What bothers me to no end about global warming skeptics...is that the extreme majority of them...at least the extreme majority of them who talk about their views...are both extremely confident in those views and totally lack the most basic types of information that can counter their views.
I've seen arguments from climate skeptics I'm not knowledgeable enough to refute. I respect and appreciate that. The vast majority of arguments from climate skeptics I've heard, however, involve stuff that has been gone over time and time again, if you just look at the right sources. Maybe the problem is that those sources are not obvious enough. I recommend Skepticalscience.com as pretty much the best of those types of sources out there.
Here are some of the more basic pieces of information to filter out some of those more obviously flawed views:
#1. Earth's temperature has been more or less steadily increasing since the 1970's. This is despite the fact that solar activity has, more or less, not been increasing in activity during that time period. When people complain that the "stupid" IPCC models don't take solar activity into account...that's because the Sun has been in a mild cooling phase since the 1970's. It wouldn't have any effect anyway in terms of warming the Earth more.
#2. Yeah...climate scientists know about glacial and interglacial periods. About 20 thousand years ago the last glacial period ended and ever since we've been in an interglacial period. We may or may not be near the end of what would normally be it, if not for humans. Many people express concerns about entering into a new ice age. Those presumably occur due to having something to do with Milakovitch cycles that involve Earth's position in the solar system in ways I don't really understand. However, during interglacial and glacial periods temperature and C02 level tend to be closely tied together...so it would be quite unusual if we'd enter into a new ice age while C02 levels are still rising. Also...the CDC anticipates that by 2100 Earth's temperature will raise from 1.5 to 5 degrees celsius or so above pre-industrial levels. That may not sound like much...but during the last ice age Earth was only, maybe 5 degrees colder than it is today. That radically altered the face of the Earth and resulted in numerous extinctions. Also, that 1.5 to 5 degrees doesn't take into account any temperature increases for the NEXT hundred years after this century is over...after all those third world nations have industrialized into coal power plants, rather than clean energy technologies like nuclear or solar and wind and such, if we don't push our society to rely more on solar and wind and such somehow.
#3. China and India are not the world's largest C02 producers. China is getting up there, but it's not as high as the biggest C02 producers yet. Chinese people are used to not driving, and they have lots of clean energy sources, but they also use lots of coal power. India is nowhere near having a C02 output level that's as high as those first world nations. It has an extremely low C02 output level. It's just both those nations have so many people that it seems like those nations produce a lot of C02.
#4. Dealing with global warming tends to require a lot of government action. Clean energy technology tends to be expensive, so unless the government provides some incentive to adopting it, people won't adopt it. That's why you see so many people concerned about global warming also tending to want the government to have more power. It's not that they're pretending global warming exists as a means for the left to gain power...it's that they know that to do much about global warming you have to give the government more power.
#5. One way to successfully deal with global warming might be a cap and trade system, in which the more industrialized nations - the first world nations, pay a fine when they produce above a certain amount of C02. The money from this fine would go to support less industrialized nations - the third world nations, that almost always have very low C02 outputs (at least for now). This would ideally give the first world nations a financial incentive to produce more clean energy technologies, and hopefully give the third world nations more incentive to industrialize into clean energy technologies rather than coal...which would, ideally, prevent our planet from being totally screwed in a couple centuries. SO WHEN YOU HEAR PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT THAT...YOU NOW KNOW THERE ARE MORE REASONS FOR ENGAGING IN THAT KIND OF BEHAVIOR THAN JUST SHOVELING MONEY OFF TO THE THIRD WORLD NATIONS TO MAKE THE LIBERALS FEEL BETTER! LOTS OF PEOPLE WHO ADVOCATE THAT SORT OF PROCEDURE ARE FAR MORE CONCERNED WITH THE LONG TERM SURVIVAL OF THEIR SPECIES THAN THEY ARE ABOUT HELPING THE THIRD WORLD!
#6. Humans produce far more C02 every year than volcanoes do each year...so I don't want to hear any talk about all the C02 emissions of humanity being made obsolete by one volcano. Yellowstone could be an exception, but that might not erupt for centuries or thousands of years.
#7. There have been periods of time in Earth's ancient past when C02 levels were dramatically higher than present day. However...it should be noted that the way the sun works, it gets hotter as it ages. The Sun having been cooler needs to be taken into account too.
#8. Nobody think Earth will turn into Venus anytime soon. That's not the threat people are concerned about. The threat they're concerned about is more along the lines of mass migration coupled with the fresh water supplies that will just naturally shrink as more people need more fresh water. You don't need Venusian conditions to make an area uninhabitable. All you need is enough heat and humidity to make it too uncomfortable to work outside for long. Also, most of coastal flooding will not be due to melting ice caps, but to the oceans expanding as they warm...so as long as Earth's temperature warms the coasts will probably keep flooding, whether the ice caps exist or not.
#9. Keep in mind when concerned about NASA and other organizations involved with global warming research that these groups are often engaged in international cooperation. If there's some kind of liberal conspiracy in which NASA lied about the existence of global warming to gain power...this is an international conspiracy that a very large percentage of first world governments have fallen for in one way or another.
#10. The oceans outgass C02 as they warm up. They're currently absorbing more C02 than they're releasing though...so they're not the cause of Earth's atmospheric C02 increase.
#11. Planting more trees can, indeed, reduce C02 in our atmosphere...but much of that returns to the atmosphere after the tree dies. Some of that C02 is also moved into the soil through the tree's roots. However, the earth can get saturated with C02 and it can only hold a finite amount...and that C02 will also be released back into the atmosphere if the soil is disturbed a lot...so trees aren't much of a permanent solution for reducing C02. What really works well for reducing C02 in the atmosphere is phytoplankton: microscopic algae that produce most of our planet's oxygen. They absorb C02, and when they die they sink to the bottom of the ocean taking the C02 with them and removing it in a more long term way. One potential strategy for dealing with global warming could be to seed our oceans with iron, which acts like a fertilizer for many planets, encouraging the growth of more phytoplankton. This, however, would be a risky experiment there'd be no way to stop if something goes wrong. It would also require a level of international cooperation that pretty much our whole species hates.
