Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 7/9

[skyline5011]

The sun is laughing at us all.



[Pitaboel]

What about global dimming?!

[VarykGerai]

@Pitaboel what?

[Martintfre]

Green house gasses - the phrase is a fraud.

A green house has has a physical lid that blocks convection (keep the windows up in your car on a summer day to see what I mean)

With an open system as the gas heats - it rises and releases the heat - and it will stay in equilibrium, changing a trivial ratio of the gas wont change that.

Claiming CO2 causing warming is like claiming bleeding causes cuts the cause and effect is reversed - and wrong.

[MrCluster101]

Bible, only science book that was not based on what the group, slash lobby, slash government that funded it wanted.

I will disagree on the earth only being 6000 years old. Man has only been here 6000 years but the dinosaurs were here before that.

60,000 years MAX for dinosaurs.

CO2 is HEAVIER than air, it does NOT block anything. Clouds do, based on solar particles from solar flares. Man made warming is a hoax to bring in world tax paid to a world government.

[badjazz27]

@MrCluster101 earth is millions of years old, flesh man has only been around for a few thousand years. 3 earth ages.

[MrCluster101]

This idiot talking about a MILLION years and carbon levels LOL

Like carbon dating is accurate and assuming the earth has even been here that long.

[BeondaPale]

Yep, according to the Bible (the greatest and ONLY science book we'll EVER need) the earth is only 6000 years old

[badjazz27]

@BeondaPale I doubt you have read it then, or have any real understanding of it then. Just because some people spout off ignorant remarks, I wouldnt necessarily blame the bible.

[BeondaPale]

Please understand that my remark was not intended to bash the bible - A book filled beliefs that I cherish - just some of its more ignorant fundamentalist followers.

The "carbon dating is inaccurate and not trustworthy" argument has been used by "Young Earth Creationists" for the last 40 years.

...Much to America's detriment

[Pitaboel]

@BeondaPale Unbelievable...

[AxeMan0170]

It all reminds me of ancient Egypt, when the then called doctored and "priests" controlled the public by telling them they controlled the river Nile, whe all they new was how the Nile behaved by the seasons. If they wanted the people to pay more taxes they would scared them by saying the Nile would dry up. How is paying more taxes going to save nature??

[BeondaPale]

Yes or no, did the scientific method exist in ancient Egypt?

[TSFL2]

Good F'ing grief!!

I've listened to enough of this BS. This isn't science, or scientiic debate, or scientific peer review.

This is edited propanganda.

Let the scientific research chips fall where they fall.

Going back to the original source, nothing presented here has changed.

HUMANS AREN'T CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING. IT'S THE SUN!!!

(and the clouds)

[pheynixll]

URGH, no on wants to hear people on tv saying that 'we can't delay!' .. wth? its a BLOODY DEBATE and they say the debate is over, what the hell is the point!?!?

[Garciamrcool]

the climate change myth is about money.

That's it.

[radoa1]

in the context of capitalism's insatiable thirst for profit?

[BeondaPale]

As are the arguments *and the people behind the arguments) that say it's a myth

[allatheaussie]

Every sea _surface_ temperature graph (because without an awful lot of effort, we can't measure through the full depth), to me, just shows that they are highly variable, not that they're increasing. The warming of ocean surfaces indicates more energy coming in, not more energy being retained by the atmosphere.

I'm still not convinced by any of the panic mongering. The data set is far too small, especially when we're coming out of a cooler period at the moment, and should be expecting warming.

[BeondaPale]

But such high variability is factored out via large amounts of averaging, isn't it?

"The data set is far too small, especially when we're coming out of a cooler period at the moment, and should be expecting warming. "

I don't believe that the data set is too small and it is growing all the time.

I do understand that we are in a natural warming period, but the speed of this recent warming is what concerns the climatologists.

[allatheaussie]

Averaging of data hid the medieval warm period and produced the Hockey Stick. It hides this natural variability and makes it easier to panic monger ignorant masses.

So an instrumental data set covering a little over 100 years - and only 30 when you consider satellite measurements (the most reliable for mapping global changes) when this is just a blip on geological time is large enough? The data gleaned from ice cores is only an estimate of what it was like at or near the poles.

[allatheaussie]

It does not show global variability.

In the 1970s (before my time, so I've done extensive research into this), there was a 'Oh no we're going into global cooling' mania. My parents remember it. My grandparents remember it, as do most of the older people that I've spoken to. Climatologists jumped on the bandwagon then, just as they are jumping on it now.

I'll be interested to wait and find out when the next 'Oh no we're going into an ice age' period is going to start...

[BeondaPale]

The MEDIA and one or two books had a good time with global cooling, but global warming has been spoken of since the 50's

MUCH MUCH more has been written about the current warming trend and the evidence to support it is hard to ignore

[BeondaPale]

"Averaging of data hid the medieval warm period and produced the Hockey Stick."

How does averaging "hide" anything? How else does one achieve a readable graph without using it? It would be a chaotic mess without averaging.

I'll admit that climatology is a young science, but methods and data for both current readings and reconstructions have been thoroughly reviewed and present a very consistent, logical and convincing picture.

[SupervillainHost]

I disagree with BeondaPale, but his (her?) arguments are sound.

No thumbs down for BeondaPale, please.

i would respond, the speed of this recent warming is under significant review, considering the "ClimateGate" hack of emails out of East Anglia shows deliberate hiding of data and interpretation protocols.

In other words, the recent warming graphs are not only fake, but intentionally doctored.

[BeondaPale]

You don't know that recent warming graphs are doctored - though that's total BS you'll now gladly push.

And I certainly haven't seen evidence of the kind of grand conspiracy so you clowns are gleefully charging.

Thousands of peer reviewed studies and the basic underpinnings of the science are valid.

Not to mention the absurdity of the alternative you support, by default -- the continued massive and unprecedented experiment on the only climate this planet and we as a species have

[allatheaussie]

If carbon dioxide is such an important thing for global warming, how come Mars, with an atmosphere of 95% of CO2, does not have a "runaway greenhouse"? Oh, thats right, because its _water_ that is the most important greenhouse gas on Earth!

[BeondaPale]

"how come Mars, with an atmosphere of 95% of CO2, does not have a "runaway greenhouse"?"

How much total CO2 is on Mars?

-- This is a key question because if Mars had a very thick atmosphere it COULD trap a lot of heat. But if the atmosphere on Mars is thin (regardless of the percentage) the CO2 would not be able to hold in a lot of heat

[allatheaussie]

Good point, it still doesn't change the fact that water has a much better ability to retain heat, and it is more significant on Earth than CO2 is.

[BeondaPale]

But the warming of the Earth's oceans has added some of the most convincing evidence yet that human actions are playing a significant role in the Earth's rising temperatures.

[Scantofladge]

Do I really hear a supposedly rational, intellectual man pulling out Pascal's Wager to scare people into believing global warming? Come on. This is the weakest of any kind of argument. Pascal's Wager has been logically rejected time and time again. If the risk of not going to heaven is only 1 in 5, should you believe in a god, too?

[Entropy56]

We know now that 2008 is the coolest year of the century.

[BeondaPale]

We do?  How?

[myralangerhas]

Why are they having this debate when Al Gore says the debate is over?

[JordanPerrier]

because former vice presidents of the usa don't decide if major global issues need to be debated or not.

[Mrbob200]

you are a fuckhead

[BerettaStormPX4]

Notice how the skeptic members of the panel can't make a point without being interrupted by the pro-warming members, and how quickly the moderator tries to cut them off, while the pro-warming members carry on uninterrupted by body.

[kakahass]

that pro man made warming scientist is a weasel

[mart83648]

The audience looks like brainwashed cult members

[paul1847]

Or maybe they're not part of the "Global Warming" cult?

[ArchiAngel]

Interesting that they never mention Carbon Dioxide is heavier then Air which is why we get smog and Co2 easily mixes with water which is why Smog "magically" vanishes when it is blown out to sea so all Man Made CO2 goes into the Earth's Ocean which has the largest amount of free CO2 on the Planet. Only way Co2 gets out of the Ocean is that it expands with the Ocean being heated and rides up with Water Vapor with water vapr making up 95% of Green House gas

[tubeuser123rage]

David C really started to get cocky and obnoxious as this program unfolded...

[mattus52]

Oh my, what a joke this panel was. There was 1, ONE, scientist who understands scientific method. Professor Bob Carter deserves a medal for having to put up with that totally biassed and religious panel. He is a bigger man than I. Long live scientific and rational thought. Death to climate change zealots.

[BeachofDreams]

Bob Carter may have understood the concept of scientific testing, but he didn't correctly apply it to the theory of human caused climate change.