What do you think of climate change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phaster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MichaelP3 said:
40.png
steve-b:
As for climate change theories, they are theories
Click to expand...
Mr Steve B. Are you a climate change denier?
Click to expand...
I believe in climate change. It’s called seasons. 🙂

Q:​

As science theorizes, if the planet’s rotation gets off just a tiny amount, we have an ice age or global warming. Whether people are here or NOT. And apparently according to science that has happened multiple times. So if we are having global warming NOW, how does science NOT know the planet is ever so slightly off it’s normal rotation?
 
Last edited:
I think I got my answer. MR Steve B. Rather not comment on anything science related. Just a thought!
 
MichaelP3 said:
40.png
steve-b:
As for climate change theories, they are theories
Click to expand...
Mr Steve B. Are you a climate change denier?
Click to expand...
So, in your opinion, if one does not believe that human activity radically changes the earth’s temperature and overall atmospheric conditions, that makes them a “climate change denier”?

That seems like an intolerant position to me.
Can you allow for people who acknowledge that human beings are responsible for environmental care while not accepting AGW hysteria? Not all positions fit into neat little boxes.

Take yourself for instance…do you accept that ice ages and other atmospheric fluctuations have come and gone without human affectation?
If not, does that make you a “denier”? (see how that works?)
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
The medical example you use, (CT scan) is provable, it’s a seen result, it is not a guess nor a theory.
Click to expand...
Have you seen the scientific evidence that there are invisible rays shooting through your body, or do you just believe what others have told you about these rays? Initially it was a guess, which became formulated as a theory, which gained support as experiments were constructed to test the theory. Same as climate science.
As for climate change theories, they are theories
Click to expand...
Yes. Theories strongly supported by evidence.
steve-b said:
Then in extension, one is free to reject any theory … correct?
Click to expand...
You can reject anything you want. But if you want to do so based on reason, you will do so based evidence.
 
Last edited:
goout said:
Take yourself for instance
Click to expand...
It seems you have done a pretty big study on me. I can say so many things right now but I prefer to be on the “good side”. So I would ask you to post those studies!😂
 
MichaelP3 said:
40.png
goout:
Take yourself for instance
Click to expand...
It seems you have done a pretty big study on me. I can say so many things right now but I prefer to be on the “good side”. So I would ask you to post those studies!😂
Click to expand...
here is exactly what I am saying:
You charged a poster with being a climate change denier. I illustrated the fallacious-ness of your assertion by turning it on you.

That’s it.
 
I asked. And I still ask.

Point is. You made a mistake which should be addressed. Would you? Personally I think you will ignore it from now.
 
goout said:
40.png
MichaelP3:
40.png
steve-b:
As for climate change theories, they are theories
Click to expand...
Mr Steve B. Are you a climate change denier?
Click to expand...
So, in your opinion, if one does not believe that human activity radically changes the earth’s temperature and overall atmospheric conditions, that makes them a “climate change denier”?
Click to expand...
The label of “denier” means nothing in any absolute sense. It carries a bad connotation because of the common use of the term with “holocaust denier”. But being a “denier” can be a good thing too. If you deny something that is actually a falsehood, then it is good to be a denier. I am a denier of the vaccine/autism link. You can go ahead and label me a denier and I won’t mind. And if you truly believe that the bulk of global warming claims are bunk, then you too should be proud to wear the label of “denier.”

Actually tossing around these labels does not advance any discussion since they can mean so many different things. Indeed the subject of climate change can mean many things too. For example:
  1. Claims of a recent temperature rise coinciding with wide-spread industrialization.
  2. Claims of CO2 trapping heat radiation from the earth.
  3. Claims of rising sea level.
  4. Claims of species extinction due to habitat change.
  5. Claims of effects on storms - their intensity and frequency.
  6. Claims of likely average global temperatures, sea level change, biota change.
A person might accept all, or none, or just some of these claims, and even among the ones he accepts - in varying degrees. So it is difficult to classify everyone as being either on one side or the other in a discussion. I think the most fruitful think we can do, discussion-wise, is to select one or more of these topics and discuss the details, pro and con, of those details.

Unless all we want to do is exchange clever memes.
 
MichaelP3 said:
I asked. And I still ask.

Point is. You made a mistake which should be addressed. Would you? Personally I think you will ignore it from now.
Click to expand...
Point it out please. I want to be as clear as possible.
This is the exchange I addressed:
steve-b said:
As for climate change theories, they are theories
Click to expand...
MichaelP3 said:
Mr Steve B. Are you a climate change denier?
Click to expand...
You accused a poster of being a “climate change denier”.
 
Last edited:
Point what out?

I would really like you to be clear as it seems we are not there yet!
 
A question I still do not have an answer to. Whether the poster is a climate change denier or not is actually irrelevant when one even start to think about the effects! But then again, we are not all called to be in the scientific field…
 
goout said:
You accused a poster of being a “climate change denier”.
Click to expand...
Just to be very Clear! There is no power outage here . I therfore corrected the poster above. I do not say the poster is a climate change denier but just asked the question.
 
Earth’s present climate mode is repeated 100,000 year ice ages interspersed with 20,000 year periods of a warmer climate with no continental glaciation except for the Antarctic and Greenland. Global warming is part of this cycle, and, as such, it cannot be prevented. Antarctic ice core data reveal that rising CO2 levels lag global warming by about 14,000 years. The rise in CO2 levels did not precede the earth’s warming. Furthermore, the greatest greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor, with CO2 contributing less than 4% toward this effect. The present CO2 level of about 400 ppm is well within historical norms. It has been as high as 1500 ppm.

Here is the article:

 
Last edited:
I actually still want an answer from Mr Steve B?

Full disclosure! This WILL SAY A LOT ABOUT YOU!
 
undead_rat said:
Earth’s present climate mode is repeated 100,000 year ice ages interspersed with 20,000 year periods of a warmer climate with no continental glaciation except for the Antarctic and Greenland. Global warming is part of this cycle, and, as such, it cannot be prevented.
Click to expand...
The “cycle” is only approximate. It is not regular like clockwork. The “pattern” only repeats a few times. It would be a mistake to conclude that is must repeat the same way every 100,000 years.

Also, stating that the present warming is just part of this natural cycle ignores the fact that the warming in the past 50-100 years has been at a higher rate than any warming in the “pattern” ice ages you refer to. For that reason, adapting to the change that takes only 100 years will be harder than adapting to a change that is spread over 1000 years.
Antarctic ice core data reveal that rising CO2 levels lag global warming by about 14,000 years.
Click to expand...
That is not proof that CO2 does not cause global warming. The reason for the observation is that once warming starts a little, there is a feedback loop where warming releases CO2, so it can “look” like the cause and effect is reversed, but actually they both cause each other.
The rise in CO2 levels did not precede the earth’s warming. Furthermore, the greatest greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor, with CO2 contributing less than 4% toward this effect.
Click to expand...
4% of a changing cause can be more significant than the 96% if that 96% is fairly constant. As it is, the greenhouse effect caused by water vapor is currently balanced by the amount of heat radiated into space at night. CO2 upsets this balance.
The present CO2 level of about 400 ppm is well within historical norms. It has been as high as 1500 ppm.
Click to expand...
That depends on how far back you have to go in “history”. I don’t think 1500 ppm ever existed alongside human civilization. Certainly never alongside high-density human civilization. If we achieve 1500 again, given our current distribution around the planet, it will be truly devastating to human life.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top