Proposal: That global warming is currently occurring

[superstring01]

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

 

[mordea]

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.

 

[Trippy]

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.

 

[James R]

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"?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

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.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

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<0417TEHAA>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<0417TEHAA>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.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

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.

 

[joepistole]

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.

 

[Trippy]

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.

 

[James R]

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?

 

[James R]

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

 

[CheskiChips]

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

 

[James R]

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.

 

[CheskiChips]

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]

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?

 

[James R]

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.

 

[James R]

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?

 

[James R]

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.

 

[CheskiChips]

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.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

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.

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.

Sorry, it is a new debate.
[thread=98226]Here. [/thread]