#12. Yes...cow farts are harmful to the environment. Ruminants produce lots of methane. Cows are the queens of these horrible farts. Methane lasts for a far shorter period of time in our atmosphere than C02...but is a much stronger greenhouse gas before it goes. That's why some people are concerned about Antarctica melting and releasing methane that's underneath it into the atmosphere. Most things I've looked at didn't make it sound like that would be a game-over kind of experience though...so much as just a little higher temperatures.
#13. Yes, water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas. However, it doesn't really increase in the atmosphere unless something else increases Earth's temperature first. Also it creates clouds which can either reflect away heat, or hold it in Earth's atmosphere, so the effects of water vapor are kind of iffy that way....but the fact that water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas doesn't mean that C02 can't be the primary driver of climate change.
#14. The IPCC climate models are pretty much on target when it comes to determining global temperature increases. [climate.nasa.gov]
#15. Nobody should care that In the 1970's a few people wondered about global cooling being a future problem rather than global warming. For one thing...that was the 1970's...quite a while ago. People have had lots of time to understand things better. For another thing, that was right after a recent drop in global temperatures. It was about that time that temperatures started the trend of shooting strait up, which continues today, however.
#16. When people (like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez) talk about not having much time left, in regards to dealing with global warming, they're pretty reliably never talking about Earth ending in 12 years. What they mean, is rather, that the longer global warming continues, the more feedback loops are going to trigger, making it possibly more difficult to stop. For example, Antarctica could melt, releasing lots of methane into the atmosphere. The melting of the ice caps would reflect less heat back into orbit as well.
#17. I haven't heard many other people wonder about this, but I've wondered about it, and I've heard at least one other person ask this question. Our question was...why wouldn't feedback loops and such just keep warming Earth forever until we become like Venus? Why wouldn't rising temperatures add more water vapor to the atmosphere, which just keeps holding in heat better, which raises temperatures more? One person explained it like...imagine that it's snowing and your car has its headlights on. The more snow that exists, the less light each snowflake is going to block...so the more C02 in our atmosphere, the less each C02 molecule will warm Earth. So...Earth will stop warming somewhere before becoming like Venus. It just might not be real comfortable.
#18. Nobody should care what you local area's temperatures are. What global warming refers to is the perpetually increasing heat energy contained within Earth's atmosphere, not local climate. Also...no...climate scientists did not re-name global warming to climate change because the climate may become a lot colder. The climate just keeps getting warmer, pretty much. They probably re-named it to climate change because global warming could, quite possibly, actually make some local areas considerably colder. Take, for example, the U.K. The U.K. has pretty mild temperatures despite having quite a northern lattitude. That's because the Gulf Stream carries warm air to it. Some number of years ago (although I personally haven't heard this concern expressed of late) there was concern that melting ice caps might push the gulf stream south...removing the heat source of the U.K. and making it far colder...and that's why local temperatures can be highly misleading.
#19. Finally...regarding my fellow left-leaning peers...why so hard on nuclear power? I love nuclear power. Many people who like nuclear power are not view it so much like a permanent solution as a clean form of energy that we'll keep for a few decades until we can invent fusion power, or batteries that are good enough that they can store enough energy to make wind and solar a lot more useful or something. We understand that after a few centuries we'll start running out of spaces to bury all that nuclear waste. We're just thinking we'll get some better replacements before then.
3
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
15 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Atmospheric CO2 is insanely low right now. People that want to lower it further seem to want to kill all life on earth. Wouldn't surprise me at all. [pnas.org] This magical "runaway" effect doesn't exist or the earth would be a fireball. It's all bullshit fear mongering lies. CO2 fluctuated between 2-5x what it is now over the past 500 million years and life thrived. The only risk with CO2 is going even lower
Jim_Frost
Level 3
July 13, 2020
0
I will make one last observation on this thread....You will get me to take notice of the global warming scare when the politicians pushing for extreme legislation stop buying ocean front property and the wall street billionaires start building a sea wall. Until that time I will always view this as crap not worthy of the moniker "science". Climate models are the pinnacle of hubris and folly. As if a "scientist" could possibly account for all the moving parts in a global climate to make long range predications.
brijeste
Level 2
May 21, 2020
1
All those people will be dead by the time sea level rise affects their property. They'll be fine. There is no reason for them to not build ocean-front property yet. It's their grandkids that'll have the troubles.
It's not that complicated, from what I understand. Something has been causing Earth to warm. Causes of that can be two categories of things, and only two categories of things. Thing #1. is more energy coming from the Sun. That's not happening because solar activity has been pretty stable while Earth warms. Therefore, the cause must be thing #2.
Thing #2 is that Earth is preventing heat from escaping better. C02, methane, and possibly other gases created by humanity have been increased in great numbers over the past several decades. I'm unaware of any other trends that could hold heat well enough to result in that steady increase since the 1970's.
Actually...there could be a thing #3 in that something is cooling Earth less. Decreased volcanic activity might be responsible for that, but I'm aware of no volcanic trends strong enough to lead to that. Volcanoes only cool Earth after they erupt for a few years, then the particles reflecting back sunlight fall back down from the atmosphere...so there'd have to be a lot of them ceasing erupting continuously for that to occur.
