Global Warming Fact or Fiction

[Person012345]

However, THERE IS METHANE IN THE PERMAFROST IN SIBERIA, ALASKA AND OTHER REGIONS. WHAT HAPPENED TO VENUS WILL NOT HAPPEN TO US- but we WILL ENTER A FEEDBACK LOOP and it WILL BE a catastrophe.

Unfortunately for your statement, that is what happened to Venus, they think. It entered a positive feedback loop, boiled off it's oceans, and became what it is now. I don't believe that any climate scientist thinks that will happen to earth.

It will happen... (Please, Person012345... Open your eyes...!) THERE IS METHANE IN THE PERMAFROST. There WILL BE A FEEDBACK LOOP, albeit not as catastrophic as venus.

Would you care to source that? I'll accept a pro-agw source, as long as it's not deliberately and obviously alarmist.

The show "Earth 2100" sums it up pretty well. I can fetch you more proof.

A dramatised TV show is not a reliable source.

This: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 151248.htm

This does not say there will be a positive feedback loop leading to catastrophic consequences.

and also this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html

This a. doesn't source that particular claim (as far as I see).

I'm not saying there is no positive feedback, but a positive feedback loop is self perpetuating and only gets worse. Or that's how I understand it. It ends up until things are removed so that there is no more positive fedback.

http://www.earthemergency.org/actionear ... -loops.php
Then this. I can fetch you all the proof on the web if you need it.

I'm sorry, that does not support your argument. The examples given all keep happening until the thing causing the loop is destroyed. Which is what I'm saying, no climate scientists thinks that earth will become like that as far as I know.

[Self--Esteem]

However, THERE IS METHANE IN THE PERMAFROST IN SIBERIA, ALASKA AND OTHER REGIONS. WHAT HAPPENED TO VENUS WILL NOT HAPPEN TO US- but we WILL ENTER A FEEDBACK LOOP and it WILL BE a catastrophe.

Unfortunately for your statement, that is what happened to Venus, they think. It entered a positive feedback loop, boiled off it's oceans, and became what it is now. I don't believe that any climate scientist thinks that will happen to earth.

It will happen... (Please, Person012345... Open your eyes...!) THERE IS METHANE IN THE PERMAFROST. There WILL BE A FEEDBACK LOOP, albeit not as catastrophic as venus.

Would you care to source that? I'll accept a pro-agw source, as long as it's not deliberately and obviously alarmist.

The show "Earth 2100" sums it up pretty well. I can fetch you more proof.
This: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 151248.htm
and also this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html

That's your source? A TV show in which even the authors say that it's not that likely and that it's a worst-case scenario?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_2100

Not likely is not possible as it is not possible to tell the future.

Which is a contradiction, considering that Warmers are exactly claiming this (that they can somehow tell the future of the Earth).

[Person012345]

Would you care to source that? I'll accept a pro-agw source, as long as it's not deliberately and obviously alarmist.

Source for methane in the permafrost? A quick google for "permafrost methane" gives, among other things, this link. It also mentions the possibility of a feedback loop if it starts to melt.

I meant the source, from verifiable data, that it would cause a true positive feedback loop (rather than just some positive feedback).

[Gamingland]

Would you care to source that? I'll accept a pro-agw source, as long as it's not deliberately and obviously alarmist.

Source for methane in the permafrost? A quick google for "permafrost methane" gives, among other things, this link. It also mentions the possibility of a feedback loop if it starts to melt.

Also, what the Tofu Islands said is also more proof. It is obvious- there is a lot of methane locked away in permafrost and in the oceans as well.

[Person012345]

Would you care to source that? I'll accept a pro-agw source, as long as it's not deliberately and obviously alarmist.

Source for methane in the permafrost? A quick google for "permafrost methane" gives, among other things, this link. It also mentions the possibility of a feedback loop if it starts to melt.

Also, what the Tofu Islands said is also more proof. It is obvious- there is a lot of methane locked away in permafrost and in the oceans as well.

If the permafrost melts and releases it's methane, that methane isn't going to cause the already melted permafrost to melt again. If it doesn't cause anything to happen except the temprature to get hotter, then is it positive feedbakc, rather than a loop. If it causes something else to happen, for example the seas to release their cardon dioxide, causing mor warming causing the seas to release more carbon dioxide which causes lots of forest fires etc. then you have a positive feedback loop that won't stop until we're venus-like. Or at least, that's how I understood the definition.

And no climate scientist thinks that it will get that bad, as far as I know, earth is different and won't get into runaway heating. That's what I'm arguing. And you haven't provided anything to the contrary of that.

[Gamingland]

Well, I will say that the Sun will continue to radiate energy and heat to the earth. The super-powered (from methane) greenhouse gas mix in the atmosphere, combined with ripping off most of the ozone layer, will descend into catastrophe and probably leading to most of the Earth becoming uninhabitable.

[The Tofu Islands]

I meant the source, from verifiable data, that it would cause a true positive feedback loop (rather than just some positive feedback).

What exactly do you mean by "true positive feedback loop"?

EDIT: Seeing the post a bit up from here, no it wont cause a large positive feedback loop (a bit of one is likely, since the permafrost wont necessarily melt all at once).

[Muravyets]

This debate, as usual, has devolved into nothing but a war of fortunetellers making pronouncements about what is going to happen in the future. Leaving aside the fact that I happen to think the informed guesses of climate scientists are more persuasive than the self-interested guesses of non-experts with a stake in the matter, I wonder why people are so intent on ignoring the present and things we actually do know right now.

We know for a fact that the pollutants believed to contribute to climate change are toxic to human health and life, and that we are poisoning ourselves at least as rapidly as we are poisoning the planet. We also know for a fact, based on past progress in environmental clean-up, that reducing pollution has a measurable positive effect on human health and the environment, as well as no negative effect, and even a positive effect, on economies.

So I fail to understand why those climate change deniers who say they are for environmentalism spend so much time complaining about climate change instead of just ignoring it and focusing instead on what they say matters to them, i.e. cleaning up the environment. And those deniers who also oppose environmentalist changes to industry and public policy simply make no sense to me at all. Their arguments sound almost like suicidal rantings to me.

[Person012345]

Well, I will say that the Sun will continue to radiate energy to the earth. The super-powered (from methane) greenhouse gas mix in the atmosphere, combined with ripping off most of the ozone layer, will descend into catastrophe and probably leading to most of the Earth becoming uninhabitable.

And I say that as far as I'm aware no climate scientists agree with you that it will, through positive feedback, become "uninhabitable". Humans are pretty damn good at surviving. Our industries and society would be destroyed before we ourselves caused runaway climate change, and I don't think anyone agrees that it will runaway through it's own positive feedback.

Also, though I believe there have been warmer periods in earth's history, earth has not become uninhabitable before now, so why should it this time?

So people realise, I am only arguing against runaway climate change to the point where humans could not inhabit the earth.

[Person012345]

So I fail to understand why those climate change deniers who say they are for environmentalism spend so much time complaining about climate change instead of just ignoring it and focusing instead on what they say matters to them, i.e. cleaning up the environment. And those deniers who also oppose environmentalist changes to industry and public policy simply make no sense to me at all. Their arguments sound almost like suicidal rantings to me.

Could you please give me suggestions on what I can do to help the environment?

Also, just to note, I'm no longer arguing about whether or not climate change is happening.

[Gamingland]

Well, I will say that the Sun will continue to radiate energy to the earth. The super-powered (from methane) greenhouse gas mix in the atmosphere, combined with ripping off most of the ozone layer, will descend into catastrophe and probably leading to most of the Earth becoming uninhabitable.

And I say that as far as I'm aware no climate scientists agree with you that it will, through positive feedback, become "uninhabitable". Humans are pretty damn good at surviving. Our industries and society would be destroyed before we ourselves caused runaway climate change, and I don't think anyone agrees that it will runaway through it's own positive feedback.

Also, though I believe there have been warmer periods in earth's history, earth has not become uninhabitable before now, so why should it this time?

So people realise, I am only arguing against runaway climate change to the point where humans could not inhabit the earth.

I didn't say it would totally become uninhabitable, only most of it. FYI if global temperature increases by 6 degrees then it will be hotter than in 55 million years.

[Muravyets]

So I fail to understand why those climate change deniers who say they are for environmentalism spend so much time complaining about climate change instead of just ignoring it and focusing instead on what they say matters to them, i.e. cleaning up the environment. And those deniers who also oppose environmentalist changes to industry and public policy simply make no sense to me at all. Their arguments sound almost like suicidal rantings to me.

Could you please give me suggestions on what I can do to help the environment?

Also, just to note, I'm no longer arguing about whether or not climate change is happening.

I thought you had decided to stop speaking to me. I was looking forward to that. Please go back to that policy, thanks.

[Person012345]

So I fail to understand why those climate change deniers who say they are for environmentalism spend so much time complaining about climate change instead of just ignoring it and focusing instead on what they say matters to them, i.e. cleaning up the environment. And those deniers who also oppose environmentalist changes to industry and public policy simply make no sense to me at all. Their arguments sound almost like suicidal rantings to me.

Could you please give me suggestions on what I can do to help the environment?

Also, just to note, I'm no longer arguing about whether or not climate change is happening.

I thought you had decided to stop speaking to me. I was looking forward to that. Please go back to that policy, thanks.

So you can't give me advice on how to help the environment?

[Person012345]

Well, I will say that the Sun will continue to radiate energy to the earth. The super-powered (from methane) greenhouse gas mix in the atmosphere, combined with ripping off most of the ozone layer, will descend into catastrophe and probably leading to most of the Earth becoming uninhabitable.

And I say that as far as I'm aware no climate scientists agree with you that it will, through positive feedback, become "uninhabitable". Humans are pretty damn good at surviving. Our industries and society would be destroyed before we ourselves caused runaway climate change, and I don't think anyone agrees that it will runaway through it's own positive feedback.

Also, though I believe there have been warmer periods in earth's history, earth has not become uninhabitable before now, so why should it this time?

So people realise, I am only arguing against runaway climate change to the point where humans could not inhabit the earth.

I didn't say it would totally become uninhabitable, only most of it. FYI if global temperature increases by 6 degrees then it will be hotter than in 55 million years.

And before 55mya, we still didn't get runaway climate change.

[Muravyets]

So I fail to understand why those climate change deniers who say they are for environmentalism spend so much time complaining about climate change instead of just ignoring it and focusing instead on what they say matters to them, i.e. cleaning up the environment. And those deniers who also oppose environmentalist changes to industry and public policy simply make no sense to me at all. Their arguments sound almost like suicidal rantings to me.

Could you please give me suggestions on what I can do to help the environment?

Also, just to note, I'm no longer arguing about whether or not climate change is happening.

I thought you had decided to stop speaking to me. I was looking forward to that. Please go back to that policy, thanks.

So you can't give me advice on how to help the environment?

You spent several posts yelling at me about how green you already are. Why do you need my advice on that? Surely, you already know all about it.

Once again, if I had been referring to you, I would have referred to you, maybe even addressed you. But I didn't, so obviously I wasn't. Do I need to remind you again that you are not the only climate change denier here? I ask you again to keep the promise you made. If anyone else has a question about how I think people can "go green", I'm sure they can ask me themselves.

[Gamingland]

I'm almost giving up. You clearly do not understand what I am saying.

[Allbeama]

Well generally seeing as most arguments against it are strawmen, and are ignorant of the actual theory involved, they show a general lack of understanding regarding the scientific process, and are paid for by those who have a vested interested in falsifying the theory, I would say it is not fiction. But not fiction does not mean "fact" necessarily which puts us in a false dichotomy here. It is very likely to be true, and it falls under scientific scrutiny, and can be observed and tested, thus it has its merit. Same with the heliocentric model, natural selection, atomic theory, the cell theory, and genetics.

It has already been discredited. Scientists now refer to Climate Change.

The problem with "science" is that by the time it disseminates down to the general public it is already out of date. Scientists were banging on about Global Warming a decade before the public became aware of it, and by the time they started talking about it scientists had already moved on.

Probably why there is no real cutting edge technology available to the public, or why there has never been a scientific advancement that had actually had an effect on our lives.

[Person012345]

So I fail to understand why those climate change deniers who say they are for environmentalism spend so much time complaining about climate change instead of just ignoring it and focusing instead on what they say matters to them, i.e. cleaning up the environment. And those deniers who also oppose environmentalist changes to industry and public policy simply make no sense to me at all. Their arguments sound almost like suicidal rantings to me.

Could you please give me suggestions on what I can do to help the environment?

Also, just to note, I'm no longer arguing about whether or not climate change is happening.

I thought you had decided to stop speaking to me. I was looking forward to that. Please go back to that policy, thanks.

So you can't give me advice on how to help the environment?

You spent several posts yelling at me about how green you already are. Why do you need my advice on that? Surely, you already know all about it.

Once again, if I had been referring to you, I would have referred to you, maybe even addressed you. But I didn't, so obviously I wasn't. Do I need to remind you again that you are not the only climate change denier here? I ask you again to keep the promise you made.

I may be making an innaccurate assesment of the conversation, but did it not go something like this:
"Climate change deniers who say they are for environmentalism (I am one of them btw, so you did address me when you said "those climate change deniers who say they are for environmentalism") should stop complaining about global warming and help the environment"

"Oh, could you tell me how I could help the environment?"

"STFU!"

[Desperate Measures]

This debate, as usual, has devolved into nothing but a war of fortunetellers making pronouncements about what is going to happen in the future. Leaving aside the fact that I happen to think the informed guesses of climate scientists are more persuasive than the self-interested guesses of non-experts with a stake in the matter, I wonder why people are so intent on ignoring the present and things we actually do know right now.

We know for a fact that the pollutants believed to contribute to climate change are toxic to human health and life, and that we are poisoning ourselves at least as rapidly as we are poisoning the planet. We also know for a fact, based on past progress in environmental clean-up, that reducing pollution has a measurable positive effect on human health and the environment, as well as no negative effect, and even a positive effect, on economies.

So I fail to understand why those climate change deniers who say they are for environmentalism spend so much time complaining about climate change instead of just ignoring it and focusing instead on what they say matters to them, i.e. cleaning up the environment. And those deniers who also oppose environmentalist changes to industry and public policy simply make no sense to me at all. Their arguments sound almost like suicidal rantings to me.

You should save this and post it in all future climate change threads.

[Muravyets]

So I fail to understand why those climate change deniers who say they are for environmentalism spend so much time complaining about climate change instead of just ignoring it and focusing instead on what they say matters to them, i.e. cleaning up the environment. And those deniers who also oppose environmentalist changes to industry and public policy simply make no sense to me at all. Their arguments sound almost like suicidal rantings to me.

Could you please give me suggestions on what I can do to help the environment?

Also, just to note, I'm no longer arguing about whether or not climate change is happening.

I thought you had decided to stop speaking to me. I was looking forward to that. Please go back to that policy, thanks.

So you can't give me advice on how to help the environment?

You spent several posts yelling at me about how green you already are. Why do you need my advice on that? Surely, you already know all about it.

Once again, if I had been referring to you, I would have referred to you, maybe even addressed you. But I didn't, so obviously I wasn't. Do I need to remind you again that you are not the only climate change denier here? I ask you again to keep the promise you made.

I may be making an innaccurate assesment of the conversation, but did it not go something like this:
"Climate change deniers who say they are for environmentalism (I am one of them btw, so you did address me when you said "those climate change deniers who say they are for environmentalism") should stop complaining about global warming and help the environment"

"Oh, could you tell me how I could help the environment?"

"STFU!"

All right. This is now at least the 4th (or more) time I have told you I am not going to engage in this war you have been trying to pursue and have asked you to cut it the hell out. You refuse to stop attacking a poster personally, just because you didn't like her tone of speaking to you (and I remind you again I was not originally talking to you at all, and all my attacks have been on your arguments and statements, not you as a person). You insist on making up lies about my arguments and jumping on anything I post, no matter who it is addressed to, in order to try to crowbar your words into my mouth. I have made numerous attempts to disengage from you. You refuse to cooperate. Welcome to the "foes" list (silly name, that). Now I won't be seeing your flamebaiting and personal attacks at all. Your fight with me has been entirely one-sided anyway, with you providing both voices. So we're done. I see no reason why I should have to be pestered by this fixation of your any longer.

