Honestly, who do you think is winning this global warming debate?

Question

I've engaged in a debate with a global warming 'skeptic' on another forum. He's not bad - probably better informed than most or all 'skeptics' on YA.

Nevertheless, I feel like I've crushed him in this debate so far. He feels as though I'm "on the defensive" because I'm refuting all his points, whereas he's ignoring mine. I feel like I'm crushing him because I've refuted every one of his arguments and he hasn't refuted a single one of mine.

So who do you think is winning so far, and what do you think of his 'strategy'?

http://discuss.greenoptions.com/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=582

Answer 1

I have read some of it, there are lots of links, but I feel I read enough to answer your question (nevertheless I am reading it all)

-IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU WINNING AND OTHERS LOOSING, just to prove your own point; the world doesn’t revolve around you.

-IT IS NOT ABOUT ALWAYS DISRESPECTING YA MEMBERS BY STATING WHAT YOU JUST WROTE.

-AND YOU ARE DEFINITELY NOT  ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚€Â˜on the defensive’, YOU ARE ENTIRELY ‘ON THE OFFENSIVE’

Answer 2

I've read most of the debate, and I'd have to say that most of Matt's claims are either false or irrelevant.

A. The “Petition Project” by OISM is an amazing piece of evidence that overturns nearly 200 years[1] of scientific understanding that greenhouse gases trap outgoing infrared radiation in the atmosphere close to Earth’s surface.

According to the Petition Project, 40 of the signatories are climatologists.[2] But since their field of expertise and their current research on the topic are not linked with names, it is not possible to verify whether or not more (or less) than forty of the signatories study climate change.

The featured signer, Edward Teller,[3] has been dead for nearly 5 years, which allows him ample time from beyond to read the latest IPCC report (2007) and draw conclusions.

“When the Oregon Petition first circulated, … John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls [were quick to add their names to the petition]. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as ‘biology.’”[4]

According to the National Science Foundation, more than 12 million science and engineering degrees have been awarded in the U.S. since 1966.[5] That 31,071 of them would sign an on-line petition denying climate change is indeed significant!

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Four...

[2] http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabas...

[3] http://www.petitionproject.org/index.htm...

[4] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?t*t...

[5] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07307/c...

B. The upper atmosphere should and is cooling. His links confirm this. It's the lower atmosphere that's warming. I think that he confused his atmosphere layers. Most deniers state that the troposphere should warm faster then the surface. They source John Christy as proof that it's not warming faster. The deniers also always forget to link corrections that John Christy made himself to the troposphere data.

C. The saturation argument has long been discredited, and the atmosphere is far from being saturated.

Answer 3

Really, the only point which needs to be shown is that temperature is following CO2 levels for the last 40 to 50 years. Even though this still would not "prove" the theory, it is the first place to start, and to date, temperature does not follow CO2. It has not in the past and it does not now.

I realize there are lots of other things which play into the debate (global dimming, etc), but this is the primary theory, CO2 (man made or not) is a key driver of temperature. If this simple idea can not be shown to be true, then there really is not much to debate. I have never seen a strong correlation showing CO2 is the driver. What I do see, are the Pro AGW supporters making excuses for why temp has not followed CO2 levels.

Answer 4

for me, your debate there in the link is nonsense. why bother debate? if you know you are right, then do your thing. if you could not convince any skeptic to join your cause, then convince more of those who believe to do things that can help save our environment. there is no time to debate to non believers, do your part now in saving the environment! ! ! ! !

Answer 5

He presents facts and data, wheras you present links, and lots of them.  But so what?  A link is just someone's opinion.

I did note the wordplay you used with both the Manhattan Declaration and the Oregon study.  Without debating, you just dismissed these extremely important studies.  

I think the evidence he presented was extremely good, and well explained.  Instead of explaining yourself, however, you just slapped down another link or snickered.  

He wins.  You didn't come close, at least not from the debating angle.

Answer 6

What strategy is that?  It's called retreat and live to fight another day.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel Dana, every time.  How about that last question by TC?  He got smoked into oblivion, but 'ol Jello got best answer.

No amount of logic can overcome dogma.

I just went through this on a personal level. (different issue)  After I was provoked repeatedly and egregiously I finally warned them what was going to happen - and then I did it.  

I absolutely pummeled them to a bloody pulp on every level.  Logically, personally, common sensibly, not to mention 100.0 percent legally correctly - all in front of the attorney.

And the result?  Lets just say that some people don't get it.  Are unable to get it.  Will never get it.  After I got them to sort of admit there was a problem, finally, I feigned an apology to keep the peace.    

An apology for what?  I don't know.  For bringing to their attention that they are unaware of what they are doing?  Of even their own motives?  That they are woefully ignorant of the totality of the situation, not to mention the simple facts?

The capacity of the human mind to ignore facts, rationalize and conjure alternate reality - when these facts implicate that a mind is in the wrong - is simply beyond comprehension.  It is endless and bottomless.

Keep doing what you do, but remember it is only one facet of what needs to be done.  Keep up the pressure but remember that yours (rationality) will not be the coup de grace.

We need a charismatic leader.  Organize and vote progressive.

Try reading Dale Carnegie.

Answer 7

who is winning the debate is who has occupied the white house the majority of the time since it first reared its ugly head as an "issue"

btw, arrogance is not a virtue.

Answer 8

I am happy you feel so powerful as to be able to crush someone using junk science. Why don't you put that power to work on solving the nonexistent problem that seems to have consumed you. Or are you not that powerful? seems that someone with your giant intellect should be able to master the cooling that you believe we need if you feel that we had the power to warm it. GO ahead and try. I'll wait to see the results.

Answer 9

I applaud both of you for attempting a real debate, and I hope it gets better from here.  Your statements to begin the debate are bold, but your references are weak.  Using blogs for references does not demonstrate a strong position. You should be referencing the scientific papers that the blog posts are based on.  Wikipedia?  You can do better than that.

Your opponent wasted an opportunity to discuss science and attack your position by bringing up consensus.  Consensus is a political tactic, with no scientific value.

Although I disagree with your position on global warming, I think you are very knowledgeable and can do a better job of presenting your case.

Who is winning?  Anyone who has not yet read your “debate”.  I will follow your debate further out of curiosity hoping it gets stronger and interesting.

Answer 10

well... in my opinion, the only ones winning the big debate are the people making the millions of dollars and worldwide recognition by playing on speculations.

as for yours, that's the problem with fighting the 'status quo' and/or debating people without debating experience.

Answer 11

Interesting that "Global Warming" is the only science that is proven by debates rather than facts, where the abilities of the orator outweigh the strength of the data.

If someone thinks his view of "science" is right because they can "Crush" them in a debate, this just shows ignorance of what science really is.  

Can anyone honestly imagine arguing with Georg Ohm about how much current will flow for a fixed voltage at a known resistance?  That would just be proof of who the fool is.

Answer 12

I'm sorry Dana.  I was under the impression the debate was over.   Remember?  So why do you waste your time?

Answer 13

Tomcat wrote: "The satellites do not show 0.5 degrees of warming over the last 30 years unless you cook the data."

According to my calculator:

3 x 0.171 = 0.513 (RSS satellite data of The Lower Troposphere)

I'd love to hear your "explanation" for how it was necessary to "cook the data" to get this result.

Answer 14

God is winning, and will make fools of the envirofascist liberals who screamed global cooling in the 1970s and are now screaming global warming. The sky is still there, little chicken...

Answer 15

Dana even if or when you win,

in the end we will still be the losers



Global Warming is winning

Answer 16

I think the preponderance of the evidence is forcing the deniers, that want to do nothing, into a dunce corner. The people wo argue against measures to move away from carbon fuels to non-carbon fuels makes no sense to me unless they have a financial interest in the dependence of so many of us on the high prices for carbon- based energy sources from coal, oil natural gas,oil shale, biofuels or even nuclear and other substitutes that depend on high prices for energy from all sources old or new. Truth be told we consumers and esp the environmentally concerned ones are up against very powerful selfish special interests. Many of those denying human contributions to the GW problem don't really care about the future of humankind. I think many are insane and/or pathological.

Answer 17

Al Gore is slowly being shown up for the fraud he really is, particularly in Europe. In England, for instance, you cannot show his documentary 'An Inconvienient Truth' without data from the other side that refutes it. I think that too many people today believe things that they are told at face value.

Answer 18

It doesn't matter. Nature always wins, no matter what people think or do. Reality is that which does not go away just because you don't believe in it.

Answer 19

I agree with Sam. It's not about you and your links. Give her the 10 points!

Answer 20

In the real world, skeptics are losing ground For the only two major nations outside Kyoto, Australia has recently opted in and the US Presidential candidates are climate change supporters. The  evidence is overwhelming - for those who read it.

Answer 21

It is not a debate...It is an actuality!!!

Noone wins, we all lose!!!  

If nothing is done, come back and talk to

me in 15 years and tell me your opinion of

global warming then.

  We are already past the point of no return.

From here on, the curve is exponential.

Answer 22

You are one of my Contacts because I enjoy your wit, and think you're a smart guy.

However, I do not believe in the theory of man-made global warming.

While you are presenting a fine case, well-written arguments cannot unilaterally create something that simply does not exist.  

After 46 years in the U.S., I have moved to the Czech Republic.  Here, very few people believe in Global Warming.  Even the President (a noted economist) mocks it.  He recently wrote a book called, "Blue Planet, Not Green Planet."  In it, he debunks the theory.  He also says what you can hear in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" video:  that people who want to re-distribute the world's wealth are the ones driving this mania of global warming.  Remember:  countries like China would be exempt from any emissions treaties, so all the manufacturing would just get transferred to "third-world" countries.  It's all a big con game.

Don't take the fact that I believe your opponent is winning this debate as an indictment of your obviously strong persuasive skills.  You have presented your argument as eloquently as anyone could.

It is very tempting to buy into the theory, ignoring some very basic facts, such as how the theory simply doesn't jive with the evidence, such as "According to the laws of thermodynamics, the mid to upper levels of the troposphere should be warming faster then the surface. This is because this is where the CO2 is supposed to be trapped. CO2 absorbs more heat then it reflects. Since it retains its heat, the area in which it is “trapped” has to be warming faster then an area where it is not “trapped".

Russian scientists have predicted global cooling by 2012, and I think NASA has concurred.  I wonder if this is why the proponents of global warming changed the term to "climate change".  I have started joking that, as the weather cools, global warming alarmists will say, "Look!  We've been right all along.  By not combating global warming, the earth is desperately trying to regain equilibrium, and if we don't take stern measures now we're all going to freeze to death !!"

Answer 23

No one seemed to be winning.  You're talking at each other, not to each other.  For the kind of discussion/debate that I feel would be fruitful, this discussion either needs a more interactive feel -- less content and more work done using what  content is posted -- or a moderator, to guide the conversation.

Maybe you started too deep into the discussion.  Maybe you need to find your common ground and go from there.  As for his strategy, he is obviously very comfortable with it, while you probably find it frustrating.  So then, what is your goal?  I'm guessing you don't necessarily want to convert this individual, you just want him to acknowledge that you've done your homework -- very thoroughly, it seems -- and that perhaps he should be less rigid in his beliefs, perhaps keep an open mind, at least.

Good to know that other outlets exist to discuss this, as this one is certainly lacking in many respects.  Yet it does have it's charm, all the same.

Answer 24

Did you guys not designate a judge before you started?

I'll get back to you when I'm finished reading it.

EDIT:  Well, I will admit I've never watched a lot of debates, but from what I can tell you need a moderator to keep you on topic.  You are absolutely right about what he is doing - completely ignoring your points while you actually give rebuttals for all of his.

EDIT:  BTW Denier or Liar, you are totally taking that phrase out of context.  The meaning of "I think; Therefore I am." is "I think; Therefore I exist."  It's basic philosophy and completely irrelevant to this question.

Answer 25

The satellites do not show 0.5 degrees of warming over the last 30 years unless you cook the data.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/res...

Answer 26

This quotes of his sums it up:

"Sorry to go off topic a little, but I find it funny how I am supplying studies and data and my opponent is supplying blog articles. Just an observation."

I have found in the past real climate is very misleading.  You should start quoting the actual sources and not a blog