Well...what a surprise. Most of the responses were nonsense spouted by the overconfident and under-educated. I received three respectable responses...two people suggesting videos to research, one suggesting a book and a fourth person who felt that income inequality is more important to focus on than climate change.
and...I repeat my original point that most climate skeptics...at least those who talk the most...are overconfident and do no research.
MrShittles
Level 7
May 21, 2020
1
You have the same opinion as most real skeptics. These over-confident science-deniers aren't skeptics. Skeptics hunt for the best evidence they can find to examine what is happening and try to control their own biases. Deniers aren't interested in evidence unless it supports their pre-formed views. That's where the misplaced confidence comes from. They keep finding memes and videos that confirm their view.
@Interested that could very well be true. There are a lot of impressive names I haven't gotten around to looking into the ideas of.
You lost me at #1 when you use the misdirection of starting your data at the 1970's. Historical data from the early 20th century has much warmer temperatures than today. This is a common "trick" climate scientists use to make the graphs look more dramatic. Cherry picking the date range of the data to achieve the hockey stick trope.
brijeste
Level 2
May 21, 2020
0
That's not a trick. That's just a straitforward comment. You can find find graphs all over the place showing that that trend is relatively recent.
@brijeste Who cares if most of the data comes from the U.S.? Even thought there are smaller sample sizes taken over the rest of the world...they're still usually pointing to rising temperatures.
Also...your graphs in your link conveniently ignored the most recent 20 years of climate change because they're definitely trying to brainwash you. If they were not trying to brainwash you, they'd have shown more recent data. Here's a better version: [climate.gov]. As you can see, in the United States there's been a clear trend of temperatures rising since the 1970's...while our Sun has not been increasing in temperature.
#3: China is the largest producer of C02 @ 27%, almost double the next offenders emissions, the US, @ 14%. India is 4th. China and India combined, produce 34% of all C02 emmissions.
1/10 for research.
[r.search.yahoo.com]
AdrianRainbow
Level 7
May 21, 2020
1
Yeah...but that of course is completely irrelevant. That's because China and India are the two most populous nations on the planet. Saying they are the biggest C02 producers is like saying citizens of the Congo eat more food than Hawaiians. Technically, yes, practically, no. [ucsusa.org]
You claimed it was not, there were no caveats.
Quit with the snow jobs, and moving the goal posts, it's tedious.
@AdrianRainbow The goal posts are obviously exactly where they were in the beginning. I clearly defined the context I was talking about, numerous times, including when I first mentioned it. Anyone who believes I was being dishonest has some kind of delusional issue.
Now...if you want to keep pretending they were not, we might as well go back and forth, calling each other "poopy heads" forever. Here, I'll start. You're a poopy head. Now you do me. That'll be just about equally as productive.
No they aren't, Jesus.
@AdrianRainbow Yes they are. They clearly are. It's misleading...bordering on lying to say that China and especially India are the world's largest carbon producers...because they're just not, by any rational means of looking at it.
I said China, or, India and China combined.
And China is the largest C02 producer, by almost 100% over the next offender.
What you said is incorrect, now chuff off you intellectual coward.
@AdrianRainbow I never disagreed with that. Stop behaving like a 2 year old.
Lost you totally at number 3:
- China
China is the largest emitter of carbon dioxide gas in the world with 9.8 billion metric tons in 2017. The primary source of CO2 emissions in China is fossil fuels, notably coal burning. About 70% of the total energy derived in China comes from coal alone, and since coal is rich in carbon, burning it in China's power and industrial plants and boilers releases large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Also, China is one of the largest importers of oil, which contributes to large CO2 emissions through the country's use of motor vehicles. China plans to reduce its dependence on coal and decrease overall pollution in large cities in the future by generating more electricity using nuclear, renewable energy sources, and natural gas.
Once I read your denial I realised you were probably communist - No this is not a fact but that is totally acceptable for me to make a statement on based on your #3 statement in regards to factual accuracy!!!!
Sharpes_Rifles
Level 3
May 21, 2020
1
No...China is not the largest C02 producer. That's like saying citizens of Africa eat more food than Hawaiians. Technically that's true. In a practical sense...that doesn't make any sense though.
"Technically" will do for me, measuring C02 outputs is pretty much a technical thing.
@AdrianRainbow Except when people mention that China and India are the world's largest C02 producers, they tend to do that to give the impression that first world nations have no power to do anything about climate change because of how little influence they have over it...which is bogus. The average Canadian or American or Australian citizen is producing more C02 than the average Chinese person by quite a bit and back in 2008 the average U.S. citizen was producing about ten times as much C02 per person as the average Indian: [ucsusa.org]
Wow, you tend to pull a lot of straw men out your a&&.
The 'argument' is that China produces more C02 than any other country, by almost 100%.
Which shows you're original assertion was incorrect.
@AdrianRainbow You're arguing something that I never argued against.
@MrShittles errrr Cough
From your original comment:
3. China and India are not the world's largest C02 producers. China is getting up there, but it's not as high as the biggest C02 producers yet. Chinese people are used to not driving, and they have lots of clean energy sources, but they also use lots of coal power. India is nowhere near having a C02 output level that's as high as those first world nations. It has an extremely low C02 output level. It's just both those nations have so many people that it seems like those nations produce a lot of C02.
Your first sentence categorically states (with no grey areas e.g. per million, per square mile etc) that India and China are not the Worlds largest CO2 producers.
Now the facts as taken from one of the most recognised study in the world:
China
China is the largest emitter of carbon dioxide gas in the world with 9.8 billion metric tons in 2017. The primary source of CO2 emissions in China is fossil fuels, notably coal burning. About 70% of the total energy derived in China comes from coal alone, and since coal is rich in carbon, burning it in China's power and industrial plants and boilers releases large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Also, China is one of the largest importers of oil, which contributes to large CO2 emissions through the country's use of motor vehicles. China plans to reduce its dependence on coal and decrease overall pollution in large cities in the future by generating more electricity using nuclear, renewable energy sources, and natural gas.
