Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[Penguin]

Checkmate.   Well played Widewing!   

How is that Checkmate?  We defeated his arguement on AGW.  That's just mudslinging.

-Penguin

[sluggish]

How is that Checkmate?  We defeated his arguement on AGW.  That's just mudslinging.

-Penguin

You defeated nothing.  All you've done is repeatedly profess your faith in the religion of "climate change".

[Penguin]

1. I'm just going to ignore the second part of that post, we went step-by-step, logically defeating all of his posts.

2. You still haven't disproven my argument, all you have done is sling mud. 

3. The question remains, how is what Widewing said checkmate?

-Penguin

[sluggish]

1. I'm just going to ignore the second part of that post, we went step-by-step, logically defeating all of his posts.

2. You still haven't disproven my argument, all you have done is sling mud. 

3. The question remains, how is what Widewing said checkmate?

-Penguin

You cannot win arguments with statements that include "it is believed that" or "it is generally agreed that".  AND...  You CANNOT win arguments using data that is KNOWN to have been falsified to generate a desired outcome.

Checkmate.  You lose.

[Penguin]

Sweeping statements, are you sure that every single argument follows those rules?  Remember, you can never be 100% sure of anything that is not fundamental to the universe, and we aren't even there on those.  Here are a few things that I can prove to you using those statements:

It is generally agreed upon by that mirrors are not gateways into paralell universes, so that if I put my hand on one, I'm not going to feel the cold vacuum of space on my flesh. Although we know that the statement is true, I can guarantee you that at least one wingnut will think that.

We believe that we can apply the scientific principle to anything but the supernatural, which means that I can test the theory of gravity as long as I'm not holding Zeus in my hand. 

Where did we use such falsified data?  Go back, read all of my posts, read all of Moray's posts, and then come back to say that. 

-Penguin

[Widewing]

How is that Checkmate?  We defeated his arguement on AGW.  That's just mudslinging.

-Penguin

Really, you guys couldn't defeat call waiting.....


My regards,

Widewing

[Penguin]

Well then bring in your argument, we're ready to go! 

-Penguin

[CAP1]

How is that Checkmate?  We defeated his arguement on AGW.  That's just mudslinging.

-Penguin

no, you didn't.

[sluggish]

When dealing with matters that have the ability to destroy much of the world's economy deserve much more than speculation to determine their outcomes.

[Masherbrum]

My proven "argument"?   Lobbyists love Global Warming.   

[CAP1]

since penguin likes doing research.........try this sir.


follow the money. it'll open your eyes. 

[Penguin]

Great, a new topic for debate!

So here's what I think CAP's getting at (not to put words in your mouth):

1. Certain firms make money from making "green" products
2. They make "donations" to the government who is now giving them help
3. This means that global warming/climate change isn't real

Is that right?

Here's my rebuttle:

1. Yes, that is true, but bigger firms make more money from selling oil, and nobody likes harsh chemicals in their products. This means that we can't tell if environmentally friendly products are being pushed by the government because of a sincere concern for the environment or just another money scheme.

2. I don't know how much, but judging by how long the green advocates have been around, the oil firms' got 'em licked

3. That's just non-sequitur.  Both of the previous points could be true or false, and it wouldn't make a difference to this conclusion.

Just a warning to you guys, we should be pretty careful about this debate because of rule 14: Posting topics or threads which are based on politics, race, or religion is expressly forbidden.

___=applies here

-Penguin

[Widewing]

Well then bring in your argument, we're ready to go!  

-Penguin

No, you are not ready to go...

AGW is unproven. Moreover, there is now ample evidence to doubt the work of some of AGW's biggest promoters. Where's the data? Show me that man made Co2 emission has increased global temperatures. Don't bother with Google. No one has proven it yet, and it's likely no one will.

The undoctored evidence indicates that warming stopped more than 10 years ago, essentially leveling off for a few years. Now, we have seen a steady decline in global temperature, especially above the 30th parallel. The past 6 months have been especially chilly. Cold and snow not seen in generations is prevalent all across the northern hemisphere. Yet, the AGW guys insist that the Co2 levels are rising. Go back to the first post of this thread. A stunning series of emails from University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit clearly show the scientist's befuddlement with declining world temperatures. Here's some excerpts that do not lose their context as quoted.

