The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Climate Changein Science

CYDdharta

@AlwaysCorrect Just compare the average of the model data to the actual observed temperatures.  Even you will have to admit the models are wrong.

AlwaysCorrect

@CYDdharta

You are just repeating your discredited claim. I have already explained why your claims don't work and you have failed to rebuttal my points.

I also notice you give no explanation for why you thought randomly including a definition helped your argument. I take it you concede it was a non sequitur.

CYDdharta

@AlwaysCorrect I included the definition because you have never addressed it.  In your mind, somehow seem to you think you did, but you didn't.  It appears to be a concept beyond your comprehension.

AlwaysCorrect

@CYDdharta

Never addressed what about the definition? I have literally asked you two posts ago what the supposed relevance of you providing the definition is and you did not respond to the question, merely reiterating your previous statement which you have refused to offer a defence of besides this random non-sequitur that you refuse to explain.

CYDdharta

AlwaysCorrect said:

@CYDdharta

Never addressed what about the definition? I have literally asked you two posts ago what the supposed relevance of you providing the definition is and you did not respond to the question, merely reiterating your previous statement which you have refused to offer a defence of besides this random non-sequitur that you refuse to explain.

WFT?!?  This is the digital equivalent of shutting your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "La La La La La La La I can't hear you La La La La La La La La La La"

AlwaysCorrect

@CYDdharta

I have asked you what point you are trying to make like half a dozen times now. You have posted a random definition, referred to it as something I had to somehow not address but not explained why, repeated your already repudiated claims without offering any rebuttal to the points raised, etc, etc.

If you have a point that works as a counter argument, what is it? If not, why are you wasting time?

natbarons

Climate Change is real, but some applicatiosn of it are falsified. Humans may be partially responsible for speeding up climate change, not the whole living issue.

CYDdharta

@AlwaysCorrect If you lack the ability to comprehend what I'm saying, why do you reply?

CYDdharta

@AlwaysCorrect Lets try something different, do the models show warming over the last 10-20 years?

Wake

@comey_testify - the problem is that you don't know the difference between a natural warming and something that is caused by man. Warm periods occur every thousand years or so but since you're a mere slip of a lad and because schools haven't been in the business of educating people for a long time you are unaware of this. There was the Minoan Warm Period three thousands years ago. The Roman Warm Period during the time of Christ. And the Medieval Warm Period during the time of the Crusades. We also had a little Ice Age from the Maunder Minimum and shortly followed by the Dalton Minimum. They had horses and sleighs on the River Thames. Do you suppose any of this was man-made? I suggest that when you don't know anything you don't make it so public.

Max_Air29

@Wake , good argument! I believe that climate change is due to human and global causes combined. We may have seen something similar during the ice age which had occurred globally or partially to the Earth a while ago.

Wake

AlwaysCorrect said:

We don't live in the troposphere so if the models are a little more off there (while still being basically correct) then while that is useful to know and investigate, it doesn't really matter when the GMST models are correct.

We don't live in the troposphere? Come again?

Wake

@CYDdharta - The problem is that people that know nothing whatsoever about climate science are telling us about climate science.

This has gone so far in the US that you can't get papers published that are counter to the global warmist claims and you have to look at European research.
http://principia-scientific.org/another-new-paper-slays-co2-greenhouse-gas-thought-experiment/
https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

When you look deeply enough into it there has been so much counterfeiting of data by the warmies that it's nothing less than unscrupulous and should end these people's careers.

yolostide

@Wake , good argument! Climate Change is a major issue that is effecting the Earth. The government was not taking enough action and not funding the issue too much, while they should be.

CYDdharta

Wake said:

@CYDdharta - The problem is that people that know nothing whatsoever about climate science are telling us about climate science.

This has gone so far in the US that you can't get papers published that are counter to the global warmist claims and you have to look at European research.
http://principia-scientific.org/another-new-paper-slays-co2-greenhouse-gas-thought-experiment/
https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

When you look deeply enough into it there has been so much counterfeiting of data by the warmies that it's nothing less than unscrupulous and should end these people's careers.

The problem is as simple as confirmation bias.  We saw the same thing happen with wmds between Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom.  The analysts that come up with sky-is-falling doomsay scenarios get gigs on Good Morning America and Fox and Friends.  Their books become best sellers.  They get awards and grants.  The people who say "there's nothing to worry about" don't get any notice, much less accolades; regardless of the accuracy.

Nightwing

@CYDdharta Confirmation bias is certainly a good point to make. The trouble with this bias is that it has been lasting for quite a few years.

CYDdharta

Nightwing said:

@CYDdharta Confirmation bias is certainly a good point to make. The trouble with this bias is that it has been lasting for quite a few years.

It tends to last a long time.  I remember hearing about Saddam's wmd programs while Bush 41 was still in office; so it lasted all thru the Clinton years and into the Bush years.  There's no reason to think, but for Operation Iraqi Freedom, it wouldn't have continued.

Nightwing

I find it interesting that confirmation bias affects both the 9/11 event as an act of war, and another one around how 9/11 was staged by our own government.

Isn't this more of an indication that what appears to be confirmation bias is actually just different opinions by followers of different groups? A group opinion if you will?

CYDdharta

@Nightwing. Is there a significant difference between confirmation bias and a group opinion?

Nightwing

I suppose its how you look at it. Is a religion built on nothing more than confirmation bias? What about those religions that don't meet as a group regularly?

What about nations? Does a nation form under nothing more than confirmation bias? Does reading about a car wreck in the news a confirmation bias, or is it just a common thing people read about in the news? Is the observation of the daily sunrise a confirmation bias? Most of us observe it.

This might be a good topic for another debate alone.

Oakchairbc

A) Humans are responsible for all of global warming[1].
As noted earlier the hoover.org graph was a cheery picked mislead graph. Hoover.org is a bias mislead conservative group[2].

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/apr/19/study-humans-have-caused-all-the-global-warming-since-1950
[2]https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Hoover_Institution_on_War,_Revolution_and_Peace