time to create a new world scare!

[Korriken]

so, after giving some thought to the scare tactics behind global cooling, global warming, and their bastard offspring, Climate change, I thought I would go ahead and put forth the next big scare, Global Imbalancing.

you see, the import and exports of millions of tons of materials around the world to a relatively few manufacturing nations is causing a reduction of weight in some parts of the world and an increase in others. This is creating an unbalancing effect on the planet and will someday cause of to fall out of orbit.

The same way a ball with one side heavier than the other rolls, so does out planet. Up until now, the balance has been pretty good because of the enormous mass of the planet. However, as manufacturing and populations continue to grow, these imbalances keep getting worse. the more unbalanced the planet becomes, the more it begins to wobble. Too much wobble could potentially send us flying out of orbit and into the depths of space, where we would quickly freeze to death as the planet leaves the habitable zone. or barreling into the sun where we would all burn.

be afraid! be very afraid and demand the end or all import/export and support the rebalancing of the planet by shifting people and materials to the parts of the world where there is not enough weight! Look at me, I'm wearing a lab coat, which means I'm not allowed to tell lies!

ok I'm done.

[Camarohusky]

If the Moon's relatively strong gravity hasn't messed with Earth over the couple billion years it has existed, what makes you think a statistically negligible shift in mass over a very small period would have any effect?

[BoredLooney]

Can't we just scare people with aliens?

[All-American-Badass]

At 9/11/13 08:59 PM, BoredLooney wrote: Can't we just scare people with aliens?

aliens are still like 20 years away from getting here

[Korriken]

At 9/11/13 05:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote: If the Moon's relatively strong gravity hasn't messed with Earth over the couple billion years it has existed, what makes you think a statistically negligible shift in mass over a very small period would have any effect?

If a couple billions of years of volcanic activity, as well as meteor strikes and forest fires hasn't turned the earth into a smoldering wasteland, what makes you think that a statistically negligible amount of CO2 from cars and factories over a very small period would have an effect?

[SmilezRoyale]

People who subscribe to anthropogenic climate change for reasons of intellectual authoritarianism are not going to be convinced by this kind of argument. And people who subscribe to anthropogenic climate change for scientific reasons will certainly not be convinced. So I don't see what can really be accomplished here.

[Light]

At 9/11/13 11:07 PM, Korriken wrote:

If a couple billions of years of volcanic activity, as well as meteor strikes and forest fires hasn't turned the earth into a smoldering wasteland,

Why would forest fires and past volcanic activity do that?

In regards to meteor strikes, the one that likely hit the Earth 65 million years ago almost turned the Earth into a wasteland if that means anything.

what makes you think that a statistically negligible amount of CO2 from cars and factories over a very small period would have an effect?

What makes me think that? How about the opinions of 34 scientific organizations all over the world? They all acknowledge anthropogenic climate change. It is extremely likely that the phenomenon is real and caused by humans.

I'm just going to list every single one of these organizations for your benefit, since you probably think this is all a left-wing conspiracy hatched by George Soros:

American Association for the Advancement of Science

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

United States National Research Council

Royal Society of New Zealand

The Royal Society of the United Kingdom

African Academy of Sciences

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

European Science Foundation

InterAcademy Council

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

American Chemical Society

American Institute of Physics

American Physical Society

Australian Institute of Physics

European Physical Society

American Geophysical Union

American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union

Geological Society of America

Geological Society of London

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

National Association of Geoscience Teachers

American Meteorological Society

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Royal Meteorological Society (UK)

World Meteorological Organization

American Quaternary Association

International Union for Quaternary Research

American Institute of Biological Sciences

American Geological Institute

American Institute of Professional Geologists

Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences

[Tony-DarkGrave]

how about African Rabies?

10 points for anyone who gets the reference.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/11/13 11:07 PM, Korriken wrote: If a couple billions of years of volcanic activity, as well as meteor strikes and forest fires hasn't turned the earth into a smoldering wasteland, what makes you think that a statistically negligible amount of CO2 from cars and factories over a very small period would have an effect?

It actually has. The world has gone through cycles of hot and cold. It has more often been hot than cold. We're in a colder period in geological history.

Your analogy isn't pertinent, as the amount of shit we're putting into the air is comparable to a mantle plume which is a HUGE amount of shit in the air. Not the equivalent of the shifting of raw materials to the inertia and balance of Earth. A better equivalent to your unbalanced Earth would be claiming that a day of extreme flatulence (a "your breakfast refried beans were so good you had them for lunch and dinner" kind of day) would cause global warming.

[Korriken]

At 9/11/13 11:31 PM, Light wrote:

Why would forest fires and past volcanic activity do that?

because it spews millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly and has been since the Earth formed?

In regards to meteor strikes, the one that likely hit the Earth 65 million years ago almost turned the Earth into a wasteland if that means anything.

yeah, apparently the dust cloud it kicked up blocked out the sun and caused an ice age, or so they say.

What makes me think that? How about the opinions of 34 scientific organizations all over the world? They all acknowledge anthropogenic climate change. It is extremely likely that the phenomenon is real and caused by humans.

Yeah and these same scientists once said that jet contrails would lead to a new ice age.... I'm not buying that either.

[Light]

At 9/11/13 11:50 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 9/11/13 11:31 PM, Light wrote:

Why would forest fires and past volcanic activity do that?

because it spews millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly and has been since the Earth formed?

Human activity has done more. Massive deforestation and fossil fuel emissions have contributed much more to the warming of the Earth and to the destabilization of climates around the world.

It's been shown that CO2 levels began to spike around the time of the Industrial Revolution. Temperature increases followed. While correlation may not imply causation, this correlative relationship is powerful, and a causal relationship has been discovered between CO2 levels, human activity, and global warming and climate change.

In regards to meteor strikes, the one that likely hit the Earth 65 million years ago almost turned the Earth into a wasteland if that means anything.

yeah, apparently the dust cloud it kicked up blocked out the sun and caused an ice age, or so they say.

What makes me think that? How about the opinions of 34 scientific organizations all over the world? They all acknowledge anthropogenic climate change. It is extremely likely that the phenomenon is real and caused by humans.

Yeah and these same scientists once said that jet contrails would lead to a new ice age.... I'm not buying that either.

Do you have any evidence that a majority or even a small minority of the scientific community believed this at one point? I frequently hear this claim by climate-change deniers, but none have ever shown that this was a mainstream view in the scientific community rather than the discredited views of a small group of scientists; cold fusion was an example of a view held by a few scientists that was brutally shot down by the scientific community because it couldn't withstand expert scrutiny.

Sure, a few scientists saying one thing may be wrong, but when scientific consensus has been indisputably reached in the modern age, it's a little implausible to think they must be wrong, especially when you haven't actually refuted any of the claims the scientific community believes to be true.

This seems like a convenient excuse to dismiss the mountains of scientific evidence that pretty much prove that anthropogenic climate change is real. Tell me, have you actually spent a significant amount of time evaluating the research that has persuaded the global scientific community to acknowledge the existence of anthropogenic climate change? If so, how do you account for the fact that extremely large majorities of scientists all over the world have reached a different conclusion than you?

[24901miles]

Korriken, remember that little chat we had about you taking science classes in Louisiana Public Schools?

It's showing.

[Korriken]

At 9/12/13 12:48 AM, Light wrote: Human activity has done more. Massive deforestation and fossil fuel emissions have contributed much more to the warming of the Earth and to the destabilization of climates around the world.

It's been shown that CO2 levels began to spike around the time of the Industrial Revolution. Temperature increases followed. While correlation may not imply causation, this correlative relationship is powerful, and a causal relationship has been discovered between CO2 levels, human activity, and global warming and climate change.

There is also a "casual relationship" between leaving raw meat lying around and the sudden formation of maggots on the meat. 'brilliant' minds of the day thought the maggots formed directly from the raw meat. It only took til the 1800s to do away with the faulty logic.

Do you have any evidence that a majority or even a small minority of the scientific community believed this at one point? I frequently hear this claim by climate-change deniers, but none have ever shown that this was a mainstream view in the scientific community rather than the discredited views of a small group of scientists; cold fusion was an example of a view held by a few scientists that was brutally shot down by the scientific community because it couldn't withstand expert scrutiny.

Global cooling was the scare of the day back in the 70s. People went nuts in terror over the "big ice age" then they went nuts over global warming. now they just call it "climate change".

Sure, a few scientists saying one thing may be wrong, but when scientific consensus has been indisputably reached in the modern age, it's a little implausible to think they must be wrong, especially when you haven't actually refuted any of the claims the scientific community believes to be true.

Spontaneous generation was once the "consensus" of the "modern" (at the time) scientific community as well as amny other ideas we now see as debunked.

This seems like a convenient excuse to dismiss the mountains of scientific evidence that pretty much prove that anthropogenic climate change is real. Tell me, have you actually spent a significant amount of time evaluating the research that has persuaded the global scientific community to acknowledge the existence of anthropogenic climate change? If so, how do you account for the fact that extremely large majorities of scientists all over the world have reached a different conclusion than you?

The scientific community once believed in homeopathic medicine too, guess what we know doesn't work? Scientific observations can come to whatever conclusion the scientist wants. One problem science has always had was a bully problem where dissenters are mocked (or worse) for their dissent, until they're proven right anyway. You can see it happen today, with the names thrown at scientists who say man made global warming isn't real. There is a lot of pressure to conform, and many do for the sake of making money, even going so far as people wanting to name hurricanes after those who do not believe in global warming, why? to shame them into silence. There's nothing worse for a scientist than for his work to be found to be total bullshit.

the idea of "climate change" in some form or another has been thrown around for decades. First pollution caused global cooling, then global warming, then they decided to call it "climate change" because warming and cooling are FAR easier to dispute and debunk than something so vague as "change". And given that the climate has been constantly changing for millions of years, it's a smart move because you can't deny the climate changes, and there is a LOT of money in selling snake oil, especially when the symptoms are so vague that the person chugging the oil doesn't know what it's supposed to do.

At 9/12/13 06:03 AM, 24901miles wrote: Korriken, remember that little chat we had about you taking science classes in Louisiana Public Schools?

It's showing.

Uh huh. how about you go fuck yourself all the way back to the general forum where you belong.

[24901miles]

At 9/12/13 08:30 AM, Korriken wrote: Uh huh. how about you go fuck yourself all the way back to the general forum where you belong.

Sorry, I don't often find myself bored enough to correct horrendous brainfarts in Politics after I'm done laughing. All the butthurt bullshit in the world won't save face after saying gross Volcanic Emissions are comparable to the rate of pollution since the Industrial Era began.

Carbon Dioxide is over 400 PPM which is twice Pre-industrial levels and 133% peak levels from Ice Core surveys. That is a fact, it's not even disputed by climate change deniers.

[Light]

At 9/12/13 08:30 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 9/12/13 12:48 AM, Light wrote: Human activity has done more. Massive deforestation and fossil fuel emissions have contributed much more to the warming of the Earth and to the destabilization of climates around the world.

It's been shown that CO2 levels began to spike around the time of the Industrial Revolution. Temperature increases followed. While correlation may not imply causation, this correlative relationship is powerful, and a causal relationship has been discovered between CO2 levels, human activity, and global warming and climate change.