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

Many people in this world are growing weary of the constant bombardment by doomsayers. Bad science supporting a political agenda that aims to centralize global power over all commerce and industry. Their problem is that their house of cards is starting to quake. When it falls, most of these AGW scientists will have trouble finding work as a greeter in their local Walmart. I equate it with eco-climate terrorism. The goal being to so frighten people and governments that they will surrender a large portion of their national sovereignty to "save the world". Fear is their only product. Third world nations stand with their hands out, wanting huge payoffs from the industrialized nations. As if this money would go to any useful purpose other than into the coffers of tin-pot dictators and corrupt government officials.

I'd like to see the members of the IPCC investigated for fraud. I'd like to see any scientist who doctored data fired and stripped of any affiliation, and then prosecuted for fraud. GTMO is far from full. Save an especially warm cell for Rajendra Pachauri.


My regards,

Widewing

<edited for grammar error>

[Masherbrum]

Great, a new topic for debate!

So here's what I think CAP's getting at (not to put words in your mouth):

1. Certain firms make money from making "green" products
2. They make "donations" to the government who is now giving them help
3. This means that global warming/climate change isn't real

Is that right?

Here's my rebuttle:

1. Yes, that is true, but bigger firms make more money from selling oil, and nobody likes harsh chemicals in their products. This means that we can't tell if environmentally friendly products are being pushed by the government because of a sincere concern for the environment or just another money scheme.

2. I don't know how much, but judging by how long the green advocates have been around, the oil firms' got 'em licked

3. That's just non-sequitur.  Both of the previous points could be true or false, and it wouldn't make a difference to this conclusion.

Just a warning to you guys, we should be pretty careful about this debate because of rule 14: Posting topics or threads which are based on politics, race, or religion is expressly forbidden.

___=applies here

-Penguin

Only one mentioning "politics", is yourself.   

[Penguin]

No, you are not ready to go...

AGW is unproven. Moreover, there is now ample evidence to doubt the work of some of AGW's biggest promoters. Where's the data? Show me that man made Co2 emission has increased global temperatures. Don't bother with Google. No one has proven it yet, and it's likely no one will.

You are asking us to debate with both hands and feet tied behind our backs while you beat us with a cudgel. 

Yes we are, we are ready to prove to you that mankind has warmed the planet, and at the very least enabled its further warming.  My evidence, the giant, gaping hole in the ozone layer that opens up every year over Antarctica, that will allow further warming with less effort.  I have also noticed that all you seem to do is attack the methods of scientists, using quotes from just one person as evidence.  The truth is that there are multiple groups that prove global warming every day.  

You could be absolutely right that those scientists botched their operation.  That does in no way mean that the entire premise of their work (done by other groups scientists as well) is incorrect.  I think that I am getting to the nub of your original post.  You are saying that these scientists have violated codes of ethics and should be imprisoned.  Well, they haven't made money off of it, unless you count nessecities like food, water and shelter.  There has been no academic dishonesty, since all of their research was either original or cited.

Next, we have the premise itself.  In another part of your post you say that people are tired of hearing about this, and that somehow means that it is false.  That is an ad populum fallacy.  The next part of your point is a strawman.  You are saying that there is some secret underground network that is somehow trying to take over the world, for that you have no evidence, and that is merely to fill up your post with; what do you call it?  Bullpucky?

Next, the science, bad or good, came first, the politics came second.  If you are to say that the government has recruited every scientist that is on this issue, you are wrong.  That isn't even close to true, since more of their (the scientist's) grants come from private institutions.  Perhaps a score or so, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands who are getting their money from private donors.  

You don't have much science supporting your issue, I haven't heard of anyone trying to disprove global warming.  Perhaps that's the agenda, or the more probable answer, a lack of evidence.  The government has a better reason to pushoil rather than these clean energy firms, since they get more money from the former than the latter.  

Also your claim that the earth has stopped warming for, what, 10 years or so?  That's not much compared to the time it has been warming.   Out of 200 years of observation, 10 have an unfavorable outcome that is still in the anomaly range.  

As for the scientists in britain, I can't say much for or against them.  They are doing their thing of which I don't know much about, no comment.

-Penguin