I hereby challenge anybody who wishes to argue the question to a Formal Debate on the topic:

"That global warming is currently occurring."

In particular, I challenge Buffalo Roam to debate the topic.

I will argue the affirmative side of the debate. I challenge anybody to argue the negative.

If other people are interested, we could have a "teams" debate. At this stage, propose that the Standard Rules apply to any debate (whether individual or team), as set out in the sticky thread in the Formal Debates forum. I am willing to negotiate on those rules, of course.

This thread, as usual, is for negotiation of the terms of the debate and who the participants will be. It is not for discussion of the actual topic. I advise anybody who is unfamiliar with the Formal Debates subforum to read the sticky threads at the top of the forum before posting.

I accept the challenge - but there's some clarification that needs to be made.

Will proof that current models don't predict global warming suffice as a evidence? It's difficult to prove something isn't happening if it isn't.

What are we going to define as "Global Warming" - what time scale? Is it simple warming, anthropogenic warming, does the cause matter...etc. etc.

CheskiChips:

You can make whatever argument you like, as far as I am concerned.

I am talking about current Global Warming. In particular, warming since the industrial revolution. More particularly, global warming in the 20th century. More particularly, global warming since 1976. More particularly, global warming since 1990 or so.

At this point, I do not propose to debate whether warming is anthropogenic or not. I want to have the basic argument out of the way with the out-and-out deniers that global warming is even happening at all. We can get to the causes in a different debate, perhaps.

I can argue this side, however, I won't be able until around the 15th. So, if you want to wait until then - that is, if no one competent presents themselves.

I'm happy to wait. I assume Buffalo Roam will wimp out of this challenge. We'll see.

If we get more than one person to argue the negative case here, does anybody want to join me on the affirmative side?

I'm happy to wait. I assume Buffalo Roam will wimp out of this challenge. We'll see.

JamesR, prove that man is the cause of global warming, the earth has warmed and cooled at various time since Man walked the face of the earth.

Explain the Holocene epoch which we are now in, and the glacial and interglacial period, and the warming and cooling that was needed to impliment those events?

All of those events took place before man could ever have been a factor.

Explain the Holocene Climate Optimum, or the Little Ice Age, or why any of this today would represents a permanent end to the current Quaternary glaciation.

If we get more than one person to argue the negative case here, does anybody want to join me on the affirmative side?

I might be able to be convinced to argue the positive side - I've done enough formal debating in my time.

JamesR, prove that man is the cause of global warming...
Not the debate JamesR is proposing to conduct at this time.


the earth has warmed and cooled at various time since Man walked the face of the earth.

Explain the Holocene epoch which we are now in, and the glacial and interglacial period, and the warming and cooling that was needed to impliment those events?

All of those events took place before man could ever have been a factor.

Explain the Holocene Climate Optimum, or the Little Ice Age, or why any of this today would represents a permanent end to the current Quaternary glaciation.
Here's an idea, why don't you save these questions for the actual debate, if you think that they're that important.

JamesR:
We might have to extend the deadline for responses (or renegotiate some aspects of the 'official' time frames, if we're to do this properly).

Buffalo Roam:


JamesR, prove that man is the cause of global warming, the earth has warmed and cooled at various time since Man walked the face of the earth.

This proposal is not about whether warming is caused by humans, as I said above. It is about the basic fact of global warming, as explained above.

Do you accept my challenge? If not, perhaps you can suggest a related topic you'd like to debate instead.


Trippy:


I might be able to be convinced to argue the positive side - I've done enough formal debating in my time.

If there is more than one person to debate the negative, it would be great if you could join me on the affirmative side.


We might have to extend the deadline for responses (or renegotiate some aspects of the 'official' time frames, if we're to do this properly).

Fine. I'm open to suggestions.

JamesR, prove that man is the cause of global warming, the earth has warmed and cooled at various time since Man walked the face of the earth.

Explain the Holocene epoch which we are now in, and the glacial and interglacial period, and the warming and cooling that was needed to impliment those events?

All of those events took place before man could ever have been a factor.

Explain the Holocene Climate Optimum, or the Little Ice Age, or why any of this today would represents a permanent end to the current Quaternary glaciation.

The cause is not in the least bit relevant Buffalo Roam. How we react to the change is very relevant. It is like being confronted with immenent flooding, are you going to go to high ground or are you going to spend your remaining time casting blame for the flood.

The cause is not in the least bit relevant Buffalo Roam. How we react to the change is very relevant. It is like being confronted with immenent flooding, are you going to go to high ground or are you going to spend your remaining time casting blame for the flood.


The cause is not in the least bit relevant


The cause is not in the least bit relevant



Do you realize just how fatuous that statement is, if you do not know the cause?

Buffalo Roam:

This proposal is not about whether warming is caused by humans, as I said above. It is about the basic fact of global warming, as explained above.

Do you accept my challenge? If not, perhaps you can suggest a related topic you'd like to debate instead.


Trippy:

If there is more than one person to debate the negative, it would be great if you could join me on the affirmative side.

Fine. I'm open to suggestions.

JamesR, if there was no global warming, we wouldn't be here, and your are the one who has been hammered me about my questioning that Man is the cause of Global Warming, which was the point of my thread;



This decade the Warmest on Record????? ( 1 2)
Buffalo Roam

Your the one who called me out;


James R I'm happy to wait. I assume Buffalo Roam will wimp out of this challenge. We'll see.

And if I had challengened some one in such a manner, I would be sitting out a ban for flaming.

So? How do we decide who's appeal to authority is the winner?

[CENTER][B][I]
Do you realize just how fatuous that statement is, if you do not know the cause?

The only thing fatuous about that statement is in your mind. You clearly do not understand the issue. I suggest you stick to the subject and answer James's call to debate.

I think a debate would be good for you. But you are going to have to stick to the issues at hand and not regress, and not use illogical arguements or false facts. James is offering you a great opportunity to learn.

Trippy:
If there is more than one person to debate the negative, it would be great if you could join me on the affirmative side.

Fine. I'm open to suggestions.

Awesome sauce.

I propose the format:

Defender (against warming) makes opening statement that doesn't argue points.
Accuser (for warming) makes opening statement followed by first argument.
Defender
Accuser
.... n times
Accusers final conclusive argument.
Defenders final conclusive argument.

I also suggest that at the top of the thread is a post which is altered as the thread goes on, and it is the "Submitted evidence" that is referenced in the further posts.

For example:
Submitted Evidence:
Evidence for 1st Defense (Post #3):
Link or information - Citation
Link or information - Citation
Evidence for 2nd Defense (Post #5):
Link or information - Citation
Link or information - Citation

If we get more than one person to argue the negative case here, does anybody want to join me on the affirmative side?

I'd love to moderate.

~String

So? How do we decide who's appeal to authority is the winner?

I'm neutral on the subject and well enough informed to decide what is and what is not an acceptable argument, empirical fact, credible source and reasonably intelligent inference.

~String

Mod Notes: Syzygys's numerous off topic and flame-laden posts have been deleted. Syzygyz, consider yourself warned.

The cause is not in the least bit relevant Buffalo Roam. I disagree. If episodes of global warming and cooling are primarily due to natural phenomenom, then it begs the question as to why humans should change their behaviours.

I disagree. If episodes of global warming and cooling are primarily due to natural phenomenom, then it begs the question as to why humans should change their behaviours.

Not the issue being debated here, or at this time.

The debate that was prosposed was whether or not warming was occuring.

The debate of causal mechanism is another discussion entirely.

Buffalo Roam:


JamesR, if there was no global warming, we wouldn't be here, and your are the one who has been hammered me about my questioning that Man is the cause of Global Warming, which was the point of my thread

Read post #3.

Now, as will see, my proposal is to argue that global warming has been occurring at least since the industrial revolution. If you wish, we can restrict the time to be discussed to a later time period than that.

Is it your position that there has been no net global warming since the industrial revolution? Since 1900? Since 1970? Since 1990? If your position is that there has been no net warming over any of these time periods, I will debate you on that particular time period.

Otherwise, it is fair to assume you're all bluff and no substance in your claims that the globe is not warming.

Please get back to me. If you have not committed to this debate by next Wednesday 16 December, I will assume you are wimping out and withdraw the challenge to you. Of course, the debate may still go ahead with some other participant who thinks he has a real case to put rather than just empty claims he refuses to support.


So? How do we decide who's appeal to authority is the winner?

Anybody who reads the debate will make their own judgement. There is no arbitrator or jury for these debates except the general readership.

Are you afraid I will "win"?

The debate that was prosposed was whether or not warming was occuring.

The debate of causal mechanism is another discussion entirely.

True. Probably the wrong debate then.

The only thing fatuous about that statement is in your mind. You clearly do not understand the issue. I suggest you stick to the subject and answer James's call to debate.

joe the issues is;

Is Man responsible for Global Warming and can we do one dam thing about it, very simple and very easily understood.

Kind of hard to debate James, when He can lock thread at whim and will, and refuses to acknowledge any information that disagrees with Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Just as you refuse to acknowledge any information that disagrees with Anthropogenic Global Warming.


I think a debate would be good for you. But you are going to have to stick to the issues at hand and not regress, and not use illogical arguements or false facts. James is offering you a great opportunity to learn.


"Illogical arguements or false facts."

By who's definition? Yours and James? then were is the debate if you start from that premisis?

It is just that lack of honest data, and refusal by people like You and James, to even contemplate any information that refutes Anthropogenic Global Warming as as valid, plus the absolute denial of the realities and admissions of the CRU emails, plus starting from the position that any information that disagrees with your Dogma is Illogical arguements or false facts, that precludes any honest debate.

There is a considerable evedence along with a majority of reputable scientist who do not believe Global Warming is Anthropogenic, and do believe that Man doesn't have the ability to affect the process one way or another.

Now just how logical is it not to look at natural process like, the Milankovitch Cycles....Sun Spot Cycles....Orbital Cycles....or consign these natural cuycles to the;


"Illogical arguements or false facts bin."


Yes joe, logic, seem you don't want to face no stinking logic.

It seems to be very incovient to your point of view.

Now as to my scientific readings that you claim to be so illogical, answer to this information, that is a part, for my questioning of Anthropogenic Global Warming, it is from the noted Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Fields Atmospheric Physics

Institutions Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Alma mater Harvard University

Doctoral advisor Richard M. Goody

Notable students: Siu-shung Hong, John Boyd, Edwin K. Schneider, Jeffrey M. Forbes, Ka-Kit Tung, Christopher Snyder, Gerard Roe

Known for Dynamic Meteorology, Atmospheric tides, Ozone photochemistry, quasi-biennial oscillation, Iris hypothesis

Notable awards NCAR Outstanding Publication Award, Member of the NAS, AMS Meisinger Award, AMS Charney Award, AGU Macelwane Award, Leo Prize of the Wallin Foundation

Lindzen has published papers on Hadley circulation, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, hydrodynamic instability, mid-latitude weather, global heat transport, the water cycle, ice ages, seasonal atmospheric effects.[4]. He has published little on climate change [1]; of that, most notably on the iris hypothesis[5]. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council at the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy. Educated at Harvard University (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60), he moved to MIT in 1983, prior to which he held positions at the University of Washington (1964–1965), Institute for Theoretical Meteorology, University of Oslo (1965–1966), National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) (1966–1967), University of Chicago (1968–1972) and Harvard University (1972–1983). He also briefly held a position of Visiting Lecturer at UCLA in 1967.[6]

1.^ "Curriculum Vitae of Richard Siegmund Lindzen". http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/CV.pdf. Retrieved 16 June 2009.
2.^ "Richard Lindzen:Global Warming Denier". audio.wrko.com. http://audio.wrko.com/m/audio/24111309/richard-lindzen-global-warming-denier.htm. Retrieved 2009-12-07.
3.^ Lindzen, R.S., M.-D. Chou, and A.Y. Hou (2001). "Does the Earth have an adaptive infrared iris?". Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 82: 417–432. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(2001)082<0417:DTEHAA>2.3.CO;2. http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/adinfriris.pdf.
4.^ "Publications". http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html. Retrieved 2007-04-05.
5.^ Lindzen, R.S., M.-D. Chou, and A.Y. Hou (2001). "Does the Earth have an adaptive infrared iris?". Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 82: 417–432. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(2001)082<0417:DTEHAA>2.3.CO;2. http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/adinfriris.pdf.
6.^ "Curriculum Vitae, Richard Siegmund Lindzen". June 1, 2008. http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/CV.pdf. Retrieved 2009-03-18.

And self described global warming "denier" rather than a skeptic, he has been a critic of some global warming theories and what he states are political pressures on climate scientists.


http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html



To show why I assert that there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons, I shall briefly review the science associated with those predictions.

..........................


Predicting what will happen to carbon dioxide over the next century is a rather uncertain matter. By assuming a shift toward the increased use of coal, rapid advances in the third world's standard of living, large population increases, and a reduction in nuclear and other nonfossil fuels, one can generate an emissions scenario that will lead to a doubling of carbon dioxide by 2030--if one uses a particular model for the chemical response to carbon dioxide emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group I's model referred to that as the "business as usual'' scenario. As it turns out, the chemical model used was inconsistent with the past century's record; it would have predicted that we would already have about 400 parts per million by volume. An improved model developed at the Max Planck Institute in Hamburg shows that even the "business as usual'' scenario does not double carbon dioxide by the year 2100. It seems unlikely moreover that the indefinite future of energy belongs to coal. I also find it difficult to believe that technology will not lead to improved nuclear reactors within fifty years.

Not the issue being debated here, or at this time.

The debate that was prosposed was whether or not warming was occuring.

The debate of causal mechanism is another discussion entirely.

Really? that isn't what I see in all the angst of the Anthropogenic Global Warming believers.

Simple fact is that without global warming man wouldn't exist, and the world as we know it would not exist, global warming and cooling are facts demonstrated by the history of the earth, no argument there, the major nut of what is happening on the Forum is the absolute Dogma forwarded by JamesR and His side is that Man is the cause of Global Warming, that we can affect the processes of that warming and that Anthropogenic Global Warming is the end of Man and the Earth, and that we have to make massive changes in reducing our life styles across the face of the earth from the Richest nations to the poorest to save the planet, and man kind from destruction.

I do not deny theta Global Warming exist, what I do question is, that it is man caused, that it is detrimental to the earth, and that we can do one thing to affect or effect the process.

So, That is what I see, JamesR wanting to debate, and demonstrate just how Illogical and Stupid the people like me are, who question the vaunted scientific consensus that it is Anthropogenic Global Warming that is the problem, and not nature it self.

When people like joe and it would appear JamesR, start from the view that people who question Anthropogenic Global Warming, start with "Illogical arguments or false facts." just where does that leave any debate? or that the debate is only about if global warming exist.

Point of fact Global Warming has to exist for us to even be here.

LOL Buffalo Roam, yes it is kind of hard to debate James as he is an intelligent and knowledgable lad and it will mean sticking to the facts and using logic. As James pointed out it is the readership that will determine the winner.

And as James pointed out, it is not about the causes of Global warming. I personally think it is caused by man. But it really doesn't matter who is causing it. It is happening, and the issue is what do we do about it. The bullet has already been fired.

Now the question you need to answer is will you debate James or will you runaway from the challenge? As I said before, I think this will be good for you. It is going to require more than posting a few Republican talking points/sound bites and repeating them over and over again...no fluff. It will be good for you.

Really? that isn't what I see in all the angst of the Anthropogenic Global Warming believers.

Speaking of angst, you're being irrational.


I hereby challenge anybody who wishes to argue the question to a Formal Debate on the topic:

"That global warming is currently occurring."

Any mention of the word Anthropogenic? Nope.

What did I say?


The debate that was prosposed was whether or not warming was occuring.

QED


Simple fact is that without global warming man wouldn't exist, and the world as we know it would not exist, global warming and cooling are facts demonstrated by the history of the earth, no argument there, the major nut of what is happening on the Forum is the absolute Dogma forwarded by JamesR and His side is that Man is the cause of Global Warming, that we can affect the processes of that warming and that Anthropogenic Global Warming is the end of Man and the Earth, and that we have to make massive changes in reducing our life styles across the face of the earth from the Richest nations to the poorest to save the planet, and man kind from destruction.

I do not deny theta Global Warming exist, what I do question is, that it is man caused, that it is detrimental to the earth, and that we can do one thing to affect or effect the process.

So, That is what I see, JamesR wanting to debate, and demonstrate just how Illogical and Stupid the people like me are, who question the vaunted scientific consensus that it is Anthropogenic Global Warming that is the problem, and not nature it self.

When people like joe and it would appear JamesR, start from the view that people who question Anthropogenic Global Warming, start with "Illogical arguments or false facts." just where does that leave any debate? or that the debate is only about if global warming exist.

Point of fact Global Warming has to exist for us to even be here.

As for the rest of this? I don't even know where to start.

Buffalo Roam:

More empty bluff and bluster from you? I note you didn't respond directly to my post.

What is it? Are you afraid of me or something? Are you afraid of debating me? I'm no expert on global warming, unlike you. I'm just a guy who knows bullshit when he sees it and who is calling you out on yours.

Since you didn't get it the first few times the point was explained to you I'll say it just one more time: My proposed debate is NOT about whether global warming is caused by man. Understand? It is about the basic fact of warming itself.

Now, perhaps you believe that warming is occurring. In that case, this is easily solved. You write:


"Dear James R,

You are labouring under the misconception that I, Buffalo Roam, am a global warming denier. In fact, I believe that global warming is currently occurring.

Therefore, there would be nothing to debate.

On the other hand, I believe that the current warming is not caused by human beings, and I would be delighted to debate you on that alternative topic if you agree to it."

See how easy it is?


jKind of hard to debate James, when He can lock thread at whim and will, and refuses to acknowledge any information that disagrees with Anthropogenic Global Warming.

I suggest you read the sticky threads in the Formal Debates forum so you know how this works.

Formal Debates, in a sense, is the least moderated subforum on sciforums. Why? Because the participants in any formal debate agree in advance on the rules and parameters of the debate. Moderators only have the task of enforcing the rules agreed among the participants. NOBODY else except agreed participants can step in an make an argument. If the participants agree that personal insults will be part of the debate, so be it. They agree. In that sense, the usual rules of sciforums can be suspended, so long as the debate is allowed to proceed in the first place.

I hereby give you this undertaking: If this debate goes ahead, I will not alter or delete anything you write. In fact, I will agree not to moderate the debate thread AT ALL. Either another moderator can do it, or you can nominate another forum member to publically post their moderation decisions regarding the thread and these will be implemented. The only caveats on this are (a) the rules of the Formal Debates forum must be followed, and (b) the rules agreed between the debaters must be adhered to.


It is just that lack of honest data, and refusal by people like You and James, to even contemplate any information that refutes Anthropogenic Global Warming as as valid, plus the absolute denial of the realities and admissions of the CRU emails, plus starting from the position that any information that disagrees with your Dogma is Illogical arguements or false facts, that precludes any honest debate.

This is all bluster.

I am inviting you to put your best case forward that global warming is not occurring. If you agree to this debate, I will have no choice but to contemplate any information you wish to post.


Now just how logical is it not to look at natural process like, the Milankovitch Cycles....Sun Spot Cycles....Orbital Cycles....or consign these natural cuycles to the;

This thread is not for discussion of the topic. Please read the rules of this subforum.


Simple fact is that without global warming man wouldn't exist, and the world as we know it would not exist, global warming and cooling are facts demonstrated by the history of the earth, no argument there, the major nut of what is happening on the Forum is the absolute Dogma forwarded by JamesR and His side is that Man is the cause of Global Warming, that we can affect the processes of that warming and that Anthropogenic Global Warming is the end of Man and the Earth, and that we have to make massive changes in reducing our life styles across the face of the earth from the Richest nations to the poorest to save the planet, and man kind from destruction.

If these are your issues, why don't you suggest an alternative topic for debate, then?

If you accept that the globe is currently warming, we can move on and negotiate an alternative debate on whether the warming is anthropogenic. How about that?

I note that Buffalo Roam is studiously ignoring my posts here.

I can begin debate the 15th. I previously made suggestions in post 18 - are they agreed upon?

CheskiChips:

I don't see the need to have a list of evidence at the top of the thread. Debaters can post evidence in their posts.

As for the rest, it seems approximately similar to the Standard Debate rules (see sticky thread in the Formal Debates forum) that I originally suggested. Would you agree to the Standard Rules, or would you like to alter them?

PS It seems likely that Buffalo Roam will wimp out of this debate, so you're the only one arguing the negative so far.

With the removal of Rule 4. I can't use computers from Friday afternoon to Saturday evening, and often I'm busy before or after them.

Buffalo Roam:

More empty bluff and bluster from you? I note you didn't respond directly to my post.

I have responded addnausem to your post....you just fail to acknowledge the fact.


What is it? Are you afraid of me or something? Are you afraid of debating me? I'm no expert on global warming, unlike you. I'm just a guy who knows bullshit when he sees it and who is calling you out on yours.

Your funny James, in point of fact it is you who seems to be afraid of me, locking thread, that you don't agree with, yes who has hid behind the title of Moderator?


Since you didn't get it the first few times the point was explained to you I'll say it just one more time: My proposed debate is NOT about whether global warming is caused by man. Understand? It is about the basic fact of warming itself.

And again, you have not been paying attention, I have pointed out repeatedly that we are in a interglacial period of the Quaternary glaciation, a Ice age, and to be in a interglacial period, requires a period of global warming, simple and logical, or aren't you interested in logic?


Now, perhaps you believe that warming is occurring. In that case, this is easily solved. You write:


"Dear James R,

You are labouring under the misconception that I, Buffalo Roam, am a global warming denier. In fact, I believe that global warming is currently occurring.

Therefore, there would be nothing to debate.

On the other hand, I believe that the current warming is not caused by human beings, and I would be delighted to debate you on that alternative topic if you agree to it."

See how easy it is?

Now James why don't you write;


I am sorry Buffalo Roam, as I have not been paying attention to what You have posted about the Fact that Global Warming has to be taking place, as referenced by your pointing out that we are in a Interglacial Period, of the Current Ice Age, and on the other hand, I believe that man is the cause of Global Warming, and I will read your post which contain multiple site references, citations, and addresses to information supporting the contention that there is no Anthroprogenic Warming, and then answer in a gentlemanly manner in open and honest debate.

James R


See how easy it is?




I suggest you read the sticky threads in the Formal Debates forum so you know how this works.

Formal Debates, in a sense, is the least moderated subforum on sciforums. Why? Because the participants in any formal debate agree in advance on the rules and parameters of the debate. Moderators only have the task of enforcing the rules agreed among the participants. NOBODY else except agreed participants can step in an make an argument. If the participants agree that personal insults will be part of the debate, so be it. They agree. In that sense, the usual rules of sciforums can be suspended, so long as the debate is allowed to proceed in the first place.

And again, to what purpose? those who believe in Anthropogenic Warming like your self will not be swayed on bit from their orthodox opinion, and you don't have the information of data to prove anything and at best just as I must do use a appeal to authority as your proof.


I hereby give you this undertaking: If this debate goes ahead, I will not alter or delete anything you write. In fact, I will agree not to moderate the debate thread AT ALL. Either another moderator can do it, or you can nominate another forum member to publically post their moderation decisions regarding the thread and these will be implemented. The only caveats on this are (a) the rules of the Formal Debates forum must be followed, and (b) the rules agreed between the debaters must be adhered to.

Little late for that as you have all to often shut down threads because you personnel don't agree with questioning the orthodoxy of your position.



This is all bluster.

Yes James it is, and your good at it.


I am inviting you to put your best case forward that global warming is not occurring. If you agree to this debate, I will have no choice but to contemplate any information you wish to post.

Then why have you not contemplated my case before, why do you need the show of doing so in this forum?


This thread is not for discussion of the topic. Please read the rules of this subforum.

Yes, so, then why didn't you discuss this topic in other thread? and instead choose this Grand Stand Act to set up a discussion?

James, it is called Show Boating, and it is just what the old snake oil salesmen excelled at.


If these are your issues, why don't you suggest an alternative topic for debate, then?

I have, in many another thread, again, on all to many occasions, you have locked those thread and failed to discuss the subject of the Thread in a Open and Honest manner.


If you accept that the globe is currently warming, we can move on and negotiate an alternative debate on whether the warming is anthropogenic. How about that?

Again to what purpose, the True Believers in the Orthodoxy will not be swayed, for all the information posted about the CRU shenanigans have you been swayed in the least little bit?

Buffalo Roam:


And again, to what purpose? those who believe in Anthropogenic Warming like your self will not be swayed on bit from their orthodox opinion, and you don't have the information of data to prove anything and at best just as I must do use a appeal to authority as your proof.

You obviously don't believe your own argument here, or else why would you spend so much time and effort post cut-and-pastes from your favorite climate denier sites all over the forums? If you think it is impossible to convince anybody or change opinions, why do you bother? Grandstanding?


Then why have you not contemplated my case before, why do you need the show of doing so in this forum?

I have. In fact, I took pains to explain a particular issue to you twice, and yet a day or two later I found you repeating the same incorrect claims. I think you need to be educated in a forum where you can't so easily hide and pretend not to hear.


I have, in many another thread, again, on all to many occasions, you have locked those thread and failed to discuss the subject of the Thread in a Open and Honest manner.

So, here's your chance.

Since you believe in global warming, the current topic is dead in the water with you as a debater. And so we move on. I will propose a different debate in a separate thread.

CheskiChips:

Buffalo Roam will clearly not be taking part in this debate. You will be arguing on your own that global warming is not currently occurring.

Do you still wish to proceed?

Buffalo Roam:

I direct your attention to a new Debate proposal:

Proposal: That the current global warming trend is a result of human activity

I challenge you to debate that topic on the Negative side.

CheskiChips:

Buffalo Roam will clearly not be taking part in this debate. You will be arguing on your own that global warming is not currently occurring.

Do you still wish to proceed?

Not if you're going to be arguing the existence of anthropogenic warming, something I have more inclination to argue against.

Buffalo Roam:

I direct your attention to a new Debate proposal:

Proposal: That the current global warming trend is a result of human activity

I challenge you to debate that topic on the Negative side.
Can't you change the title James?
Or close it down and begin again.

Nobody is going to disagree that the world has been hotter over the last 30 years.
Unless all the hot summers and mild winters have addled their brains.
You are going to get this all the time.

:o Sorry, it is a new debate.
Here.