# Global Warming for Dummies **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2012, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172 "2012-01-30T08:44:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/101 "2012-01-31T06:00:00Z")
[useless wall of text removed] Although I wonder why I bother with a defender of Lord Monckton.. And no, the fact that you want to avoid now the fact that you defended him when the evidence is clear that he misrepresent scientists is telling. > [@Blake](#): > > Simple question Gigobuster: suppose we experience global cooling for the next 100 years despite increase in fossil fuel consumption. Do you agree that would falsify AGW as a hypothesis? Yes, and as pointed out before the evidence shows that your falsification is not likely at all. > [@Blake](#): > > What if, after all that time, we still can’t explain “why are temperatures at night increasing faster than at daytime”? Do you think that we would still have to accept AGW, because the alternatives explanations can’t explain that observation? As the science was linked in the cite, what you offer here is no counter point whatsoever. > [@Blake](#): > > No, there is some evidence that can be interpreted in that manner if you wish. That is all. And there is other evidence that those measurements don’t allow such a conclusion at all. Once more, it’s all down to the arguments and inferences, not the data. Uh hu, > **[10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change](https://skepticalscience.com/10-indicators-of-a-human-fingerprint-on-climate-change.html)** > > The NOAA State of the Climate 2009 report is an excellent summary of the many lines of evidence that global warming is happening. Acknowledging the fact that the planet is warming leads to the all important question - what's causing global warming?... > [@](#): > > If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006). > **[The human fingerprint in the daily cycle](https://skepticalscience.com/The-human-fingerprint-in-the-daily-cycle.html)** > > During the day, the sun warms the Earth's surface. At nighttime, the surface cools by radiating its heat out to space. Greenhouse gases slow down this cooling process. This is why deserts cool so much at night. Water vapour is a strong greenhouse gas... > [@](#): > > We are currently experiencing global warming. If an increased greenhouse effect is a significant part of this warming, we would expect to see nights warming faster than days. There have been a number of studies into this effect, which confirm that this is indeed the case. One study looked at extreme temperatures in night and day. They observed the number of cold nights was decreasing faster than the number of cold days. Similarly, the number of warm nights was increasing faster than the increase in warm days (Alexander 2006). > > Frequency of cold and warm days and nights > Figure 1: Observed trends (days per decade) for 1951 to 2003 in the number of extreme cold and warm days and nights per year. Cold is defined as the bottom 10%. Warm is defined as the top 10%. Orange lines show decadal trend (IPCC AR4 FAQ 3.3 adapted from Alexander 2006). > > The difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures is also known as the diurnal temperature range (DTR – the difference between minimum and maximum daily temperature). An increased greenhouse effect should cause the DTR to decrease. Over the last 50 years, DTR over land has shown a large negative trend of ~0.4°C (Braganza et al. 2004). The reason for the falling DTR is because nighttimes have been rising faster than daytime. Not a proud moment for an apologist of Monckton. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/102 "2012-01-31T06:15:45Z")
As this thread is still about easily understood statements, the channel of the Climate Crock of the week was already mentioned, but it is recommended also to the OP and others doubtful of this to go check Peter Hadfield’s Potholer54 channel, fun also for the ones looking to roast creationists too. (Yep, science writers also see a commonality of anti-science tactics from those groups) > **[potholer54](https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54)** > > The purpose of this channel is to correct false scientific information on the internet. I am a former science journalist and geologist (see the "Who I am" video or channel trailer). > > Feel free to post. The only rules are : > > DON'T... > 1)... One of the most related to the OP’s articles: > **[potholer54](https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/44/xvMmPtEt8dc)** > > The purpose of this channel is to correct false scientific information on the internet. I am a former science journalist and geologist (see the "Who I am" video or channel trailer). > > Feel free to post. The only rules are : > > DON'T... > 1)... > [@](#): > > This video also looks at whether other planets are also warming, and an Internet myth that NASA is now attributing warming to the sun. > \*\* > In this video I examine the importance of sources – tracking information back to a source and making sure the source is credible. \*\* > > My sources are cited in the video, but I’ll also post them here. Sources are also cited throughout my climate change series. These videos are not a personal opinion or a theory of my own; I’m not a climate scientist or a researcher and I have no qualifications to do anything other than report on what real climate scientists have discovered through their research. So there’s no point in disagreeing with me. If you dislike their conclusions, take it up with the researchers I cite. If I’ve made a mistake in reporting their conclusions, please point out the mistake and I will happily correct it. If you think you know better than the experts, write a