I don't need sources. The burden of proof is on you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Denziloe
I don't need sources. The burden of proof is on you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Denziloe
As mentioned earlier in the thread, back in the late seventies/early eighties the conjured monster was a new ice age. Then, in Europe, in the early ninetees it was the ultimate destruction of all the European woods and forrests due to acid rain (from coal driven power plants, and car fuel). Then came the annihilation of life on Earth due to the ozon layer disappearing.
After that came Global Warming, which would raise the sea levels and devastate civilisation. This later morphed into Climate Change (because the sea levels didn't change, and the winters got even colder than they used to be).
These days only the very politically correct still have much belief in that conjured monster, so its replacement must be in the final stages of preparation, before it is released into the wild via CNN and all the government-run newscasters.
Nothing ever changes.
By the way, the ice age didn't happen. The trees in Europe were dying from an infection (but recovered nicely - nature has a trick or two up its sleeve). The ozone layer is fine. Global temperatures are not climbing, and the climate is changing exactly like it has always been doing over the past two billion years.
Merry pre-Christmas!
But... it's a positive claim and you're the one making it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Are you trolling?
1. Global warming references to the average global temperatures, and climate change describes the effects of that warming. They are not two different thing, one causes the other and they are related. No one changed global warming to climate change because global warming didn't happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voldmer
2. Climate change and global warming were known about well before the seventies and isn't new.
3. Sea levels are increasing.
4. The ozone layer got seriously damaged but we stopped the damage because we passed laws severely restricting the stuff that was causing the problem. The ozone problem didn't go away by it self, we solved it with laws.
5. Global temperatures are indeed increasing.
6. Scientists weren't talking about an ice age being a real threat in the seventies.
Your entire post is pretty much garbage. I can't believe you are spouting such ignorance and I have to wonder if you are just trying to spread propaganda on purpose. How can a person be so totally misinformed on a subject?
Much to the contrary, I'm very well informed about the subject. I have particular interest in the "hockey stick" hypothesis, which was either brought about by complete ineptitude, or by an outright desire to deceive. I'm a mathematical modelling expert, and I have seen the data, so I know. (If you are interested: the temperatures swing up and down incessantly, and have been doing so as far back as measurements go. This is to an extreme degree precipitated by the actions of the sun).
By the way, the ozone-freaks stated very clearly that it would take 40 years for the freon-gasses to reach the height, where they would cause damage. It has not been forty years since the laws were enacted, so by the ozone-freaks own admission, the effects of the laws are not going to be seen for a long time still.
I have seen the whole development in the movement against capitalism over the past 40 years (yes, this is about capitalism - it was NEVER about the environment), and when I say that the replacement for "Climate change" is being produced right now, it would be safe for you to believe it. It will happen, because "climate change" doesn't work any more. Reality took its thunder away.
The original claim is the positive claim in question. Usually I think the "burden of proof" concept is horseshit because both sides should be ready to provide evidence to support their claims and exclaiming that a lack of evidence or proof on one side being evidence for the opposite argument being true, or at least the other being false, is a logical fallacy. However, as long as you are going to try and play that game, know that the original claim was that global warming is occurring, and as such the burden of proof would in fact lie with those making that claim. The claim to the case being otherwise is not a positive claim unless you treat the situation as if global warming has already been proven and one is trying to disprove it. That is where you are mistaken, because global warming makes a specific statement in regards to climate change where as climate change in general refers to... well, it's rather obvious, is it not? So, given that the entire debate here is hinging on whether or not global warming is indeed a thing, his claim is not to the positive, but the negative, thus the burden of proof lies on the side claiming it exists. Do not get it twisted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Denziloe
This makes no coherent sense. That's simply not the claim at hand. Yes, global warming is a positive statement and the burden of proof for that lies on the claimant... but my post isn't talking about that. It's referring to the claim that "the climate scientists were were saying there would be catastrophic changes by 2014". This is a separate claim, and whoever makes it should clearly be able to back it up with more than an anecdote.Quote:
Originally Posted by snoop
Quick questions: how many of us here have actually read any papers addressing climate related issues? How many of us have gone to a conference, or even know the name of a climate journal offhand? For those who have read a paper or gone to a conference, did you have the years of education and training in that one particular niche required to make sense of it? Better yet, were you able to read the whole thing without falling asleep due to boredom?
IMO trying to debate over climate change is like going to 100 different doctors just to find the one that will tell you your cholesterol levels aren't dangerously unhealthy. You might think you know better than the folks who's job it is to figure this stuff out, but you really don't...
This all started because of the original post and the topic at hand. I agree if he wants to use that argument he should back it up, but the fact of the matter is you are doing a poor job picking and choosing your battles right now, because no matter the outcome of your little sub-argument, neither argument stands to gain any supporting evidence. It's a waste of time and the longer both of you argue about it, the stupider both of you, your opinions, and the side of the argument your originally supported look.Quote:
Originally Posted by Denziloe
I think that this shows that you "don't have a leg to stand on" here. Thank you for exposing one of the many weaknesses of the deniers...namely throwing out unsourced or weakly sourced claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
This was also addressed "earlier in the thread" by me:Quote:
Originally Posted by Voldmer
Those warnings were mostly media driven. "1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2." - SkepticalScience (survey of peer reviewed papers from 1965 to 1979 regarding warming or cooling of the Earth, found that 42 out of 49 predicted warming not cooling).
And as far as global warming...see the article "Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made" (survey of over 12,000 peer reviewed science papers) in the Guardian and elsewhere. These are peer reviewed papers.
And a sincere early Merry Christmas to you. We can still agree on some lucid dreaming points I'm sure and I have in the past Vodmer. :)
It is very hard to convince conspiracy theorists. At least we know why you feel so strong. For some reason 97% of scientist want to see the downfall of capitalism...is that what you are saying? As far as the hockey stick...that has been shot down: What evidence is there for the hockey stick?Quote:
Originally Posted by Voldmer
Again 97% of climate scientists agree global warming is happening and that it is man made.Quote:
Originally Posted by snoop
This quick response will have to do for now...super busy.
Not good enough, I don't care what your excuse is. You might as well save yourself the time if you are going to put in the minimal effort. I'm finished wasting my own time stating that it's a waste of time to continue trying to convince anybody otherwise about what climate scientists say. I'm fine with wasting my time in ways I want to do so, so as long as you are going to keep pursuing this argument, then I'm going to hold you to it and if you try and take any shortcuts I will point any of them out and destroy what fragments of possible truth you are trying to get out there and definitely any of the false information you think you can get away with trying to confuse us with. Do a thorough job, or you are just going to wind up looking at best, ignorant, and at worse, trying to manipulate others into believing a controversial subject to push some hidden agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by fogelbise
If you are so well informed on the subject, why are you saying things that are blatantly untrue? Like saying sea levels have not gone up, when we can easily prove they have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voldmer
Gais, there are literally thousands upon thousands of papers out there on this stuff. Here's what most of them cite, since it's the most thorough and authoritative.
Those're also the sources policy makers pretend to understand when making policy decisions and casting votes and what has you.
Edit: 20 points says no one here reads one end to end without skimming/skipping. XP
Why aren't you posting links from reputable sources proving that it's already proven instead of making an equally worthless and baseless statement? Sorry, no one is going to just believe you, and since you are on the defensive it's clear you need to actually do something other than saying that we're wrong to get taken seriously at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
If you're so well informed on the subject, show us the sources for the evidence you keep claiming you can easily provide us with.
Wow! How disingenuous! I have quoted no less than 6 different sources in this thread. The 97% comment that you quoted me referring to had the source cited in that very same post further up! What are you talking about? And are you really insinuating that some ordinary Dreamviews member (myself) is trying to "push some hidden agenda"??...or "looking at best, ignorant" when I have cited almost all of the sources that appear in this thread and also provided a source for the line that you quoted me on in your rebuke?Quote:
Originally Posted by snoop
I have already posted the sources that support most of Alric's arguments. Are you saying he needs to regurgitate sources that are already provided in this very thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by snoop
A few questions answered with sources.
Are temperatures rising?
Quote:
NOAA: 2014 is shaping up as hottest year on record
CNN) -- The first ten months of 2014 have been the hottest since record keeping began more than 130 years ago, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
That may be hard to believe for people in places like Buffalo, New York, which saw a record early snowfall this year.
