Climate change forum section?

Should Metabunk have a climate change section?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

econ41

Senior Member
On a percentage of 0 to 100 are you a believer in man-made global warming?
If you prefer it framed as a percentage I'm 95% certain that there is an escalating process commonly described as "man-made global warming".

The issues in need of debate from my perspective are "How much?" and "How fast?" Much of this specific debate has focussed on comparisons of "output" data. My position is based on the reality of the exponential increase in "inputs".
I don’t know you guys like I do everywhere else. And I don’t know if I’m discussing things with a devout believer or a objective observer.
Take care with the "false dichotomy" - Don't overlook the class/sub-set of "objective sceptic who is agnostic on the issues because he is not sufficiently informed on the relevant evidence nor motivated to find out."
 
Last edited:

Fallingdown

Active Member
Aren't 450kyears enough to prove the point? It's about twice the time Homo sapiens has been living on planet Earth.
If you prefer it framed as a percentage I'm 95% certain that there is an escalating process commonly described as "man-made global warming".
Thank you for an honest answer.
The issues in need of debate from my perspective are "How much?" and "How fast?" Much of this specific debate has focussed on comparisons of "output" data. My poison is based on the reality of the exponential increase in "inputs".
I’m not going to argue the ins and outs of global warming because that’s not my point. I don’t wanna venture from my topic ever again to pollute the issue.

If you prefer it framed as a percentage I'm 95% certain that there is an escalating process commonly described as "man-made global warming".

The issues in need of debate from my perspective are "How much?" and "How fast?" Much of this specific debate has focussed on comparisons of "output" data. My poison is based on the reality of the exponential increase in "inputs".

Take care with the "false dichotomy" - Don't overlook the class/sub-set of "objective sceptic who is agnostic on the issues because he is not sufficiently informed on the relevant evidence nor motivated to find out."
How can I overlooked that because that’s exactly where I am on this issue.

In fact that was the point of this thread for one particular issue.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Thank you for an honest answer.
No problem.
How can I overlooked that because that’s exactly where I am on this issue.

In fact that was the point of this thread for one particular issue.
I've been watching the thread and have been aware of the polarisation and other "procedural issues". ;)

BTW - Ooops - I've corrected the auto spellcheck issue " My poison" >is now> "My position".
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. But the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming
You've quoted a simplified summary paragraph; "past warming events" doesn't necessarily mean all of them. The page that this paragraph links to goes into more details and says:
Article:
Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

So we can take this to read "unprecedented in 2 million years".
The page gives an overview of how paleoclimatology works and links to yet another more in-depth resource:
In that set of pages on paleoclimatology, there's one that introduced the evidence that goes back this far:
Article:
Ocean cores showed that the Earth passed through regular ice ages—not just the 3 or 4 recorded on land by misplaced boulders and glacial loess deposits—but 10 in the last million years, and around 100 in the last 2.5 million years.

So there is actually evidence to support it.

Specific places on Earth have undergone more rapid climate change, e.g. in response to changing ocean currents, but the globe as a whole hasn't, as far as we know (and that's pretty far).

The whole section on global warming on that site is 11 years out of date, but by and large I do trust it.
 

Fallingdown

Active Member
You've quoted a simplified summary paragraph; "past warming events"



Here’s another one that won’t be good enough for ya.



Global warming is the *unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past *century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released by people burning fossil fuels.



How Does Today’s Warming Compare to Past Climate Change?

Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. But the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

Why Do Scientists Think Current Warming Isn’t Natural?

In Earth’s history before the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s climate changed due to natural causes unrelated to human activity. These natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming


How do they know this *century’s Warming is a *unusually rapid increase ?



Have they compare this *century to every *century of the last 450,000 years plus ?



Pick me one *century from 300,000 years ago and one from 150,000 years ago.



They must have data on all other Individual *centuries because they were precise about the increment that was warming at a “unusually rapid increase”



If that data is impossible to break down into 100 year periods aka * centuries.



They can’t make a claim specific to one *century



Global Warming
 
Last edited:

FatPhil

Senior Member.
they can’t prove it by comparing this hundred years to every 100 year period of the last 800,000 years.

Straw man, that's not what they're doing. And you know that, as you've been told already this thread.

Edit: although it depends on what you mean by "every 100 year period". Do you mean averaged data for a 100 year period? That's not their raw data, so that's not their data. They can make it from their data, as plenty of their data's much higher precision.
 
Last edited:

Fallingdown

Active Member
Straw man, that's not what they're doing. And you know that, as you've been told already this thread.
That’s not a strawman that’s precisely my position.

How do we know the “ unusually rapid warming “ in the 100 year period that they specified is indeed unusual ?

They can’t specifically pick out every hundred years period for comparison.

Unless they’ve studied the last 800,000 years of ice cores in 100 year increments they can’t make such a specific claim.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Unless they’ve studied the last 800,000 years of ice cores in 100 year increments they can’t make such a specific claim.
They have, though, and your source (NASA Earth observatory) shows it.
You're arguing from incredulity here, but "I can't believe that's true" is not a logical argument.
 

Fallingdown

Active Member
They have, though, and your source (NASA Earth observatory) shows it.
You're arguing from incredulity here, but "I can't believe that's true" is not a logical argument.
Is it safe to assume that the reason you skip over my question is that you can’t supply any links for your claims?
 

Ann K

New Member
I would like to ask anyone that replies to me one question. Failure to answer will mean I will ignore your post.

On a percentage of 0 to 100 are you a believer in man-made global warming?

I don’t know you guys like I do everywhere else. And I don’t know if I’m discussing things with a devout believer or a objective observer.
There are also "devout disbelievers", so you're presenting a false dichotomy.
 

Fallingdown

Active Member
There are also "devout disbelievers", so you're presenting a false dichotomy.
True

But you’re wrong about the false dichotomy. I didn’t limit the number of sources. I just asked for information on one of them.

A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. ... For example, a false dilemma is committed when it is claimed that, "Stacey spoke out against capitalism; therefore, she must be a communist".
1638545446535.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma



Has anybody found it the least bit odd. That over the last week or so. As I’ve posted I’m ganged up on by at least three members who disagree with every single thing I say ?
 

Inti

Senior Member.
If you have a direct quote where I said “overwhelming proportion of climate scientist”. I didn’t mean it literally because it’s wrong.

So let me reiterate then we can be done with this line of discussion.

“A lot” of MGW believers @including some climate scientist” believe that since the Industrial Age..... “ climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events” .

As demonstrated by the words “current climatic warming”



https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming
I am afraid I don’t understand your point. The reality is that almost all scientists with specialist knowledge of climate change are convinced that it is real and caused by human actions, specifically by the release of greenhouse gases. That consensus has been established by a number of studies of the scientific literature.

There are multiple lines of evidence leading to these conclusions. For details, see the references I gave earlier.

Now, in any field of expertise, when I find out that 97 percent of those with detailed knowledge of the field support a conclusion, I would need very strong evidence indeed to contradict them. No such evidence exists.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
And I’ve already given my position.
Your position seems to be a two-fold speculation:
1. Rapid climate change might have happened naturally in pre-historic times, we just don't know about it;
2. rapid climate change is happening naturally now, but the climatologists fail to explain this mechanism properly, possibly for ideological reasons.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Otherwise, please show evidence.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mythic Suns [Debunked] Viral internet meme indirectly claiming that Greenland has already fully melted. Science and Pseudoscience 6
skephu Paul Beckwith (climate scientist) on chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 19
MikeG Climate Change War Games Contrails and Chemtrails 0
deirdre Climate Scientist says "Scientists should consider stretching the truth": Stephen Schneider Quotes Debunked 2
keefe Debunking guide Practical Debunking 3
keefe Climate change and conspiracy theories - Lewandowsky General Discussion 3
CeruleanBlu Airliner Emissions EPA Hearing General Discussion 15
Auldy Claim: Satellites show global warming pause continues by CFACT Science and Pseudoscience 13
K Please help me find sources on anthropogenic climate change scientific consensus General Discussion 5
Belfrey "Climategate" and "Censored" Data General Discussion 4
Thor Odinson Debunked:Solar System Warming (Climate Change Conspiracy Theory) Conspiracy Theories 113
mrfintoil Debunked: SKYSCRATCH - The Geoengineering/Chemtrail Cover Up Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Critical Thinker Flooding in Colorado caused by HAARP, nothing to do with Climate Change? Contrails and Chemtrails 24
David Fraser They study Human Engineering for Climate Change. Conspiracy Theories 0
Kevin45345 Climate change deniers: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere General Discussion 2
Mick West How to talk to a climate change denier, and then what? Practical Debunking 534
Spongebob Climate Change Why it is NOT being caused by increased CO2 emissions from humans Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Marin B Climate scientist on man-made clouds General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: Irrefutable Film Footage Of Climate Engineering Aerosol Spraying [Aerodynamic Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
T Explained/Debunked: "Irrefutable Footage of Climate Engineering Aerosol Spraying" - Explanations? Contrails and Chemtrails 20
Trailblazer Debunked: "Top climate scientist Tim Lenton admits to ongoing geoengineering" Contrails and Chemtrails 23
TEEJ "Airline Pilot" at Climate Engineering Awareness Day - Carlow, Eire, 22nd August 2015 Contrails and Chemtrails 16
Katie Seas GeoengineeringWatch.org: Are Climate Engineers Waging Warfare on Texas?, Again? Conspiracy Theories 15
keefe ARM Climate Research Facility Contrails and Chemtrails 17
MikeC Warning over aerosol climate fix from Vienna Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West Hoax: Climate Engineering Pilot Disclosure? Contrails and Chemtrails 76
Mick West Debunked: Renowned Physician Sounds The Alarm On Climate Engineering Contrails and Chemtrails 4
BlueCollarCritic Debunked: US AIrforce Admits that HARRP is used for Climate Engineering HAARP 7
Steve Funk Internationally Recognized Theoretical Physicist Acknowledges Climate Engineering Contrails and Chemtrails 20
Lone Bison Contrail Question for Skeptics - What's the Effect of Contrails on Climate? Contrails and Chemtrails 233
Tim TheToolman Coles Debunked: Infowars: "Latest Climate Report Admits Chemtrails Exist" Contrails and Chemtrails 4
jvnk08 Monsanto acquires Climate Corporaton for $1.1 Billion Contrails and Chemtrails 13
Critical Thinker NASA: 'This September, Ask a NASA Climate Scientist' Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West Debunked: CIA studying Geoengineering, Climate Engineering, Weather Warfare Contrails and Chemtrails 67
Jay Reynolds Dane Wigington & Co. get taken to the cleaners by climate scientists Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West Climate Scientist Alan Robock gets asked every chemtrail question in 11 minutes Contrails and Chemtrails 15
Spongebob Is trying to alter the climate a waste of money? General Discussion 188
Steve Funk The Climate Fixers Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Contrails in Teacher's Climate and Weather Text Book Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Sceptical climate scientists concede Earth has warmed Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Mick West TFTRH #30 - Tom: 9/11 - Why We Believe and Change Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 9
Mick West TFTRH #25 - Jason Bermas: Producer of Loose Change, Shade, Invisible Empire Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
cosmic Name change? Site Feedback & News 3
Mick West Dylan Avery - Director of the 9/11 Conspiracy Film "Loose Change" Escaping The Rabbit Hole 2
Mick West Explained: Manurewa NZ, 'Extra-terrestrial' Fireball Jumps Up [Contrail, Altitude change] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Teertskcab Why Don't Cloud Formations Change Much in DSCOVR animations? Flat Earth 4
FolsomG10 Does Zooming in Change How Much of Something is Hidden by the Horizon [No] Flat Earth 54
TWCobra Flat earth Debunk-change in apparent altitude of clouds as seen from airliner Flat Earth 2
qed ZA Government accuses US of plotting regime change in ZA General Discussion 15
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top