human caused climate change makes most sense, and should be concerning - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

human caused climate change makes most sense, and should be concerning
in Politics

By linatelinate 35 Pts
scientists are almost unanimous that carbon dioxide from humans is causing the large majority of our recent warming.  we have cause carbon dioxide levels to more than double any time humans have been around, and now levels are as bad as it was millions of years ago. here is a graph to illustrate....

https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/paleo_CO2_2017_620.gif

there is also almost unanimous agreement that we won't just cycle out of this. scientist talk that concerns me most is the increased drought and famines, especially in third world countries. and some ecosytems that will collapse, such as the vibrant coral reefs that are dying and will die if nothing is done. and of course coastal flooding of major cities and much stronger hurricanes, and genereally a lot more erratic weather.... all things that are clear to anyone paying attention. 

what reason do you have to think counter to all this? looks like just a bunch of stupid people thinking they are smarter than the scientific community, for no good reason. 
CYDdharta
«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • AkhenatenAkhenaten 106 Pts
    edited June 9
    @linate

    Well, looks like I am one of those "stupid people" that you are referring to.
    Now, lets see who the real stupid person is in this debate site.

    So what do you know about the properties of CO2?
    Probably nothing I would say. (stupidity factor 1)
    Co2 has properties similar to glass in that it only reflects infra red of a certain wave length and once saturation point is reached the reflection diminishes exponentially.
    Thus, once CO2 reaches 80 parts per million there is a negligible increase in it's reflection capability.

    What do you know about the green house effect?
    Probably nothing I would guess. (stupidity factor 2)
    The earth acts like a thermostat and not like a greenhouse.
    The Earth's atmosphere is not trapped like a greenhouse and is free to move. Thus, hot air rises and cool air moves in from the arctic and antarctic regions. Thus, an even temperature is maintained.

    What do you know about the origins of climate change politics? 
    Probably nothing I would guess. (stupidity factor 3)
    Maurice Strong started the climate change hysteria in 1972.
    Agenda 21

    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/12/discovering-maurice-strong/



    Sharky
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 554 Pts
    edited June 9
    linate said:
    scientists are almost unanimous that carbon dioxide from humans is causing the large majority of our recent warming.  we have cause carbon dioxide levels to more than double any time humans have been around, and now levels are as bad as it was millions of years ago. here is a graph to illustrate....

    https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/paleo_CO2_2017_620.gif

    there is also almost unanimous agreement that we won't just cycle out of this. scientist talk that concerns me most is the increased drought and famines, especially in third world countries. and some ecosytems that will collapse, such as the vibrant coral reefs that are dying and will die if nothing is done. and of course coastal flooding of major cities and much stronger hurricanes, and genereally a lot more erratic weather.... all things that are clear to anyone paying attention. 

    what reason do you have to think counter to all this? looks like just a bunch of stupid people thinking they are smarter than the scientific community, for no good reason. 
    Excluding the obvious imbecilic trolls that create debates about the rejection of all major scientific issues including serious medical issues, I think one or probably the main reason why a lot of people that deny man-caused climate change is because it is inconsistent with their firmly held political beliefs. This is what Psychologists call cognitive dissonance. https://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html

    So while someone may at most times have no problem in accepting science issues at other times they will because it is in conflict with either there political or religious beliefs that they have invested so much time in and hold so close to themselves. But also note it doesn't just have to apply to religion or politics; it can apply to many other beliefs separate from religion or politics too.

    An example of this in action:

    "Scientists suggest that the latest cycle of climate change is largely man-made." This will cause dissonance if the person works in the oil industry, has a relative involved in it or strongly supports a political party where there exists a lot of people contributing damage to the planet. 

    "However, there are these few scientists that reject the consensus. Ahah, I feel so much better now." This bit here is an example of research found that reduces the dissonance.

    A separate example of cognitive dissonance in action that is in the link I just post goes like this:
    Acquire new information that outweighs the dissonant beliefs.

    For example, thinking smoking causes lung cancer will cause dissonance if a person smokes.

    However, new information such as “research has not proved definitely that smoking causes lung cancer” may reduce the dissonance.

    https://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html

    After a while of having debates on these issues on different debate sites and social media platforms as well as watching other people debate with deniers is what generally tends to happen is that the deniers end up saying all kinds of absurd things most likely out of acts of desperation to the point where they're actually just trying to convince themselves that the science might be wrong; not just you.

    As Henry Rosovsky said:














    piloteer

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • AkhenatenAkhenaten 106 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    Cliche after cliche.
    Not once did you address any of my statements in your long rant and hyperbole.

    Here's a real graph with real data. Not that IPCC garbage.

    The greenhouse gasses keep the Earth 30° C warmer than it would otherwise be without them in the atmosphere, so instead of the average surface temperature being -15° C, it is 15° C. Carbon dioxide contributes 10% of the effect so that is 3° C. The pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 280 ppm. So roughly, if the heating effect was a linear relationship, each 100 ppm contributes 1° C. With the atmospheric concentration rising by 2 ppm annually, it would go up by 100 ppm every 50 years and we would all fry as per the IPCC predictions.

    But the relationship isn’t linear, it is logarithmic. In 2006, Willis Eschenbach posted this graph on Climate Audit showing the logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide relative to atmospheric concentration:











    Lo and behold, the first 20 ppm accounts for over half of the heating effect to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, by which time carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas. One thing to bear in mind is that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 got down to 180 ppm during the glacial periods of the ice age the Earth is currently in (the Holocene is an interglacial in the ice age that started three million years ago).

    Plant growth shuts down at 150 ppm, so the Earth was within 30 ppm of disaster. Terrestrial life came close to being wiped out by a lack of CO2 in the atmosphere. If plants were doing climate science instead of us humans, they would have a different opinion about what is a dangerous carbon dioxide level.

    Some of the IPCC climate models predict that temperature will rise up to 6° C as a consequence of the doubling of the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm. So let’s add that to the graph above and see what it looks like:




    Let’s see what the IPCC model warming looks like when it is plotted as a cumulative bar graph:





    Nothing happened up to the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976, which gave us a 0.4° warming, and it has been flat for the last four decades.





    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

  • linatelinate 35 Pts
    @Akhenaten

    this says more co2 causes more warming, even if the effect isn't as much as the amount goes up. why should we believe you?

    https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
    ZeusAres42
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 554 Pts

    Trust me, don't feed the trolls. I am sure your time is too valuable to waste it on them.

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • piloteerpiloteer 478 Pts
    edited June 10
    @Akhenaten

    There are NO peer reviewed papers from Willis Eschenbach. If you have any sources from any actually scientific evidence that disproves man made climate change, feel free to plagiarize it for us!!!!!
    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide_19.html.

    ●■●♤○♡○♤This is the article you PLAGIARIZED YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT FROM!!!!!!!!!!!!▪▪▪■●■
    ZeusAres42
  • AkhenatenAkhenaten 106 Pts
    I have stated many times before that the peer review system is just as unreliable and corrupt as any other system.
    The debaters on this website are cowardly sneaks who use hit and run tactics and never properly address the poster's argument. 
    This is because they know that their position is undefendable if they use honest and fair debate.
    SharkyZeusAres42
  • piloteerpiloteer 478 Pts
    @Akhenaten

    YOU are not properly addressing any arguments if you copy and paste literature and post it as your own. Why don't you copy and paste an article on how or why peer reviewed papers are unreliable and corrupt? 
  • AkhenatenAkhenaten 106 Pts
    @linate

    Your reference conclusion - quote - "greenhouse gases to push 'the action' higher and higher, into colder and colder air, restricting the rate of radiation to space even further."

    After several paragraphs of confusing complications they hope to lose the reader in a baffling tangle of nonsense. But, in the end, they just state that the CO2 goes higher thus it is still adding to it's thickness.
    Now, the graphs that I supplied show that increasing the CO2 depth or thickness doesn't increase it's reflection back to Earth by any significant amount. The temperature graph from Perth shows that mean average temperature has not changed in the last 40 years. 
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1180 Pts
  • AkhenatenAkhenaten 106 Pts
    @piloteer

    So, if there is anything on the website that is false?
    If so, demonstrate how and why it is false.
  • DeeDee 742 Pts
    @Akhenaten


    You say ......I have stated many times before that the peer review system is just as unreliable and corrupt as any other system.

    My reply .....What you’re really saying is you have no peer reviewed papers to back up your wild assertions so instead of honestly admitting that you create a straw man by attacking the process of peer review and claiming it’s corrupt, Creationists use this very same tactic every time 


    You say ......The debaters on this website are cowardly sneaks who use hit and run tactics and never properly address the poster's argument. 

    My reply ......This again is an unfounded claim as from what I have seen your arguments have been addressed but yet again you create a straw man so you can accuse others for your lack of a reasonable defence to your pretty weak position 

    You say ......This is because they know that their position is undefendable if they use honest and fair debate.

    My reply .......But the only one not defending their positions appears to be you , I don’t think honesty and fairness are attributes you can claim to exercise in the debating arena. Most of what you say is void of implication and I do not envisage a change in the near future but maybe you will surprise us all
  • AkhenatenAkhenaten 106 Pts
    @Dee
    You should take up knitting as a hobby.
    You must be blind as well as stupid.
    Check ZeusAres42 post time 12:13
    Now, how many times did he respond to my statements in an appropriate manner in this post?
    Answer - nunce dunce  !!!!
  • DeeDee 742 Pts
    @Akhenaten

    You say .....

