Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 15 Dec '10 03:14 / 1 edit
    I have notice that there have been a couple threads started on the veracity of "Global Warming". Several people have made the claim that because it is colder than normal outside then Global Warming can not be true. Anyone that has put 5 minutes into looking up facts on the subject would know that is actually proof of, rather than debunking, climate change (the preferred term of climatologists).

    I also found it amusing that someone pointed to the East Anglia scientists as proof that all climatologist were liars and their methods were flawed, even though the East Anglia climatologist were cleared of the charges against them.

    Usually in these types of cases the accuser will come up with a link to someone who is marginally associated with the field and that as a snappy title, but no real credentials or standing in the field, to back up their beliefs. I was thinking about that today when I came across this article on "backfire".

    From the article linked to below:
    "Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger."

    http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/12/13/how-our-brains-threaten-democracy-the-science-behind-self-delusion/

    Often in the threads on this (or any) site, posters will ignore facts or disregard them out of hand, not because they are inaccurate, but rather because the facts conflict with their point of view. While this makes for some long, and rather tedious, threads, it doesn't make this a debate forum. It just makes it a pissing in the wind forum.

    Thoughts?
  2. 15 Dec '10 13:52
    Originally posted by CliffLandin
    Often in the threads on this (or any) site, posters will ignore facts or disregard them out of hand, not because they are inaccurate, but rather because the facts conflict with their point of view. While this makes for some long, and rather tedious, threads, it doesn't make this a debate forum. It just makes it a pissing in the wind forum.

    Thoughts?
    You're quite right of course that a lot of people ignore facts that don't suit their premises. I think, however, that some of us do our best to base our opinions on the facts and revise our opinions where necessary. The knack of the debates forum is for those of us who are interested in rational argument to have a civilised conversation, while ignoring or mocking those who aren't.
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    15 Dec '10 14:49
    Originally posted by CliffLandin
    I have notice that there have been a couple threads started on the veracity of "Global Warming". Several people have made the claim that because it is colder than normal outside then Global Warming can not be true. Anyone that has put 5 minutes into looking up facts on the subject would know that is actually proof of, rather than debunking, climate chang ...[text shortened]... sn't make this a debate forum. It just makes it a pissing in the wind forum.

    Thoughts?
    While you are, of course, correct that individual cold snaps do not disprove global climate change, it is equally ridiculous to assert that individual cold snaps prove global climate change.
  4. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    15 Dec '10 14:51
    Originally posted by CliffLandin
    I have notice that there have been a couple threads started on the veracity of "Global Warming". Several people have made the claim that because it is colder than normal outside then Global Warming can not be true. Anyone that has put 5 minutes into looking up facts on the subject would know that is actually proof of, rather than debunking, climate chang ...[text shortened]... sn't make this a debate forum. It just makes it a pissing in the wind forum.

    Thoughts?
    I don't think anyone has every changed their mind after reading any thread on any forum anywhere on the internet.

    Basically, the only way to change people's minds is by inflicting pain. Fonging them good and hard.
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    15 Dec '10 14:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    I don't think anyone has every changed their mind after reading any thread on any forum anywhere on the internet.

    Basically, the only way to change people's minds is by inflicting pain. Fonging them good and hard.
    I've changed my mind several times just based on discussions in this forum.





    On the other hand, you're probably right.




    Nah... wrong.




    Edit: The first statement is serious.
  6. 15 Dec '10 15:09
    Originally posted by sh76
    While you are, of course, correct that individual cold snaps do not disprove global climate change, it is equally ridiculous to assert that individual cold snaps prove global climate change.
    Not individual cold snaps, but the fact the in Florida, where I grew up, there were last winter, weeks on end in the 40s and there have already been a couple of weeks in the 40s again this year. I lived in Florida for 30 years and think it dipped into the 40s twice in that time.

    One cold snap, no. It being colder regularly in places where it never was before, yes.
  7. 15 Dec '10 15:17
    Originally posted by sh76
    I've changed my mind several times just based on discussions in this forum.
    Me too.
  8. 15 Dec '10 15:31
    Originally posted by CliffLandin
    Not individual cold snaps, but the fact the in Florida, where I grew up, there were last winter, weeks on end in the 40s and there have already been a couple of weeks in the 40s again this year. I lived in Florida for 30 years and think it dipped into the 40s twice in that time.

    One cold snap, no. It being colder regularly in places where it never was before, yes.
    But even a single entire winter that is especially cold (or warm) cannot by itself used as evidence of climate change.
  9. 15 Dec '10 16:10
    Originally posted by CliffLandin
    I have notice that there have been a couple threads started on the veracity of "Global Warming". Several people have made the claim that because it is colder than normal outside then Global Warming can not be true. Anyone that has put 5 minutes into looking up facts on the subject would know that is actually proof of, rather than debunking, climate chang ...[text shortened]... sn't make this a debate forum. It just makes it a pissing in the wind forum.

    Thoughts?
    ITS JUNK SCIENCE! FOLLOW THE MONEY!
  10. 15 Dec '10 16:13
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    [b]ITS JUNK SCIENCE! FOLLOW THE MONEY![/b]
    As a previous poster commented or asked: what happens when you "follow the money" on the Climate Sceptics side?
  11. 15 Dec '10 16:23
    "Climate-gate" emails. Read them here:


    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
  12. 15 Dec '10 16:24
    Originally posted by CliffLandin
    I have notice that there have been a couple threads started on the veracity of "Global Warming". Several people have made the claim that because it is colder than normal outside then Global Warming can not be true. Anyone that has put 5 minutes into looking up facts on the subject would know that is actually proof of, rather than debunking, climate chang ...[text shortened]... sn't make this a debate forum. It just makes it a pissing in the wind forum.

    Thoughts?
    This is why belief is so important. It is just like anything else, we have evidences for things and against things and you must weigh them and decide. Sometimes you are on the side of the establishment and conventional thinking and sometimes you are outgunned. As for the naysayers, we are outgunned but it no way means that we are wrong. On the contrary, I'm sure you can come up with many instances in the past in which people have gone against the grain and challenged the establishement and were proven right in the end.

    As for myself, the evidences that stick in my mind are facts such as the Climate being actually warmer during the Middle Ages. Why? In addition, climates on planets throughout the solor system have seen their climates warm up. Why?

    As for carbon emission contributing to global warming, I think it may, however, to what degree is speculative. In addition, I believe that the solar effects of the climate outweigh such puny human effects of carbon emissions. In fact, nature far outweighs man made carbon emissions by such things as volcanic activity. Such misunderstandings as to the power of nature verses the finite power of men and their reasoning reminds me of the Mt. St. Helen's eruption. After the eruption, scientists were convinced that the life in and around the site would be devestated for about a decade if longer. However, nature bounced back and shocked their "educated" minds.

    Of course, when looking at what the public is being sold, which global warming is being sold, you have to ask the question, what is the motivation? When trillions of dollars are on the line my tin foil hat suddenly does not look so crazy. In fact, if they really believe what they preach they would be promoting alternative energies rather than simply taxing people for what they use now in a punitive manner. You also have to ask, why are corporations like BP and company promoting the carbon tax? Any other time the left would be up in arms over anything that corporations are promoting, but somehow they have drunk the cool aide and BELIEVE what they are told regardless of evidence that should raise red signs.
  13. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    15 Dec '10 16:26 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    [b]ITS JUNK SCIENCE! FOLLOW THE MONEY![/b]
    http://news.discovery.com/earth/heat-record-climate-change.html
    'THE GIST

    * The average global temperature for 2010 so far is the warmest on record.
    * This was the warmest June on record worldwide.
    * This year's hot temperatures will become the norm as climate change continues.'
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.universetoday.com/68990/2010-had-warmest-global-june-on-record/

    '2010 Had Warmest Global June on Record'
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38263788/ns/us_news-environment/

    '2010 tops 1998 temps; question now is whether 12 months will break 2005 record for warmest year'

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    http://www.ocregister.com/news/year-280242-scientists-climate.html

    'NASA: 2010 could be warmest year on record'

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    http://www.nouse.co.uk/2010/12/14/2010-the-hottest-year-on-record/

    'Last week, NASA released data showing this last meteorological year to be the hottest ever in their 130 year records.

    The meteorological year, which ended on November 30th, boasted a global average temperature of 14.65°C. This was an increase of 0.12°C on the previous warmest year, 2005, which had a global average of 14.53°C. The average is taken by measuring temperatures both over land and sea, and despite a natural phenomenon known as La Nina, which means the oceans are naturally cooler this year, the record was still broken.'

    -----------------------------------------------------------


    Obviously all evidence of a statist global conspiracy.....right???
  14. 15 Dec '10 16:27
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    "Climate-gate" emails. Read them here:


    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
    The question is "What happens when you "follow the money" on the Climate Sceptics side?"

    "It's Junk Science: Follow The Money" is perhaps a perfect bumper sticker - you could sell it to people on both sides of the debate.

    So the question begs: where do the Climate Sceptics you favour get their money from?
  15. 15 Dec '10 16:29
    Originally posted by John W Booth
    The question is "What happens when you "follow the money" on the Climate Sceptics side?"

    "It's Junk Science: Follow The Money" is perhaps a perfect bumper sticker - you could sell it to people on both sides of the debate.

    So the question begs: where do the Climate Sceptics you favour get their money from?
    You tell us. Who stands to make a bigger killing? Is it those who promote it or those who scoff at it? As for the Chicago Climate Exchange, it is estimated to be worth around $14 trillion. What amount is the other side projected to make?