There is also a "casual relationship" between leaving raw meat lying around and the sudden formation of maggots on the meat. 'brilliant' minds of the day thought the maggots formed directly from the raw meat. It only took til the 1800s to do away with the faulty logic.

This analogy doesn't actually refute the evidence of anthropogenic climate change, so........

Do you have any evidence that a majority or even a small minority of the scientific community believed this at one point? I frequently hear this claim by climate-change deniers, but none have ever shown that this was a mainstream view in the scientific community rather than the discredited views of a small group of scientists; cold fusion was an example of a view held by a few scientists that was brutally shot down by the scientific community because it couldn't withstand expert scrutiny.

Global cooling was the scare of the day back in the 70s.

Seems to have been popular, but I'd like for you to produce official statements from scientific organizations back then that corroborate your claim that the majority of the scientific community believed this. I already did to support my case. I expect you to do so as well.

People went nuts in terror over the "big ice age" then they went nuts over global warming. now they just call it "climate change".

Well, this global warming causes anthropogenic climate change. What do you expect?

Spontaneous generation was once the "consensus" of the "modern" (at the time) scientific community as well as amny other ideas we now see as debunked.

You know damn well that the modern(Read: 21st century) scientific community has many more technological tools at its disposal that makes its assumptions far more trustworthy. Citing past instances of scientific error isn't sufficient justification to reject the evidence of anthropogenic climate change and expert opinion. You're going to have to put in more intellectual muscle than that.

This seems like a convenient excuse to dismiss the mountains of scientific evidence that pretty much prove that anthropogenic climate change is real. Tell me, have you actually spent a significant amount of time evaluating the research that has persuaded the global scientific community to acknowledge the existence of anthropogenic climate change? If so, how do you account for the fact that extremely large majorities of scientists all over the world have reached a different conclusion than you?

The scientific community once believed in homeopathic medicine too, guess what we know doesn't work?

I reiterate that this isn't sufficient justification to reject the existence of anthropogenic climate change.

Scientific observations can come to whatever conclusion the scientist wants. One problem science has always had was a bully problem where dissenters are mocked (or worse) for their dissent, until they're proven right anyway.

Yes, often, these dissenters are dismissed for irrational reasons. Their conclusions aren't attacked properly. The people positing them are. But climate change deniers who happen to be scientists have little credible evidence to justify their assumptions, so the scientific community is right to tear them apart.

One of the beauties of science is that it always progresses. If something once thought to be true isn't true, the scientific community will find out through replication of experiments and through the discoveries of discrepancies in these experiments. In regards, to climate change, the experiments have been done, the geological and climatological evidence have been collected and analyzed, and it's been determined by all major scientific bodies in the world that anthropogenic climate change is real.

You can see it happen today, with the names thrown at scientists who say man made global warming isn't real. There is a lot of pressure to conform, and many do for the sake of making money, even going so far as people wanting to name hurricanes after those who do not believe in global warming, why? to shame them into silence. There's nothing worse for a scientist than for his work to be found to be total bullshit.

To a small degree, you're right. But the scientific community wouldn't habitually abandon its assumptions if what you said were entirely true. We'd still believe bullshit "scientific theories" as creationism and the geocentric theory.

Resistance occurs, yes, but from my knowledge of the history of science, those who dissent, such as Galileo and Johannes Kepler, make significant dents in the scientific community's argument and assumptions. They make progress. I fail to see anything similar being accomplished by climate change deniers.

the idea of "climate change" in some form or another has been thrown around for decades. First pollution caused global cooling, then global warming, then they decided to call it "climate change" because warming and cooling are FAR easier to dispute and debunk than something so vague as "change".

Global warming causes climate change. The two terms are related, but not exactly interchangeable.

And frankly, there's nothing vague about climate change. Climates that once rarely experienced drought now experience it at a disturbingly routine rate. Flooding in other climates was equally rare. This is no longer so. Temperatures have been proven to be higher than they've been in an extremely long time.

And given that the climate has been constantly changing for millions of years, it's a smart move because you can't deny the climate changes,

The climate has been changing more significantly in the past couple hundred years than in the past millions of years or so. Combine this with causal evidence and frankly, the climate change denier position is full of shit.

and there is a LOT of money in selling snake oil, especially when the symptoms are so vague that the person chugging the oil doesn't know what it's supposed to do.

Yes, the global scientific community is in it for the money.

That just sounds like tin-foil hat wearing bullshit.

We know the consequences and potential consequences of climate change. Don't be a fool.

At 9/12/13 06:03 AM, 24901miles wrote: Korriken, remember that little chat we had about you taking science classes in Louisiana Public Schools?

It's showing.

Uh huh. how about you go fuck yourself all the way back to the general forum where you belong.

Learn to take a joke, Korriken.

[Light]

Not that I'm surprised, Korriken, but you never really answered my question about whether you've spent a significant amount of time evaluating the research of those who acknowledge the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Have you?

[Korriken]

At 9/12/13 04:44 PM, Light wrote:

This analogy doesn't actually refute the evidence of anthropogenic climate change, so........

not meant to. it's merely meant to point out that scientists have been wrong.

Seems to have been popular, but I'd like for you to produce official statements from scientific organizations back then that corroborate your claim that the majority of the scientific community believed this. I already did to support my case. I expect you to do so as well.

Here you go, I even turned it to the page global cooling is mentioned. Also, I never said the majority of scientists supported it. I just said it was popular and a big scare.

Well, this global warming causes anthropogenic climate change. What do you expect?

Climate is always changing, always has been, and always will.

You know damn well that the modern(Read: 21st century) scientific community has many more technological tools at its disposal that makes its assumptions far more trustworthy. Citing past instances of scientific error isn't sufficient justification to reject the evidence of anthropogenic climate change and expert opinion. You're going to have to put in more intellectual muscle than that.