    You should take up knitting as a hobby.

    My reply ......A typically stupid response from an idiot who thinks oil rich Saudi Arabia is in fact a communist country trying to push communism on the U S in an effort to get cheap labour .......You shouldn’t take up knitting as a hobby the wool could be part of a communist plot for world domination you best be careful 

    You say ....You must be blind as well as stupid.

    My reply ......My sight does not affect my intelligence you demonstrate the “intelligence “of an unwatered pot plant 

    You say ......Check ZeusAres42 post time 12:13
    Now, how many times did he respond to my statements in an appropriate manner in this post?

    My reply ......His response is most likely a counter to your gross stupidity and childish “debating skills”


    You say ......Answer - nunce dunce  !!!!

    My reply ......Another typically childish  response 
    ZeusAres42
  • AkhenatenAkhenaten 106 Pts
    @Dee

    I think it's best you go to Saudi Arabia to live because they really know how to treat women there. lol


    https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/01/30/saudi-arabia-10-reasons-why-women-flee
  • DeeDee 742 Pts
    @Akhenaten


    You say ......I think it's best you go to Saudi Arabia to live because they really know how to treat women there. lol

    My reply .......But what’s that got to do with your claims that overnight oil rich Saudi have become a communist country in an effort to force communism on the U S in an effort to get cheap labour?
  • AkhenatenAkhenaten 106 Pts
    @Dee
    You can't get cheap labour without abusing people's rights. Communism is about abusing people's rights. Saudi Arabia has plenty of human rights abuse so it is a good candidate for communism. That's how!
  • DeeDee 742 Pts
    edited June 10
    @Akhenaten

    You say .....

    You can't get cheap labour without abusing people's rights.

    My reply ......

    Yes you’ve admitted most our capitalist goods are made in Communist countries and Capitalists are abusing them by exploiting and using their people for cheap labour 

    You say ......

    Communism is about abusing people's rights

    My reply .....

    But yet you admit it s Capitalists abusing communists rights 

    You say ......

    Saudi Arabia has plenty of human rights abuse so it is a good candidate for communism.

    My reply .......

    Oh it’s only a candidate now , thought you said it was communist?

     You say ......

    That's how!

    My reply .....That’s how .....stupid you are 
  • SharkySharky 99 Pts
    True Believers tend to attack AGW skeptics using the same, tired Alinskyite tactics used by leftist "activists" against their political opponents for many years now. I've seen the same, exact arguments cited for the last 15+ years on these forums ("97% agreement amongst scientists", "show me 'peer-reviewed' studies", "deniers!", "all of the accusations were investigated and debunked") and none of them are any more valid now than they were 15 years ago. The "97%" figure was made up and instantly disseminated as if it were true. It wasn't and isn't. In an echo chamber like academia, where ostracism is the greatest fear next to funding cut-offs, "peer review" loses any meaning or credibility. "Deniers" is the cry of religionists, not scientists. Finally, there are hundreds of instances that, when viewed together, completely destroy the credibility of people who are using the AGW theory to scare stupid and gullible people into thinking that the world is going to end if they don't submit to unlimited government control and confiscatory taxation. These tactics have been in use by powerful people for centuries in their quest to exert control over the masses. They are very transparent to those of us who have studied history and their use in promoting AGW doomsday scenarios is so obvious as to be laughable.  
    CYDdhartaZeusAres42Plaffelvohfen
  • AkhenatenAkhenaten 106 Pts
    @Dee
    Yeah, Sharky knows the truth of the matter. Alinskyite's tactics are being used against me.

    The Rules
    • "Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."
    • "Never go outside the expertise of your people."
    • "Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy."
    • "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
    • "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
    • "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
    This is leftist religion and thuggery at work.
  • piloteerpiloteer 478 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    The work by John Ioannidis should not be construed as "all science is wrong". He is a scientist himself. The point of his research is to show how or why research claims can be biased, and to work on how to improve those problems. It's not a treatise for anti-science, or psuedo-science. His paper concluded that small sized experiments can have larger biases because of limited test samples, and to much flexibility with definitions. His paper was mostly centered around biomedical research, but was not limited to it. He did NOT site any papers on global warming (he has been urged to do so, but still has yet to do any such studies), and if you read the findings, meteorology does not fit the criteria of the "problem studies" he refers to in his study because those studies are done on a huge scale. Especially when it comes to global temperatures, because those results are gathered from all over the world. Ioannidis' gripe was with small sized experiments, not so much the ones that cover the entire globe. His study also notes that not every finding from experiments are wrong. 2/3rds of the papers he studied were still accurate enough for scientific standards.

