tired of debunking a long time ago. I recommend skepticalscience and crankyuncle websites by John Cook.

Skepticalscience actually impressed me with their honesty. Cook admitted to deficiencies when he first did the infamous consensus and addressed the issues. That and other consensuses that he wasn't a part of aligned with his pretty dang closely.  

elijah44

@Dreamer, thank you for the recommendations.

Factfinder

When will leftists learn their extremism plays into the far rights hands? Next thing you know we'll have to defend Sonny Hostin's comments to assure people contaminates and pollutants are a bad thing! Please stop the alarmism...

just_sayin

Bogan said:

Bogie,  this was a great video.  I love John Stossel.  I think his point about how most climate change initiatives have negligible impact on the global climate while hurting poor people is an important point that gets buried by propagandist media   I think people like @Dreamer truly believe they are the moral ones, and just ignore the facts of how little their proposed ideas will change the estimated increase in global temperatures.  As Heritage points out:

In fact, the U.S. could cut its carbon dioxide emissions 100 percent and it would not make a difference in abating global warming.

Using the same climate sensitivity (the warming effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide emissions) as the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes in its modeling, the world would be only 0.137 degree Celsius cooler by 2100. Even if we assumed every other industrialized country would be equally on board, this would merely avert warming by 0.278 degree Celsius by the turn of the century.  

When you expect poor people to pay $20,000 more for a EV car than they do now, that's someone who doesn't care about poor people, and care more about virtue signaling than actually solving the problem.  

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Bogan said:

Bogie,  this was a great video.  I love John Stossel.  I think his point about how most climate change initiatives have negligible impact on the global climate while hurting poor people is an important point that gets buried by propagandist media   I think people like @Dreamer truly believe they are the moral ones, and just ignore the facts of how little their proposed ideas will change the estimated increase in global temperatures.  As Heritage points out:

In fact, the U.S. could cut its carbon dioxide emissions 100 percent and it would not make a difference in abating global warming.

Using the same climate sensitivity (the warming effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide emissions) as the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes in its modeling, the world would be only 0.137 degree Celsius cooler by 2100. Even if we assumed every other industrialized country would be equally on board, this would merely avert warming by 0.278 degree Celsius by the turn of the century.  

When you expect poor people to pay $20,000 more for a EV car than they do now, that's someone who doesn't care about poor people, and care more about virtue signaling than actually solving the problem.  

Well you see the plan would be to impose more taxes, take other peoples money so the poor along with having free housing, can drive new Tesla's. Then the working class can be demonized for driving 5 year old gas powered cars. 

Seriously though you're right, virtue signaling isn't helping to solve the problem.

Bogan

ZeusAres42

The ability to cause chaos on unprecedented levels seems to be an emergent property of the human condition. 

Factfinder

@ZeusAres42

So true. Why can't we just approach a problem for what it is? It doesn't have to be an 'all in' mentality of us vs them. 

ZeusAres42

@Factfinder

Here, I was reflecting on the notion that some people have when we engage in this discussion, which is something like, "Surely, we simple humans couldn't cause something as great as climate change", which is an incredibly reductionist take.

Factfinder

@ZeusAres42

True but then again we're dealing with people who think Large metropolitan cities are "insignificant" pockets of air pollution, causing copd and all. 

ChristianSollers

Argument Topic: Between the lines; It's both.

Our economy is rapidly changing, fast and slow, but mainly that doesn't even matter. We use cars every day for transportation, to get where we have to go, but the catch is that global warming is caused by the CO2 omissions coming from the gas we burn, ultimately causing heat to rise. When we wonder, "Why is it so hot up in here?" while in a traffic jam, seeing that the air is all blurry, that's the exhaust burning. So yes, it's a fact.

But wait. It's also a scam. 

When we say that we a going to stop/slow down global warming how is money going to do anything? Just because you are using polyester for your clothing doesn't mean that you aren't wearing clothes at a mass production factory that wovens clothing using electric sewer machines. Global warming happens by not just gas, but from practically everything. The money that we print, the cars that we manufacture, is just causing the heat to climb higher and higher. If we are using money as the husher, doesn't that mean we are just going to either tax clothing more to make it more desirable, or what? There could be more, but for know that's all we know.

Bogan

@ChristianSollers

It is feasible that CO2 emissions can cause global temperatures to rise, Mr Christian soilers, but nobody can prove it.       However, given what is at stake we should at least concern ourselves that it could be true.    But since we just do not know, destroying western economies to chase a mere possibility is insanity.     If you are a climate alarmist, then you are definitely going to lose this one.      People in democracies can put up with most stu-pid decisions by governments, up until our economies and safety go sideways.   When taxation and inflation go through the roof, then the hip pocket nerve kicks in.      western people appear to be reaching that point now.    Polls, for what they are worth, are consistently showing that of the ten things which concern voters most, climate change is at the bottom of the list.     The more the climate cultists run around in red faced apoplexy, gluing themselves to road ways and performing other stu-pid stunts that disrupt ordinary people's lives, the more the public considers the climate crazies are in  need of professional help.  

RickeyHoltsclaw

"Man-induced" climate change is hoax promulgated by Marxists-Progressives-Globalists-Atheists who worship and serve the created rather than our Creator....Man-induced climate change is a religion for the fo-ols and the naive and those with an agenda of control over the masses through fear and fascist oriented regulation.

Climate is cyclical...it heats and it cools and mankind has absolutely NOTHING to do with the climate...the "Green New Deal" is a Progressive stunt for political and sociological control...run these idio-ts out of the Nation.

Factfinder

@ChristianSollers

Very objective view, I commend you. That's the crux of the problem. Extremes on both sides of this topic are only interested in screaming the loudest. Yes scum on the left exploited the thing before we had a good understanding. Of course the right responds with their extremism thinking we can dump pollutants in the air at will with no consequences. One look at a smoggy city tells us that ain't true. And with one in four copd patients being non smokers we can't deny the effects we ARE having. 

Long-term exposure to particulate matter PM 2.5 and nitrogen dioxides increases your risk of developing COPD. Sources of PM 2.5 are motor vehicles, factories, powerplants, wood burning and wildfires. Exposure to poor air quality worsens symptoms and accelerates lung function decline in adults, especially if you have other risk factors for COPD. https://www.lung.org/lung-health-diseases/lung-disease-lookup/copd/what-causes-copd

Most want to phrase the argument as such: Climate change is too big for humans to stop, it's a cycle, or that we've accelerated the cycle and we can slow it down. Those are political positions. But as noted above from the American Lung Association we are having an effect on our environment that makes it very feasible that the cycle of climate change we're experiencing could be effecting us in negatives ways it might not be if we weren't polluting our planet. The science leads us to conclude we need to stop polluting. The problem is too many political and/or economic interests blur the lines.

ChristianSollers

Bogan said:

@ChristianSollers

    If you are a climate alarmist, then you are definitely going to lose this one.    

Well, I wouldn't say that. But it is proven that CO2 is a huge culprit for anything thermodynamic or heat-related.

Bogan

@ChristianSollers ;  quote      Well, I wouldn't say that.

I made several points in my reply to you, Mr CHristianSollers, it would be helpful if you were more specific in which of my points that you is not agree with.

@ChristianSollers ;   quote     But it is proven that CO2 is a huge culprit for anything thermodynamic or heat-related.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so increasing it's proportion of CO2 should raise temperatures.   But CO2 is, even after nearly 200 years since the industrial revolution, just a trace gas in our atmosphere .  It is fark all.     If you even double fark all, it is still fark all.