Climate Change
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-10-2010, 09:19 AM
 
RE: Climate Change
(13-10-2010 08:26 AM)ThinkingNorseman Wrote:  A Norwegian scientist who has spent the last two decades researching the cycles of the sun published a paper a few years ago where he argued that rapid climate change could be related to changes in activity on the sun. No one talks to him anymore..
I can´t even find his paper so I could quote a source. Huh
It´s things like this that fuel the skeptic in me.
Published the paper where? In a refereed journal? It's pretty tough for me to deal with this in the absence of source documentation. I've heard lots of things correlated statistically with sunspot cycles but ... to repeat something from another thread, correlation doesn't necessarily imply cause and effect! I'd ask that you confront your inner skeptic and ask him if he's willing to reject the consensus conclusions of hundreds of climate change scientists because one (unnamed) guy published a paper (in an unknown medium) that apparently concludes all these researchers are wrong.
Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2010, 09:38 AM
RE: Climate Change
Quote:A Norwegian scientist who has spent the last two decades researching the cycles of the sun published a paper a few years ago where he argued that rapid climate change could be related to changes in activity on the sun.
But doesn't observation show that his can't be the cause? If I remember right, potholler has something about it in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI .

And even if climate change isn't real, there are many many other problems. Acid rain, introducing 3rd world countries to water using toilets, over fishing, species going extinct (yes, it's normal, but what I mean is secret hunting and other not-so-necessary human causes), phosphorus for fertilizers is going to run out in a few decades (I don't get why phosphores aren't taken from shit and urine and why phosphores are let to flow to water system which makes the water systems eutrophicate [in some places it's taken from water systems well]), overpopulation and stuff like that.

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2010, 04:47 PM
 
RE: Climate Change
I'm attending a debate convention over the weekend where I am arguing that the human impact on climate change is not exaggerated. This will be my opening statement (if I can get all of it in). My conclusion will be dependent on what is said throughout the debate.

Here it is:


Since the very modest beginnings of the human race, man has always pondered the question of knowledge. Can anything ever be known for sure? Is there a reliable method of acquiring information? The answer to that question is yes. Man has available to him today the powers of the scientific method. Through it, we have all acquired, developed, and discovered nearly everything through which we enrich our lives. We live twice as long, and we are twice as healthy. Science has saved us from the savagery that gripped the medieval world. The lights in this room, the cars we all drove here in, everything around us is the resounding achievement of science.
So, the bottom line, is, science works. And it is science which gives us accurate information about the nature of climate change. To reject what the data is telling us and what scientists are telling is to reject the scientific method. If you reject the scientific method, you reject all the conveniences and elements of a modern life.
The point of contention in this debate is not whether or not the climate is changing. To deny that is akin to shutting your eyes, covering your ears, and screaming indiscriminately as you attempt to ignore reality. The point of contention is, whether or not the human impact on the changing climate is “exaggerated.” To determine the answer to this question, we must turn to the reliable process of acquiring information- our trusty scientific method.
So, what is the scientific method telling us? The undisputable facts I am about to present are endorsed by the Royal Society in London. You have to be an idiot to reject their scientific credibility. The conclusion we must reach in light of these facts is that not only is the human impact on climate change not exaggerated, but it is understated.
The debate over climate change is often dominated by a conversation over how much CO2 has been released into the atmosphere by human activity. Skeptics of climate change will point out that the % of CO2 that is released by humans into the atmosphere is a small percentage of the amount released naturally. It is an interesting argument, but a futile one. It is true that humans only account for a small percentage of the total amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere, however the CO2 replaced naturally is part of a complicated cycle of nature that maintains equilibrium. The same amount of CO2 that is put out is absorbed back in by various processes. What humans are doing, is to release an amount of CO2, and it is no trifling amount, despite the percentages, that is not part of any natural system. There exist no pathways in nature for this CO2 to be absorbed, and so it remains in the atmosphere. All those pathways are already occupied with the natural release of CO2. Nature is a highly tuned system, and humans are upsetting that balance.
Skeptics will also point, in their brilliant ineptitude, towards the fact that the earth has its own natural cycles of heating and cooling. Again, this point reflects a partial truth. This is true, but these skeptics fail to realize that these natural cycles of heating and cooling occur at a rate far slower than what we see happening today. The most well-known heating period occurred 55 million years ago during the Eocene period. It was caused by the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through geological processes, including volcanic activity. Over a period of 10,000 years, about 2 terra tons of carbon dioxide were released.
Let us compare that to modern amounts. Over a period of 200 years, approximately half of that amount will be released. The rate of release in modern times is over 25 times that of the natural cycle 55 million years ago. As already noted, humans contribute to only a small percentage to that total amount. But human impact does not stop at mere greenhouse gas emission.
The earth is a complicated entity. It is composed of an atmosphere, and it encases a biosphere whose intricacies are unmatched by any other system discovered in the universe so far. Billions of years of evolution have achieved an idyllic homeostasis interrupted only occasionally by gradual natural change, as already discussed, or cosmic cataclysms such as asteroid impacts, which are not relevant to climate change. The interrupting factor of nature’s global homeostasis is human activity. More than just releasing carbon dioxide, humans destroy nature’s ability to re-absorb carbon dioxide with our relentless march towards total deforestation, our release of chemicals that kill algae in the oceans, and other unfortunate byproducts of our industrialization.
All this is responsible for the unprecedented rapidity with which greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere are rising. And this rapidity leads to a chain reaction. The oceans provide the main constraint against global warming. They are unable to cope with this rate of change. And so the algae they breed, which can account for upwards of 50 % of all sequestration of carbon dioxide, are dying out in record numbers. This only further accelerates the rate of warming, further reducing the population of the algae, and so on and so forth. A similar case presents itself in the arctic, where the melting of the permafrost is set to release some of the largest reserves of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, further accelerating climate change. All this is unquestionably due to human activity.
And so, we have firmly established that humans are indeed responsible for climate change. But is their impact exaggerated?The main avenue through which human impact on climate change is considered is the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports. Professor James Lovelock gave a lecture to the Royal Society where he stated that the problem with the IPCC predictions, which are dire in of themselves, is that the scientists whose data it consults face the problem of climate change in a segmented faction. They will analyze the effect of deforestation on nature’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide, but they will not connect their findings to the larger picture. Professor Lovelock has done so, and his findings do not paint a happy picture. Even the most pessimistic predictions of the IPCC are hopeful when considering the true nature of reality.
And so we must finally face reality. Debates are fun and all. Two sides present their opinions, but we speak not of opinion. Whether or not you “think” humans are causing climate change is irrelevant. The simple fact is that they are. And the IPCC reports do not even begin to reflect the true nature of the beast we face. Thus we are left with two opposing sides- one which is supported by the scientific method, and my opponent’s, which is not. The choice between the two is less of a choice and more of a simple realization of reality. Please face the facts, folks.
*(In case Climate Gate is brought up)
My opponent supported his argument by referencing the Climate gate “scandal.” This is just another attempt of pseudo-science groups often funded by vested interests who want to stop climate change legislation to discredit the hard evidence. The so called falsified data was not falsified at all. May I just cite the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s FactCheck analysis of the scandal? It states that the e-mails misrepresented the true nature of the scientists’ data. The organization that these hackers attacked was just one of numerous academies that the IPCC consults. Regardless of what they did, and they didn’t do anything wrong, short of being a bit rude, numerous other organizations have sound data, and they continue to show that climate is real, it is happening, and it is due to human activity. Furthermore, the media’s usual ineptitude has caused severe misinformation. Over half the public now believes there is significant disagreement between scientists over the nature of climate change due to this scandal. The truth is, there is no disagreement. Hear that folks? None. Zero. No credible scientist who actively works in the field of climatology will dispute climate change.


Critiques? Remember my opponents will be high schoolers.
Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2010, 07:53 PM
RE: Climate Change
I did not read the whole thing, which brings me to point #1: too long. I can't believe you'll have time to say all this, much less remember it.

Anyway, I got as far as the "you'd have to be an idiot" line. You need to take that out. Telling people with an opposing point of view that they are idiots is not going to win you any points with the judges and my guess is you'll lose points.

Also, I'm looking at the end and I see the "Hear that folks? None. Zero" line. It's just ..... obnoxious.

Debates are about persuasion, not derision. You can't treat this like a message board discussion. The trick is usually to accentuate your positives and show the flaws in your opponents argument without making your opponent seem sympathetic.

I think it's a good start but you need to just change the tone some.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2010, 02:20 AM
RE: Climate Change
Too long, High school students will be texting eachother befoer you are done. Make it quick and to the point. Toss out everything that is not nessessary in making your point. Like the line in old Dragnet reruns, "Just the facts, sir."
Good luck. I hope all goes well. Sorry if I can't be of better help.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2010, 06:58 PM
 
RE: Climate Change
Thanks for the critique. I did end up making it a lot shorter and filled with a lot less fluff. I got it down to under 6 minutes (the limit anyways). My opponent's speech cited barely any facts and it was only 3 minutes long. Her main argument was that while humans are negatively affecting the environment, they are also positively making efforts to improve the situation, such as combating deforestation with replanting trees.

Unfortunately, my opponent's entire chapter was sitting in the room, whereas only 4 of mine showed up. When it came to a hand vote to determine who won, the majority ruled and it turned out man's impact on climate change was exaggerated.

The very fact that people refuse to realize the science, and refuse to believe what is quite frankly, true, just shows how screwed we are. I accept that I may have failed to effectively communicate the message, but most people walked into that room thinking one way and walked out thinking the same way. That can sometimes be the problems with debates. It also turned into more a debate over whether or not man should do something about climate change (with the American teenagers in the room obviously did not support) rather than whether or not the impact itself was actually real.
Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2010, 07:30 PM
RE: Climate Change
Maybe you have started someone or a few people to question their beliefs. Maybe you have strengthened the resolve of those on your side when they see you being trumped by nonsense. You can never truely know your total effect in a situation like this. Someone you influence here may be very powerful in combatting climate change in the future. We may never know, even if we witness it happening. You will not remember that person(s) unless they introduce themself to you and tell you their story.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2010, 04:45 AM
RE: Climate Change
Come on people. We all know what really causes global warming!

http://www.venganza.org/images/PiratesVsTemp.png

I want to rip off your superstitions and make passionate sense to you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2010, 07:04 AM
RE: Climate Change
(26-11-2010 04:45 AM)ThinkingNorseman Wrote:  Come on people. We all know what really causes global warming!

http://www.venganza.org/images/PiratesVsTemp.png

That can't be real, there are still pirates in Somalia.

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2010, 07:51 PM
RE: Climate Change
Do they need an eye patch to qualify as being a pirate?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: