What points would the climate change skeptics bring to the debating table?
Climate change skeptics have often remarked that there is no debate on the issue of climate change, or that they’re precluded from such debates.
If such a debate were to be held (and they often are), what points would the skeptics and deniers raise, and what would they use to validate them with?
The reason for the question is that we rarely see points being raised that are worth debating. It appears to me that many of the issues the skeptics raise most frequently can easily be answered by looking in a book or on the internet. If the answers have already been established then there’s nothing to debate (even if you don’t like the answer).
So what I’m looking for are the real issues the skeptics feel haven’t been adequately addressed.
PS – Apologies for not having resolved my previous questions, I was away longer than expected and didn’t get back in time to resolve them.
Mr.3572011-04-09T14:44:20Z
Favorite Answer
Sorry, I would say most of them are debatable. I have never really seen any points on the side of AGW that have any basis other than whether or not scientist whose livelihood depends upon grants to prove AGW would have any other source of funding if they did not manipulate data.
Hi Mike I think both parties don't want to see the election turn into a referendum on carbon Tax . An election should be won and lost on a variety of topics not just one issue Here in Australia Howard won his elections on boat people ( refugees) and GST Tax He won both through the help of the media they promoted the man overboard issue The media played time and time again footage of a small child jumping from a leaky boat When in fact the child was thrown to a parent already in the water It wasn't pretty to watch peoples lives in great danger But to dramatise it to win a election by playing on peoples emotions to win votes to me isn't a good look . And then in the next election because the boat people lie went so well he decided to have a referendum on a GST tax before the election and the people voted in a landslide win for NO GST TAX and for those who have short memories HE stated that the people have spoken an Australia will have NO GST while ever he was leader and what did he do as soon as he was reelected introduce a GST TAX He just kept on lien to the Australian people. So I think the reason they are not talking about AGW is because they see the science is not settled on CO2 being the primary cause for climate change They know weather modification IS taking place around the world and they know the agenda There's an old saying LET SLEEPING DOGS LYE don't go poking it with a stick just to see what happens it mite bite you on the *** Just like the CO2 debate if you stick your neck out on CO2 issues then you could be left with egg on your face and neither party wants that. My opinion Mike Cheers
There is no debate on the issue of climate change if you are talking about whether or not it exists but when it comes to whether what we are experiencing is caused by humans or just a natural process is were the debate comes into play. The Inconvenient truth gives great examples on how climate change is a natural occurrence, but it also shows how what we are experiencing can be associated with human interactions, such as the industrial revolution
Mhm I understand what you mean. But first of all climate change is not the correct term it is labeled as Global warming. (Climate change is the change of climate over large periods of time) Sorry, but this was irrelevant but had to point it out.
Secondly, Skeptics. Alright this is one revolving theory(said as crazy, you'll see why) is that this was a conspiracy( sort of) brought up by Americans to stop the development of Newly Industrialized countries such as China and India. This does sound crazy and well.....it is highly controversial so I understand if you do not use it.
Secondly there was a volcanic eruption which released more CO2 than the dirtiest power plant, this evidence can be used to backup your former theory, or just used to provide substance to the argument. (Validation) "It's a fact that Kilauea has been releasing more than twice the amount of noxious sulfur dioxide gas (SO2) as the single dirtiest power plant on the U.S. mainland. "(http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html)
Global warming believers: Well basically evidence and numbers to show how our earth is heating up. They can argue about melting Ice, rising of sea levels and impact to our wildlife. They have more than enough points to validate. Internet searching will do the rest. The challenge here is for the skeptics.
I don't know that you could be a denier/skeptic against AGW and still remain sane at the same time. The whole business about denial and skepticism in the end has nothing whatsoever to do with global warming and climate change anymore than it is about the individual's relationship of him/herself to him/herself. It boils down to me factor as they wrestle with a part of themselves that they cannot readily understand nor come to terms with when confronted with such a reality as GW and climate change which produces within their psyche certain dissonance and tumult Usually the harsh realities of truth regarding GW short circuits people's ability to process the stimulus objectively without preventing fear and other emotions to creep in thus their tendency to deal with it any way they can with fallacious arguments and whatever else just as long as they can maintain the illusion within themselves that such a thing as GW could not possibly be real. Moe's responses to various questions are a classic example of this mechanism at work which usually exhibits extreme degrees of denial of reality that extends beyond the issues of GW to other spheres. Not everyone has the capacity to deal with the harsh realities of truth and just as most people here on earth are in denial about their own mortality, its only in their death beds on the brink of death do people's illusions break away and the stark reality penetrates through the heavily fortified denial that they've erected for so long which in the case of a GW denier is the reason for truth not being able to reach their heads unless something terrible effects their lives directly that brings home the truth. So any points and contentions the deniers have are mere formality giving expression to this mechanism whether right or wrong is irrelevant just as long as the illusions are kept alive whatever it takes