climate change and how the left has been misleading public

[Super Nova]

Higherbeam's statement to start the debate.

Same time tommorrow and we will debate the climate change and how the left has been misleading the public like chicken little .When there are oppossing views they(left) come out and attack.The earth has been having hot and cold periods all its limited life and to come out and say because we live on this planet we are causing massive damage when opposing data says different

[Super Nova]

I shall argue against…

While it is true that the Earth has had periods hotter than today and colder than today there is clear evidence that mankind’s activity on this planet is contributing significantly to the planet’s warming.

The release of greenhouse gases like CO2 that is being generated by mankind is a key contributor as well as the destruction of the lungs of the planet by de-forestation.

1. So we are adding significant quantities of CO2.
2. We are removing the CO2 removal engine.
3. Double wammy.

Stating the above is not misleading the public.

Previous climate changes had devastating effects on the live on the planet with the most extreme leading to mass extinctions. They major ones were caused by volcanoes and collision events. Even the minors ones can be attribute to them and the earths cycle changes around the sun and solar activity changes.

Changes in average temperature of single digits have huge climatic effects. If we do not control the release of CO2 then we are heading for a major warming that when it gets over a certain threshold can run away getting hotter and hotter.

Major threats are to how the ocean distributes temperatures. The melting of the ice caps is leading to reduce salinity of the oceans. At a certain point warm water flow like the warm gulf streams in the Atlantic will stop. When this happens the northern hemisphere will be in a ice age. So the average temperature increase will lead to an ice age in Europe and north America and north Asia. Now that will change the whole environment of most of the world’s population, reduce food, require more energy ….etc. A disaster worth warning about.

Climate change needs to be debated. Good science has evidence of the threat. Humanity must change it’s behaviour.

It has nothing to do with the left however short term thinking is the problems.

I do not believe there is any real opposing data that has been accepted by the majority of the scientific community. The opposition to climate change are of the same mindset as those who oppose evolution and believe in the creation story from the bible.

Over to you.
SN

[Sappho]

the destruction of the lungs of the planet by de-forestation.

Um... yeah... just want to clarify that trees actually use more oxygen than they give. The real lungs of the planet are krill and plankton.... which have been significantly affected by climate fluctuations and a more significant concern because of the rate of their demise.

[HIGHERBEAM]

I shall argue for

In a ' Inconvenient Truth " Al Gore argues that there will be a significent rise in air temperatures ,sea ice melting will cause significient rising of sea levels,there will be a increase in hurricanes reaching the USA mainland,there will be a decrease in polar bear numbers in the arctic circle.The ozone hole will increase in size.
1 There has not been any significent increase in air temps
2 Radar imaging has not seen any major decrease in the ice shelf
3 Scientist have questioned the statement that says there will be a dramatic increase in sea levels in fact they say the opposite and there will not be any signifiant increase in sea levels or flooding to the degree stated by the left.
4 This last year has seen a decrease in Hurricane numbers reaching mainland USA
5 Polar bear numbers have actually increased in numbers not decreased.
6 As far as sea temperatures they have not any benchmarks to measure from as opposing scientist are saying different things.

The Copenhagen Draft treaty actually stated that a world government should be formed to fight global warming.What sort of socialist crap is this.

All the major socialist governments of the world had signed up for this.Why! Was there a hidden agenda or just a incovenient truth.

The world has had numerous hot periods and ice ages in its history so it goes on to this day and in to the future.

The build up of co2 levels which the left say is major concern.They have no benchmarks to measure from as they could not provide adequate data back before the 1990's as it was never measured so how can they say there has been a significent build up of co2 from the 1960's.

The ground temperatures are dropping so the earth is ever so slightly shrinking causing the teutonic plates to move

All this is a beat up to set up a world government as stated in the treaty so beware of the left leaning governments as they will try again.

So far there have been more than a million hits on the YouTube post of his address. It deserves millions more because Lord Monckton warns that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty is to set up a transnational "government" on a scale the world has never before seen.

The "scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention" that starts on page 18 contains the provision for a "government." The aim is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.

The reason for the power grab is clear enough: Clause after complicated clause of the draft treaty requires developed countries to pay an "adaptation debt" to developing countries to supposedly support climate change mitigation. Clause 33 on page 39 says that "by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year]."

And how will developed countries be slugged to provide for this financial flow to the developing world? The draft text sets out various alternatives, including option seven on page 135, which provides for "a [global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties." Annex 1 countries are industrialized countries, which include among others the U.S., Australia, Britain and Canada.

To be sure, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a U.N. body responsible for implementing treaty obligations. But the difference is that this treaty appears to have been subject to unusual attempts to conceal its convoluted contents. And apart from the difficulty of trying to decipher the U.N. verbiage, there are plenty of draft clauses described as "alternatives" and "options" that should raise the ire of free and democratic countries concerned about preserving their sovereignty.

The old adage of never let the truth get in the way of a good story adequately explains global warming

Al gores book should be renamed "Truth is Inconvenient"

[Ned Kelly]

What was the name of that volcanic mountain in Iceland, the one whose eruption brought Europe's airlines to their knees, and what effect did it have? 'Word' is that it wiped out every measure 'we' have taken to reduce our impact on climate change.

And just what was it that I heard very recently on the ABC's Richard Fydler Hour from that bloke who states that it is easily within our technology to send some eventually harmless heat deflecting particles into our stratosphere?

[Sappho]

That would be sulphates your speaking of Ned.

There is a lot of concern about there use... you see whilst it is that we can seed the stratosphere with sulphates and so cool the world, there is as yet no way to manage this process. Nothing to stop nations for seeding with sulphates of their own volition. Then there is the concern that none of this has any effect on the amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere and so changing the chemical ratios we breathe.

[HIGHERBEAM]

Other theories are as follows
• Temperature rises since the Industrial Revolution doesn’t mean that was the cause
• "Urban heat islands” could be skewing temperature measurements
• Some global warming studies have errors or have not been reproduced
• Using “consensus” as evidence is an appeal to the majority argument
• Global warming is so politicized we are no longer being scientific
• Climate models won't work until they can predict solar and volcanic activity.
• Climate science predictions don't involve recently discovered feedback mechanisms
• Global temperatures are directly related to such factors as sunspot activity
• Global warming is largely a result of reduced low-altitude cloud cover
• Global warming is similar to unfounded alarm over global cooling in the 1970s
• Satellite temperature records show less warming than surface land and sea records.


Many opponents also point to the Medieval warm period, a period lasting from the 10th to the 14th century that shows an above average temperature for at least Western Europe, and possibly the whole Earth. This period was followed by the Little Ice Age, which lasted until the 19th century, when the Earth began to heat up again. Also, the relationship between historic temperatures and CO2 levels, based on ice core samples, shows carbon dioxide increases have always followed a rise in temperature rather than the other way around.

[Super Nova]

Let me respond to your point one at a time.

' Inconvenient Truth " Al Gore argues ...

Al Gore is a prat and has damaged his side of the argument by misrepresenting some aspects of the science to make a point. He moving is proporganda. The only good thing about it is the debate it created.

The ozone hole will increase in size.

The whole is getting smaller because humanity is pumping less CFCs into the attmostphere. Throughout the 20th century, discoveries and observations trickled in that would allow scientists to understand how human-made chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons create a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica each spring. This clearly demonstrates when humanity understands we are the cause, we can work togetheer to take the correct mitigation action. we should use this as a model for climate change action.

1 There has not been any significent increase in air temps

So there is an increase in air temp. The import temperature is those of the oceans. They are going up. That is where the real energy is held.

2 Radar imaging has not seen any major decrease in the ice shelf

this point I dispute. There is clear evidence that the iceselfs are reducing.

3 Scientist have questioned the statement that says there will be a dramatic increase in sea levels in fact they say the opposite and there will not be any signifiant increase in sea levels or flooding to the degree stated by the left.

Scientist are a large group that have differing opinions. It is the norm forthem the question and challenge each other.

4 This last year has seen a decrease in Hurricane numbers reaching mainland USA

A one year sample does not indicate a change in trend.

5 Polar bear numbers have actually increased in numbers not decreased.

Good. The more bears the more people who don't think we are effecting the planet will be eaten when they go for a look
No statisticaly relevent. There could be many reasons. For example, a smaller ice area means easier access to food.

6 As far as sea temperatures they have not any benchmarks to measure from as opposing scientist are saying different things.

Opposing measures also come from selective analysis from those who are in denial of the fact that we are contributing to the warming of the planet.

The Copenhagen Draft treaty actually stated that a world government should be formed to fight global warming.What sort of socialist crap is this.

I think this brings in to view the heart of you arguement. Socialist crap is an incorrect view. If you are saying that only the left have views that are long term and are interested in the prevention of disaster then you are clearly mistaken. These sterio type do not add to the debate on climate issues. However, to pursue these polorised arguments help frame the issues.

I argue that the right is only interested in short term profits and gains. Anything that threatens the status quo and forces change upon industry is fought. Like the tobacco companies... in the end... they will be proved wrong and forced to toe the line.

All the major socialist governments of the world had signed up for this.Why! Was there a hidden agenda or just a incovenient truth.

Because they don't want their ecconomies to be effected. I would like to know why the heart of capitalism does not suppor the need to chance. Hold on... they are. The US is the biggest investor, with China on renewable energy.

The world has had numerous hot periods and ice ages in its history so it goes on to this day and in to the future.

True. Do we want a run away hot period created by mankind. The effect on the world was dramatic.

And how will developed countries be slugged to provide for this financial flow to the developing world?

Someone has to pay. Let use the money flo to do it. It is logical.

[HIGHERBEAM]

I will respond point by point

Al Gore is a prat and has damaged his side of the argument by misrepresenting some aspects of the science to make a point. He moving is proporganda. The only good thing about it is the debate it created.

Al gore is a Darling of the left until all his so called scientific data was proven false

I think this brings in to view the heart of you arguement. Socialist crap is an incorrect view. If you are saying that only the left have views that are long term and are interested in the prevention of disaster then you are clearly mistaken. These sterio type do not add to the debate on climate issues. However, to pursue these polorised arguments help frame the issues.

The socialists which put eastern europe as a shining light for every socialist to follow have since the fall of the regimes in europe turned there attention to the enviromental movement to put there socialist agenda forward.The Obama administration supports Accorn to the tune of billions of dollars which is formed from disaffected socialist groups.The enviromental groups in the USA are supported by radical left loonies in the Obama admin with the sole purpose of setting up false data to get their final objective a world government over the line.

Do we want a run away hot period created by mankind. The effect on the world was dramatic

The jury is still out as to whether it is created by man or sunspots, increased cloud cover,volcanic activty( eg Iceland ),meteorites or just the day to day hot and cold spells of the world going thru natural cycles.

A one year sample does not indicate a change in trend.

Yes you are right so why do the enviromentalist continue using samples of such short periods to push their agenda.

Scientist are a large group that have differing opinions. It is the norm forthem the question and challenge each other.

Then why do the left try to discredit any scientist that have the opposing views of the left.Point being they locked them out of Copenhagen

Because they don't want their ecconomies to be effected. I would like to know why the heart of capitalism does not suppor the need to chance. Hold on... they are. The US is the biggest investor, with China on renewable energy.

You answered my question,yes the USA is involved and they have turned so far left they should be a eastern europe country umder the Obama admin.But wait china where everyone is equal in the socialist utopia but some are more equal than others and they spend more per capita on coal than any other country and nucleur well that is another thing.

Climate science predictions don't involve recently discovered feedback mechanisms so until we have these mech we have to assume that we are going thru another cyclic period

Yes lets spends vast amounts of money that could feed the poor on data and climate stratagies that could be wiped ouy in one volcanic explosion that could or could not be correct and destroy every economy in the world

[Ned Kelly]

I repeat:

What was the name of that volcanic mountain in Iceland, the one whose eruption brought Europe's airlines to their knees, and what effect did it have? 'Word' is that it wiped out every measure 'we' have taken to reduce our impact on climate change.