    Also, much of his work was to scrutinize papers on experiments, not the conclusive findings. This is made clear in the very first sentence of his study which states, "there is increasing concern that most current PUBLISHED RESEARCH FINDINGS are false. He drives this point home even more when he states, "Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a RESEARCH CLAIM to be false than true. He isn't talking about conclusive evidence, but inconclusive, still yet to be reviewed, claims. No scientists were shocked by his findings, because he was just pointing out the obvious, because that's how research is done. After an experiment is conducted, it is analysed and the findings are published where it awaits peer-reviewed analysis. None of what he is talking about here is conclusive findings, it's just the analysis of studies. His true hopes are to point out biases in the experimentation process which could hamper the conclusions of the experiments. He is calling for better safeguards in the peer-review process in all fields of science, but his study was more focused on research claims in the biomedical field, not conclusive evidence.(by the way CYD, thanx for not plagiarizing your entire argument, that drives me bat $hit crazy.)

    https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/09/24/the-cranks-pile-on-john-ioannidis-work-o

    One thing that has dogged Ioannidis since his research was published was the slew of science deniers who have drafted him as the new icon for anti-science. That is not his intention. Many scientists point out that when scientific research is found to be false, it's found to be false by scientists, not science deniers. Ioannidis himself points out that his work lends no validity to junk-science or science-denier propagandists. CYD, the study you posted does nothing to make the process of peer-reviewed studies seem invalid, and it doesn't even approach invalidating science on the whole. It also goes without saying that even if it did serve as a valid skepticism of science, it would also invalidate the claims made by Willis Eschenbach.





    CYDdharta
  • AkhenatenAkhenaten 106 Pts
    @piloteer

    Let's just forget about using references. One can dismiss climate change simply on logic basis because It doesn't make sense. The earth is not a greenhouse, it's a thermostat. This alone, shows the illogical nature of the research papers that you present as "evidence".
    Can you prove that the Earth is not a thermostat equivalent model?
    You state that 1/3 of the science is wrong. Thus, if the standard deviation of climate is less than plus or minus one percent then one can not take the science seriously. Let's see one percent change minus 33.3 equals 32.3 percent error rate. This is unacceptable even by your own warped standards.
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1180 Pts

    I deleted most of the irrelevant parts of your post and the logic fallacies so I could focus on what's of some pertinence. 

    His paper concluded that small sized experiments can have larger biases because of limited test samples, and to much flexibility with definitions. His paper was mostly centered around biomedical research, but was not limited to it. He did NOT site any papers on global warming (he has been urged to do so, but still has yet to do any such studies), and if you read the findings, meteorology does not fit the criteria of the "problem studies" he refers to in his study because those studies are done on a huge scale. Especially when it comes to global temperatures, because those results are gathered from all over the world.
    Incorrect, Ioannidis' finding weren't limited to small sized experiments, he merely found that small sized experiments tend to be less reliable.  That doesn't mean that large scale research is bias-free.

    Ioannidis came up with 6 corollaries.  Global warming research fails half of them; specifically


    Corollary 4: The greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
    There are at least 138 different models, all of which are wrong; a field could hardly be more flexible.

    Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
    There is currently no field with greater prejudices or greater financial interests than global warming.

    Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.


    He isn't talking about conclusive evidence, but inconclusive, still yet to be reviewed, claims.
    Exactly, he's talking about inconclusive claims.  As mentioned above, this is far from conclusive, or accurate;



    ZeusAres42
  • John_C_87John_C_87 209 Pts
    @Akhenaten ;

    Can you prove that the Earth is not a thermostat equivalent model?

    Did you mean thermometer equivalent model? As a thermostat the Earth does not regulate an environment in thermodynamics. A 4th law of motion setting gravity as modulation, elasticity, and reverberation creates a math proof of contradiction in how energy can be transferred in the universe around Earth and other planets. Vacuum is a principle held in elasticity.

    The average temperature of outer space near Earth is 283.32 kelvins (10.17 degrees Celsius or 50.3 degrees Fahrenheit). In empty, interstellar space, the temperature is just 3 kelvins, not much above absolute zero, which is the coldest anything can ever get.

    https://sciencing.com/temperatures-outer-space-around-earth-20254.html

    The Sun has a temperature ranging from 6,000° Celsius at its surface which is hot enough to turn gold, tungsten and every metal on Earth into gas. It is around 15,000,000° Celsius in its center- far hotter than anything we can generate on Earth. Pressure is also enormously high in its center. In these extreme conditions at the center of the Sun, hydrogen nuclei are fusing into helium in a process called nuclear fusion.

    http://planetfacts.org/temperature-of-the-sun/


  • DeeDee 742 Pts
    @Akhenaten

    Your insanity seems to be progressing at a rapid state you and Sharky should get a room together 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • SharkySharky 99 Pts
    @Dee

    Thank you, Dee, for demonstrating my point about True Believers so succinctly. 
    CYDdharta
  • DeeDee 742 Pts
    @Sharky

    You say .....Thank you, Dee, for demonstrating my point about True Believers so succinctly

    My reply .....But the word of a conspiracy theorist like yourself is worthless unless one counts the opinions of fellow tin foil hatters as credible 
    CYDdhartaPlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 554 Pts
    edited June 11
    Sharky said:
    True Believers tend to attack AGW skeptics using the same, tired Alinskyite tactics used by leftist "activists" against their political opponents for many years now. 
    Let's just say hypothetically that I said "AGW deniers/skeptics tend to attack the climate change believers using the same tired Alinskyite tactics used by the alt-right "activists" against their political opponents for many years now" what would your response be?

