homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:06 pm
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 31, 2014 9:45 am 
Offline
Evil Democrat
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:23 am
Posts: 3334
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Advancing the gay agenda
I promise I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm actually genuinely curious. Those who deny the existence of climate change-why do you do so? I will attempt to respond to any posts with inquisitory questions as much as possible.

For clarification, here is what is defined as anthropogenic climate change (sourced):
1. The Earth's atmosphere keeps the planet much warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.
2. The main gases which contribute to this are carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor. Collectively these are called greenhouse gases.
3. The ability of these gases to act as greenhouse gases can be shown in a laboratory.
4. The quantity of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution, and their concentration continues to do so.
5. The concentration of these gases has increased as a consequence of human activity.
6. The temperature of Earth's atmosphere has been increasing and continues to increase.
7. The increase in global temperature correlates with the increases of greenhouse gases.
8. The increase in temperature has been caused by the increase in greenhouse gases

In my experience, denialism happens at step 8. Which step do you disagree with and why? What would convince you otherwise? Are the National Academy of Sciences, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, the Environmental Protection Agency, the The Royal Society of the UK, and the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society all wrong?

[psa: If your reasoning is solely the email controversy from awhile back, I would implore you to click this text to learn of the many investigative committees that determined no fraud was taking place. This is the one reason I can't really give any credence to, so I don't think it's really important to discuss in this thread, unless you have evidence not addressed by these reports]
copypaste from wiki:

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.[17] However, the reports urged the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future, and to regain public confidence following this media storm, with "more efforts than ever to make available all their supporting data - right down to the computer codes they use - to allow their findings to be properly verified". Climate scientists and organisations pledged to improve scientific research and collaboration with other researchers by improving data management and opening up access to data, and to honour any freedom of information requests that relate to climate science.[16]

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
On 22 January 2010, the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee announced it would conduct an inquiry into the affair, examining the implications of the disclosure for the integrity of scientific research, reviewing the scope of the independent Muir Russell review announced by the UEA, and reviewing the independence of international climate data sets.[86] The committee invited written submissions from interested parties, and published 55 submissions that it had received by 10 February. They included submissions from the University of East Anglia, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Met Office, several other professional bodies, prominent scientists, some climate change sceptics, several MEPs and other interested parties.[87] An oral evidence session was held on 1 March 2010.[88]

The Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry reported on 31 March 2010 that it had found that "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact". The emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity". The MPs had seen no evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process.[89]

The committee criticised a "culture of non-disclosure at CRU" and a general lack of transparency in climate science where scientific papers had usually not included all the data and code used in reconstructions. It said that "even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified." The report added that "scientists could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by aggressively publishing all their data instead of worrying about how to stonewall their critics." The committee criticised the university for the way that freedom of information requests were handled, and for failing to give adequate support to the scientists to deal with such requests.[90]

The committee chairman Phil Willis said that the "standard practice" in climate science generally of not routinely releasing all raw data and computer codes "needs to change and it needs to change quickly". Jones had admitted sending "awful emails"; Willis commented that "[Jones] probably wishes that emails were never invented," but "apart from that we do believe that Prof. Jones has in many ways been scapegoated as a result of what really was a frustration on his part that people were asking for information purely to undermine his research."[34] In Willis' view this did not excuse any failure to deal properly with FOI Act requests, but the committee accepted that Jones had released all the data that he could.[34] It stated: "There is no reason why Professor Jones should not resume his post. He was certainly not co-operative with those seeking to get data, but that was true of all the climate scientists".[91]

The committee was careful to point out that its report had been written after a single day of oral testimony and would not be as in-depth as other inquiries.[89]

Science Assessment Panel
The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel was published on 14 April 2010 and concluded that the panel had seen "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit." It found that the CRU's work had been "carried out with integrity" and had used "fair and satisfactory" methods. The CRU was found to be "objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda." Instead, "their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible."[62]

