Conquer Club

I found this on the WoW forums. This guy has a solid debate.
http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html

Yeah.

Makes sense to me.

We either act and risk a global depression, or we don't act and risk not only the depression, but then end of our current conception of our world.

Between one possible catastrophe, and a myriad of catastrophes, I'll vote conservative on this one and go for the former.

my internet is too slow to bother loading a video maybe u cud give me an overview?

I've seen this one many, many times before. I agree with what the guy is saying, but it just starts to get a bit old hearing about it all the time.

alex_white101 wrote:my internet is too slow to bother loading a video maybe u cud give me an overview?

Basically that if Global Warming turns out to be crap and we act to prevent it that it could cause a global economic depression, whereas if we do nothing then nothing changes. However, if Global Warming is real and we don't act, the impact of the change would lead to social, economic, political, and other catastrophes.

The end conclusion being that as long as we don't know what's what, that the only responsible thing to do is act and try to reverse the potential effects of global warming.

Some of the comments responding to the video on the web page are right. This is not an argument, the same "block diagram" can be used for anything.
Like one reply said:
"This logic applies to ANY argument. Replace "Global Climate Change" with "Displeasing God and engendering his Holy Wrath", and the logic holds. Do we have any reason to believe "Engendering God's Wrath" is a reason to change our entire economic and political sytems, on a global scale? How about substituting the idea that "eating pasta makes the moon shrink"? The chart works the same way. The difference is that enviros want you to change your lifestyle in the way that THEY want you to change it. Think

There is no credible evidence that man is causing climate change. The eruptions of Mt. St. Helens & Mt. Pinatubo put more greenhouse inducing elements in the atmosphere than every car on the planet since the invention of the internal combustion engine.
We need to continue to develop more efficient means of producing energy, which we are doing. We should also continue to be responsible in recycling, and make a conscious effort in to keeping the environment clean.
What we don't need are massive government regulations that could cripple the economy based on an Al Gore movie.

*edited for accuracy*

There seems to be solid evidence (though I'm yet to see proof) that the surface temperatures of our neighbour planets, Venus and Mars, have increased in the last 200 years, with a similar pattern as Earth; i.e. when the Earth heated quickly, so did they, when it didn't heat so much or even cooled, (e.g. during the 1940s and 1950s) they did so also.

If such is true, then the only conclusion can be that the heat emitted by the sun has varied (a scientific fact which is widely accepted) and the recent sudden increase in global warming is only due to the changing temperature and emissions of the sun.

my missus insists on having the heating on really high in the house. looking at my fuel bills, i sometimes wonder if my house is the main source of carbon in europe.

Pascal II.

proof of global warming...

IccleJim wrote:There seems to be solid evidence (though I'm yet to see proof) that the surface temperatures of our neighbour planets, Venus and Mars, have increased in the last 200 years, with a similar pattern as Earth; i.e. when the Earth heated quickly, so did they, when it didn't heat so much or even cooled, (e.g. during the 1940s and 1950s) they did so also.

If such is true, then the only conclusion can be that the heat emitted by the sun has varied (a scientific fact which is widely accepted) and the recent sudden increase in global warming is only due to the changing temperature and emissions of the sun.

Heard that the Ice Caps on Mars are melting(no proof) bet the Martians are panicing.Predictions have it that were at the beginning of a new ice Age. Also enviromental friendly products are becoming a major industry(proffits) which will only encourage more global warming threats.

I think we should take care of our enviroment, its just common sense.

Predictions on the weather changes look extreme though, think it would be wise to find a cave in the himalayas around 2100

Iz Man wrote:Some of the comments responding to the video on the web page are right. This is not an argument, the same "block diagram" can be used for anything.
Like one reply said:
"This logic applies to ANY argument. Replace "Global Climate Change" with "Displeasing God and engendering his Holy Wrath", and the logic holds. Do we have any reason to believe "Engendering God's Wrath" is a reason to change our entire economic and political sytems, on a global scale? How about substituting the idea that "eating pasta makes the moon shrink"? The chart works the same way. The difference is that enviros want you to change your lifestyle in the way that THEY want you to change it. Think

I think the difference is that there is zero scientific evidence that we might engender God's wrath (and indeed, that there is a God at all), so if you made a graph for that eventuality, you wouldn't take the "second row" into consideration at all.

On the other hand, a betting man would say that it was more than 50% likely that global warming exists, is human-induced, and will have huge consequences for the human race. Not least because the majority of world's scientists agree with this.

IzMan wrote:There is no credible evidence that man is causing climate change. The eruptions of Mt. St. Helens & Mt. Pinatubo put more ozone depleting elements in the atmosphere than every car on the planet since the invention of the internal combustion engine.

The depletion of the ozone layer is a separate issue from global warming (although they are linked), so I don't know what relevance your paragraph here has. So I haven't bothered to check if it's correct.

IccleJim wrote:There seems to be solid evidence (though I'm yet to see proof) that the surface temperatures of our neighbour planets, Venus and Mars, have increased in the last 200 years, with a similar pattern as Earth; i.e. when the Earth heated quickly, so did they, when it didn't heat so much or even cooled, (e.g. during the 1940s and 1950s) they did so also.

If such is true, then the only conclusion can be that the heat emitted by the sun has varied (a scientific fact which is widely accepted) and the recent sudden increase in global warming is only due to the changing temperature and emissions of the sun.

The link below addresses this better than I could.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007 ... r-induced/

Stopper wrote:The depletion of the ozone layer is a separate issue from global warming (although they are linked), so I don't know what relevance your paragraph here has. So I haven't bothered to check if it's correct.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007 ... r-induced/

CFC's (chlorofluorocarbons) contribute to ozone depletion, which contributes to the greenhouse effect. There were more CFC's produced in those 2 eruptions than what has been produced by man since man has been producing CFC's.
Source: National Climatic Data Center

Iz Man edited to wrote:There is no credible evidence that man is causing climate change. The eruptions of Mt. St. Helens & Mt. Pinatubo put more greenhouse inducing elements in the atmosphere than every car on the planet since the invention of the internal combustion engine.

Now that you've changed it, do you have a credible source for this? Also, assuming this is correct (which I don't think it is), why compare the eruptions with just every car there has ever been on the planet, when there are also boats, factories, aeroplanes, trains, and all manner of other carbon dioxide-emitting things?

Iz Man wrote:We need to continue to develop more efficient means of producing energy, which we are doing. We should also continue to be responsible in recycling, and make a conscious effort in to keeping the environment clean.
What we don't need are massive government regulations that could cripple the economy based on an Al Gore movie.

If climate change isn't induced by human beings, why do we need to continue to develop more efficient means of producing energy? Is this the first sign of a grudging admission on your part that, perhaps, human-induced global warming might be dangerous after all?

I can't believe anyone is still dismissing human-caused climate change. Take some fucking responsibility for yourselves and the ridiculous lifestyles we all lead. Or don't, but just come out and say you don't give a shit what happens after you're dead instead of hiding behind whichever degree-mill exxon-sponsored 'expert' has held the chart the wrong way up this time.

Stopper wrote:If climate change isn't induced by human beings, why do we need to continue to develop more efficient means of producing energy? Is this the first sign of a grudging admission on your part that, perhaps, human-induced global warming might be dangerous after all?

Simple.
We should always look for more efficient supplies of energy for simple cost savings to the public.
We should strive for cleaner energy for the same reason you don't want to go swimming in a mucky pond. Because its cleaner. Just because I'd like to see cleaner products doesn't mean I concede that man is destroying the planet.
Show me proven scientific data that shows man is the cause of global warming. You can't, because its not there.

Funny, the cleanest & most efficient means right now for supplying energy is nuclear power. Yet I don't hear the environmental wackos calling for more nuclear plants? Why, because it doesn't fit the agenda: big government & big regulations.

heavycola wrote:I can't believe anyone is still dismissing human-caused climate change. Take some fucking responsibility for yourselves and the ridiculous lifestyles we all lead. Or don't, but just come out and say you don't give a shit what happens after you're dead instead of hiding behind whichever degree-mill exxon-sponsored 'expert' has held the chart the wrong way up this time.

Show me proof. Cite me actual scientifically proven evidence that man is causing climate change more so than the sun or the earth itself.
This is a typical leftist response.
No room for debate, either believe what we say or be shouted down as a heretic.
Sorry, I'll choose to believe solid scientific data over theories.

Here's a question for you:
"Why is Greenland called Greenland? Isn't it covered with snow & ice?"

Things that make you go....... hmmmm

Iz Man wrote:

Stopper wrote:If climate change isn't induced by human beings, why do we need to continue to develop more efficient means of producing energy? Is this the first sign of a grudging admission on your part that, perhaps, human-induced global warming might be dangerous after all?

Simple.
We should always look for more efficient supplies of energy for simple cost savings to the public.
We should strive for cleaner energy for the same reason you don't want to go swimming in a mucky pond. Because its cleaner. Just because I'd like to see cleaner products doesn't mean I concede that man is destroying the planet.
Show me proven scientific data that shows man is the cause of global warming. You can't, because its not there.

Funny, the cleanest & most efficient means right now for supplying energy is nuclear power. Yet I don't hear the environmental wackos calling for more nuclear plants? Why, because it doesn't fit the agenda: big government & big regulations.

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11088

1,200 climatologists agree - there is a 90% chance that humans are causing climate change. Climate change itself is a certainty.
A consensus of this order between 1,200 scientists from 113 countries - that is pretty fucking huge. Or is that still not enough proof? if not, what would it take to convince you? Are they all just environmental whackos?



And what agenda? That we still have no long-term solution to the problem of storing spent nuclear fuel? Blair has already decided that nuclear power has to be part of the answer for the UK, and i agree with him. Tough call though.

EDIT: 'leftist'? Grow up, FFS. This should have nothing to do with politics.

Stupid how leftists are always associated with doing things differently.

This guy must be an idiot; afterall, he doesn't agree with the "man-causing global warming" crowd. Right? We shouldn't open this up for debate, we should shut him up so he can't spout these vile statements that disagree with us !!
DAMMIT!

Professor R.M. Carter
Hon. FRSNZ

Marine Geophysical Laboratory (Node C)
Sporing Road South, James Cook University
Townsville, Qld. 4811, AUSTRALIAContact RMC

Original article (in .doc format) at: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1.htm

Myth-1: Average global temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years.
Fact-1: AGT has remained steady, or slightly declined, since 1998.

Myth-2: During the late 20th Century, AGT increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached a high point of unprecedented magnitude.
Facts-2: The recent rate of AGT rise has been between 1 and 2 deg. C/century, which falls squarely within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 years. AGT has been several degrees warmer than today many times in the recent geological past.

Myth-3: AGT was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years (the Mann, Bradley & Hughes "hockey stick" curve).
Facts-3: The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in AGT were unusual or unnatural.

Myth-4: Computer models predict AGT will increase by 6 deg. C or more over the next 100 yr.
Facts-4: Deterministic computer models do. Other equally valid (empirical) computer models predict cooling.

Myth-5: Warming of 1-2 deg. C will have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and mankind alike.
Facts-5: Ecosystems have been adapting to climate change since time immemorial. The result is the process that we call evolution. Mankind can adapt to all climate extremes.

Myth-6: Human addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is causing dangerous warming, and is generally harmful.
Facts-6:No human-caused warming can yet be detected that is distinct from natural system variation and noise. Any additional human-caused warming which occurs will probably amount to less than 1 deg. C. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is a beneficial fertilizer for plants, including cereal crops, and also aids efficient evapo-transpiration.

Myth-7: Changes in solar radiation cannot explain recent changes in AGT.
Facts-7: The sun's output varies on many time scales (including that of the 11-year sunspot cycle), with concomitant effects on Earth's climate. More than 50% of the 0.8 deg. C rise in AGT observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change.

Myth-8: Unprecedented melting of ice is taking place in both the north and south polar regions.
Facts-8: Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are growing in thickness. Sea ice around Antarctica is growing. Temperature is falling at the South Pole. Temperature in the Arctic Ocean region is just now achieving the levels of warmth experienced during the early 1940s, and the region was warmer still (sea-ice free) during earlier times.

Myth-9: Human-caused global warming is causing dangerous global sea-level (SL) rise.
Facts-9: SL change differs from time to time and place to place; between 1955 and 1996, for example, SL at Tuvalu fell by 105 mm (2.5 mm/yr). Global average SL is a statistical measure of no value for planning purposes. The global average SL rise of 1-2 mm/yr that has occurred over the last 200 years shows little sign of increasing.

Myth-10: An increase in AGT during the late 20th century has led to an increase in the number of severe storms (cyclones) or in storm intensity.
Facts-10: Meteorological experts are agreed that no increase in storms has occurred beyond that associated with natural variation of the climate system. The argument that storms have increased in their intensity as a result of warming remains the subject of strong dispute.

heavycola wrote:1,200 climatologists agree - there is a 90% chance that humans are causing climate change. Climate change itself is a certainty.
A consensus of this order between 1,200 scientists from 113 countries - that is pretty fucking huge. Or is that still not enough proof? if not, what would it take to convince you?

Ah, consensus, the favorite word of the apocalypse crowd....

Consensus is NOT science, nor is it proof.

Do you believe that you are lighting gas on fire and producing CO2 in your car? Check this out.

Iz Man wrote:

heavycola wrote:1,200 climatologists agree - there is a 90% chance that humans are causing climate change. Climate change itself is a certainty.
A consensus of this order between 1,200 scientists from 113 countries - that is pretty fucking huge. Or is that still not enough proof? if not, what would it take to convince you?

Ah, consensus, the favorite word of the apocalypse crowd....

Consensus is NOT science, nor is it proof.

are you saying global warming isnt occuring? well even if it isnt i totally agree with the point that we should strive for cleaner energy sources simply for cleanliness. i mean have u been to a city when theres a smog? simply for human development we should find cleaner sources and more efficient sources to help our earth rather than add problems to it.

Iz Man wrote:

heavycola wrote:1,200 climatologists agree - there is a 90% chance that humans are causing climate change. Climate change itself is a certainty.
A consensus of this order between 1,200 scientists from 113 countries - that is pretty fucking huge. Or is that still not enough proof? if not, what would it take to convince you?

Ah, consensus, the favorite word of the apocalypse crowd....

Consensus is NOT science, nor is it proof.

The apocalypse crowd? Soundbites like that are just laziness, you can do better.

SCIENTISTS. SCIENCE. There's a link there, if you look for it. Once again please tell me why you are so happy to dismiss an interpretation of the available evidence ON CLIMATE CHANGE supported by 1,200 CLIMATOLOGISTS. Again, there is a link. Posting the opinions of a single denier is not a response; I am aware there are people who disagree. What i asked you was whether every one of the scientists who put their name to that document are simply wrong, and if so where your better-informed interpretation of the data comes from.

Hey! Iz Man, you've been editing your posts to replace the drivel you spouted originally!

This:

Iz Man wrote:

Stopper wrote:The depletion of the ozone layer is a separate issue from global warming (although they are linked), so I don't know what relevance your paragraph here has. So I haven't bothered to check if it's correct.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007 ... r-induced/

edited for accuracy

was later changed to:

Iz Man wrote:

Stopper wrote:The depletion of the ozone layer is a separate issue from global warming (although they are linked), so I don't know what relevance your paragraph here has. So I haven't bothered to check if it's correct.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007 ... r-induced/

CFC's (chlorofluorocarbons) contribute to ozone depletion, which contributes to the greenhouse effect. There were more CFC's produced in those 2 eruptions than what has been produced by man since man has been producing CFC's.
Source: National Climatic Data Center

after it had already been responded to! Cheat!

At any rate, the problems caused by CFCs are mainly the depletion of the ozone layer, and according to this site, contribute only 10% of total atmospheric warming. So, your (amended) original statement - "The eruptions of Mt. St. Helens & Mt. Pinatubo put more greenhouse inducing elements in the atmosphere than every car on the planet since the invention of the internal combustion engine." is still completely and utterly wrong.

Anyway, I just wanted to bring that up. Heavycola's questions are more pertinent.