I also know damn well they can be wrong and are not infallible. Many modern scientific "discoveries" are debunked, some of them rather quickly. Hell, look what's going on in the nutrition science field, one day coffee is good for you, next day it's your doom, then salt is bad for you and should be avoided, then it's healthy, then it's your doom.

I reiterate that this isn't sufficient justification to reject the existence of anthropogenic climate change.

never said it did. I'm saying that you should never accept something as 'fact' merely because some labcoat says so.

Yes, often, these dissenters are dismissed for irrational reasons. Their conclusions aren't attacked properly. The people positing them are. But climate change deniers who happen to be scientists have little credible evidence to justify their assumptions, so the scientific community is right to tear them apart.

Oh really? Have you studied their data and came to your own conclusion? Or is this what the Climate Change Doomsayers told you?

One of the beauties of science is that it always progresses. If something once thought to be true isn't true, the scientific community will find out through replication of experiments and through the discoveries of discrepancies in these experiments. In regards, to climate change, the experiments have been done, the geological and climatological evidence have been collected and analyzed, and it's been determined by all major scientific bodies in the world that anthropogenic climate change is real.

To a small degree, you're right. But the scientific community wouldn't habitually abandon its assumptions if what you said were entirely true. We'd still believe bullshit "scientific theories" as creationism and the geocentric theory.

It would be forced to once someone proved them wrong. Many things in science can be observed pretty easily, like seasons, gravity, the idea of the earth revolving around the sun, and the fact that an animal trapped in a room with no oxygen would die rather quickly.

Resistance occurs, yes, but from my knowledge of the history of science, those who dissent, such as Galileo and Johannes Kepler, make significant dents in the scientific community's argument and assumptions. They make progress. I fail to see anything similar being accomplished by climate change deniers.

There are also more scientists today than there used to be.

Global warming causes climate change. The two terms are related, but not exactly interchangeable.

well of course it does, climate changes constantly. It always has. I'm not trying to say that humans play no role, I'm sure we do. however, in the 70's some scientists were saying in 50 years we'd be in deep shit if we didn't stop polluting... and here we are, 40ish years later and everything is still good. What are they saying no? If we don't change, and soon, we're in deep shit. The cycle continues.

And frankly, there's nothing vague about climate change. Climates that once rarely experienced drought now experience it at a disturbingly routine rate. Flooding in other climates was equally rare. This is no longer so. Temperatures have been proven to be higher than they've been in an extremely long time.

All of which can be attributed to many things. However, the scaremongers will not tell you that. There have been historical records of crazy weather happening well before the industrial revolution, which, of course back then, the primitives attributed to God's Wrath. No rain all year? God must be pissed off at us!

The climate has been changing more significantly in the past couple hundred years than in the past millions of years or so. Combine this with causal evidence and frankly, the climate change denier position is full of shit.

Actual hard climate data hasn't been kept for very long, not even a full 100 years. Most of what is known before actual records were kept is assumptions made from digging through historical records and analyzing ice. Scientists don't really know for sure that we're about to become a molten fireball, they only make that claim based off about 70ish years of data.

Yes, the global scientific community is in it for the money.

Gotta earn a living somehow. Also, many of them are in it for the money, which is actually quite good. I just wonder how many of them disagree, but keep their mouths shut because of the consequences of speaking up?

That just sounds like tin-foil hat wearing bullshit.

Good job, attack the messenger.

We know the consequences and potential consequences of climate change. Don't be a fool.

potential is an interesting word, it just smacks of "could be". The problem with could be is that it's not definite. The world could enter a new ice age for all we really know. Not too likely, but if it worked out just as the alarmists keep screaming and ranting about, the earth would only get hotter and hotter, never cooler.

Learn to take a joke, Korriken.

Once I can take you seriously, then I can take a joke.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

Who cares about global warming? AFRICAN RABIES!!

[Camarohusky]

At 9/12/13 10:34 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: AFRICAN BABIES!!

Whoa there... Skating the line, now, aren't we?

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 9/12/13 10:49 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 9/12/13 10:34 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: AFRICAN BABIES!!

Whoa there... Skating the line, now, aren't we?

Google it. Trust me nothing racist about it.

prepare to be zombied.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/12/13 11:11 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Google it. Trust me nothing racist about it.

Take a slightly closer look at my post...

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 9/12/13 11:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Take a slightly closer look at my post...

not seeing it.

[Light]

At 9/12/13 10:32 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 9/12/13 04:44 PM, Light wrote:

This analogy doesn't actually refute the evidence of anthropogenic climate change, so........

not meant to. it's merely meant to point out that scientists have been wrong.

And what point does this serve in a debate about anthropogenic climate change's existence if the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion supports it based on the evidence.

Scientific opinion wouldn't really mean much if it was wrong routinely or if it regularly came to conclusions that aren't substantiated by the evidence. Usually, when scientists are wrong, it's because the evidence is faulty or insufficient. The evidence of anthropogenic climate change is neither.

Here you go, I even turned it to the page global cooling is mentioned. Also, I never said the majority of scientists supported it. I just said it was popular and a big scare.

OK, so we've established that a minority of scientists in the 70s believed something that was discredited. A majority consensus wasn't reached on that, but it has been reached on the existence of recent anthropogenic climate change.

Seems like it's a wee bit unjustified to compare some belief held by a few scientists in the 70s that an ice age will occur to the consensus reached by almost three dozen scientific organizations around the world on the existence of anthropogenic climate change, don't you think?

Well, this global warming causes anthropogenic climate change. What do you expect?

Climate is always changing, always has been, and always will.

Yes, but it has never been this dramatic in at least the past 650,000 years.

I also know damn well they can be wrong and are not infallible.