    I wouldn't say the above myself; I am just interested in knowing what your response would be. @Sharky


    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 554 Pts
    edited June 11
    CYDdharta said:


    There are at least 138 different models, all of which are wrong; a field could hardly be more flexible.

    There is currently no field with greater prejudices or greater financial interests than global warming.
    Do you have any empirical and objective evidence to back up these claim that you would care to provide?



    Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.
    Are you agreeing with this corollary position by the way or did you forget to write something against it? 
    Plaffelvohfen

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • AkhenatenAkhenaten 106 Pts
    It looks like their using the private party technique of avoidance now. lol
    These climate changers are amusing monkeys to watch aren't they. lol
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42Dee
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 554 Pts
    edited June 11
    Akhenaten said:
    It looks like their using the private party technique of avoidance now. lol
    These climate changers are amusing monkeys to watch aren't they. lol
    This quoted response is a classic example of:


    PlaffelvohfenDeepiloteer

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • John_C_87John_C_87 209 Pts
    I just want to point out a basic principle. Human climate manipulation makes the most sense because we live in air conditioned and heated home. Climate manipulation is a way of life for many people. Are you saying if you were to raise the Earth temperature you would do it by raising the Co2 level?
  • AkhenatenAkhenaten 106 Pts
    @ZeusAres42
    And Mr Insanity himself has come back to add further distraction and confusion. Right on course with the Alinskyite principles.
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 554 Pts
    edited June 13
    It seems a very politically polarized topic within the United States anyway. In other westernized countries the acceptance of the science is not a right or left political issue. In the UK, for instance, the right-wing party accepts this just as much as the left wing. This is also reflected in when Tory leaders such as David Cameron and Theresa May endorsed Environmental Policies.

    Seriously, it's embarrassing to the US nation how so many Americans say that AGW is some political leftist movement. It's akin to when Ben Shapiro accused Famous British Conservative Andrew Neil of being a leftist in an Interview. Hence his roar with laughter was sincere.

    However, at least Ben Shapiro had the intelligence and foresight to realize he was wrong after and admit it.
    CYDdhartaPlaffelvohfen

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • AkhenatenAkhenaten 106 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    You are still living in your own fantasy world of unreality.

    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/12/discovering-maurice-strong/

    No connection to communism? Thus, you have no connection with reality.
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 554 Pts
    edited June 14
    Akhenaten said:
    @ZeusAres42

    You are still living in your own fantasy world of unreality.

    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/12/discovering-maurice-strong/

    No connection to communism? Thus, you have no connection with reality.
    How Ironic.

    Anyway, for those readers that are actually grounded in reality unlike the above (but ironically claims it's me haha) will be interested to know the following:

    Quadrant magazine is Australia's best-known conservative and neo-conservative magazine. It was founded in 1956 by James McAuley, and is currently edited by Paddy McGuinness. (McGuinness is also occasionally referred to as Padraic McGuinness or P.P. McGuinness).

    https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Quadrant

    I don't know about the rest of you but I prefer to get my scientific sources from the actual science itself as opposed to politicians, media or anyone with a highly sought after political agenda. 

    Furthermore, for more information on the misinformation by editors at Quadrant verses what the actual science says can be found here:

    https://skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=http://www.quadrant.org&x=0&y=0
    Feel free to also read as to whether or not the Quadrant was right about Maurice Strong by learning the true facts here:
    https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Maurice_Strong
    As usual, this pretty much confirms what Ben Goldacre in this video said about denialist coming up with stuff already been refuted when you actually dig down deeper into the rubbish they come up with:



    Whatever the media, politicians or anyone who is highly politically motivated says about climate change whether they are on the left exaggerating it or on the right denying it the scientific facts remain the same.

    I am not defending any political party here; all I'm doing is defending the science and will continue to do so.


    You're welcome by the way. :)






    PlaffelvohfenCYDdharta

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • AkhenatenAkhenaten 106 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    Well. It looks like you found another extreme left wing organisation to give yourself a big slap on the back.

    Extract from Activist Facts about PR Watch

    The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is a non-profit watchdog organization dedicated to exposing PR “spin.” Though the group is officially nonpartisan, it labels itself as “progressive” and avoids criticism of liberal organizations in its publications. The group operates the publication PR Watch and a related Wiki-platform SourceWatch, which present the group’s hostile view of free-market organizations.

    CMD takes significant sums of money for its work from left-wing foundations, and has even received a half-million dollar donation from one of the country’s largest donor-advised funds—all the while criticizing pro-business or free-market advocacy groups who also use donor advised funds or rely on foundation support.

    Left leaning groups are notably absent from negative mention in PR Watch and SourceWatch. While SourceWatch maintains a “tobacco portal” dedicated to exposing links between free-market groups and the tobacco industry, the site neglects to include the thousands of dollars given by the tobacco industry to many labor-affiliated advocacy organizations.

    Despite this history of far-left advocacy and funding, media sources often mistakenly cite CMD and its SourceWatch website as independent watchdog organizations.


    Thus, you continue to use confirmation bias as evidence.

    Note - You haven't addressed any of the science facts about climate change which I have previously presented but instead you continually used diversionary tactics by discussing word definitions.


    piloteerZeusAres42
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 554 Pts
    edited June 15
    Akhenaten said:
    @ZeusAres42

    Thus, you continue to use confirmation bias as evidence.

    Note - You haven't addressed any of the science facts about climate change which I have previously presented but instead you continually used diversionary tactics by discussing word definitions.

    For the benefit of other readers, you will notice that all I did in my previous post was point out how Akhenaten's sources were unreliable. I also pointed out some of the examples of misinformation from the highly politically motived source that Akhenaten never addressed in his most recent post; these examples can be found here: https://skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Quadrant&x=0&y=0

    Secondly, Akhenaten has not provided any reliable scientific evidence that refutes the scientific consensus of AGW; all he has done is mainly just make wild climes that lack any level of evidential support as well as being a reflection of black and white thinking such as in another climate change debate:
    Akhenaten said:

    Climate change is a total nonsense. It is just a political game which is played by communist governments that want to disrupt and damage the capitalist society.

    Furthermore, the first post by Akhenaten included another unreliable source that consisted of a website called https://wattsupwiththat.com; a blogging website created by a man called Anthony Watts who also lacks any valid credentials in climate change science.https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts#Credentials

    Also, most recently Akhenaten again came up with another absurd argument about SourceWatch being a leftist source and therefore his implied conclusion is that they must be somewhat wrong about what they say. Anyway, if you want, you can also search further and validate if SourceWatch is right or not about they said about the quadrant. Skeptical Science, for instance, proves the unreliability even more with credible scientific information via credible scientists. 

    Lastly, going back to wattsupwiththat.com and misinformation provided by them versus what the actual science says can be found here: https://skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=wattsupwiththat.com&x=0&y=0

    As you can see, there are many of them, and all of them refuted. Plus, the refutations are by credible scientists and all have a high level of evidential support backing those refutations.


    Now, I wonder but highly doubt that Akhenaten can provide any credible scientific information with a high degree of evidential support backing the absurd notion that AGW is a far-left political movement and that it has been substantially disproven.

    I am not confirming anything by the way but I am most definitely not going to accept something from unreliable sources; give me actual credible scientific sources and then we might get somewhere.

    Tip for Akhenaten: When you can acknowledge your wrong about something you're a step closer to the truth.






    piloteer

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 554 Pts
    edited June 15
    Akhenaten said:
    @ZeusAres42

    Thus, you continue to use confirmation bias as evidence.

    Note - You haven't addressed any of the science facts about climate change which I have previously presented but instead you continually used diversionary tactics by discussing word definitions.

    For the benefit of other readers, you will notice that all I did in my previous post was point out how Akhenaten's sources were unreliable. I also pointed out some of the examples of misinformation from the highly politically motived source that Akhenaten never addressed in his most recent post; these examples can be found here: https://skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Quadrant&x=0&y=0


    Secondly, Akhenaten has not provided any reliable scientific evidence that refutes the scientific consensus of AGW; all he has done is mainly just make wild climes that lack any level of evidential support as well as being a reflection of black and white thinking such as in another climate change debate:
    Akhenaten said:

    Climate change is a total nonsense. It is just a political game which is played by communist governments that want to disrupt and damage the capitalist society.

    Furthermore, the first post by Akhenaten included another unreliable source that consisted of a website called https://wattsupwiththat.com; a blogging website created by a man called Anthony Watts who also lacks any valid credentials in climate change science. https://www.sourcewatch.org
    /index.php?title=Anthony_Watts#Credentials

    Also, most recently Akhenaten again came up with another absurd argument about SourceWatch being a leftist source and therefore his implied conclusion is that they must be somewhat wrong about what they say. Anyway, if you want, you can also search further and validate if SourceWatch is right or not about they said about the quadrant. Skeptical Science, for instance, proves the unreliability even more with credible scientific information via credible scientists. 

    Lastly, going back to wattsupwiththat.com and misinformation provided by them versus what the actual science says can be found in the following here: https://skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=wattsupwiththat.com&x=0&y=0

    As you can see, there are many of them, and all of them refuted. Plus, the refutations are by credible scientists and all have a high level of evidential support backing those refutations.


    Now, I wonder but highly doubt that Akhenaten can provide any credible scientific information with a high degree of evidential support backing the absurd notion that AGW is a far-left political movement and that it has been substantially disproven.

    I am not confirming anything by the way but I am most definitely not going to accept something from unreliable sources; give me actual credible scientific sources and then we might get somewhere.

    Tip for Akhenaten: When you can acknowledge your wrong about something you're a step closer to the truth.


    piloteer

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • Akhenaten said:
    @ZeusAres42

    Thus, you continue to use confirmation bias as evidence.

    Note - You haven't addressed any of the science facts about climate change which I have previously presented but instead you continually used diversionary tactics by discussing word definitions.

    For the benefit of other readers, you will notice that all I did in my previous post was point out how Akhenaten's sources were unreliable. I also pointed out some of the examples of misinformation from the highly politically motived source that Akhenaten never addressed in his most recent post; these examples can be found here: https://skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Quadrant&x=0&y=0


    Secondly, Akhenaten has not provided any reliable scientific evidence that refutes the scientific consensus of AGW; all he has done is mainly just make wild climes that lack any level of evidential support as well as being a reflection of black and white thinking such as in another climate change debate:
    Akhenaten said:

    Climate change is a total nonsense. It is just a political game which is played by communist governments that want to disrupt and damage the capitalist society.

    Furthermore, the first post by Akhenaten included another unreliable source that consisted of a website called https://wattsupwiththat.com; a blogging website created by a man called Anthony Watts who also lacks any valid credentials in climate change science. https://www.sourcewatch.org
    /index.php?title=Anthony_Watts#Credentials

    Also, most recently Akhenaten again came up with another absurd argument about SourceWatch being a leftist source and therefore his implied conclusion is that they must be somewhat wrong about what they say. Anyway, if you want, you can also search further and validate if SourceWatch is right or not about they said about the quadrant. Skeptical Science, for instance, proves the unreliability even more with credible scientific information via credible scientists. 

    Lastly, going back to wattsupwiththat.com and misinformation provided by them versus what the actual science says can be found in the following here: https://skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=wattsupwiththat.com&x=0&y=0

    As you can see, there are many of them, and all of them refuted. Plus, the refutations are by credible scientists and all have a high level of evidential support backing those refutations.


    Now, I wonder but highly doubt that Akhenaten can provide any credible scientific information with a high degree of evidential support backing the absurd notion that AGW is a far-left political movement and that it has been substantially disproven.

    I am not confirming anything by the way but I am most definitely not going to accept something from unreliable sources; give me actual credible scientific sources and then we might get somewhere.

    Tip for Akhenaten: When you can acknowledge your wrong about something you're a step closer to the truth.
    piloteer

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • piloteerpiloteer 478 Pts
    edited June 16
    CYDdharta 

     Wow. I guess we've all just been blown away by your deep and profound MISunderstanding of the scientific method. If Ioannidis isn't talking about verified scientific proof, which you admit is true, he must be talking about scientific claims that haven't been verified at all. If that's the case, you might want to get busy trying to debunk the scientific PROOF (not claims) that can be verified with various manners of testing that global warming is caused by humans, because Ioannidis isn't doing that in the study you posted.https://climate.nasa.gov
    ZeusAres42
  • piloteerpiloteer 478 Pts
    edited June 16
    Akhenaten said:
    @piloteer

    Let's just forget about using references. One can dismiss climate change simply on logic basis because It doesn't make sense. The earth is not a greenhouse, it's a thermostat. This alone, shows the illogical nature of the research papers that you present as "evidence".
    Can you prove that the Earth is not a thermostat equivalent model?
    You state that 1/3 of the science is wrong. Thus, if the standard deviation of climate is less than plus or minus one percent then one can not take the science seriously. Let's see one percent change minus 33.3 equals 32.3 percent error rate. This is unacceptable even by your own warped standards.
    If you're not using references for your claim that the earth is a thermostat, does that mean you just came up with the idea yourself?!?! Your graphs that you posted are from a tv meteorologist named Anthony Watts, who fully admits he "is not a degreed climate scientist". 
     




    https://skepticalscience.com/does-greenhouse-effect-exist.htm


    ZeusAres42
  • AkhenatenAkhenaten 106 Pts
    edited June 16
    @piloteer

    Oh yeah, that Carl Sagan guy. lol. The same person who thinks that the universe has an invisible 4th dimension called a tesseract. It's the best comedy show in science.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0WjV6MmCyM&t=30s

    Note - This is a debate. You have to prove that the Earth is not a thermostat in order to win. You haven't even begun to do that because you have no idea of what a debate really is.

    Note  - Anthony Watts is just posting information that other scientists have produced. The graphs are not his graphs. Thus, your argument is just childish nonsense.

    Delirious climate change hysteria - Threats to humanity that didn't come true.

    The Claim: 50 million climate refugees will be produced by climate change by the year 2010. Especially hard hit will be river delta areas, and low lying islands in the Caribbean and Pacific. The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said:  …it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.

    The Test: Did population go down in these areas during that period, indicating climate refugees were on the move? The answer, no.

    The Proof: Population actually gained in some Caribbean Island for which 2010 census figures were available. Then when challenged on these figures, the UN tried to hide the original claim from view. See: The UN “disappears” 50 million climate refugees, then botches the disappearing attempt

    The Change in claim: Now it is claimed that it will be 10 years into the future, and there will be 50 million refugees by the year 2020.


    lololololololololo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yeah, sure thing, climate change experts!!!!!!!!!

  • AkhenatenAkhenaten 106 Pts
    @ZeusAres42 ;

    Quote -  Now, I wonder but highly doubt that Akhenaten can provide any credible scientific information with a high degree of evidential support backing the absurd notion that AGW is a far-left political movement and that it has been substantially disproven. 

    Reply -  I just did supply this information but you have ignored it. Activist facts website.

    https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/12-center-for-media-democracy/

    Thus, your sources are highly biased and are funded by left-wing organisations.


  • John_C_87John_C_87 209 Pts
    @piloteer ;

    The only issue is a green houses is not in a constant state of motion they are fixed on the ground in relationship to field of gravity they rest in. Science is expected to produce a mathematic proof not a legal proof to the effects of change in temperature this moves a theory to a state of truth.

    “ For all carbon dioxide there exist the creation of heat.”

    Carbon dioxide is 60% denser than dry air

    Density of air at sea level. 1.25 kg/m^3

    Density of ocean water at surface level 1027 kg/m^3

    Density of Carbon dioxide 1.977 kg/m^3

    https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/EdwardLaValley.shtml

    https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-density-specific-weight-d_600.html

    https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/RachelChu.shtml

    The mathematics do not point to Carbon dioxide as the creation of manipulation. While the use of the solar orbit, year a measurement of time for understanding global history like we might use a clock for calculation of distance traveled on Earth is incorrect. Then mathematic principle in comparing any motion in controlled travel to a year is improper, incorrect, and subject to error for documenting history as a stable reliable source.


  • John_C_87John_C_87 209 Pts
    @piloteer ;

    Basically this is saying. Then mathematic principle in comparing any motion in controlled travel to a year is improper, incorrect, and subject to error for documenting history as a stable reliable source. We have no way of understanding a long term history of Carbon dioxide mathematically in Earths history. Writing a law of gravity has a mathematic proof. For all motion of gravity there exists modulation, elasticity, and reverberation. Thought the calculations are complex they are fixed in a principle of mathematics. Truth; heat is directly effected by motion and gravity.
  • Akhenaten said:
    @ZeusAres42 ;

    Quote -  Now, I wonder but highly doubt that Akhenaten can provide any credible scientific information with a high degree of evidential support backing the absurd notion that AGW is a far-left political movement and that it has been substantially disproven. 

    Reply -  I just did supply this information but you have ignored it. Activist facts website.

    https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/12-center-for-media-democracy/

    Thus, your sources are highly biased and are funded by left-wing organisations.


    Read closely. I don't want information about sources now. This is what I said:

    "Now, I wonder but highly doubt that Akhenaten can provide any credible scientific information with a high degree of evidential support backing the absurd notion that AGW is a far-left political movement and that it has been substantially disproven."


    you've just provided a source explaining something about CMD; absolutely nothing to do with the science of AGW. 

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • piloteerpiloteer 478 Pts
    edited June 16
    @Akhenaten

    Since when did I have to prove the earth is not a waffle maker, or thermostat, or whatever you said, to win? YOU claimed the earth is a thermostat. Go ahead with demonstrating!!! And also, if Anthony Watts is interpreting data without proper credentials, why is anybody even listening to him?
  • John_C_87John_C_87 209 Pts
    @ZeusAres42 ;

    A mathematic proof does not match the Science theory. This is an example of algebra fixed equation.
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 554 Pts
    edited June 16

    Can you explain the relevance of what you've just said in your last response at me? Or to put it another way, what exactly do you mean by "A mathematic proof does not match the Science theory. This is an example of algebra fixed equation." and what relevance has it got to do with this debate on climate change?


    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch