Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

[Zippyjuan]

You're right that 18 years in terms of global history is not significant. But then you show data that only goes back a couple hundred years. That's still not even a blip in global history. You're not one of those people that believe the earth was created 10,000 years ago are you?

No, I am not a Creationist. Any reason to think I am? (Creationists don't believe in Climate Change)

Long term (800,000 years) of temperatures as measured by ice core samples (yes, peaks and valleys but peaks keep rising and current peak is still on its way up:

 

[Zippyjuan]

But again, arguing Climate change is like arguing religion or 9/11. There are strong opinions on both sides and evidence will not change opinions on it.

 

[oyarde]

No, I am not a Creationist. Any reason to think I am? (Creationists don't believe in Climate Change)

Long term (800,000 years) of temperatures as measured by ice core samples (yes, peaks and valleys but peaks keep rising and current peak is still on its way up:

Looks normal to me .

 

[PaulConventionWV]

In terms of global history, no, 18 years is not really significant. They are looking at LONG TERM changes. Climate change is not a linear change. The planet does not get hotter every year (even the theory of climate change does not say that the planet will get hotter everywhere- some places will be cooler and others warmer and drier). The United States is only about 12% of the planet's surface.

We have only been taking measurements for a little over a hundred years. Everything we really know is based on that. The rest is speculation. You can't know what the temperature was thousands of years ago with any degree of accuracy. In the scope of actual measured temperatures, 18 years is very significant. There are far too many factors involved for us to assume that the uptrend will resume eventually just because we did some speculative tests on things that have never been scientifically observed, tested, or repeated, which brings me to my next point.

Climate change is like arguing religion. Science generally accepts it happens (over 90% in polls- the argument is about how much human activity adds to it). Those who don't believe it happens (running about 15% of the population) will not be convinced by any information.

The false dichotomy between religion and science is shaky, at best, and much less reliable when you're trying to compare it to an institution with a known motive for falsifying data (goverment-controlled science and education) with questionable statistics to back it up.

This said, why do you insist that only the skeptics are closed-minded? Maybe you're the closed-minded one because you refuse to maintain a skeptical attitude toward something that hasn't bee proven. Why are we the ignorant ones when we simply embrace the null hypothesis until proven otherwise? Why must you assume that we are simply blind when the null hypothesis is on our side? The scientific "consensus" shouldn't even be a factor because there is too much at stake for it to ever be a reliable measuring stick for truth.

I have tried to use my "boat on a lake" explanation. Waves reach the shore of the lake. Those waves are temperatures. Crest of the wave is warmer climate, bottom of the wave cooler temperatures. "Natural climate change". Now a boat enters the lake. Man. He creates some of his own waves. His waves get added to the natural waves- which depending on "peak vs troth" can make the "natural waves" larger or smaller by the time they reach the shore (our experience of weather). The existance of natural waves does not rule out that man also makes waves which add to (or sometimes subtract from) natural changes.

Global temperatures (not just US) recently:
http://www.weather.com/news/science...ars-record-occurred-21st-century-wmo-20140324





More at link.

If the earth were really going to warm catastrophically, it should be far more obvious than it is now. It is not enough to point to a slight uptrend over the past few decades despite much higher temperatures in the past and somehow come to the conclusion that "this time it's different" because we looked at a few stupid models that have no way of properly gauging the earth's temperature down to a fraction of a degree. It's really not hard to conceive of how the multitude of factors involved in global climate -- many of which we're not even aware -- could skew our data. Why do we have to assume the worst when we haven't even broken the all-time highs? What happened to the hockey stick graph? Why is that not a thing anymore? Why do we constantly defend this insanity despite repeated attempts to boondoggle the public and use lies and deception to make people believe that we should depart from the idea that maybe, just maybe, the world is in no real danger?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

No, I am not a Creationist. Any reason to think I am? (Creationists don't believe in Climate Change)

Long term (800,000 years) of temperatures as measured by ice core samples (yes, peaks and valleys but peaks keep rising and current peak is still on its way up:

Gee, if that graph is right, then we should be in real trouble in about a million years (assuming the trend doesn't change).

EVERYONE PANIC!

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The idea that people all over the globe consistently collected temperature information since the 1800s is ludicrous. The idea that you could possibly standardize all of this information to conclude that temperatures have increased by a single degree or less is even more ludicrous. It's even more ridiculous that one could sort this out and figure the percentage that comes from a coal mine vs. burning leaves vs. the sun vs. a cow's butthole.

The temperature on my front porch is different from my driveway, but somehow I'm supposed to believe that somebody could consistently measure temperature within one degree after the bum truck Egypt shack where they measure it was reconstructed countless times, and probably even moved.

The thermometers of yesteryear were not nearly anything like the ones of today, but somehow the red liquid that was probably often rounded off, misrecorded, etc. can be compared to the more precise digital records of today.

Yeah, the temperature might have risen by one degree. Or not. I'll also tell you my net worth after I check my couch for loose change.

 

[FindLiberty]

I understand the near-term importance of protecting water sources from industrial pollution and keeping all those nukes sealed in their bottles, but why is this global weather pattern issue any significant short term scientific concern?

The Earth can/will slowly "fight back" and resolve itself without requiring any consultation or assistance to eventually starve/choke or otherwise kill-off some (or all) of the annoying humans if they manage to screw up the weather (or immediately contaminate food/air/water sources and mutate human DNA with enriched radioactive isotopes) too much. Humans are a danger to themselves politically too, but the Earth will keep spinning.

This whole climate warming/cooling/change issue seems more like continued dramatic political psychopathic central planning taxation/control nonsense. It draws in smart minds that earnestly try to unscramble it all, but then it becomes a modern day, computer enhanced recorded data, goober-funded-choir chanting, "virgins-into-the-volcano" freak show. Now, they (the ones without any clothes on) are even screaming, "There will be no more comments or discussion" because the time for science is already over!

Maybe they should focus their efforts on terraforming Mars so it will be in move-in-ready condition before the sun eventually expands and roasts the entire Earth.

 

[PRB]

The idea that people all over the globe consistently collected temperature information since the 1800s is ludicrous.

Which is why nobody claims it

The idea that you could possibly standardize all of this information to conclude that temperatures have increased by a single degree or less is even more ludicrous.

So don't tell me MWP and LIA anything, since we can't know, right?

It's even more ridiculous that one could sort this out and figure the percentage that comes from a coal mine vs. burning leaves vs. the sun vs. a cow's butthole.

Actually, not so much. Since we understand "conservation of mass". We know how many cows there are, how long the sun has been shining, how many leaves there are to burn, and how much have been burned, how many coal mines there are and how much each burns....while you may not be able to backtrack from results, we know quite a bit about origins.

The temperature on my front porch is different from my driveway, but somehow I'm supposed to believe that somebody could consistently measure temperature within one degree after the bum truck Egypt shack where they measure it was reconstructed countless times, and probably even moved.

Not all temperature stations are reconstructed several times

The thermometers of yesteryear were not nearly anything like the ones of today, but somehow the red liquid that was probably often rounded off, misrecorded, etc. can be compared to the more precise digital records of today.

So then we can forget about the past? Even better!

Yeah, the temperature might have risen by one degree. Or not. I'll also tell you my net worth after I check my couch for loose change.

Go ahead.

 

[PRB]

This argument is fallacious because the non-existence of God is perfectly consistent with no one having been able to prove God’s non-existence."

Similarly, one who makes the claim that AGW will prove destructive on net balance must prove it. If this is done, then the derivative argument can be considered.

So help me here, why is greenhouse effect not in dispute or the claim to be examined? Is it just because more people are convinced? Or just your choosing?

Do greenhouse effect claimers still have the burden of proof? or has it been established for so long and accepted so widely, opponents have the burden of proof?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

So help me here, why is greenhouse effect not in dispute or the claim to be examined? Is it just because more people are convinced? Or just your choosing?

Do greenhouse effect claimers still have the burden of proof? or has it been established for so long and accepted so widely, opponents have the burden of proof?

Claimers still have the burden of proof. Given that it's so widely accepted based on sound reasoning and evidence, it shouldn't be hard to prove.

 

[Madison320]

No, I am not a Creationist. Any reason to think I am? (Creationists don't believe in Climate Change)

Long term (800,000 years) of temperatures as measured by ice core samples (yes, peaks and valleys but peaks keep rising and current peak is still on its way up:

The reason I thought you were a creationist is because you thought long term was 200 years. Even that latest chart is only 800,000 years old. That's still microscopic out of 4.5 billion years.

How about a chart that covers 500 million years? That's a lot better perspective.

Looking at a REAL long term chart you can see that any recent "warming" trend is microscopic and has most likely happened thousands, maybe millions of times previously.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

We know how many cows there are,..

No, you can't possibly know how many cows exist in the world. My neighbor currently has eight. He might have double that in the fall. The people who know that number are him, me, and anybody he tells or anybody who observes his pasture. He is one guy out of countless farmers in the world.

how many leaves there are to burn, and how much have been burned, how many coal mines there are and how much each burns

Knowing the number of leaves in the world is even more ridiculous than your cow counting.

....while you may not be able to backtrack from results,...

That is my whole point. Global warming rests on backtracking and documenting temperatures from the 1800s. Very difficult and practically impossible to calculate within one degree.

Not all temperature stations are reconstructed several times

But some or many are reconstructed. Some are renovated. Some are moved. It's yet another number you could not practically know. You also could not practically know the consistency of these "stations" going back to the 1800s.

So then we can forget about the past? Even better!

Not at all. Just be honest about what you can represent.

 

[PRB]

The reason I thought you were a creationist is because you thought long term was 200 years. Even that latest chart is only 800,000 years old. That's still microscopic out of 4.5 billion years.

How about a chart that covers 500 million years? That's a lot better perspective.

Looking at any temperature before industrial age at best tells us whether we've experienced higher or lower temperatures in the past. It does not answer "Will we have our fragile modern lifestyle as we know it?" We will definitely survive, people have survived Katrina and Sandy, and many worse disasters.

We can survive carbon taxation too, we can survive all kinds of government regulation, but do we want to have to?

 

[PRB]

No, you can't possibly know how many cows exist in the world. My neighbor currently has eight. He might have double that in the fall. The people who know that number are him, me, and anybody he tells or anybody who observes his pasture. He is one guy out of countless farmers in the world.

But we know he doesn't have a million.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Which is why nobody claims it

You do. It's the very foundation of your claim about global warming. You even posted the temperatures and the sources.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

But we know he doesn't have a million.

You just said we know how many cows there are. Tell me how many cows exist in the world.

 

[PRB]

You just said we know how many cows there are. Tell me how many cows exist in the world.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/07/global-livestock-counts

 

[PRB]

You do. It's the very foundation of your claim about global warming. You even posted the temperatures and the sources.

I also use proxy temperatures

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/07/global-livestock-counts

So you don't know.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I also use proxy temperatures

??????