You statement to @AdrianRainbow:
@AdrianRainbow You're arguing something that I never argued against.
Based on the above I think they are arguing an exact point you made!!! You made it in your first superstition
I see no grey area from AdrianRainbow they are spot on in this and all their other points!!!!
@Sharpes_Rifles You're being absurd and bickering over nonsense. I'm not going to encourage you by agreeing with you. If you want to keep going forever....I'm fine with that. You're a poopy head. Now you call me a poopy head...and that'll be all the progress we're probably going to make.
China is not the world's largest producer of C02...unless we want to be misleading by not paying attention to the amount produced per citizen.
there are clearly two different ways of looking at that. There is AdrianRainbow's and mine. They're both valid...it's just that my way is less misleading. AdrianRainbow's way is no different than claiming that Hawaiians eat less than Africans.
I'm always hearing people pretending that China is a larger C02 producer than the U.S. when they argue that the problem is too big for Americans to worry about. The truth is that Americans have more power over it than most people on Earth.
I'm not arguing that AdrianRainbow has an invalid way of looking at this. I'm simply arguing against his/her view that my way of looking at this is invalid. She/he began the argument...not me. If you don't see that I am the more sensible person here, you're not seeing things right before your eyes.
@MrShittles Who is bickering you are presenting your opinion as fact and it is not backed by 'actual' facts.
- You contradict yourself in this single thread alone -
China and India are not the world's largest C02 producers - This is only statement you make no further information, why because you want to be a generic as possible to create straw men arguments when people show you facts!!!!!
BTW check my response, I am not even talking about per person!!! I am using % of energy used and what form is used to create it e.g. fossil fuels, renewable energy etc.
There is no need to discuss a point you make as there are no facts to back it but 1000's of reports and studies that prove China are the highest producer of CO2
BTW "Point 2" in your statements you say that Less Chinese people use vehicles than other large countries - here you have provided the per person % study but in total this is not true again due to the number of people that live and work in China and India oh and another factor that you did not take into consideration in your statement were the car emission regulations in China and India vs the Western world. There are literally none in China and India and those that are there are basically ignored!!!!!
Having lived in both countries "I know".... there is no denying that the world is going through a stage of overall warming but CO2 emissions play a very small part in that - Why not go after the pollution that China and India release into the Sea = almost 90%, why not go after the avocado farmers destroying millions of square metres every year in the rain forests to plant a crop that basically takes the earth 2 years to recover from!!!!
Why not cos you are probably some above middle class person with a well off family that wants to find some way to virtue signal your value to your friends on Dinner Parties - and if you think I am making assumptions without presenting facts - Well now you know what reading your original post was like!!!!
@Sharpes_Rifles I never disagreed that China...as a country..is not the highest producer of C02. Stop behaving like a 2 year old and claiming I stated things I did not.
@MrShittles WHAT - Sorry not continuing this any more - You have gone full left.
Definition of Left argument - Make Generic nonfactual statement, create straw man to defend nonfactual statement - finally DENY!!! totally that they did not make that statement even with inarguable evidence to the contrary!!!
Your Statement:
#3. China and India are not the world's largest C02 producers. China is getting up there, but it's not as high as the biggest C02 producers yet.
@Sharpes_Rifles Oh darn...what a shame it is that you're not continuing this argument anymore.
If in the future, you change your mind and want to apologize to me for being so rude, I will happily accept. Until then, I encourage you to look at the context of my statements. I was called a liar. I never lied. That is why the people arguing against me are wrong.
Your bizarre using of "left" as as an insult that applies this circumstance shows a an even more confusing mentality.
You and your ilk need to stop letting your egos control you. They're telling you "I want to win this no matter how much I have to warp reality." They're wrong. You'd see that if you'd try to see that from my perspective. Don't let your egos control you. Admit that it's okay to be wrong, and that other people can see things differently than you, and both perceptions can be correct, and you'll understand my perspective, most likely.
@MrShittles Damn I thought you were passionate about your point of view but actually you are deluded!!!
It is so sad when someone is so far of centre on either side that within 10 post they make a statement which is factually incorrect, then when challenged on their lie try to spin it in the hope that they find a way to make it fit some very vague statistical fact or straw man it to fit a narrative that is such a fictional concept that it would need two hobbits with the support of other mythical races to destroy in the fire of a Mountain in a land imagined in the mind of one of the greatest authors in modern times.
You literally verbatim say = China and India are not the world's largest C02 producers.
Then 4 to 5 posts later claim = You never wrote that?????
I am serious when I ask you to please seek help!
I am not wrong either statistically or factually, maybe I am wrong in your world where the Mayor of your imaginary town is a Unicorn of undecided gender.
I only chose to challenge point 3 because the statement was so incorrect I thought your post must be a troll but I did read the rest and have to say it is better comedy material than Lily Singh. Actually you are so deluded about your own opinion in the world you live in even the Unicorn thinks you are almost the same as David Brent!!!
This is why I decided to drop the point. Not because I feel I am wrong but there comes a point when the evidence is so strong against the opposing point that only a 5 year old child or someone mentally challenged would in any way believe that they succeeded. It is more that you are of the 'ILK' that believes in flat earth, against vaccinations in children and that the Avengers was a documentary of the current trials faced by the Human Race.
Dude in the Human Race you did not only come last but were disqualified for not meeting the sanity and cognitive levels required to qualify as a human, man even amoebas look on you with pity!!!
@Sharpes_Rifles I'm not passionate about this becuase we're not arguing anything of relevance. We're just arguing nothing. We're wasting time because you can't understand certain things. I'm only continuing because I don't want to feed your ego.