The panel commented that it was "very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians." It found that although the CRU had not made inappropriate use of statistical methods, some of the methods used may not have been the best for the purpose, though it said that "it is not clear, however, that better methods would have produced significantly different results." It suggested that the CRU could have done more to document and archive its work, data and algorithms and stated that the scientists were "ill prepared" for the amount of public attention generated by their work, commenting that "as with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal." The media and other scientific organisations were criticised for having "sometimes neglected" to reflect the uncertainties, doubts and assumptions of the work done by the CRU. The UK Government's policy of charging for access to scientific data was described as "inconsistent with policies of open access to data promoted elsewhere." The panel was also stated that "Although we deplore the tone of much of the criticism that has been directed at CRU, we believe that this questioning of the methods and data used in dendroclimatology will ultimately have a beneficial effect and improve working practices." It found that some of the criticism had been "selective and uncharitable" and critics had displayed "a lack of awareness" of the difficulties of research in this area.[62]

Speaking at a press conference to announce the report, the panel's chair, Lord Oxburgh, stated that his team had found "absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever" and that "whatever was said in the emails, the basic science seems to have been done fairly and properly." He said that many of the criticisms and allegations of scientific misconduct had been made by people "who do not like the implications of some of the conclusions" reached by the CRU's scientists. He said that the repeated FOI requests made by climate change sceptic Steve McIntyre and others could have amounted to a campaign of harassment, and the issue of how FOI laws should be applied in an academic context remained unresolved.[92] Another panel member, Professor David Hand, commended the CRU for being explicit about the inherent uncertainties in its research data, commenting that "there is no evidence of anything underhand – the opposite, if anything, they have brought out into the open the uncertainties with what they are dealing with."[93]

At the press conference, Hand also commented on the well publicised 1998 paper produced in the United States by scientists led by Michael E. Mann, saying that the hockey stick graph it showed was a genuine effect, but he had an "uneasy feeling" about the use of "inappropriate statistical tools" and said that the 1998 study had exaggerated the effect. He commended McIntyre for pointing out this issue. Mann subsequently told The Guardian that the study had been examined and approved in the US National Academies of Science North Report, and described Hand's comment as a "rogue opinion" not meriting "much attention or credence".[92]

The UEA's vice-chancellor, Edward Acton, welcomed the panel's findings. Describing its report as "hugely positive", he stated that "it is especially important that, despite a deluge of allegations and smears against the CRU, this independent group of utterly reputable scientists have concluded that there was no evidence of any scientific malpractice."[94] He criticised the way that the emails had been misrepresented, saying that "UEA has already put on record its deep regret and anger that the theft of emails from the University, and the blatant misrepresentation of their contents as revealed both in this report and the previous one by the Science and Technology Select Committee, damaged the reputation of UK climate science."[95] The UEA issued a statement in which it accepted that "things might have been done better." It said that improvements had already been undertaken by the CRU and others in the climate science community and that the University would "continue to ensure that these imperatives are maintained."[96]

It later emerged that the Science Assessment Panel was not assessing the quality but instead the integrity of the CRU's science. Phil Willis described this a "sleight of hand" and was not what the Parliamentary Committee he had chaired had been led to believe. There were also questions about the selection of publications examined by the panel.[97] Lord Oxburgh said that Acton had been wrong to tell the Science and Technology Select Committee in March that his inquiry would look into the science itself. "I think that was inaccurate," Oxburgh said. "This had to be done rapidly. This was their concern. They really wanted something within a month. There was no way our panel could evaluate the science."[98]

Pennsylvania State University
Pennsylvania State University announced in December 2009 it would review the work of Michael E. Mann, in particular looking at anything that had not already been addressed in the earlier review by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences which had found some faults with his methodology but agreed with the results.[99][100][101] In response, Mann said he would welcome the review.[101] The inquiry committee determined on 3 February 2010 that there was no credible evidence Mann suppressed or falsified data, destroyed emails, information and/or data related to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, or misused privileged or confidential information. The committee did not make a definitive finding on the final point of inquiry — "whether Dr. Mann seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities". The committee said that the earlier NAS inquiry had found "that Dr. Mann’s science did fall well within the bounds of accepted practice", but in light of the newly available information this question of conduct was to be investigated by a second panel of five prominent Penn State scientists from other scientific disciplines.[35][102]

The second Investigatory Committee reported on 4 June 2010 that it had "determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community." Regarding his sharing unpublished manuscripts with colleagues on the assumption of implied consent, it considered such sharing to be "careless and inappropriate" without following the best practice of getting express consent from the authors in advance, though expert opinion on this varied. It said that his success in proposing research and obtaining funding for it, commenting that this "clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research." Mann's extensive recognitions within the research community demonstrated that "his scientific work, especially the conduct of his research, has from the beginning of his career been judged to be outstanding by a broad spectrum of scientists." It agreed unanimously that "there is no substance" to the allegations against Mann.[103][104]

Mann said he regretted not objecting to a suggestion from Jones in a 29 May 2008 message that he destroy emails. "I wish in retrospect I had told him, 'Hey, you shouldn't even be thinking about this,'" Mann said in March 2010. "I didn't think it was an appropriate request." Mann's response to Jones at the time was that he would pass on the request to another scientist. "The important thing is, I didn't delete any emails. And I don't think [Jones] did either."[105]

Independent Climate Change Email Review

First announced in December 2009, a British investigation commissioned by the UEA and chaired by Sir Muir Russell, published its final report in July 2010.[106] The commission cleared the scientists and dismissed allegations that they manipulated their data. The "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were found not to be in doubt.[107] The panel found that they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, and that the key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher.[108]

The panel did rebuke the CRU for their reluctance to release computer files, and found that a graph produced in 1999 was "misleading," though not deliberately so as necessary caveats had been included in the accompanying text.[109] It found evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them, though the panel did not ask anyone at CRU whether they had actually done this.[110]

At the conclusion of the inquiry, Jones was reinstated with the newly created post of Director of Research.[107][108][111]

United States Environmental Protection Agency report
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had issued an "endangerment finding" in 2009 in preparation for climate regulations on excessive greenhouse gases. Petitions to reconsider this were raised by the states of Virginia and Texas, conservative activists and business groups including the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the coal company Peabody Energy, making claims that the CRU emails undermined the science.[112]

The EPA examined every email and concluded that there was no merit to the claims in the petitions, which "routinely misunderstood the scientific issues", reached "faulty scientific conclusions", "resorted to hyperbole", and "often cherry-pick language that creates the suggestion or appearance of impropriety, without looking deeper into the issues."[113] In a statement issued on 29 July 2010, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said the petitions were based "on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy" and provided "no evidence to undermine our determination. Excess greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and welfare."[114]

The EPA issued a detailed report on issues raised by petitioners and responses, together with a fact sheet,[115] and a "myths versus facts" page stating that "Petitioners say that emails disclosed from CRU provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data. The media coverage after the emails were released was based on email statements quoted out of context and on unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy. The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised. EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results."[116]

Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce
In May 2010 Senator Jim Inhofe requested the Inspector General of the United States Department of Commerce to conduct an independent review of how the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) had dealt with the emails, and whether the emails showed any wrongdoing.[117] The report, issued on 18 February 2011,[118] cleared the researchers and "did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures". It noted that NOAA reviewed its climate change data as standard procedure, not in response to the controversy. One email included a cartoon image showing Infofe and others marooned on a melting ice floe, NOAA had taken this up as a conduct issue. In response to questions raised, NOAA stated that its scientists had followed legal advice on FOIA requests for information which belonged to the IPCC and was made available by that panel. In two instances funding had been awarded to CRU,[117] NOAA stated that it was reviewing these cases and so far understood that the funds supported climate forecasting workshops in 2002 and 2003 assisting the governments of three countries.[119]

National Science Foundation
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the National Science Foundation closed an investigation on 15 August 2011 that exonerated Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University of charges of scientific misconduct.[120] It found no evidence of research misconduct, and confirmed the results of earlier inquiries.[121] The OIG reviewed the findings of the July 2010 Penn State panel, took further evidence from the university and Mann, and interviewed Mann. The OIP findings confirmed the university panel's conclusions which cleared Mann of any wrongdoing, and it stated "Lacking any evidence of research misconduct, as defined under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, we are closing the investigation with no further action."[122]

_________________
josephsamelson.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 31, 2014 12:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
A. Well there's a whole bunch of Phytoplankton hanging out in the water fixing our pollution.
B. Last winter was pretty cold. Even this summer (in Florida) wasn't all that hot.
C. Humans (at least right now) don't emit enough greenhouse gasses to even scratch the surface.

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 31, 2014 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 651
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
First off, no one is going to read all 8 of those links, jussayin.

Secondly, we (ie. conservatives) don't say that temperatures aren't changing or that "climate change" doesn't happen, we just make the argument that it A) won't last, B) isn't caused by humans, and C) isn't significant enough for us to dramatically change our policies.

Furthermore, Antarctica wasn't always under Ice as we can see from the Piri Reis map where a Turkish cartographer accurately mapped the land form in the 15- or 1600s before Antarctica had been generally discovered and (the kicker) before it was covered with Ice. Therefore, the earth does have it's warm spells (even before the industrial revolution) and it didn't hurt us that much.

I don't know your opinion on God, but many Christians hold to the belief that God created a universe that can correct itself.

Also, its hard to take those who proclaim climate change seriously when they are voicing their opinions that the world will be a frying pan in 10 years.

Also, don't confuse our arguments with the idea that we support pollution. The US has significantly cleaned up it's air by introducing helpful regulations. However, more recently these regulations are doing more to harm our economy then to improve the perceived threat of "climate change."

Furthermore, the term "denialism" and "denialist" for describing those who hold contrary beliefs (based upon evidence I might add) is derogatory and does nothing to improve the quality of this post.

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 31, 2014 2:47 pm 
Offline
Evil Democrat
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:23 am
Posts: 3334
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Advancing the gay agenda
Hammy wrote:
A. Well there's a whole bunch of Phytoplankton hanging out in the water fixing our pollution.
That's really interesting. Do you have a source saying that the phytoplankton effect is enough to reverse or even diminish the effect though? I know there are lots of plankton but I don't know if there are that many ;)
Quote:
B. Last winter was pretty cold. Even this summer (in Florida) wasn't all that hot.
My mistake on clarifying: myself/scientists talking about global temperatures, not local, fluctuating, US ones. Also it would be remiss to fail to link the relevant xkcd.
Quote:
C. Humans (at least right now) don't emit enough greenhouse gasses to even scratch the surface.

Is this conclusion found in data?
Quote:
First off, no one is going to read all 8 of those links, jussayin.

Not with that attitude! (Seriously, I just put them there to avoid the claim that I was pulling that stuff out of my [censored] and so anyone can verify my sources if they desire).
Quote:
Secondly, we (ie. conservatives) don't say that temperatures aren't changing or that "climate change" doesn't happen, we just make the argument that it A) won't last, B) isn't caused by humans, and C) isn't significant enough for us to dramatically change our policies.

I guess I tried to cover this in OP. Are your arguments supported by data?
Quote:
Furthermore, Antarctica wasn't always under Ice as we can see from the Piri Reis map where a Turkish cartographer accurately mapped the land form in the 15- or 1600s before Antarctica had been generally discovered and (the kicker) before it was covered with Ice. Therefore, the earth does have it's warm spells (even before the industrial revolution) and it didn't hurt us that much.
Most scientists would rebut your arguments by saying that previous cycles destroyed a great deal of life on the planet. It might not have been particularly deadly because humans did not have as much infrastructure on the coast, but that doesn't mean it won't be deadly now.
Quote:
I don't know your opinion on God, but many Christians hold to the belief that God created a universe that can correct itself.

I'm a Christian, but I think this is a terrible philosophy to hold. The world is fallen, you wouldn't murder someone saying that God will just immediately correct it, would you?
Quote:
Also, its hard to take those who proclaim climate change seriously when they are voicing their opinions that the world will be a frying pan in 10 years.