We can both agree on this, but with regards to inductive reasoning, the argument from authority states that if all or most expert authorities agree that something is the case, then it probably is. They aren't necessarily right, but they're far more likely to be right than they are to be wrong.

Many modern scientific "discoveries" are debunked, some of them rather quickly.

I don't know how you can distrust the scientific community in regards to climate change, but trust them in regards to debunking and supporting other claims, but OK.

Hell, look what's going on in the nutrition science field, one day coffee is good for you, next day it's your doom, then salt is bad for you and should be avoided, then it's healthy, then it's your doom.

There was never a modern and united global consensus on some of these things anyway.

never said it did. I'm saying that you should never accept something as 'fact' merely because some labcoat says so.

I know that. That's logically fallacious. But upon examining the evidence, I can't find a rational reason to disagree. There's a reason no major scientific body actually disputes the existence of this phenomenon.

Yes, often, these dissenters are dismissed for irrational reasons. Their conclusions aren't attacked properly. The people positing them are. But climate change deniers who happen to be scientists have little credible evidence to justify their assumptions, so the scientific community is right to tear them apart.

Oh really? Have you studied their data and came to your own conclusion? Or is this what the Climate Change Doomsayers told you?

I used to identify as a Republican who denied the existence of anthropogenic climate change, so yeah, I did my research.

I also listen to right-wing talk radio almost every weeknight, and they don't exactly urge people to do anything about it.

It would be forced to once someone proved them wrong. Many things in science can be observed pretty easily, like seasons, gravity, the idea of the earth revolving around the sun, and the fact that an animal trapped in a room with no oxygen would die rather quickly.

And it's been observed that those ice caps at the North and South poles are melting at a disturbing rate. Ocean acidity levels are unusually high, and the global average temperature has risen.

All evidence of climate change. All evidence that can be observed fairly easily.

There are also more scientists today than there used to be.

What is your point?

Global warming causes climate change. The two terms are related, but not exactly interchangeable.

well of course it does, climate changes constantly. It always has. I'm not trying to say that humans play no role, I'm sure we do. however, in the 70's some scientists were saying in 50 years we'd be in deep shit if we didn't stop polluting... and here we are, 40ish years later and everything is still good. What are they saying no? If we don't change, and soon, we're in deep shit. The cycle continues.

Well, I wouldn't say "everything is still good."

carbon dioxide levels, as 24901miles said recently, just reached 400 ppm. That's really, really bad. The Earth will continue to get warmer regardless of whether we do anything or not at this point. But we have a chance to mitigate that. We should take it.

It may sound like alarmism, but it's true. Carbon dioxide has been proven to insulate heat. Even if climate change isn't caused by humans, we must do something about it because it will affect us and the ecosystems on which we so heavily rely.

All of which can be attributed to many things. However, the scaremongers will not tell you that. There have been historical records of crazy weather happening well before the industrial revolution, which, of course back then, the primitives attributed to God's Wrath. No rain all year? God must be pissed off at us!

Well, I already provided evidence that refutes the assumption made here earlier in this post, so there's not much else to say here.

Actual hard climate data hasn't been kept for very long, not even a full 100 years. Most of what is known before actual records were kept is assumptions made from digging through historical records and analyzing ice. Scientists don't really know for sure that we're about to become a molten fireball, they only make that claim based off about 70ish years of data.

These aren't assumptions or educated guesses. Climatologists and geologists have cold hard facts and only cold hard facts to support these claims.

They have more than a century's worth of data. They have the geological record, which has millions of years' worth of data.

Gotta earn a living somehow. Also, many of them are in it for the money, which is actually quite good. I just wonder how many of them disagree, but keep their mouths shut because of the consequences of speaking up?

Not very many. You do have a few who disagree, but they are less than 10% of the scientific community. Poll after poll after poll shows that most acknowledge the pheonomenon's existence. It's doubtful that they'd lie in these polls, especially since their identities were likely kept anonymous.

If scientists in significant numbers disagreed, there'd be no worldwide consensus. But there is a consensus. So, scientists don't disagree in significant numbers.

Good job, attack the messenger.

It's hard not to when saying that scientists involved in a conspiracy to propagate these "lies" for money is like saying that the illuminati control the U.S. government.

We know the consequences and potential consequences of climate change. Don't be a fool.

potential is an interesting word, it just smacks of "could be". The problem with could be is that it's not definite. The world could enter a new ice age for all we really know. Not too likely, but if it worked out just as the alarmists keep screaming and ranting about, the earth would only get hotter and hotter, never cooler.

Well, the global temperature hasn't really dipped in the past 200 years or so.

It'll probably never cool unless we do something now.

Learn to take a joke, Korriken.

Once I can take you seriously, then I can take a joke.

Mmmm, gotta love the taste of butthurt.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/12/13 11:56 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 9/12/13 11:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Take a slightly closer look at my post...

not seeing it.

I changed your quote to say African Babies instead of African Rabies. That's what my mind first read from your quote.

Also, it gave me a way of saying it without saying it.

[Korriken]

At 9/13/13 01:23 AM, Light wrote:

And what point does this serve in a debate about anthropogenic climate change's existence if the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion supports it based on the evidence.

Overwhelming majority of scientific opinion once said the sun revolves around the earth too. Many bought into it because they, like you, simply didn't know any better. They know what they are told, and didn't give it much thought.

Scientific opinion wouldn't really mean much if it was wrong routinely or if it regularly came to conclusions that aren't substantiated by the evidence. Usually, when scientists are wrong, it's because the evidence is faulty or insufficient. The evidence of anthropogenic climate change is neither.

I can take and breed foxes for 3 generations and tell you that it's impossible to tame them. Problem is, much like our Alarmists refuse to say, is the short amount of time that the data has been collected is insufficient to come up with a definite answer. They also won't tell you that funding is much harder to come by if they say "It'll take about 200 years of data gathering to come to a conclusion."

OK, so we've established that a minority of scientists in the 70s believed something that was discredited. A majority consensus wasn't reached on that, but it has been reached on the existence of recent anthropogenic climate change.

science isn't about consensus. Never has been. stop buying into the alarmists propaganda.

Seems like it's a wee bit unjustified to compare some belief held by a few scientists in the 70s that an ice age will occur to the consensus reached by almost three dozen scientific organizations around the world on the existence of anthropogenic climate change, don't you think?

Considering that newer data suggests that the world is cooling, not really.

Yes, but it has never been this dramatic in at least the past 650,000 years.

We haven't been collecting data for that long, so you can't say that. That's just Alarmist propaganda.

We can both agree on this, but with regards to inductive reasoning, the argument from authority states that if all or most expert authorities agree that something is the case, then it probably is. They aren't necessarily right, but they're far more likely to be right than they are to be wrong.

umm, no. Argument from authority is a logical fallacy. and you play right into it.

I don't know how you can distrust the scientific community in regards to climate change, but trust them in regards to debunking and supporting other claims, but OK.

Simple, I don't trust alarmism. Predictions have been made since the 60's (perhaps even earlier) very few of them have come to pass. According to scientists in the 60-70's, we should either be a massive ice ball or a molten planet by now.

I know that.

and yet you play right into it.

I used to identify as a Republican who denied the existence of anthropogenic climate change, so yeah, I did my research.

bullshit. That's about the most blatant lie I've heard on this board to date.

And it's been observed that those ice caps at the North and South poles are melting at a disturbing rate...

They're expanding, actually. Maybe you should do some research before you speak.

All evidence of climate change. All evidence that can be observed fairly easily.

considering you keep saying "climate change" and not "global warming" speaks volumes about how little research you've actually done. "climate change" is merely the alarmist catchphrase because the globe is actually cooling and it steers the debate away from warming/cooling. You give yourself in to the alarmist propaganda so readily.

Well, I wouldn't say "everything is still good."

I would. these doomsday predictions are just like "end of the world thanks to this evidence found in this holy book/ calculation based on numerology" predictions. they're wrong and whip up people into a frenzy who lack the common sense to think for themselves. It's been going on the last 40 years and the goalposts keep moving at a steady rate. 1970's scientists: 50 years, that's all we have or we're all going to die!" 1980's scientists: "50 years, that's all we have or we're all going to die!" 1990's scientists: "50 years, that's all we have or we're all going to die!" 2000's scientists: "50 years, that's all we have or we're all going to die!" Today's scientists: "50 years, that's all we have or we're all going to die!"

I see an obvious pattern.

carbon dioxide levels, as 24901miles said recently, just reached 400 ppm.

I'm all for cutting pollution. However, I refuse to attend the Church of the Burning Earth and listen to Reverend Al Gore.

It may sound like alarmism, but it's true. Carbon dioxide has been proven to insulate heat. Even if climate change isn't caused by humans, we must do something about it because it will affect us and the ecosystems on which we so heavily rely.

"It may sound like alarmism"? It IS alarmism. the earth isn't going to become a flaming ball of liquid acid any time soon. We have plenty of time to develop cleaner technology, and the scientists who are doing things that actually HELP, rather than whip up fear, are working on it.

These aren't assumptions or educated guesses. Climatologists and geologists have cold hard facts and only cold hard facts to support these claims.

about 70 years of "cold hard facts" which is less than 1 full solar cycle, not even half of 1 full solar cycle.

They have more than a century's worth of data. They have the geological record, which has millions of years' worth of data.

Geological record can only be interpreted, much like an ancient lost language. the best you can do is try and decipher what it means, but you can never know for certain. Also, I can point to glyphs on a wall and "tell you" what they mean. Do you have any way or reason to doubt me? no, because you have no Idea what they mean.

Not very many. You do have a few who disagree, but they are less than 10% of the scientific community. Poll after poll after poll shows that most acknowledge the pheonomenon's existence. It's doubtful that they'd lie in these polls, especially since their identities were likely kept anonymous.

Oh? how do you know? It wouldn't be hard to send a questionnaire to the right people to get the results you want, especially given that most scientists will tell you what they either believe or say what they must to remain employed. Wouldn't be hard to send a questionnaire to the Church of the Burning Earth and get back a 100% consensus on global warming. Also, you fail to link any of these polls. Do they even exist?

If scientists in significant numbers disagreed, there'd be no worldwide consensus. But there is a consensus. So, scientists don't disagree in significant numbers.

Science isn't about consensus.

It's hard not to when saying that scientists involved in a conspiracy to propagate these "lies" for money is like saying that the illuminati control the U.S. government.

It's hard not to when it's the most common way for you to try and shut the other person up because your argument doesn't work, which is why I have no respect for you.

Well, the global temperature hasn't really dipped in the past 200 years or so.
It'll probably never cool unless we do something now.

Russian scientists say otherwise. But since they don't agree with the consensus, they must be wrong, because science isn't about finding the truth, it's about consensus. /sarcasm

Mmmm, gotta love the taste of butthurt.

Butthurt? nah, I just have no respect for you

[24901miles]

You're right. If we completely ignore
1. 150 years of measurable quantities of pollution trends matching CO2 surveys
2. Ozone hole changes responding to cap-trade policies
3. Theories of CO2 over-abundance matching up with data
4. Supercomputer analysis of data
5. Hundreds of thousands of years of ice cores creating a predictable trend which suddenly shifts in coordination with in human industry
6. 97.3% of climate scientists saying Climate Change is anthropogenic
7. The migrations and extinctions of species in a predictable manner following climate changes
8. Record breaking temperatures, record breaking storms
9. Record breaking Ice Berg and Antarctic destruction
10. Satellite imagery of pollution clouds

...just to satisfy our egos and keep our opinions well within party lines.

[Korriken]

At 9/13/13 04:12 PM, 24901miles wrote: ...just to satisfy our egos and keep our opinions well within party lines.

and there you go, spraying logical fallacies attacking the messenger again.

what else do you have?

[Camarohusky]

At 9/13/13 05:49 PM, Korriken wrote: attacking the messenger again.

Exactly how did he attack the messenger and not the idea?

[Light]

At 9/13/13 12:42 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 9/13/13 01:23 AM, Light wrote:

Many bought into it because they, like you, simply didn't know any better. They know what they are told, and didn't give it much thought.

You keep citing examples of past scientific errors in consensus that were unsubstantiated by irrefutable facts. Climate change consensus can't reasonably be compared to this. Johannes Kepler, Copernicus, and Newton destroyed the geocentric theory with their discoveries. Climate change deniers have yet to refute much of anything that climate change "alarmists" claim.

I can take and breed foxes for 3 generations and tell you that it's impossible to tame them. Problem is, much like our Alarmists refuse to say, is the short amount of time that the data has been collected is insufficient to come up with a definite answer. They also won't tell you that funding is much harder to come by if they say "It'll take about 200 years of data gathering to come to a conclusion."

It's a good thing climatologists and geologists have hundreds of thousands of years' worth of evidence to support their hypotheses.

science isn't about consensus. Never has been. stop buying into the alarmists propaganda.

But science is about being able to replicate a person's experiments/observations to see if it's true. Experiments regarding Anthro climate change have been replicated with the same results. The math makes sense. The evidence is unequivocal. That's why consensus has been reached and that's why it matters.

Considering that newer data suggests that the world is cooling, not really.

What data is this?

It would soundly refute anthro climate change if it existed.

Yes, but it has never been this dramatic in at least the past 650,000 years.

We haven't been collecting data for that long, so you can't say that. That's just Alarmist propaganda.

What does it matter if we haven't collected data for a long time if the data is abundant and goes back hundreds of thousands of years at the minimum? It would kind of be like saying Newton was wrong to verify Kepler's laws and deliver the knockout punch to the geocentric theory because he wasn't doing it for very long. The data was abundant and unequivocal then as it is now for climate change.

umm, no. Argument from authority is a logical fallacy. and you play right into it.

If you read the page, you would've realized that it's only a logical fallacy if used in the manner of deductive reasoning. But it explicitly states that when used in the manner of inductive reasoning as I have, then it's not fallacious at all.

Simple, I don't trust alarmism. Predictions have been made since the 60's (perhaps even earlier) very few of them have come to pass. According to scientists in the 60-70's, we should either be a massive ice ball or a molten planet by now.

These predictions made by scientists in the 60s-70s were not made by a majority consensus. We both established that. lol

and yet you play right into it.

And it's been observed that those ice caps at the North and South poles are melting at a disturbing rate...

They're expanding, actually. Maybe you should do some research before you speak.

Maybe you shouldn't cite the Daily Mail.
Climatologists already explained this phenomenon. Without getting too technical, let me just say that this doesn't refute anthro climate change at all. This gif from the article I cite explains the problem your cited article runs into when it says that short-term ice cap expansion refutes global warming.

considering you keep saying "climate change" and not "global warming" speaks volumes about how little research you've actually done. "climate change" is merely the alarmist catchphrase because the globe is actually cooling and it steers the debate away from warming/cooling. You give yourself in to the alarmist propaganda so readily.

Global warming causes climate change. I already said this. The globe isn't cooling at all. Global mean temperature hasn't declined at all. You haven't refuted this at all.

I would. these doomsday predictions are just like "end of the world thanks to this evidence found in this holy book/ calculation based on numerology" predictions. they're wrong and whip up people into a frenzy who lack the common sense to think for themselves. It's been going on the last 40 years and the goalposts keep moving at a steady rate.

I see an obvious pattern.

These are strawman arguments. Climatologists don't generally claim we will all die if we don't solve this problem; they make rather reasonable claims that are being observed in the real world: rising sea levels, higher ocean acidity levels(Which threatens many animal species), melting ice caps, more destructive weather patterns and the like.

I'm all for cutting pollution. However, I refuse to attend the Church of the Burning Earth and listen to Reverend Al Gore.

"It may sound like alarmism"? It IS alarmism. the earth isn't going to become a flaming ball of liquid acid any time soon. We have plenty of time to develop cleaner technology, and the scientists who are doing things that actually HELP, rather than whip up fear, are working on it.

about 70 years of "cold hard facts" which is less than 1 full solar cycle, not even half of 1 full solar cycle.

*Hundreds of thousands of years of hard facts.

Think you meant to say that. :)

Geological record can only be interpreted, much like an ancient lost language. the best you can do is try and decipher what it means, but you can never know for certain. Also, I can point to glyphs on a wall and "tell you" what they mean. Do you have any way or reason to doubt me? no, because you have no Idea what they mean.

The geological record isn't all that hard to interpret and it unequivocally vindicates climatological claims that the climate is changing. Might be why all geological organizations around the world acknowledge the existence of this phenomenon.

Oh? how do you know? It wouldn't be hard to send a questionnaire to the right people to get the results you want, especially given that most scientists will tell you what they either believe or say what they must to remain employed. Wouldn't be hard to send a questionnaire to the Church of the Burning Earth and get back a 100% consensus on global warming. Also, you fail to link any of these polls. Do they even exist?

Proof.

But hey, I'd like to see you cite a modern poll or two that shows that significantly fewer scientists acknowledge the existence of anthro climate change than the polls I speak of.