Also, it makes me feel good to be reminded that I'm right and other people are not whenever you comment, so I'm somewhat enjoying this.
Also, apparently, you haven't given up on this or you wouldn't have responded.
Think about this. There are two ways a country can be the biggest producer of C02. They can either be the biggest producer of C02 on a per capita basis...which is the basis that's the most relevant in most situations...as in their people, on average, produce more C02 than other nations, or they can be the biggest producer of C02 in total.
When I said that China is not the world's biggest producer of C02, that matches one of those 2 definitions. Therefore I was not lying. If anyone else would have said that China is the world's largest producer of C02...they would have clearly meant that that's in terms of total production. They would be telling the truth too. I would say they're more misleading than I am though, in many situations. In the past I'd described it as misleading-bordering on lying, but that depends on the situation.
You could have figured that out immediately.
Yeah...China and India are not the world's largest C02 producers...clearly. Just look at a any web page that tells the amount of C02 they produce per person. India isn't anywhere near the top. China is up there with the U.K., I think, but it's still quite a ways from the top.
If someone says "Italy has the most smokers," I'm going to instantly think, "Does that mean total, or does that mean the biggest percentage of their population?" I'm probably going to assume that means that Italy has the biggest percentage of their population as smokers though. If I found out the source meant that Italy was the country with the most smokers total, I'm going to be confused about why I was even told that information. It's not as useful of information as knowing the population percentage of smokers.
Now, are you ready to apologize yet so I can gloat? I won't gloat for long but I want to gloat a little though.
As another example...let's say I live in Haiti. Haiti has 11 million people and has more people starving to death than anywhere else on the planet, in terms of the percentage of their population starving. Vatican city is, I believe, the smallest country on Earth, with a population of 825 people. Apparently, based on your arguments, you think I'd be lying if I said that Haiti does not have more of an obesity problem than Vatican City.
@MrShittles Dude do not use straw man arguments - You did not make any statements in your original post as to the basis on which your presumption was made and in fact on both Number of People and actual CO2 production China is the highest so again your argument falls flat on its face.
You have less ground to stand on than there is left at the Church of Potosi!!!!!
Just give up, admit you are wrong. I have at no point denied that there is global warming taking place but I do object to the continued belief that it is all due to humans and our pollution when this planet has archaeological evidence that we have been through many Ice Ages and subsequent warming!!!!
The only reason the majority of Government's agree to this narrative is nothing to do with them caring for our planet but more to do with the number of different so called Green Taxes that they can put on everything to make more money from the People.
Then you idiots make an Autistic Child the head of your green campaign send her half way around the world on a million dollar yacht to prove a point, cos when losing an argument pull out a stressed child because no one will attack that!!!!
Jesus just spend half the time you do on this forum reading FACTS!!!! Maybe, just maybe you will learn something... But I have my doubts sheep always follow their leader!!!
@MrShittles Man you are out there in a place in the Universe even Stephen Hawking's could not have imagined.....
And you're a poopyhead.
Now you do me.
I explained to you my thought process in a great deal of detail. It makes sense. I PROVED to you that I am correct, and I didn't have to do that. I even provided examples to help illustrate to you why I'm correct. It should have been obvious from the beginning. You are the most stubborn person in the world.
Let's just call each other poopyheads until one of us dies. That'll be more of a timesaver than discussing this in any more detail.
I think there's a slight chance you're a troll who knows I'm right too. I'm not sure how anyone can be this stubborn. Oh well.
@Sharpes_Rifles And you're a poopyhead again. Now you do me.
You know what a strawman is?
You just posted 18 strawmen and never address the real
Issues about climate change.
Hanno
Level 8
May 21, 2020
2
I know what a strawman is. You apparently do not.I did not claim that all climate skeptics made these arguments. I claimed that most of them who talk the most do.
You are a reality denier...
The earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling and has since time began
I am not going to try to talk you out of your delusion, enjoy it... revel in it...
Shadowrider61
Level 2
May 21, 2020
2
And what does that have to do with anything? The climate doesn't just swing back and forth like a pendulum naturally. There are measurable causes of those interglacial and glacial periods. Therefore, what, now, can you think of that is causing our current global temperatures to rise besides humans?
The climate does exactly that, "swing back and forth like a pendulum naturally".
@AdrianRainbow Not in the way he's talking about. It won't just get warmer because it's been getting colder for awhile. That warming and cooling is caused by Milankovitch cycles, or volcanic activity, or increased solar activity...or human production of fossil fuels...or perhaps other newer ideas such as Earth's magnetic field flipping...which is happening now...however, I haven't heard of past incidents of Earth's magnetic field weakening then flipping being tied to periods of global warming.
Humans produce far more C02 each year than volcanoes. Reduced volcanic activity from between 1970 and now or so might cause enough of a lack of global cooling for the world to have warmed as much as it has...maybe...but I haven't heard of anyone pointing out that sort of trend.
Can you think of any explanations for the steady rise in Earth's global temperature between now and the 1970's besides human-created pollutants? I can't...aside from some sketchy "maybes" like, perhaps, somehow, the weakening of Earth's magnetic field that's occurring now as the poles get ready to flip is screwing with Earth's temperatures in ways nobody understands...or something.
LOL, yes in any way he's talking about.
Stop deflecting.
@AdrianRainbow Okay...I guess we're going to play the poopy head game. You're a poopy head. There...now you do me. We'll keep going forever and that'll be just about as productive as the direction the conversation was going.
You're consciously trying to look for ways I'm wrong while ignoring what my points clearly were that you can clearly tell are correct if you just look at them.
I'm much more concerned about the pooling of ownership of earth's resource into the hands of a few people. The gap between rich and poor is ignored while climate change is touted as the greatest threat to human existence. Baa-Baa-Baa
cRaZyTMG
Level 7
May 21, 2020
0
I don't think climate change is the greatest threat to human existence. I think disease is. Climate change appears to be the type of threat that can exponentially increase with time though. Poverty is more of a one-time-harm. When people are poor that doesn't snowball into more poverty as much as climate change might. Also...mass migration will lead to more impoverished people.
Again , wrong way round , its not for people to deny global warming , we don't need to , its not happening , you don't justify a status quo (global warming is the playing same silly trick vegans and flat earthers play, attacking the status quo with garbage, no ice age 2005, as predicted or global warming )
Its warmers place to prove warmings happenin it isnt . & Co2 is not a green house gas . If you knew nature , the more co2 the better we would all be healthier .
Roobarb
Level 1
May 21, 2020
0
Yes it is...and even most people who deny anthropogenic global warming will agree that global warming is happening. Just look at any graph of global temperatures over the last century. look at a graph of temperatures in your own country during the last century. You'll probably see temperatures rising, on average.
"I'm not knowledgeable enough" 
Tony Heller !
YishaiNathan
Level 1
May 21, 2020
0
How about you just tell me some of his more interesting points so i can tell whether or not he's the usual crackhead people love to brag about or someone worth listening to.
What's his alternative explanation for the steady rise in global temperatures, despite solar activity remaining pretty steady during that time period, besides humans?
Read the book Climate Revolution
After reading that you will understand the real imperical science against anthropogenic global warming.
UdontNeedtokno
Level 1
May 21, 2020
1
Does it tell about alternative explanations for the steady rise in global warming we've seen since the 1970's, despite the sun not increasing in activity, besides human activity? If so...could you just save me the trip to the bookstore and tell me a little about those ideas now? All I need is the title. I'm not going to buy one of those books or even spend time reading it unless it has some pretty convincing alternative possible explanations besides humanity as the culprit.
Excellent points. Here are some more.
pbuck0145
Level 8
May 21, 2020
1
They are not excellent points, they aren't even researched, otherwise #3 is just a blatant lie.
[r.search.yahoo.com]
@AdrianRainbow No...#3 is not a blatent lie. It's quite obviously true for reasons I explained in the very words you responded to.
@AdrianRainbow They are researched. I just didn't include links to most of it because it's generally common knowledge. If you do not know most of that, you have not done enough research. That's all stuff that you can find pretty easily on single websites or videos...with the exception of the part where I said the last ice age was maybe 5 degrees celsius cooler than today. That may be misleading, depending on what part of it we're talking about. Graphs seem to show the coldest part of the recent glacial period as colder than that so far as I've seen. I've heard sources repeat that "5 degrees celsius colder" in terms of global average temperatures during the past ice age...but I don't know exactly what that means or where they got that information from. Also, the IPCC views on temperature increase may be a little higher than 1.5 to 5 degrees. It's something around that level though.
I can explain where I got all of my information from, however, if you want to know. I just didn't feel like looking up the links for all that for the forty-thousandth time when I know, through experience, that most readers are going to completely ignore it all anyway.
Let me see, what was that reason again.... "It's just both those nations have so many people that it seems like those nations produce a lot of C02." Really?
You obviously did very selective research then. [r.search.yahoo.com]
Thanks for the video. All go through all the points listed in it.
#10. It appears that the link to that study can be found here: [rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com]
I cannot see the full article, but the abstract talks about how solar wind may have a big impact on events on Earth. It talks about yearly, cyclical, issues...not whether or not that's had an effect on Earth's increase in temperature since the 1970's
The video-speaker mentions that solar wind is of great importance to Earth's temperature. Unless decreasing solar activity and therefore decreasing solar wind is increasing Earth's temperature though...that's not having much affect on Earth. Like I mentioned, the Sun has been in a mild cooling phase since the 1970's. Some sources describe it as, instead, not having much of a noteworthy trend either way. The graph looks to me like it'd be best described as not having much of a trend either way..so even if decreased solar wind increases temperatures, I'm imagining that wouldn't affect earth's steady rise in temperature over the past few decades either: skepticalscience.com/acrim-pmod-sun-getting-hotter.htm
(I'm assuming that more solar activity means more solar wind).
#9. That study about the slowdown of the walker circulation at solar cycle maximums can be found here, it seems: [pnas.org]
I see nothing in there that points to an explanation for why Earth's temperature would be raising since the 1970's, if not for human activity either. It looks to me like the video-creator just kind of said, basically, "This will likely have effects on things going on, on Earth...not that that will necessarily have anything to do with the steadily rising temperatures in recent decades, however." Maybe I missed something. I only skimmed the study.
#8. Global warming, of course, means that there is a steadily increasing amount of heat energy on and around Earth as the decades go by. Again, this looks like it's dealing with more local issues than that...not anything that would point to something besides human C02 and methane leading to that steadily increasing total heat energy on Earth.
#7. Here's that study: [link.springer.com]
Again...that looks to me like it's dealing with local issues on a shorter time scale than the decades that global warming has been steadily rising.
#6. That can be found here: [frontiersin.org]
And a refutation can be found here:
(start it at about 32:30 for best results). It basically argues that the climate models have been pretty close to accurate, and that currently Earth's temperature is right about in the middle of what they say it should be...although for awhile Earth's temperature was a little lower than the middle, but still within the boundaries of what was expected.
#5. That's not stating anything anyone hasn't already known, so far as I can see. Obviously, the Sun is a major control over the planet's temperature. We have no other noteworthy heat source. Everybody has known about past rapid temperature increases for quite some time. The concern is about the future rise of temperature...not what's happened so far.