Al Gore is an anomaly. Do you have any reason to equate his arguments to the dat apublished by the eight internationally-recognized independent agencies that I listed in the op?
Quote:
Also, don't confuse our arguments with the idea that we support pollution. The US has significantly cleaned up it's air by introducing helpful regulations. However, more recently these regulations are doing more to harm our economy then to improve the perceived threat of "climate change."
I agree the regulations are not doing enough to alleviate climate change.
Quote:
Furthermore, the term "denialism" and "denialist" for describing those who hold contrary beliefs (based upon evidence I might add) is derogatory and does nothing to improve the quality of this post.
Is it possible to see the evidence against global temperature decline that you hold your belief to? I would very much like to see it I did not mean to offend by using "denialism," it just appears that way when 97% of scientists follow a similar conclusion and individuals refuse to concur.

_________________
josephsamelson.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 31, 2014 3:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
Hyper Static Union wrote:
I'm a Christian, but I think this is a terrible philosophy to hold. The world is fallen, you wouldn't murder someone saying that God will just immediately correct it, would you?

Well if I may point out God did say in Genesis 8: 22 that "While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease." And if you are a Christian then perhaps you can appreciate the weight that God's promises hold. I mean, I'm just throwing that out there.

Hyper Static Union wrote:
That's really interesting. Do you have a source saying that the phytoplankton effect is enough to reverse or even diminish the effect though? I know there are lots of plankton but I don't know if there are that many ;)

Hyper Static Union wrote:
Is this conclusion found in data?

May I ask you a few of the same questions. I briefly perused the articles that you posted that would be relevant to this and I didn't see a whole lot of data on both sides of the issue. Meaning in order for the sources to be objective they should consider both sides of the coin, natural greenhouse/co2 emissions and man-made greenhouse/co2 emissions. All I saw were a bunch of statistics about the emissions of humans and how much fossil fuels that they burn and absolutely nothing about the natural output of the earth. I think that I agree with you to a certain degree that a ton of extra co2 emissions (I think that's what the general consensus has been) can play some role in increasing temperature (to a certain degree), but what I'm not sure about is if this is of any significant consequence to us. I'm sure that you know what power-tagging and exaggeration is. It makes it so hard to tell what statistics are saying when they're bloated by either environmentalists or trashinests(?), as I'm sure exaggeration happens on both sides. But anyway, my point is that in said articles I'm seeing no weighing mechanism or method to determine that human out put of greenhouse gasses poses any real danger to the climate.

Edit: Also, is the philosophy of whichever causes less harm. As far as while greenhouse gasses could increase temperatures, the effect of humans is so small that the vast effect of humans not emitting greenhouse gasses by far outweigh the climatic worries. The generic example is of the cholera outbreak in Peru in 1992. It happened right after Peru placed major cuts on drinking water being chlorinated due to studies that showed the slightest connection between chlorine and liver cancer. As a result, over 10,000 people died from cholera that resulted from drinking the water that wasn't purified by chlorine. While there was the slightest risk of liver cancer, the problems of drinking non-chlorinated water far outweighed the issues with cancer. The same principle needs to be kept in mind when dealing with the environment.

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 31, 2014 4:34 pm 
Offline
Evil Democrat
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:23 am
Posts: 3334
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Advancing the gay agenda
I'm on mobile because I'm driving to Tampa today so I'll get to the latter part of your post late tonight. but re: genesis, 1. that passage is metaphorical, billions of years from now out sun will go out, that's just a reality. 2. global warming will not cause day and night to cease ;)

_________________
josephsamelson.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 31, 2014 4:49 pm 
Offline
Evil Democrat
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:23 am
Posts: 3334
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Advancing the gay agenda
The genesis conversation should really be another thread though imho

_________________
josephsamelson.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 31, 2014 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
Hyper Static Union wrote:
I'm on mobile because I'm driving to Tampa today so I'll get to the latter part of your post late tonight. but re: genesis, 1. that passage is metaphorical, billions of years from now out sun will go out, that's just a reality. 2. global warming will not cause day and night to cease ;)

1. To a certain degree, yes, but on the other hand I feel that in conjunction with this promise Jesus will return before the sun goes out. The sun going out would utterly destroy any sort of life on the earth and that would contradict not only verse 22 but also 21 right above it. 2. While that's true, global warming to the degree that environmentalist push it would really screw up all the seasons and temperatures far beyond what is allowed for in that verse. ;)

Hyper Static Union wrote:
The genesis conversation should really be another thread though imho

Eh, probably not because it's crucial when looking at climate change from a Christian perspective.

