Jump to content

What is the best climate change debate?


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I need a good short debate that is very convincing to climate skeptics.  I have come to believe that humans are making the Earth worst, by making it hotter.  There are some who argue that warmer is better.  The high CO2 is good for plants.  How do you counter that argument?

There are studies that show sea levels are not rising among Pacific Islanders.  The islands seem to float above the sea level rise by accretion.

Coral reef islands can accrete vertically in response to sea level rise | Science Advances

Another climate skeptic claim is that when you compare the graphs of historic, and prehistoric, CO2 levels in the atmosphere, to the graph of average temperature, it seems that the spikes in temperature come BEFORE the spikes in CO2.  They claim that means high CO2 does not CAUSE high temperatures.  Anyone agree?

"In a vote of 7-0, The most prolific climate revisionist editor ever at Wikipedia, with over 5400 article revisions has been banned from making any edits about climate related articles for six months."  Any opinions about this?

Thanks for any ideas, but I've seen a lot of climate skepticism lately.

 

Edited by Airbrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

How do you counter that argument?

It’s hard using logic and reason to change the mind of a person who arrives at their position using neither 

If facts mattered, we’d have begun addressing this when it was first brought to congress in the 1980s as a real risk 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s hard using logic and reason to change the mind of a person who arrives at their position using neither 

I saw a debate where the climate skeptic showed a graph of world co2 compared to temperatures and it looks like first temperature rises, then co2 rises later, so it doesn't look like rising co2 CAUSES warming of the GLOBAL AVERAGE.  The "climate alarmist" in the debate had no response to that.

Link between CO2 and Earth’s temperature is well-established, despite claims on Fox News ...

I searched for another graph of co2 with temperature and I found this which shows co2 going up and down over 800,000 years, and temperature peaks seem to COINCIDE with high co2.  One does not seem to lead the other.  Was someone fooling around with these graphs?

Carbon capture: How can we remove CO2 from the atmosphere? | Environment| All topics from ...

Edited by Airbrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Airbrush said:

I saw a debate where the climate skeptic showed a graph of world co2 compared to temperatures and it looks like first temperature rises, then co2 rises later, so it doesn't look like rising co2 CAUSES warming of the GLOBAL AVERAGE.  The "climate alarmist" in the debate had no response to that.

Link between CO2 and Earth’s temperature is well-established, despite claims on Fox News ...

I searched for another graph of co2 with temperature and I found this which shows co2 going up and down over 800,000 years, and temperature peaks seem to COINCIDE with high co2.  One does not seem to lead the other.  Was someone fooling around with these graphs?

Carbon capture: How can we remove CO2 from the atmosphere? | Environment| All topics from ...

You  can really get dragged into the weeds trying to react to individual random graphs generated to sow disinformation, unless you are an expert in the field. There’s a whole cottage industry peddling disinformation “talking points” and as soon as you knock down one they will come up with another.

The question really is whether these people seriously believe all the climatologists are wrong, whereas they, with their barrack- room lawyer’s opinions, are right, or whether they think the climatologists are all - worldwide - engaged in some kind of conspiracy, and if so, to what end?

 

Edited by exchemist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Another climate skeptic claim is that when you compare the graphs of historic, and prehistoric, CO2 levels in the atmosphere, to the graph of average temperature, it seems that the spikes in temperature come BEFORE the spikes in CO2.  They claim that means high CO2 does not CAUSE high temperatures.  Anyone agree?

All that means is CO2 did not cause the original temperature rise in those events. Not that it can’t. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the timeline is way in the past- predating human activities and includes switches between ice ages and interglacial periods which were initiated by factors other than CO2. Note that coming out of an ice age, the increase in temperature can also increase CO2 production by e.g. stimulating biological activity. This can result in a feedback that further increases CO2. Note that after the initial lag, CO2 and temp tend to rise together. However, you will also note that the timeline is not really great to see the current impact of CO2 on temperature. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.