#4. That study can be found here: [patricktbrown.org]
Unfortunately, I have no way of seeing anything that is meant by that...even in an abstract. I'm not sure what "high climate sensitivity" refers to.
#3. and even if the Sun does control the lowest part of the atmosphere...why does that matter when solar activity has not been increasing?
#2. That can be found here: [journals.aps.org]
That article could mean different things. Some clouds tend to reflect sunlight back into space. Other clouds tend to keep solar energy here on Earth. That's not pointing to anything until we know which sorts of clouds it's thickening. Also, there are of course different sorts of energy from space. Awhile back some people were wondering if cosmic rays seeded cloud formation, for example. Cosmic rays are interstellar rays of energy. Increased solar activity actually reduces them...protecting Earth from them more.
#1. Some clouds reflect sunlight back into space. Others hold heat down on Earth better. High clouds tend to warm Earth more. Low clouds tend to reflect away sunlight more cooling Earth...so the question is, which cloud types are being formed more? The link to that seems to be here: [princeton.edu]
From the link:
"The researchers report in the journal Nature Communications that models tend to factor in too much of the sun’s daily heat, which results in warmer, drier conditions than might actually occur. The researchers found that inaccuracies in accounting for the diurnal, or daily, cloud cycle did not seem to invalidate climate projections, but they did increase the margin of error for a crucial tool scientists use to understand how climate change will affect us.
'It’s important to get the right result for the right reason,” said corresponding author Amilcare Porporato, a professor of civil and environmental engineering and the Princeton Environmental Institute. “These errors can trickle down into other changes, such as projecting fewer and weaker storms. We hope that our results are useful for improving how clouds are modeled, which would improve the calibration of climate models and make the results much more reliable.'"
That web page tells the name of the actual study the talk is based on. I found that here:
[nature.com]
Apparently, they've found that most climate models overestimate radiation in most climate models due to lack of attention to cloud-related factors.
From the end of that study:
"In summary, we have quantified the discrepancies of the DCC among current climate models, satellite observations, and reanalysis data. In general, climate models have better and more consistent performance in simulating mean cloud coverage, while most GCMs present considerable discrepancies in the standard deviation (&sigma
and centroid 
of cloud cycles. The evident errors are the smaller σ and earlier c over the land, leading to an overestimation of net radiation as indicated by the CRE analysis. The smaller errors over the ocean also induce significant radiative impacts, as its relatively larger marine CRE amplifies the effects of DCC errors. Model tuning used to compensate for these errors results in shifts of the DCC phase over the ocean and even larger DCC biases over the land. Thanks to the limited responses of DCC to global warming, such biases do not seem to invalidate future climate projection; however, they may induce an overestimation of cloud-feedback strength and distort the patters of land–ocean–atmosphere interaction. Improving resolution and parameterizations of atmospheric convection may help reduce the reliance of model tuning and provide more accurate climate projections."[nature.com]
So...some of the climate projections may be somewhat inaccurate. (We should, however, keep in mind that climate projections so far involving global temperature increases have been pretty accurate though).
This last article/study is worth noting. I'm not sure the rest are though...at least what of them I could read...and this last article isn't exactly damning towards the idea of anthropogenic climate change.
The speaker mentions how Earth's magnetic field is decaying and that would allow more cosmic rays to hit Earth. There seems to be disagreement over whether or not cosmic rays influence cloud formation. (Again, cosmic rays are reduced by increased solar activity too).
Here's an article I found informative:
"For well over a decade Svensmark has studied how the energetic particles reaching Earth from deep space, known as cosmic rays, can influence the planet’s climate as a result of changes to the Sun’s output. The idea is that cosmic rays seed clouds by ionizing molecules in Earth’s atmosphere that draw in other molecules to create the aerosols around which water vapour can condense to form cloud droplets. The low-lying clouds that result then have the effect of cooling the Earth by reflecting incoming sunshine back out to space. Since the Sun’s magnetic field tends to deflect cosmic rays away from the Earth, the planet will be warmer when solar activity is high and, conversely, cooler when it is low." [physicsworld.com]
So...there are people who believe that those cosmic rays, apparently, could seed the formation of low-lying clouds that keep the planet cooler through reflecting back sunlight into space. I'm not sure why they emphasize the rays possibly seeding lower clouds, but don't mention them seeding the higher clouds that warm the planet...but perhaps they have some reason for believing those cosmic rays would mostly create more of the lower, cooling, clouds.
If they're right, and lots of people believe they might not be, then when the sun would decrease in activity, that would seemingly allow more cosmic rays to hit earth, forming more low-lying clouds, cooling Earth further.
SO IF COSMIC RAYS DO AFFECT CLOUD FORMATION...IT LOOKS LIKE, GIVEN THAT THE SUN HAS BEEN IN WHAT MIGHT BE DESCRIBED AS EITHER A MILD COOLING PHASE, OR IN A PRETTY STABLE STATE, THEY WOULD HAVE MAGNIFIED THE COOLING EFFECT OF DECREASED SOLAR ACTIVITY...EVEN WHILE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE HAS BEEN RISING FOR THE PAST SEVERAL DECADES.
Also, people are talking about Earth's magnetic sphere weakening as the poles get ready to flip. That would, presumably, lead to more cosmic rays hitting Earth. That will make Earth cooler, not warmer...unless someone finds are a reason to believe that cosmic rays create the higher, warming clouds, rather than the lower, cooling ones. For whatever reason, I keep hearing that cosmic rays might make more of the lower, cooling ones.
If that cooling of the Earth has been occurring due to that weakening of Earth's magnetic sphere and increased cosmic rays hitting earth already, then Earth has been increasing in temperature because of it...which means the actual temperature increase is higher than it would otherwise be without that weakening magnetic field...meaning that humanity's affect on climate would be higher than it currently seems to be...unless I misunderstand something.
Regarding the nature article about ozone-depleting gases possibly causing arctic warming: That article can be found here: [nature.com]
That's interesting.
He makes the point that solar protons destroy atmosphere, and that more solar protons will enter our atmosphere as our magnetic sphere weakens.
Apparently there is a region away from Earth's ice caps where our magnetic field has been weakening:
"On average the planet's magnetic field has lost almost 10% of its strength over the last two centuries, but there is a large localised region of weakness stretching from Africa to South America."
[news.sky.com]
If that decay of Earth's magnetic field increases global warming...that could be a nonhuman means for climate change to be occurring. Well-done. You posted a nonhuman possible explanation I hadn't thought of yet.
However...this suggests that the magnetic field reversals, like the one currently in the process of hindering Earth's magnetic field, have been associated with periods of global cooling at times:
"The anomalous cooling events that coincided with major decreases of field intensity during the MB and LJ polarity reversals suggest that the geomagnetic field can affect the Earth’s climate through modulation of CR flux. Because this mechanistic link is governed by basic geophysical processes that are not specific to any particular geological age, the geomagnetic field may have played an important role in some aspects of long-term climate variation."[pnas.org]
So while I'd assume that's an area to look into...it seems like it's far from a sure thing yet.
Regarding that Nature article that mentioned that ozone-depleting gases might possibly be causing arctic warming...NASA says that the net effect of the holes in the ozone layer is to "cool the stratosphere more than they warm the troposphere" [climate.nasa.gov]
HOWEVER...NOTE THAT IN THE NATURE ARTICLE...THEY DID NOT SAY THAT THE ARCTIC WAS WARMING DUE TO DESTROYED OZONE! THEY SAID THAT OZONE-DEPLETING GASES WARM THE ATMOSPHERE THOUSANDS OF TIMES FASTER THAN C02...SO THEY'RE SAYING THAT THE REASON THE ARCTIC MIGHT BE WARMING IS JUST BECAUSE NEW SORTS OF GREENHOUSE GASES ARE BEING ADDED...MEANING THAT DESTROYED OZONE DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT, IT SEEMS, AND THEREFORE REMOVING THE PROSPECT THAT EARTH'S WEAKENING MAGNETIC FIELD HAS BEEN CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING!
"England and his colleagues compared climate simulations both with and without the mass emission of CFCs that began in the 1950s. Without CFCs, the simulations showed an average Arctic warming of 0.82 °C. When the presence of ozone-depleting compounds was factored in, that number jumped to 1.59 °C. The researchers saw similarly dramatic changes in sea-ice coverage between the two sets of model simulations. By running the models with fixed CFC concentrations while varying the thickness of the ozone layer, the team was able to attribute the warming directly to the chemicals — rather than changes these substances caused in the ozone layer." [nature.com]
AND THE ABOVE MEANS THAT YOUR VIDEO-MAKER TOTALLY MISTRANSLATED THE MEANING OF THE NATURE ARTICLE...MEANING HE DID A SHITTY JOB READING IT! THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT NATURE ARTICLE THAT HINTS THAT A REDUCED MAGNETIC FIELD, OR DESTROYED OZONE, HAS BEEN CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING!
In the later part of your video, your guy attributes Earth's heating in recent decades to the lingering affects of the grand solar maximum. Regular solar maximums are periods during each 11 year cycle when the Sun becomes hottest. Grand solar maximums. Grand solar maximums occur when solar cycles exhibit greater than usual solar activity for decades or centuries (according to wikipedia).
That makes no sense to me. If the processes that once heated Earth are no longer heating Earth, no matter how recently they occurred, that probably means the Earth is going to cease heating up, rather than heating up hotter like it is now. The "Modern Maximum" was the most recent grand solar maximum, which may have ended only recently...maybe around the year 2008 or so...but that doesn't mean solar activity was increasing all that time. [principia-scientific.org]
On the contrary, during the time period that Earth had been raising sharply in temperature in the 1970's, solar activity had REACHED A PLATEAU THAT CONTINUES TO THIS DAY. You can find information all over the place talking about how the Sun has been in a pretty stable state since the 1970's...weakening a little perhaps....typical 11 year cycles but no major trend leading to dramatically more or less activity.
Your guy says that you have to go back a thousand years to find a period with this low of volcanic cooling (volcanic activity tends to cool the atmosphere, at least over the sort term, due to the particles volcanoes emit into the atmosphere reflecting back sunlight). I find that interesting too...because that's another possible route for global warming that doesn't involve human-created C02.
However,
"During the 1900s there were three large eruptions that caused the entire planet to cool down by as much as 1°C. Volcanic coolings persist for only 2 to 3 years because the aerosols ultimately fall out of the stratosphere and enter the lower atmosphere where rain and wind quickly disperse them."
[ete.cet.edu]
I'n not aware of any dramatic reductions in volcanic activity that have extended from the 1970's until now that could have resulted in the global warming of those times. There would seemingly have to have been a large, prolonged decrease all through the 1970's until now for decreased volcanic activity to have caused Global warming we see...because it only appears to affect the world for a few years after each eruption.
@AdrianRainbow You're link doesn't lead anywhere...and you're overcomplicating this. Obviously, there was nothing I said relating to China or India that was dishonest...unless you just want to be silly about things.
I was merely commenting on a more misleading tendency of people to call China and India the largest C02 producers without mentioning their much larger populations. You can say that neither of those perspectives are dishonest...but if one of those two ways of describing things is more dishonest, it's obviously the people describing China and India as the world's biggest C02 producers without taking into account their larger populations and much lower C02 produced per person.
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.