[Person012345]

All right. This is now at least the 4th (or more) time I have told you I am not going to engage in this war you have been trying to pursue and have asked you to cut it the hell out. You refuse to stop attacking a poster personally, just because you didn't like her tone of speaking to you (and I remind you again I was not originally talking to you at all, and all my attacks have been on your arguments and statements, not you as a person). You insist on making up lies about my arguments and jumping on anything I post, no matter who it is addressed to, in order to try to crowbar your words into my mouth. I have made numerous attempts to disengage from you. You refuse to cooperate. Welcome to the "foes" list (silly name, that). Now I won't be seeing your flamebaiting and personal attacks at all. Your fight with me has been entirely one-sided anyway, with you providing both voices. So we're done. I see no reason why I should have to be pestered by this fixation of your any longer.

Oh noes, your foe list! :'(

I don't see how what I said was a personal attack on you, or a misrepresentation of what you said. I am not bothered that you have had a paddy and ignored me. I am not pursuing any personal vendetta. You are being entirely unreasonable and in this thread all I've seen you post have been bigoted opinions on how everyone who disagrees with you is wrong and attacking them for it.

I have no ill feeling towards you, btw. But byebye.

[Ketrily]

I was not being satirical at all. And after reading this latest chunk of uninformed nonsense^^, I stand by my comment.

When my opponents are so easily discredited, yes, very sad indeed. You should try to do better.

Despite my attempts at civility towards you, my lapses in grammar or spelling may have discoloured my opinion of me, so I'll indulge in my opinion of your pathetic attempts to make me concede.

Your only ability to fight me is in insults, you frequently go back to the argument of authority, and any time anyone comes close to having a decent argument against you, you go in a strop and claim all deniers are fools.

I believe you are the fool.

You do not take in any opinions or observations that do not support your view, and you dismiss them as unscientific and crude, you are equivalent to a fundamentalist in your convictions and constant abstinence from constructive debate.

I'm amused at how people who are so ready and willing to swallow the most unscientific claptrap against climate change nevertheless insist on calling themselves skeptics. But if you don't want to be thought of as "ill-educated loons with no idea what they are talking about", you should try to actually learn something about it.

I have spent all of my education looking at 21st Century Science, and issues raised by technological advancements and pollution. I have looked at it, and I have decided there is no evidence to support the idea of Catastrophic Man-Made climate change, and unlike you, I have had the decency to analyse every source, not just ones that supported my view. You claim to be scientific and objective, but your only tools are dismissal and personal attacks.

I'm falling to your level because I am sick people like you having a hand in affairs. While it's true my ability to debate is not solid, and I regularly make spelling and grammar mistakes, use sarcasm, and I generally lack eloquence; you are far worse.

You pose as a steward of the Earth, empowered by the thought you are modern and liberal and with the times, you feel as if you are right, seeing as the majority of scientists and government institutions agree with what you say, making you feel safe and having a touch of moral superiority over idiots like me.

But if you don't want to be thought of as "ill-educated loons with no idea what they are talking about", you should try to actually learn something about it.

But I do, this is a perfect example of your tactics. As I said, I have had to learn about AGW for most of my education, and I disagree for a variety of reasons, many of which are just as reasonable as your position.

You've actually enraged me, and your stereotypical neo-fundamentalist nature makes you a perfect candidate to make a summary of any conversation every sceptic on the planet will have with your type.

Sceptic: "Hi, I disagree, due to a variety of reasons, here are my sources..."
You: "I think you are an idiot who is ruining the world, and humanity must learn to shun your kind, here are my sources..."
Sceptic: "Intriguing, but I still disagree."
You: "FOOL! You disagree with me, your opinions are invalid!"
Sceptic: "What? You haven't looked at anything I have shown you, have you?"
You: "I DON'T NEED TO BECAUSE I AM RIGHT!"
Sceptic: "Okay then, as a [Socio-Economic Ideology here], I..."
You: "That discredits you!"
Sceptic: "How so?"
You: "It just does."
Sceptic: "Okay, your logic is invalid, but I'll play along..."
You: "STOP ATTACKING ME!"
Sceptic: "What?"
You: "MONSTER, I DON'T WANT AN ARGUMENT."
Sceptic: "I..."
You: "STFU!"

This may all seem personal attack on you, but it isn't. Your mindset is very common around the world, and I'm sick of it.

Argue on.

[The Black Plains]

Neither: Uncertain. With no proxy data we cannot be sure if it is our fault.

[The Black Plains]

I was not being satirical at all. And after reading this latest chunk of uninformed nonsense^^, I stand by my comment.

When my opponents are so easily discredited, yes, very sad indeed. You should try to do better.

Despite my attempts at civility towards you, my lapses in grammar or spelling may have discoloured my opinion of me, so I'll indulge in my opinion of your pathetic attempts to make me concede.

Your only ability to fight me is in insults, you frequently go back to the argument of authority, and any time anyone comes close to having a decent argument against you, you go in a strop and claim all deniers are fools.

I believe you are the fool.

You do not take in any opinions or observations that do not support your view, and you dismiss them as unscientific and crude, you are equivalent to a fundamentalist in your convictions and constant abstinence from constructive debate.

I'm amused at how people who are so ready and willing to swallow the most unscientific claptrap against climate change nevertheless insist on calling themselves skeptics. But if you don't want to be thought of as "ill-educated loons with no idea what they are talking about", you should try to actually learn something about it.

I have spent all of my education looking at 21st Century Science, and issues raised by technological advancements and pollution. I have looked at it, and I have decided there is no evidence to support the idea of Catastrophic Man-Made climate change, and unlike you, I have had the decency to analyse every source, not just ones that supported my view. You claim to be scientific and objective, but your only tools are dismissal and personal attacks.

I'm falling to your level because I am sick people like you having a hand in affairs. While it's true my ability to debate is not solid, and I regularly make spelling and grammar mistakes, use sarcasm, and I generally lack eloquence; you are far worse.

You pose as a steward of the Earth, empowered by the thought you are modern and liberal and with the times, you feel as if you are right, seeing as the majority of scientists and government institutions agree with what you say, making you feel safe and having a touch of moral superiority over idiots like me.

But if you don't want to be thought of as "ill-educated loons with no idea what they are talking about", you should try to actually learn something about it.

But I do, this is a perfect example of your tactics. As I said, I have had to learn about AGW for most of my education, and I disagree for a variety of reasons, many of which are just as reasonable as your position.

You've actually enraged me, and your stereotypical neo-fundamentalist nature makes you a perfect candidate to make a summary of any conversation every sceptic on the planet will have with your type.

Sceptic: "Hi, I disagree, due to a variety of reasons, here are my sources..."
You: "I think you are an idiot who is ruining the world, and humanity must learn to shun your kind, here are my sources..."
Sceptic: "Intriguing, but I still disagree."
You: "FOOL! You disagree with me, your opinions are invalid!"
Sceptic: "What? You haven't looked at anything I have shown you, have you?"
You: "I DON'T NEED TO BECAUSE I AM RIGHT!"
Sceptic: "Okay then, as a [Socio-Economic Ideology here], I..."
You: "That discredits you!"
Sceptic: "How so?"
You: "It just does."
Sceptic: "Okay, your logic is invalid, but I'll play along..."
You: "STOP ATTACKING ME!"
Sceptic: "What?"
You: "MONSTER, I DON'T WANT AN ARGUMENT."
Sceptic: "I..."
You: "STFU!"

This may all seem personal attack on you, but it isn't. Your mindset is very common around the world, and I'm sick of it.

Argue on.

Say the words "Proxy data?" over and over again til they shut up.

[Quadrimmina]

Global warming is happening. That's an easily discernable fact, all you gotta do is look at average temperatures yearly and you can see...OMG...they're going up!

The second half is much more debatable. Some people will say it's a hoax by the tree-huggers, others will say that it is created by our own greed and need to turn a profit at the expense of the environment. I believe the latter. However, it's up for interpretation. I believe that there is firmly conclusive evidence of man-made global warming. But if you want to believe that it's just scientists making things up, that's your decision.