The ABC's of debating AGW.

It seems there is an agenda, I know, hard to believe right? So I am reading an article and I decide to check out the author. Low and behold, I find this.

denierlist.wordpress.com...

the Climate Denier List
a list of scientists, real or imagined, pundits and loud mouths

So if you need to debate anyone about AGW, remember, 1st rule is to discredit the author or scientist who is against AGW. You know, a "denier". That is usually sufficient, but if your adversary is of the "non-brain dead" variety, you may actually have to find some scientific sounding sources.


I am still trying to sort out what I believe about this whole subject, but so far, it seems as if the argument is more about courtroom tricks then it is about science facts. And those are increasingly more difficult to find real ones.

For instance, has it, or has it not been warming since 1990? Be careful how you answer, it can go both ways.

I don't bother anymore. GW is accepted an scientific reality in damn near every developed country.....except America. It's been politicized so as nothing will be done about it(That would cots a lot of money). The pseudo-science that people point to means nothing. Talking points, barely. In fact outside the US it ISN'T a debate.

a reply to: intrepid

Good lord no. If you look at what the government is spending on it, it's obviously not being ignored.

The costs of feeding the climate-change “monster” are staggering. According to the Congressional Research Service, from 2001 to 2014 the US government spent $131 billion on projects meant to combat human-caused climate change, plus $176 billion for breaks for anti-CO2 energy initiatives.
Federal anti-climate-change spending is now running at $11 billion a year, plus tax breaks of $20 billion a year. That adds up to more than double the $14.4 billion worth of wheat produced in the United States in 2013.

link

I guess I am a day late and a dollar short. The rest of the world decided, yet the data is still read both ways. Go figure.

a reply to: network dude

I'd wager more is spent attempting to discredit GW than it is attempting to do ANYTHING about it. Just look at that article. That's not even propaganda. It's crap. WTH does Leo C3PO have to do with anything? Obfuscation.

It seems they spend more time and money "disproving" all the lopsided data than they do on just trying to prove something 100%.

An obvious agenda in the wrong direction.

a reply to: intrepid
That's not exactly true.

Besides, since when is science by consensus the scientific method?

The scientific method would demand that they (IPCC) pull their climate model and rework it from scratch.

I do not deny GW or CC... I find it funny that people seem to believe that the climate was EVER in "balance" and that it was not in the process of changing. What I do question is the effects of GHG as presented as well as the role man has/is playing.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: network dude

I'd wager more is spent attempting to discredit GW than it is attempting to do ANYTHING about it. Just look at that article. That's not even propaganda. It's crap. WTH does Leo C3PO have to do with anything? Obfuscation.

But the U.S. EPA is ready to implement all kinds of new regulations against CO2.

Government regulations cost a fortune to enforce.

I think even some other governments are going gung-ho too.

The Carbon Credit markets will save Earth.

originally posted by: bbracken677
What I do question is the effects of GHG as presented as well as the role man has/is playing.

Would you say that this could be an extinction event for mankind?

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: network dude

I'd wager more is spent attempting to discredit GW than it is attempting to do ANYTHING about it. Just look at that article. That's not even propaganda. It's crap. WTH does Leo C3PO have to do with anything? Obfuscation.

I know right? About as much as Al Gore.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: bbracken677
What I do question is the effects of GHG as presented as well as the role man has/is playing.

Would you say that this could be an extinction event for mankind?

out of curiosity, how would you answer that question?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: network dude

I'd wager more is spent attempting to discredit GW than it is attempting to do ANYTHING about it. Just look at that article. That's not even propaganda. It's crap. WTH does Leo C3PO have to do with anything? Obfuscation.

I know right? About as much as Al Gore.

Thus my point is made. It's politicized. It's made irrelevant by this. Hey, how about a good meme while this may lead to our extinction:

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: bbracken677
What I do question is the effects of GHG as presented as well as the role man has/is playing.

Would you say that this could be an extinction event for mankind?

out of curiosity, how would you answer that question?

I asked first.

originally posted by: intrepid
I don't bother anymore. GW is accepted an scientific reality in damn near every developed country.....except America.

I dont agree. I'm in the uk and just about every person I have ever spoken to agrees its a scam for the purpose of control and tax.
I'd find it quite difficult to find someone who believes.

a reply to: intrepid

If you look back into history, it seems the Earth has had lots of big changes of the climate. Somehow, we made it through. We adapted. Like if the sea level rises, there will be land that used to have big houses on it, but underwater. And other land that was desert will be beach front property. I like doom porn as much as the next guy, but I think we will survive.

( I was once in Saudi Arabia and it was HOT)

Much of Alaska was tropical at one time .Heck they tell me that there was 3 miles this of ice where I live now .It is cool today though . a reply to: network dude

a reply to: intrepid

You are aware that Arctic sea ice grew over the previous year, no? And that Antarctica ice has grown by 18% in recent years?

Al Gore misrepresented the truth in his Mockumentary. Co2 levels have been as high as 7000ppm in the past, and yet during that time the diversity of life was at a high. Not only that, but the current ice age began while co2 levels were pretty damned high, specially when you consider current levels. Co2 was at 5600ppm then, today we approach 400ppm.

When you look at previous interglacial periods all but one reached higher temp levels than what we are seeing today. The one exception was roughly about the same as we see today. We are well within the norms for an interglacial period. In actuality we are approaching the end of this interglacial.

Astronomic cycles are credited with being the major motivators of the ice cycles... not GHGs.

BTW, the first paragraph above is not indicative that we are entering a period of glaciation...merely that we do not properly understand what we are seeing to make doom pronouncements.

Fact: Doom Porn is 99.99% bovine excrement.

a reply to: intrepid

I will answer you both: No!

Ridiculous to claim so. Man has made a home of every environment on the earth and someone is going to say we will be extinct due to an increase of a few degrees centigrade? lol

The last time man almost went extinct was during the last period of glaciation. Temperatures have been much higher and yet, for some odd reason, life found it to be quite favorable.

a reply to: bbracken677

Yes and I can point to Arctic ice that's disappeared in the last decade that has been through many millions of years of heating and cooling but gone now. No one will listen. Why bother? I'll sip my rye and watch the word go bye bye. Well, not now but within 500 years.

a reply to: intrepid

lol the Arctic ice has not survived millions of years of heating and cooling.

Temperatures have reached higher levels than we see today, and yet still rapidly entered a period of glaciation.

If you wish to ignore the facts and instead come up with baloney like your arctic ice comment that is up to you.

a reply to: bbracken677

My point....Pt. 2. It's accepted science outside the US. I could quote it out my ass(Google it if you feel like the truth) but I'll not waste any more time on deaf ears.