1. Changelog 1.161

    Hello Queens and Kings,
    The update to 1.161 will take place on Wed, Sept 18, 2019. There will be a short period of downtime during the update, we apologize for any inconvenience caused during this time.
    For the detailed description of the upcoming changes, please see the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. GvG Improvements Update

    Hello Queens and Kings,
    First up, we wanted to thank you once again for taking the time to continue to contribute your feedback on the upcoming changes to Forge of Empires, especially in relation to Guild Battlegrounds.
    For the detailed description of the upcoming changes, please see the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice

Global Warming is a hoax?

Discussion in 'Debate Hall' started by LacLongQuan, Feb 25, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mustapha00

    Mustapha00 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    We have found fossils of temperate-zone creatures near the Arctic Circle in northern Siberia. The logical conclusion to draw is that the temperature in that area was once appropriate to sustain that type of life. Since there were no humans- and, therefore, no factories or SuVs- then the further logical conclusion to draw is that the natural, cyclical nature of climate was responsible then and is responsible now.

    Notice how the "record" temperatures are being reported? You have to read closely in order to detect the feint. The NOAA, the IPCC and other government/intergovernmental agencies now compare current temperature to "the 20th century average" so they can claim an almost never-ending stream of new record temperatures. But that is a bogus metric. What they should be reporting is year-against-year averages, like comparing March, 2016 to March, 2015 or 2015 to 2014. But they will not do that because to do so would be to reveal the fact that there has been no significant warming in going on 17 years. And that data certainly does not advance the narrative, so it must be discarded.

    Further, there is convincing evidence, supported by tree rings (and fossilized tree rings as well), ice cores and other sources, that the atmospheric CO2 levels have been both far higher and far lower than they are now, and that the earth's temperature was both far higher and far lower than it is now....all literally eons before the presence, much less the activities, of man. But that's yet another Inconvenient Truth.
     
  2. Konrad the mediocre

    Konrad the mediocre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2014
    You are seeking to equate atmospheric changes that occurred over millions of years to changes over decades. That is a serious strawman argument.

    On what basis is your argument that temperature is best compared year over year instead of over several decade? The concern is over long term climate changes not next year's weather forecast.
     
  3. lemur

    lemur Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    It is often claimed that ignorance is bliss.
     
  4. lemur

    lemur Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    No, your attempt to be "logical" falls way short. You are incorrectly assuming that warming the atmosphere can have only one cause. You incorrectly assume that if natural variability caused past warming, then it is also causing present warming.

    Again, you are foisting this utterly ridiculous notion that past natural variability somehow "proves" that current warming is also caused by natural variability. There are multiple lines of evidence that the current rapid warming is entirely caused by human activity. The refusal to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus is driven by ideology.
     
  5. shrekgreen

    shrekgreen Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2015
    Far from it. I do know Scientist need money. Government and Tax Payers are the answer. These guy are bored out of their mind. Their a bunch of nut bag that has little chance of making end meet. They spend billion of dollars in fuel to fly and float everywhere and then fabricate the last 20 years of research to prove their point. They where under investigation until NATO decide to play hard ball with the investigator by denying any them on the report. With six Government in this world that are now in mood to make this planet a New World Order, including the United State. They will do anything to cover their lies and control every single human. Their were wrong about Russia, they were wrong about Korea, they were wrong about Iran and they were wrong about Caliphate. Ya think they could be wrong about this. Consider this. They don't know what the weather is going to do tomorrow. Yes, it has nothing to do with Climate. But, it the same bunch in the same building. Check it out in NOAA.
     
  6. Mustapha00

    Mustapha00 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    But don't you see that climate alarmists are doing the exact same thing?

    They use a dataset of no more than 130 years (generally considered to be the earliest date at which accurate measurements of temperature were consistently taken) and extrapolate catastrophic effects- future catastrophic effects- from perhaps a quarter of that span?

    If your local weather report is correct only half the time for ten days in advance, how much faith should be placed in predictions for the next ten, twenty-five, fifty or hundred years?

    Further, it is a fact that temperature has increased a greater amount in a similar, if not shorter, time frame on many occasions throughout recorded human history. While the Minoan Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period might or might not have been a global phenomenon (records for some areas of the globe are not perfectly reliable), the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon because records in Europe, the Middle East and Asia are extant and corroborative. As warm as it is now, grapes for winemaking cannot be grown in Scotland....but they were then.

    To your second point, I make no conclusions over whether decade-to-decade or year-to-year temp comparisons offer the best dataset. I merely point out that establishing a baseline for comparison by using a 100 year dataset to establish a mean creates a certain bias in the conclusions. It points out- correctly- that there "has been" warming since 1900 (or 1850), but does nothing to prove whether that warming is still continuing or, if so, is that trend statistically significant?

    In fact, measured that way, there has been no statistically significant warming since the late 1990s- a fact that East Anglia and the UN's IPCC went to great lengths to hide.
     
  7. lemur

    lemur Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Are they bored, or are they hatching a dastardly plan for world domination? Get your fossil-fueled talking points straight. And didn't you means to say, "Youze guys"? :p

    Wow ... I count four errors in the same sentence. Try making five next time; that'll convince 'em.
     
  8. lemur

    lemur Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    That's incorrect. Scientists have used reliable proxies (substitutes for actual thermometer readings) to create a temperature record that goes back millions of years. For example, here is a short introduction to how ice cores are used.

    That's irrelevant. Climate is about averages; weather is about daily and weekly variation.

    That is completely false. We are now in uncharted territory.

    ... a regional phenomenon, not a global one. This talking point has been thoroughly debunked.

    Those are two more lies. The warming is quite significant, and nothing has been hidden by scientists from the public. What has happened is that fossil fuel interests have gone to great lengths to confuse people with disinformation.
     
  9. JennyButler

    JennyButler Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    The "scientists" will come to any conclusion that their money backers request. That includes governments as well as Al Gore.
     
  10. Algona

    Algona Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2015
    I don't suppose anybody will include links to raw data to support their claims?
     
  11. lemur

    lemur Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Climate deniers are quite willing to accept science when it conforms to their ideological view of the world (usually in support of unbridled capitalism). But when science comes to any conclusion that is ideologically unacceptable, then the scientific method is suddenly suspect — as if by Papal decree or Islamic fatwa.

    Teaching the Controversy

    Given the heavy involvement of fossil fuel industries in distorting the public perception of science, Jenny's accusation of financial influence is quite ironic.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2016
  12. lemur

    lemur Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Would you understand raw data if someone were to post it? Unfortunately, the lack of specificity in your sarcastic inquiry suggests not. Exactly what is it that you would like to see? I could help if you were specific.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2016
  13. Walrusking001

    Walrusking001 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2014
    Conversations like this always amaze me, both sides accuse the other of lying and manipulating the data and all that good jazz. I personally lean more towards that "yeah, global warming/climate change is bunch of bs" I mean they've had to change its name every 20 years to continue their argument that should tell you something.

    Here are the simple facts. This is a first world problem as mentioned before its largely poorer countries that are doing the most damage. If we are not careful and are not reasonable with conservation efforts soon we will find ourselves having to cut corners. An example of this would be the Tensaka power plant in my original hometown in Indiana. You may of heard of this, i believe the story eventually went national. Anyways they wanted to put a new power plant in my hometown.

    The issue essentially breaks down like this.

    1. The town has a population of about 2,000. Most of graduating class of 2005 have either moved out, those that wouldn't/couldn't are dirt poor many have taken to drugs or producing drugs such as meth.
    2. Around 2002 i believe the town spent 4 million dollars expanding existing railways and infrastructure to attract business.
    3. Tensaka filed to build a new power plant bring about 110 jobs starting at $17 dollars an hour, and would decrease the monthly power bill of the surrounding area roughly $10 a month.
    4. Everyone was all for it until outside environmental groups starting flooding the area with propaganda. Some of its true, some of it is not.
    The local wildlife and fish sport will be affected of course, but not as much as they say. The fear mongering of about poisoned water and babies born with deformities are over the top.

    Long story short the power plant didn't go up. The area is only getting poorer.

    With or without the power plant, with or without climate change/global warming harsh winters and dry summers will come. The efforts people will make to deal with these harsh winters and dry summers will do far more damage to the environment, than a single power plant.

    As people get poorer they'll ignore the local conservation efforts, hunt illegally, fish over the limit, etc
     
  14. Algona

    Algona Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2015
    I wasn't being sarcastic, it's a legitimate request. Would I understand it? I won't know unless I see it. I was an astronomy and physics major at the UW before I switched to Computer Programming but that was nearly forty years ago. Let's take a look and find out.

    A specific request? Sure. You say the Medieval Warm Period has been thoroughly debunked. Good. That anomaly always bothered me. Could you provide links to the data collected to support that? Please, no analysts, they never seem to provide the data they say they are analyzing.
     
  15. jaelis

    jaelis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2013
    lemur likes this.
  16. JennyButler

    JennyButler Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    Reading your posts is like watching Mom cook spaghetti, she just throws some up against the wall to see what sticks. What on earth could Capitalism have to do with Science other than the capital being accrued by the pseudo-scientists touting that man-made global warming is the doom of society? I have no problem accepting hard data showing climate change but do have a problem with the extent being attributed to man. Besides, what is so great about the society we live in? Might it not be better to wipe out all the mouth breathers and start over again? Why should we save humans when most of them are obstinate and a bane to the planet in so many other ways that man-made global warming pales in comparison.
     
  17. lemur

    lemur Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    The Medieval Warm Period was identified from incomplete data over 30 years ago. It was included in one of the early reports from the IPCC in 1990. Since that time, a much fuller picture has been created of global temperatures over the past 2000 years. In particular, Mann et al. published an excellent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: Proxy-Based Reconstructions

    See the graph of multiple data sets on page 13256. Note that the former "warm period" has disappeared — because the data is comprehensive and not just from the Northern Hemisphere.

    Here is more analysis of the "hockey stick" graph that includes many other links to source material.

    The National Climatic Data Center has a web site that provides the raw data from ice cores and from tree rings and from coral reefs.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2016
  18. lemur

    lemur Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Doh!
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2016
  19. lemur

    lemur Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Who is this conspiratorial "they" to which you refer? This page debunks your regurgitated talking point:

    Global Warming vs. Climate Change

    Nonsense. It is poor countries that have the least ability to adapt to the climate chaos that the entire world will experience.

    More lies. The countries that release the most greenhouse gases into the atmosphere are the United States and China — both heavily industrialized and wealthy.

    We need to severely reduce the burning of fossil fuel. It is asinine to build new power plants that burn natural gas, such as the proposal you mention. What kind of moral compass would you have if you thought that the continuation of polluting, 20th-century industrialism for a few more years for current generations was more important than a habitable planet for countless future generations?

    You remind me of those who think that blowing the top off a 300-million-year-old mountain is a good idea — because it provides a few weeks of electricity from coal.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2016
  20. Walrusking001

    Walrusking001 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2014
    this is why i don't normally get involved in the debate hall

    Well Lemur you've defeated me with your super legitimate sources. By countering my points in the previous post and then making the exact same arguments. And to top it off you are right its simply immoral to believe people should have a chance at an honest days work, as you said the age of wealth creation is over. Even though you admit poor countries poor countries that will be least equipped to deal with climate change. Don't worry skeptics or others just lay back and let lemur and others do their thing. They are obviously more intelligent and certainly morally superior to us in every way. Maybe if we're lucky we'll be able to serve as one of their eunuchs.
     

Top
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.