Why is there a debate over global warming?

Discussion in 'Science' started by Neodoxy, Aug 6, 2011.

  1. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, at lest we got a denier to admitt that man and giant lizards did not walk the earth at the same time. Now we need them to do the unthinkable, and actually look at the science of global warming within the time that modern man has been in earth. Really, that other stuff just isn’t Germaine, though it does impress the less informed.

    They don’t seem to get that global warming is not just about the earth getting warmer, it’s about how rapid the change is.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2018
    Sallyally and tecoyah like this.
  2. wyly

    wyly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,183
    Likes Received:
    798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    nah he's still in the "info wars" conspiracy bubble...science means nothing to deniers, only the "alternate" facts that have no place in science...
     
    dagosa, Sallyally and tecoyah like this.
  3. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,070
    Likes Received:
    1,471
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not a denier but I view the debate as more political than scientific. The debate is about governmental power and control. It causes the deniers to deny and the believers to inject hyperbole into their predictions of the effects of the warming. The warming could continue in the near term or it could turn to cooling. We had a cooling scare back in the 1970's. The idea of the believers is to blame it all on humans because humans are manageable by government. Climate is not manageable by government. The idea of deniers is to prevent government from gaining the power to control people's behavior. The climate is warming and denying that it is warming is a way fight against it.

    So while there is certainly a scientific element to the debate, there is also a social science element to it and hyperbole reigns supreme. Personally I support limited government so I am in the denier column even though I don't deny anything other than the validity of the hyperbole. Perhaps my approach will give you more understanding of the situation.
     
  4. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You seem to be tying yourself up in knots trying to explain you’re not a denier while being a denier.
    ONLY the govt. can address climate change. They address all major issues that threaten the lives of all the citizens. The gov. Managed to address the ozone layer problem, pollution in the air, water and its effects on the citizens when corporations did NOTHING.

    It’s entirely about science and gov. Should be entirely about science. Science is our most successful attempt at being factual. Opinions are not. The gov. Should deal in facts. Our economy suffers more when we avoid issues of pollution. It gets worse and more expensive the longer you wait and it ALWAYS HAS. I know deniers like to live in the past.....but at least address the present. If you think gov. will be more limited if we do nothing now, you’re living in a dream world. You’ll be the first to dial 911 in time of need and expect gov. help.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2018 at 9:25 AM
    FlamingLib and wyly like this.
  5. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,070
    Likes Received:
    1,471
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My post explains why I am not a denier. Apparently you have more interest in debating definitions than understanding of the political overtones of the climate debate. Isn't it meaningful to you that the debate is split between conservatives and liberals? How could you miss that?

    The existence of global warming is about science. The climate change debate, on the other hand, has nothing to do with science at all. It is all about politics.
     
  6. wyly

    wyly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,183
    Likes Received:
    798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    no it's between the scientifically literate and the scientifically illiterate...between short term corporate profits and long term ecological survival

    there is no debate, the scientific debate has ended... the plant is warming dangerously fast and CO2 emissions are the cause...

    politics only come into play because the stonewalling of the right wing ideologues...and without government intervention and direction nothing can or will be done...
     
  7. Dispondent

    Dispondent Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    29,377
    Likes Received:
    3,388
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nobody knows how rapid the changes were in the past. Not only was the Earth warm enough to sustain giant cold blooded lizards, the surface is almost been near frozen solid at times. What we are seeing now, in terms of changes is based on speculation and the wild fantasies of the global warming death cult, not any verifiable science...
     
  8. wyly

    wyly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,183
    Likes Received:
    798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    climate is only manageable by government, corporations and oblivious individuals will do nothing to change their behaviour if left on their own.

    that's the attitude of a child who rebels and pouts when he's told to clean up his room.
     
    dagosa likes this.
  9. Dispondent

    Dispondent Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    29,377
    Likes Received:
    3,388
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is that why the only 'solution' is economic, and not even scientific? Its a redistribution of wealth scheme, just not the one you are thinking...
     
  10. wyly

    wyly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,183
    Likes Received:
    798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Nobody"...replace nobody with "I don't" ...you arrogantly believe if you don't comprehend the science then no one else could possibly either...
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2018 at 12:08 PM
  11. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is what we make it. It should not be about politics. War isn’t about politics once engaged. And this is war of sorts. To sit there and call it politics is to fall back onto the fear of change. Mother Nature has spoken. It’s science that says we need to do something now, and it’s science that helps say what we should do. To use politics as a scapegoat is to deny what is beyound debate. Still sounds like denial. The debate is split only because one side is totally wrong......totally. We had this debate about slavery too,and still, decades later, conservatives hang on to voter suppression. Sorry, no agreement here. There’s a right and wrong way....you’re wrong. Lives need to be saved, not fake discussions of monies spent which will be lost faster if we do nothing.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2018 at 12:33 PM
  12. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,070
    Likes Received:
    1,471
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obviously, we disagree.
     
  13. Dispondent

    Dispondent Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    29,377
    Likes Received:
    3,388
    Trophy Points:
    113
    By all means show us comprehensive day to day climate data from the last ice age...
     
  14. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    3,963
    Likes Received:
    1,262
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You might not. But, scientists and the rest of us do.

    Yep. And those changes occurred for a reason. The climate change we observe today is also happening for a reason.

    It's actually based on thermodynamics and quantum mechanics and supported by the abundance of evidence spanning nearly all disciplines of science.

    In contrast the argument that man is not providing the primary modulating influence is a belief based on faith. There is little if any evidence to suggest that nature is providing the bulk of the influence.
     
  15. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    3,963
    Likes Received:
    1,262
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you think we need day-to-day weather data from the past to make conclusion about what the climate is doing today?
     
  16. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,070
    Likes Received:
    1,471
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Freedom can only be destroyed by government.

    Personal insult noted. Sorry, it doesn't sway me at all. It makes you look foolish.
     
  17. wyly

    wyly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,183
    Likes Received:
    798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    one man's freedom ends when it infringes on another mans right to life...your freedom to behave recklessly is a danger to the rest of us


    it's perfectly comparable behaviour...you feel no one or no organization has a right to tell you how to behave, and that's not how any society functions and you state you're going to pout and resist...

    you said it about yourself, here's your quote "The idea of deniers is to prevent government from gaining the power to control people's behavior. The climate is warming and denying that it is warming is a way fight against it." that's petulance ...you just don't like it being pointed out how childish it is...
     
  18. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,070
    Likes Received:
    1,471
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How do you know that I behave recklessly?

    Where did I talk about pouting and resisting? I simply pointed out the political elements of the debate. Laws tell me how the government wants me to behave, not hyperbolic warnings.

    Apparently I had to spell out that I was referring to how people should behave relative to the climate debate. I hope you understand better what I meant.
     
  19. Dispondent

    Dispondent Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    29,377
    Likes Received:
    3,388
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We use day to day data collection now, so don't play games here. What sparse data we have of ages past is nowhere near the volume of data that has been collected/fabricated by the climate hucksters of today...
     
  20. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If that’s you’re attitude,you know little about science.
    I agree...we disagree.
     

Share This Page