Do you want to hear the other side of the "Climate Change" Debate?

Question

Are you tired of the irrational, "the debate is over" rhetoric from looney Leftists regarding man being responsible for Global Warming, Climate Change, or any other misanthropic, Socialist motivated cause?

https://members.humaneventsonline.com/order.php?offer=848

Bob just proved my point in his answer. He lists politically motivated quotes from people who either have a lot to lose or gain by not jumping on the politically correct climate change bandwagon.

Of course DuPont is all for people believing that Global warming is real and caused by the burning of fossil fuels. They are heavily invested in bio-based fuels and stand to make billions from this scam. You idiot Leftists becoming unpaid sales people for DuPont and other corporate and government interests that will profit from the Climate Change scare.

Answer 1

Yes I am tired. I do not mind a debate. The "debate is over" is nothing but pure propaganda. What I do not understand is how people believe everything as long as it fits the dogma.

I recently challenged someone on the notion that the 20th century is the warmest on record based on the temperature reconstruction graph of Mann et al (the famous hockey stick graph). Somebody replied that other studies confirmed his findings. My reply was that Soon and Bulianas (2003) studied over 100 temperature reconstruction studies from all over the world before and after Mann, and most of them contradicted him. His reply was that I was mislead. "Soon & Baliunas 2003 cited 144 studies, of which only 14 were global, including Mann. Eleven of the 13 other global studies supported Mann's conclusions in whole or in part. Of the 138 non-global studies cited by Soon & Baliunas, 112 supported Mann's conclusions in whole or in part. This hardly constitutes a refutation." Know most people who take the alarmist word as truth and not challenged them on it. This is what Soon and Buliunas concluded and you decide if it is a refutation:

Climate proxy research provides an aggregate, broad
perspective on questions regarding the reality of Little
Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period and the 20th century
surface thermometer global warming. The picture
emerges from many localities that both the Little Ice
Age and Medieval Warm epoch are widespread and
near-synchronous phenomena, as conceived by Bryson
et al. (1963), Lamb (1965) and numerous researchers
since. Overall, the 20th century does not contain the
warmest anomaly of the past millennium in most of the
proxy records, which have been sampled world-wide.
Past researchers implied that unusual 20th century
warming means a global human impact. However, the
proxies show that the 20th century is not unusually
warm or extreme."

We are always accused of misleading people. The real question is who is misleading who. Notice how vague his reply is "studies support Mann in whole and in part" how many in whole and how many in part; and what part.

What is more, now they are using this faulty temperature reconstruction study to show there is no correlation between sun spots and temperatures, when in fact there is an excellent one.

Answer 2

The Politically incorrect Guide to Global Warming is hardly a good source of information on climate change. The whole thing is just a rehash of the standard debunked contrarian arguments that have been around for decades. And was written by Christopher C. Horner, a director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a right wing thank tank that has previously published information claiming that cigarettes do not cause cancer. Not exactly an objective source of ubiased information, eh?

Perhaps you've read several of the other fine Politically Incorrect Guides? Such as the Politically Incorrect Guide to Feminism? Which states that women are nothing more than disposable sex objects? Or perhaps you've checked out the Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, which describes in great detail how science is nothing more than a religion and all of modern science is politically motivated (as though everything the author himself says is completely free of bias)? Come on man, you can do better than that. In fact, these books are so ridiculously... =wrong= about, well, everything scientists have taken to just calling them the 'Incorrect Guides'. Much catchier name, doncha think?

Answer 3

We've heard the other side. We hear it all the time. Global warming is caused by "natural" forces. We debunk those claims with scientific evidence, but they keep coming back. According to summaries of this book, it makes the same tired old "natural causes" argument.

The same people who recommend this book also recommend The Great Global Warming Swindle. Considering how full of misinformation and bad science that film is, you'll forgive me for not trusting the Politically Incorrect book.

Instead of citing some book which doesn't contain scientific arguments, why don't you produce some scientific, peer reviewed papers to defend your position? If you can find any, that is.