I also feel like this is appropriate.
Image

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 31, 2014 7:42 pm 
Offline
Is now cool
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 3495
Home Schooled: Yes
Hammy wrote:
[
1. To a certain degree, yes, but on the other hand I feel that in conjunction with this promise Jesus will return before the sun goes out. The sun going out would utterly destroy any sort of life on the earth and that would contradict not only verse 22 but also 21 right above it. 2. While that's true, global warming to the degree that environmentalist push it would really screw up all the seasons and temperatures far beyond what is allowed for in that verse. ;)

But the Ice Age happened?

Masked Midnight wrote:
To answer the thread title's question (in part): The IPCC alone makes me skeptical. ;)

hahaha understandably <3 But the whole year we ran that case, I believed in climate change. That's one of the biggest reasons Isaac and I never ran 'climate change doesn't exist' arguments. I even stated outright a couple times in round that I did believe that climate change was an immediate threat. The thing with the IPCC is that they change data to support whatever policies they want to push. In the past, you'll notice that the IPCC actually changed the data to *minimize* the appearance of climate change. The fraud has gone both ways in the past.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 31, 2014 7:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
+X wrote:
But the Ice Age happened?

And how did that work out specifically?

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 31, 2014 8:11 pm 
Offline
Evil Democrat
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:23 am
Posts: 3334
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Advancing the gay agenda
like I said, I'll address the statistical issue when I get back to a computer, but as for the theological issue, I intended this thread to focus primarily on scientific arguments. the theological debate is a good and important one to have but I think it might distract from the purpose of this thread.

_________________
josephsamelson.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 31, 2014 8:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
Hyper Static Union wrote:
like I said, I'll address the statistical issue when I get back to a computer, but as for the theological issue, I intended this thread to focus primarily on scientific arguments. the theological debate is a good and important one to have but I think it might distract from the purpose of this thread.

Whereas I contend that the two go hand in hand.

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 31, 2014 9:37 pm 
Offline
Is now cool
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 3495
Home Schooled: Yes
Hammy wrote:
+X wrote:
But the Ice Age happened?

And how did that work out specifically?

Even if humans survive, I think we can all agree that we'd rather not go through another global climate disaster. I like internet and eating too much.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
+X wrote:
Hammy wrote:
+X wrote:
But the Ice Age happened?

And how did that work out specifically?

Even if humans survive, I think we can all agree that we'd rather not go through another global climate disaster. I like internet and eating too much.

Well in that case I guess we can wait for Joseph's response on exaggerations. :)

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 01, 2015 5:30 am 
Offline
Evil Democrat
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:23 am
Posts: 3334
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Advancing the gay agenda
Data link dump. I'm in a Tampa hotel with terrible internet so hopefully this goes through.

Literally any and all data on climate change is found here.
Specific Areas:
-Temp: http://www.climate.gov/news-features/un ... emperature
-CO2 Emissions: http://www.climate.gov/news-features/un ... on-dioxide
-Projections: http://www.climate.gov/news-features/un ... rojections
-MAPS: http://www.climate.gov/data/maps-and-data
-GLACIERS! http://www.wgms.ch/metadatabrowser.html
-Global footprints! http://environment.nationalgeographic.c ... 3g05t20w14
-THE ECONOMIST: Question climate policies, not climate facts
-[Pascal's] Climate Wager: http://www.henrythornton.com/article.as ... le_id=4079

There's more data, but I'd like to see yours <3
Quote:
I'd add that I haven't formed a definitive opinion either way. I don't buy "Cook's scientific consensus!", nor do I think that climate change isn't happening (it could be, maybe it's just a cycle). Frankly, I don't think its settled science. What frustrates me is the amount of corruption that takes place in federal agencies claiming to "fight" so-called AGW. //$0.02

"settled science" is an interesting perspective, Click for an image that illustrates how many national/international independent scientific agencies deny the existence of climate change.
Image

Click here for a list of national/international independent scientific agencies that do recognize the existence of climate change.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

I don't mind disagreement, but the issue is settled. Do you have any evidence to suggest to the contrary?

_________________
josephsamelson.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 01, 2015 10:26 pm 
Offline
Evil Democrat
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:23 am
Posts: 3334
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Advancing the gay agenda
Clarification: I don't deny others disagree, I'm just saying every major independent scientific international organization agrees. Obviously there are some outliers, but every organization of scientists using the data (and more) I posted earlier agrees.
Quote:
You might also recall that government agencies oftentines base conclusions on the IPCC reports (Kyoto, EPA Regulations, etc), which have been time and again shown to be flawed.
Clarification: The agencies I posted all came to their conclusions independently.
Quote:
I think our response is more important. Killing the energy industry with unrealistic "carbon emissions" goals is an awful "solution" for America; still, I believe there are ways to encourage respect for the environment without draconian federal regulations that quash markets.
I disagree, but this is a great idea for another thread. I think this goes beyond the scope of the existence of climate change.

_________________
josephsamelson.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 6:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 4:50 am
Posts: 631
Home Schooled: Yes
Here is my reasoning:

1. Carbon dioxide levels were much much higher during the ice age than they are now.
2. The temperature of Mars has risen as well, which I believe points to solar warming, if anything.
3. For as long as their have been newspapers about every 30 years we freak out about global warming, then global cooling, and repeat. The movie Soylent Green was set in a world where global warming had done major damage to the environment. Since then there has been a global cooling scare, and now we are back to global warming, and I believe in about 10 years we're going to see a global cooling scare again.
4. The Russian scientists have been warning about global cooling for the last few years.
5. I'm very suspicious of scientific consensus. Scientific consensus was in favor of eugenics, heliocentrism and terracentrism. It was for and against evolution. It was for and against spontaneous generation. At one point the leading mathematicians of the day wanted to kill people for believing in the number zero (iirc, a Greek cult involving Zeno). Much, if not most, of the major scientific discoveries have been discovered by amateurs in the field. Bicycle repairmen discovered aeronautics. A guy with a telescope in his backyard discovered comet Hale-Bopp. To sum it up, scientific consensus seems to be very fickle, and often blinds the experts to possibilities that only amateurs seriously consider.
6. I also think there's evidence that increased solar activity leads to greater cloud cover, which results in a higher albedo on earth as we reflect more of the sun's energy away, resulting in lower temperatures. When solar activity decreases it seems the earths albedo drops and we retain more of the suns energy. This might correspond to the fluctuations in global temperature.
7. The corruption at East Anglia.

_________________
Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum
With love for mankind and hatred of sins.
- St. Augustine


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 2:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 4:50 am
Posts: 631
Home Schooled: Yes
I thought some would find this of interest.

"Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/e ... -ever.html

_________________
Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum
With love for mankind and hatred of sins.
- St. Augustine


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 4:59 am 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
And here's the other side: No, Adjusting Temperature Measurements Is Not a Scandal

My impression is that the "global warming is just an artifact of data processing / urban heat island effect / etc.!" argument has gone out of fashion. We have a lot of different temperature datasets now, and they all show pretty much the same thing. (The amount of data is pretty crazy - e.g. MODIS records surface temperatures from space at 1 km resolution, over the entire planet, twice a day.)

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 2:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 651
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
I don't really want to re-ignite the debate on this thread, mostly because I find the subject a bit boring :D, but I found this recent news story interesting. Basically it says that scientists are predicting an ice age in the next fifteen years because of solar ray patterns. To me what it says is that this whole issue is a little pointless if the Sun can so radically change our environment while we worry about carbon emissions, depleting the ozone, fossil fuels, etc.

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited