superstring01
Moderator
Mod Notes: Syzygys's numerous off topic and flame-laden posts have been deleted. Syzygyz, consider yourself warned.
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.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.
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
So? How do we decide who's appeal to authority is the winner?
The debate that was prosposed was whether or not warming was occuring.
The debate of causal mechanism is another discussion entirely.
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.
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.
I hereby challenge anybody who wishes to argue the question to a Formal Debate on the topic:
"That global warming is currently occurring."
The debate that was prosposed was whether or not warming was occuring.
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.
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.
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.
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;
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.
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?
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.
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.
This thread is not for discussion of the topic. Please read the rules of this subforum.
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?
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.
Then why have you not contemplated my case before, why do you need the show of doing so in this forum?
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.
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?
Can't you change the title James?Buffalo Roam:
I direct your attention to a new Debate proposal:
[thread=98226]Proposal: That the current global warming trend is a result of human activity[/thread]
I challenge you to debate that topic on the Negative side.