Proposal: That the current global warming trend has nothing to do with human actions.

James R

James R

Just this guy, you know?
Staff member
I would like to challenge Buffalo Roam to debate on the above topic.

I would be open to having a four-person debate, since I'm sure there are other climate skeptics on sciforums, as well as climate change "believers", and two heads are better than one.

I will debate the negative side. I invite anybody who wishes to join that side of the argument to nominate in this thread.

I challenge Buffalo Roam to take the positive side of the debate, and invite one other person to join him.

I suggest the debate take place according to the Standard Rules I suggested in the sticky thread in the Formal Debates forum.

The affirmative side will post first. Thereafter, either member of the positive or negative side may post. Note, however, that each participant will be allowed only four posts in total. Each side will have 1 day from the time of the last post by a member of the previous side to post his or her next post, except by other agreement negotiated in the current thread during the debate (if more time is needed).

Each posts will have a total word limit, including quotes, of 1500 words.

Potential debaters should volunteer below. If any potential debater wants to modify the above suggested rules, please also post below.

Since I don't want to drag this out forever, I think a reasonable time limit to negotiate the participants and rules for the debate will be 7 days. If no agreement is reached in that time, I will withdraw this proposal.
 
*Bump*

Is nobody interested in debating anthropogenic global warming all of a sudden?

Really?
 
James R said:
*Bump*

Is nobody interested in debating anthropogenic global warming all of a sudden?

Really?
Click to expand...
Well its a kind of suicide mission isnt it...primarily because of the word "nothing".

Nothing means zero, and I dont think anyone would seriously argue that human industry and agriculture has had zero effect on average global temps.

A more important question would concern the significance of effect, and to what degree...but thats the kind of vagary that doesnt lend itself well to formal debates.
 
I'm happy to debate a modified topic.

For example, I can't understand why Buffalo Roam wouldn't debate

"It is a waste of time and money for human beings to attempt to address global warming, since it is beyond our control to do anything about it."

or something along those lines.

I can only conclude that he is Chicken. :rolleyes:
 
or perhaps at the point of an actual impasse in a topic, a challenge could be issued and sci will judge merit. if i recall correctly, the tard said negligible impact. the context was not defined. that could be forced out here

how much is too much?
 
James R said:
For example, I can't understand why Buffalo Roam wouldn't debate

"It is a waste of time and money for human beings to attempt to address global warming, since it is beyond our control to do anything about it."
Click to expand...
This is also the opinion of James Lovelock, one of the foremost proponents of the anthrogenic theory...so?

And also a different question from the one youre proposing for debate...so why call out Buff on that basis?
 
It's too bad what's his name isn't around anymore.

Edmund? Edward? Ed something.
Edufer, that's it.
He'd take you on, I'm sure.

Andre, his little buddy, too.
 
any ideas on how to get this off the ground? leaving shit solely up to participants aint gonna work.
some college roleplayed as the british house of commons or something with titles assigned. oh. teams!

ja
the s american
man, the detail!
 
Last edited:
We're probably too chaotic around here for such structured discussions. Even in other forums that are more orderly formal debates are rare occurrences.

I suggest patience. At some point someone will take the ball.

Edufer was online recently, I looked up his profile. Perhaps a personal invitation could be sent him? He really is gung ho about this topic and really well informed.
Andre, too. Although I didn't look up his profile.
 
I'd like to join the debate. Not to be 'that guy who tries to make peace' but I believe it's both. The same thing is happening now, as it did to end the last ice age, but I think it's been accelerated by our releasing of carbon dioxide.
 
i will join the debate, on the side of humans are indeed responsible for global warming. i will also add deliberately.

vis:
Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper atmosphere wind patterns by constructing one or more plumes of atmospheric particles which will act as a lens or focusing device.
Click to expand...
the above essentially says humans have the power to alter the course of the jet stream thereby affecting weather patterns.

and if the above isn't enough:
molecular modifications of the atmosphere can take place so that positive environmental effects can be achieved. Besides actually changing the molecular composition of an atmospheric region, a particular molecule or molecules can be chosen for increased presence. For example, ozone, nitrogen, etc., concentrations in the atmosphere could be artificially increased.
Click to expand...
not only do we have the power to alter the course of the jetstream we also have the power to alter the chemical makeup of the atmosphere on a scale large enough to affect a regions weather patterns.

so, what is this device?
http://www.haarp.net/
 
I wouldn't debate because I don't beleive either side can say they are right and the other wrong. That is the comment about degree of human cause is absolutely correct.

However, it seems to me that we are worse than fools to not assume the worst and act accordingly.

Imagine waking up one day and science say "Gee folks we were wrong our means of producing energy and commerce has irreversably impacted earth and our planet is gong to become another Venus and we can't stop it."
 
None of our resident global-warming deniers were brave enough to take up my challenge, I see.
 
Well I would debate that global warming is less worrisome than pollution in general. But NOTHING to do with humans...nope. I care about being able to breathe in big cities, I don't give a shit about, even +2degC over 20 years.
 
Hi, James R,

I got an invitation to join the sceptic’s ranks in debating the topic of human responsibility on global warming. I am very skeptical about the success of this new debate, unless political issues are left out of the arguments. It is quite frequent that sceptic’s data are dismissed on the grounds of “killing the messenger” fallacy, that is, saying the authors of such and such study are “shills for Exxon” or the tobacco companies.

If the debate is carried on a purely scientific ground it may have a slight chance to add something useful to the ongoing discussion. So, things as “An Inconvenient truth”, Al Gore, “The GREAT Global Swindle,” etc, must be kept out of the discussion. And of course, links to Real Climate and Climate Audit posts and comments shouldn’t be part of the debate. Just facts, observed facts.

If that suits you, then I may try to send a couple of arguments that may give a new insight to the issue. I have been away from SciForums for a long time because I was invited to participate in Climate Sceptics discussion list (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics/ ), where I have been learning what real climate science is, and my taking part on it simply to provide observations, temperature graphs and analyses, and geological and glaciological studies on our part of the Southern Hemisphere (Argentina).

In that list we debate with Gavin Schimdt (sometimes James Hansen), Oliver Emmanuel, Fred Singer, Tim Ball, Andre Bijkerk (our Andre in SciForums), Marcel Leroux, Richard S. Courtney, Hugh Elssaesser, and about 340 more. It takes a lot of time to read about 200 posts a day, and also taking care of our website at FAEC (Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology) is time consuming.

So, if I see we are heading towards a reasonable degree of understanding of the science and what’s going on with climate, I will participate.

Kind regards,

Edufer
 
James,

I would like to Start with a recent discussion we had at Climate Sceptics about natural causes of the observed warming, and observed cooling trend since 2000. John Shotsky told us this, and provided a neat graph:

If you consider a sine wave, otherwise known as a cycle, there are some interesting things to observe.

  1. Near the top or the bottom, the rate of change is very small. 8 to 10 years of high temperatures would mean 4-5 years before a peak and 4-5 years after a peak would all be similar in temperature. We have just passed through that phase.
  2. Near the half-way point the rate of change is maximum. The rate of change between the 70’s and now was rapid, as was the rate between the 30’s and the 60’s. There will be an accelerated rate of cooling in our near future, as the cycle reverses.

From existing evidence, it appears that earth may have recently peaked on a warm cycle. That means the years before and the years after would be very similar in temperature, and if you did not look further than those few years, you would think not much was happening.

However, if you expand your few years to include at least one ½ cycle, you will see a large difference. Today, that difference is called global warming, since it is typically an average of 30 years, a particularly bad choice in light of earth’s cycles. However, 35 years ago, when climate was at the other extremity, it was called global cooling. The rate of change from global cooling to global warming is very fast, in comparison. The rate of change from now to the next negative peak will also be very fast. It has already begun, since we know it has ceased to rise.

Looking backwards, we can see that the entire cycle takes about 70 years, from positive peak to positive peak, or, from the 30’s to 2000. (1934 to 1998, possibly, but we don’t know exactly how long the cycles are, or if the positive and negative portions are of the same duration, or of a variable duration (my guess). We do know that around 1900, 1935, 1968, 1998 indicate near peaks. A cycle is present, and we should expect cooling, at an accelerating pace in our future. By 2030, we should all be experiencing a much cooler climate, and a new group of global cooling skeptics – probably us. It will remain cold for 8-10 years, as it turns around again, and back we will come, around 2065-2070, to a climate similar to now.

If you don’t realize there are cycles, and you make the mistake of measuring from the bottom of one cycle to the top of another, you will draw a conclusion that runaway heating is occurring. Regardless of all the hypotheses about how climate works, it seems to follow its own tune. As it begins to cool, then accelerates toward the next negative peak (as predicted by Landscheidt, among others), a hue and cry will go up about human caused global cooling. Again.

At some point in our future, if we are really, really observant, we will recognize the natural cycles of warming and cooling, and not jump to conclusions about rates of change. All climate change reports should cover at least 70 years. If they did, we would see no climate change at all. None. The graphic below should be extended for many years, so we can see where we are on the cycle.

I hope this diagram shows roughly what I am saying:

cycles.jpg


The 8 years around 1998 show a very low rate of change, indeed we think the negative slope is becoming evident. In a couple more years, that should become even more evident. By 2015, global warming will be a thought of the past, but some may anticipate the high rate of negative climate change is due to HUMAN ACTIVITY.

John Shotsky​

The ball is on your left field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top