Answer 4

The earth is heating up - that is been doing it for hundreds of years. (examine your history books) there develop right into a continental ICE SHEET overlaying a extensive area of the U. S.. that's long gone. i might anticipate i think of AGW reasoning is it ought to have been all those campfires ;) Be truthful. whilst you're attempting to make money make something it particularly is sensible, and works, that human beings want. Do attempt to mislead me. theft with the help of deception continues to be theft even nevertheless you used no tension. What heats planet Earth? Hmm. – the sunlight What has photograph voltaic Cycles? Hmm. – the sunlight what's a small contributor to Carbon Dioxide interior the Air? Hmm – guy what's insignificant to planet temprature? Hmm. CO2. CO2 tiers becoming percipitate temprature declines. Does something seem backwards in this equation? AGW - you ought to have provided your lies a minimum of in a extra styimatic approach, or chosen a extra pratical villan than Carbon. i might have chosen extra advantageous spokesmen additionally R.Kennedy, A.Gore, and Liberman - what a comedian tale. Argue all you like. i'm a meat eater. i do no longer devour Air. positioned some chilly annoying info infront of me that worldwide Warming is guy-Made. Don’t positioned a team of manipulated laptop fashions in front of me. i will application too – might you like a flower? desire this helps.

Answer 5

No matter the cause, the end result is the same. Scientists know the tempature is going up; there is no debate on this. Add to this - oil depedency, dwindling resources, and long term economic costs of irrevisble climate change - and we should be doing something. The real question is why we haven't.

Answer 6

There is no real debate over climate change. The idiots who argue on both sides don't know anything about the issue. The truth of most matters lies not with either side, but somewhere in the middle.

Answer 7

I do believe that the CC things has become a political tools too. It is just to much abberant to see such collusions between "scientists" and governments, and its kind of very unusual to see it happen. Of course, I can't deny CC is not occuring, it does, but WE can't do anything to avoid it as its an all natural process (no details here its way too long), so the fact that our politicians are trying to make us believes that we can do something to avoid it, is truly unbelievable. So I guess that it may have something to do with a larger plan or objective. It will not be surprising at all, since we all know that our political representatives are not listening to the people anymore, they are looking at something else... I ask myself, what is the thing that look so scary to them??

Answer 8

Thanks but I have known that for a long time. I did work with gas detectors but I am getting old and forget some things. I am looking for some one that has a calibrated CO2 detector. To measure what the level is. They are saying over 300 ppm. I did ware a CO2 detector that alarmed at 2 ppm. Is it all hype and lies because they think we use more than our share of fossil fuels. Nature has the water cycle ,and the plants recycle our air and remove tha CO2.There is another cycle that no one seams to under stand of fossil fuel recycling. That is where all our present fossil fuels have came from.

Answer 9

Credible sources will look professional. They will show their sponsors. They will show the associations to which they belong. They may be difficult to read and understand, even incomprehensible at times. Real science is not trivial and cannot always be reduced to a simple statement. Non-credible sources will look just like this "info-adver-propogan-tainment". No reputable references cited. No heavy scientific explanations about carbon isotopes or other methods. Just a lot of broad statements that are appealing because of their simplicity, approachability and emotional appeal. They use circular logic that never finds its way back to the basic science. They draw conclusions based on incomplete information or flawed analysis. It is easy to rationalize away or just plain ignore the crucial bit of information that changes the conclusion and invalidates your argument. They are usually spiked with emotional statements and references to conspiracies. Often it’s just a bunch of pseudo-scientific gobbledygook.

Answer 10

You are the one who started to speak about political issues. You should be able to take a response. I am tired of skeptics who make various claims and unsubstantiated evidence but never give any sources. Perhaps this is why they say that the debate is over? Because these subjects have nothing to do with science and shows a lack of support for the claims.
Oh, and calling people "idiots" won't help you receive any scientific answers.