But NOAA says, despite the early bitter cold across parts of the United States in recent weeks, it's been a hot year so far for the Earth.
With two months left on the calendar, 2014 is shaping up to be the hottest year on record.
The average global temperature between January and October has been 0.68 degrees Celsius (1.22 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than the 20th century's average global temperature of 14.1 C (57.4 F).
NOAA's analysis is an important "health gauge" indicating an ominous trend for the planet, says CNN meteorologist Derek Van Dam.
"It's becoming increasingly more difficult to be a skeptic of the causes of our warming planet," he says.
Hottest October
This October was the hottest October on record globally, NOAA data showed. The mercury climbed more than one degree Fahrenheit above the 20th century average of 57.1 F.
It was the fourth warmest October on record for the United States, NOAA said.
"The record high October temperature was driven by warmth across the globe over both the land and ocean surfaces and was fairly evenly distributed between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres," the agency said.
That's significant, says Van Dam.
"Most notably, this record warmth is not contained to any specific part of the world. Meaning, we are all in this together," he says. "So far this year, record-breaking warmth has been observed in at least every continent and major ocean basin of our planet. This is something we cannot ignore."
Important benchmark
NOAA's analysis breaks down global temperatures into two categories -- land and ocean -- then an average that includes both. The record high temperatures in October were recorded across both land and sea.
The surface temperature on land approached an important scientific benchmark. It was almost 2 degrees Celsius higher than the 20th century average for October of 9.3 C (48.7 F).
Scientists have long predicted that a change in global average temperature of just 2 to 3 degrees higher could spell disaster for the planet, contributing to catastrophic storms, sea level rise, dangerous storm surges and melting polar ice.
According to the non-binding international agreement on climate change -- the Copenhagen Accord, reached in 2009 -- any temperature increase above the 2 degree Celsius mark is "dangerous."
NOAA said the ocean temperatures were also the warmest on record in October with an increase of 1.12 F over the 20th century average of 60.6 degrees.
Hot spots
"Record warmth for the year-to-date was particularly notable across much of northern and western Europe, parts of Far East Russia, and large areas of the northeastern and western equatorial Pacific Ocean, " NOAA said. "It is also notable that record warmth was observed in at least some areas of every continent and major ocean basin around the world," the agency added.
Of particular note, several countries have already seen an average temperature increase of more than 2 degrees Celsius in October 2014 compared to 20th century averages, including Australia, Germany, France, Switzerland, and Sweden.
There was also one notable cold spot on the map.
The average temperature this year in the midsection of the United States, which saw a severe winter, has been below the 20th century average.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOAA National Climatic Data Center
Has there been a catastrophic impact due weather and changing weather?
Quote:
Catastophe definition: an event causing great and unsually sudden damage or suffering
Quote:
Originally Posted by World Meteological Organization
Is awareness of global climate change having a negative impact on capitalism? (Specially for Voldmer)
As far as I can see, apart from providing employment to scientists, the awareness of climate change, global warming and efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions worldwide have resulted in greater product innovation, new industry development and job creation in number of areas. Here are two graphs from the Economist, relating to those areas. I also recommend reading the whole article from Sept. 2014 "Curbing Climate Change" on the Economist's website.
Attachment 7904
Attachment 7905
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyxCC
It's impossible to assess in detail the influence of a chosen political course, like the "climate change crusade", on society, because you cannot say how society would have developed without that political course. All you can do is identify some very broad effects.
But specifically, to your points: 1) most of the employment has not gone to scientists but to people from other backgrounds. Even the "climate scientists" tend to be chosen amongst people with other backgrounds than hard science. An awful lot of economists, for example. 2) Greater product innovation/new industry development/job credation cannot be assessed, because ressources were taken away from other fields and given to "climate science", which has resulted in lesser activity/possibilities in these other fields than would otherwise have happened. 3) "The Economist" is a very socialist-oriented publication. I would not trust them, if my life depended on it.
Moreover, the issues mentioned (employment/innovation/industry development) are not particularly tied to capitalism; the exist in communism as well (at least for at time).
Okay, I agree that it would be very difficult to measure jobs under the "what would have been if scenario". Perhaps you meant something else by "global warming trying to go against capitalism?" I fail to see your capitalism/communism connection to global warming.Quote:
It's impossible to assess in detail the influence of a chosen political course, like the "climate change crusade", on society, because you cannot say how society would have developed without that political course. All you can do is identify some very broad effects.
My comment about providing employment to scientists was semi-serious. Should have added an emoticon there to distinguish it from the rest of the comment about new industries and products for which there is info on the graphs and the article. Again, awaiting clarification on the capitalism concern you have.Quote:
most of the employment has not gone to scientists but to people from other backgrounds. Even the "climate scientists" tend to be chosen amongst people with other backgrounds than hard science. An awful lot of economists, for example
I am truly amazed by this particular viewpoint. The newspaper has quite often openly expressed its opinion on diverse political issues in some of its articles. I have not seen any indications of supporting socialist agenda. In fact, I recall the Economist received heavy criticism on one of its special reports on socialist France. Moreover, they produce sound research, published as special reports in the magazine or available for a fee (Economist Intelligence Unit).Quote:
The Economist" is a very socialist-oriented publication. I would not trust them, if my life depended on it.
I like the last sentense though, a good warning relating to any media for that matter. :P
Last night I actually watched the episode of The Newsroom that the thread talks about. It is a load of rubbish, don't worry. Aaron Sorkin's writing can be brilliantly witty in itself, but in terms of the actual content, he seems to be rather ignorant about a lot of things. I remember an episode last season where they stated straight-faced that "American elections are the envy of every other country in the world", which is hilariously parochial, totally inaccurate, and somewhat insulting. Last night, among other stupid statements, they referred straight-faced to CO2 as a "poison gas", when of course it's actually biologically harmless and in fact essential to our ecosystem.
I should point out that this isn't evidence against global warming; no more than it's evidence for global warming. It's a silly TV show. It's utterly irrelevant to the actual science. Anybody who tries to use it to support an argument for or against global warming is being dishonest or just plain silly.
Denziloe, please go back and read the OP carefully before insinuating that I am being being "dishonest or just plain silly." More later. Good job pushing some great replies further back up the thread with this insinuation based on faulty analysis of the OP.
Please read my post carefully before insinuating that I was insinuating that you were being dishonest or just plain silly.
Ah - come on! What Fogelbise did here was making a meaningful thread about an important topic, anchoring it in that episode, but otherwise arguing soundly, replying intelligently, unfortunately not to much avail - and esp. important - he brings lots of sources and hard numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Denziloe
While I do think a lot like you, Denziloe, and I don't know the episode - this sounds unfair to me. Cheer up a bit, hm?
Extended Discussion is rather an Intensive Care Patient on here lately, just about hanging on...:wink:
Really nice it's here, this thread, thanks Fogelbise!
Climate Change Denial galls me, maybe later more.
:alien:
Like I said... you misunderstand me. I wasn't thinking of fogelbise when I wrote that. What I had in mind were comments along the lines of "the show made obviously false statements, and it's also notably left-leaning, therefore global warming is a liberal conspiracy" - or something slightly more subtle but to the same effect. Such nonsensical conflation tends to pop up in threads like these, from - shall we say - select personalities. I'm sure you've experienced the kind of thing I mean.
How else am I supposed to take this statement that is in this very thread? You broke my heart. ;) And again, for anyone who was misled by Denziloe's statement, feel free to reread the OP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Denziloe
Edit: Thank you Steph & Nyxcc! And thank you to Denziloe for the clarification.
Edit#2: I would also like to extend my apologies for assuming what you meant Denziloe.
The sources you posted were not about quite the same thing, but thank you for taking the time to post more relevant sources. About Denziloe's post, you have to admit, wasn't it kind of the wrong idea to include the story in your main post if you didn't want people mistaking what you were saying about it? It's clear now that you mentioned it because it was what got you thinking about the topic in the first place, but it can easily be mistaken as you hearing a sensationalist statement on a silly news show and taking it far too seriously, don't you think? I'm willing to give you a break because obviously that's not the case, but you need to be a bit more patient and understand why people are getting confused in the first place, you practically begged for people to take it the wrong way by including it in your OP.Quote:
Originally Posted by fogelbise