Science isn't about consensus.

It kind of is. I say "kind of" because it comes about through the process of peer-review and checking each other's work for accuracy.

It's hard not to when it's the most common way for you to try and shut the other person up because your argument doesn't work, which is why I have no respect for you.

That hurts my feelings, being told by a 21st century equivalent of a flat-earth believer that he doesn't respect me. :'(

Russian scientists say otherwise. But since they don't agree with the consensus, they must be wrong, because science isn't about finding the truth, it's about consensus. /sarcasm

Jury's still out on whether small variations in solar activity significantly affect global warming. So, I suppose I'm just going to have to rely on the evidence that global temps have been rising and on, well......the consensus.

[Korriken]

At 9/13/13 06:53 PM, Light wrote:

You keep citing examples of past scientific errors in consensus that were unsubstantiated by irrefutable facts. Climate change consensus can't reasonably be compared to this. Johannes Kepler, Copernicus, and Newton destroyed the geocentric theory with their discoveries. Climate change deniers have yet to refute much of anything that climate change "alarmists" claim.

"Irrefutable" I like that word.

It's a good thing climatologists and geologists have hundreds of thousands of years' worth of evidence to support their hypotheses.

you mean digging in ice and coming up with a theory? great evidence.

But science is about being able to replicate a person's experiments/observations to see if it's true. Experiments regarding Anthro climate change have been replicated with the same results. The math makes sense. The evidence is unequivocal. That's why consensus has been reached and that's why it matters.

Right.... for 50+ years these same scientists have been spewing doomsday prophecies, none of which has come to pass.

What data is this?

It would soundly refute anthro climate change if it existed.

Solar activity is on the decrease, we can expect global cooling for a while, according to some scientists, it could last up to 250 years.alarmists will not tell you about the solar cycle, where the sun's activity changes and affects our climate.

The data was abundant and unequivocal then as it is now for climate change.

"climate change" yes. but what about global warming? You can argue that climate changes, and that much is so obvious that you don't even need high tech equipment to realize that the climate changes. However,

These predictions made by scientists in the 60s-70s were not made by a majority consensus. We both established that. lol

These predictions are the same alarmists bullshit predictions that are always made. they've been made constantly and it's always "30-100 years away"

Maybe you shouldn't cite the Daily Mail.

alright fine, I'll just cite...
News.com (First i've ever heard of this one myself...)
Washington Times
forbes

Climatologists already explained this phenomenon. Without getting too technical, let me just say that this doesn't refute anthro climate change at all. This gif from the article I cite explains the problem your cited article runs into when it says that short-term ice cap expansion refutes global warming.

Of course, it doesn't. According to the alarmists and their minions, the entire planet could freeze over and it would be a symptom of global warming.

Global warming causes climate change. I already said this. The globe isn't cooling at all. Global mean temperature hasn't declined at all. You haven't refuted this at all.

sigh.. you just don't get it do you? Of course not. You're in the matrix now, you're spoon fed bullshit and told that it's chocolate pudding. Oh, by the way, in case this isn't clear. I've never said pollution isn't a bad thing and I've never said that pollution doesn't have negative side effect. I'm saying that this alarmist bullshit of "We're all going to die in 50 years!" is what I'm not believing.

These are strawman arguments. Climatologists don't generally claim we will all die if we don't solve this problem; they make rather reasonable claims that are being observed in the real world

The hell they don't.

rising sea levels, higher ocean acidity levels(Which threatens many animal species), melting ice caps, more destructive weather patterns and the like.

you mean those insanely powerful hurricanes and incredibly active hurricane seasons they've been predicting? Still waiting on that one.

Think you meant to say that. :)

I'm pretty sure I meant 70.

The geological record isn't all that hard to interpret and it unequivocally vindicates climatological claims that the climate is changing. Might be why all geological organizations around the world acknowledge the existence of this phenomenon.

are you a climate scientist then? Do you do this for a living?

Proof.

"Skepticalscience.com"? you can do better than that. the people running that site's jaw would be broken if I kicked Al gore in the balls.

But hey, I'd like to see you cite a modern poll or two that shows that significantly fewer scientists acknowledge the existence of anthro climate change than the polls I speak of.

I don't need a poll, I have a study. Those big bad climate models that showed that the temperature would have devastating impacts were, well, wrong. 114 out of 117 were wrong. However, you won't find this data being published by many in the media because it's blasphemous to their religion of Global Warming. And yeah, these models were done in the 1990's by actual "consensus building" scientists. Also, there is this. "The databases we checked generally show small increases during that period, but not enough to be statistically significant, thanks to a short timeframe and a starting point that included an unusually warm year in 1998."

so for about 30 years the temperature rose steadily, then slowed to practically nothing. However, this goes against the preachings of the alarmists who assure us all that the temperatures have been spiraling upwards at an alarming rate and will kill us all soon if we don't do something.

If "global warming" has the devastating effects that the Alarmists say they do, then the temperature should have continued to rise at a steady rate, due to the massive amounts of CO2 being pumped into the air.

That hurts my feelings, being told by a 21st century equivalent of a flat-earth believer that he doesn't respect me. :'(

not that I care if I hurt the feeling of a 21st century equivalent of a illiterate religious zealot who goes absolutely mad when you tell him the religion his priest has been feeding him since childhood is false.

We can both play this asinine game.

Jury's still out on whether small variations in solar activity significantly affect global warming. So, I suppose I'm just going to have to rely on the evidence that global temps have been rising and on, well......the consensus.

"...but acknowledges in the same report that there is a low level of scientific understanding with respect to solar variation."

So basically, they don't know, but they're assuring you that it won't matter. "Cut the red and white wire, I'm no bomb expert, but you can trust my judgment." I'm not buying it.