paper and have it published in a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/103 "2012-01-31T06:19:30Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [useless wall of text removed] > > Although I wonder why I bother with a defender of Lord Monckton.. I wonder why I bother with a defender of Al Gore. Of course the fact is that I have never defended Monkton. Once again, Gigobuster is being blatantly dishonest in his representation of me. Once again I ask him to quite wher I said such a thing. And once again he won’t do so. > [@Blake](#): > > What if, after all that time, we still can’t explain “why are temperatures at night increasing faster than at daytime”? Do you think that we would still have to accept AGW, because the alternatives explanations can’t explain that observation? > [@GIGObuster](#): > > As the science was linked in the cite, what you offer here is no counter point whatsoever. So I ask Gigobuster simple question, and he weasels away from answering. What does this tell us, people? This is one of the many reasons why it’s impossible to actually debate alarmists. They refuse to actually engage in any sort of argument or state clearly what they mean. In GIGObuster’s case, all he can do is spam Alarmist websites. Honestly GIGObuster. I am asking these questions one more time. If you still refuse to answer, I’m through with you. I’ll leave the peanut gallery to decide who won this debate. If you are not willing to engage me on the science or even answer questions to clarify your position, this can;t go anywhere except the usual GIGObuster Spamfest. So for the final time, the issues oyu have repeatedly been unable to address: 1. Your claim that the temperature has been stable for the past 2, 000 years with an unprecedented recent upswing, and the contradiction of that in the recent peer reviewed literature? 2. Your claim that “unless CO2 and other human made gases are not included there is no good explanation for the current increase in warming.” Are you now admitting that natural processes are a good explanation for the current increase in warming? 3. If, after all that time, we still can’t explain “why are temperatures at night increasing faster than at daytime”? Do you think that we would still have to accept AGW, because the alternatives explanations can’t explain that observation? 3 very basic questions Gigobuster. Questions that I have asked multiple times. Issues that go to the heart of your argument and the science that underlies it. I don’t think it has escaped anyone’s notice that you utterly refused to address these questions, despite me asking multiple times. This is your final chance. I am asking you one last time to address those issues that are at the heart of your argument. If you do not do so then I am simply going to dismiss you. there’s no point debating someone who refuses to engage with the science or clarify their position, and anyway I feel confident that I can leave the lurkers to make up their own mind on who won this debate and where the truth lies on global warming alarmism. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/104 "2012-01-31T06:30:53Z")
There is Global Climate Change. Which is a good thing, humans may not have evolved without it. It is silly to think humans have no effect on the global climate. We have had a tremendous impact on the landscape, seascape, and skyscape. It would be miraculous if that did not affect the climate. The rest of it is a lot of guesses. Climatologists are just overblown weather forecasters, who will be dead before their predictions can be proven or disproven. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/105 "2012-01-31T06:35:42Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > I wonder why I bother with a defender of Al Gore. Not defended here, I’m afraid you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel for unwitty retorts. > [@Blake](#): > > Of course the fact is that I have never defended Monkton. Once again, Gigobuster is being blatantly dishonest in his representation of me. Once again I ask him to quite wher I said such a thing. And once again he won’t do so. [QUOTE] > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not with the implied followup, Monckton does and then he misrepresents what they say. > > > [@Blake](#): > > > > **He doesn’t**. though AL Gore certainly does. Bolded to show where, and no, anyone that sees even one video and still says that Monkton does not misrepresent scientists is really not serious at all. Give them enough rope… > [@Blake](#): > > So I ask Gigobuster simple question, and he weasels away from answering. > > What does this tell us, people? That you can not check links and cites, I cited the science and why there is no good natural explanation for the nights heating faster other than warming due to recently added CO2 in the atmosphere. And it is me who already dismissed you as irresponsible for thinking Monckton does not misrepresent what the scientists say, so, too late. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/106 "2012-01-31T06:37:25Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Oh boy, you should had check the evidence shown by Peter Hadfield first before going out on the peanut vine limb, check them and if you still can say that with a straight face… > > I do not think the peanut gallery is what you think it is. Here we go again, the debate against “generic denier” from “alarmist-in-chief”; you’re now countering absolutely imaginary cites. Why could I “still say with a straight face”? That I’d love to sound pompous and dismissive of fools like Monkty does? He might be abso-bloody-lutely wrong on every thing he says, but I was commenting on tone, accent and demeanour. Peanut gallery means heckling the performer and, wait for it, wait for it, it’s your show. Also, I get to define what I want as to who the performer is, or is there a skepticalscience link for that too? Or “generic activist on youtube” link? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/107 "2012-01-31T06:42:34Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Here we go again, the debate against “generic denier” from “alarmist-in-chief”; you’re now countering absolutely imaginary cites. > Why could I “still say with a straight face”? That I’d love to sound pompous and dismissive of fools like Monkty does? > He might be abso-bloody-lutely wrong on every thing he says, but I was commenting on tone, accent and demeanour. So you defend his trolling, interesting. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Peanut gallery means heckling the performer and, wait for it, wait for it, it’s your show. Not really, as mentioned before I go for what Peter Hadfiel says: > [@](#): > > I’m not a climate scientist or a researcher and I have no qualifications to do anything other than report on what real climate scientists have discovered through their research. So there’s no point in disagreeing with me. If you dislike their conclusions, take it up with the researchers I cite. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Also, I get to define what I want as to who the performer is, or is there a skepticalscience link for that too? Or “generic activist on youtube” link? As cited already, Peter Hadfield is not a generic activist, so there you go again ignoring cites. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/108 "2012-01-31T06:47:14Z")
OK, that’s it. Gigobuster is unable to engage with the science, and he refsues to clarify his position. I’m no longer going to enegage with hi him. No, I can’t engage with him. He refuses to engage. All he doe sis weasel away from his own statements, post alarmist spam and introduce red herrings to avoid the problems with AGW that he simply cannot address. Like I said Gigobuster, when you are engaged on the science and can’t simply find Alarmist websites to spam in response to questions, you just can’t perform. This sort of ignorance and misrepresentation of the science and scientistic cheerleading is the norm for global warming alarmists. I;m just glad to see it displayed so openly in this thread. It makes it so much easier to refer back to it in future. I’ll leave it to others to decide who won this debate, and where the truth lies on the issue of global warming. I think the answer is pretty obvious. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/109 "2012-01-31T06:51:11Z")
As it is very important to educate others, we should have a conversation with the real stars of the show, the scientists. > **[Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community](https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-real-an-open-letter-from-the-scientific-community-1808)** > > Today, The Conversation launches a two-week series from the nation’s top minds on the science behind climate change and the efforts of “sceptics” to cloud the debate. The overwhelming scientific evidence… > [@](#): > > A vast number of scientists, engineers, and visionary businesspeople are boldly designing a future that is based on low-impact energy pathways and living within safe planetary boundaries; a future in which substantial health gains can be achieved by eliminating fossil-fuel pollution; and a future in which we strive to hand over a liveable planet to posterity. > > At the other extreme, understandable economic insecurity and fear of radical change have been exploited by ideologues and vested interests to whip up ill-informed, populist rage, and climate scientists have become the punching bag of shock jocks and tabloid scribes. > > Aided by a pervasive media culture that often considers peer-reviewed scientific evidence to be in need of “balance” by internet bloggers, this has enabled so-called “sceptics” to find a captive audience while largely escaping scrutiny. > > Australians have been exposed to a phony public debate which is not remotely reflected in the scientific literature and community of experts. > > Beginning today, The Conversation will bring much-needed and long-overdue accountability to the climate “sceptics.” > > For the next two weeks, our series of daily analyses will show how they can side-step the scientific literature and how they subvert normal peer review. They invariably ignore clear refutations of their arguments and continue to promote demonstrably false critiques. > > We will show that “sceptics” often show little regard for truth and the critical procedures of the ethical conduct of science on which real skepticism is based. > > The individuals who deny the balance of scientific evidence on climate change will impose a heavy future burden on Australians if their unsupported opinions are given undue credence. Just replace Australia with the USA and what they say here applies for virtually all climate scientists in the USA. > **[The greenhouse effect is real: here’s why](https://theconversation.com/the-greenhouse-effect-is-real-heres-why-1515)** > > CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: Bureau of Meteorology scientist Karl Braganza explains why we know the climate is changing, and what’s causing it. In public discussions of climate change, the full range… > [@](#): > > Patterns of temperature change that are uniquely associated with the enhanced greenhouse effect, and which have been observed in the real world include: > > ``` > greater warming in polar regions than tropical regions > greater warming over the continents than the oceans > greater warming of night time temperatures than daytime temperatures > greater warming in winter compared with summer > a pattern of cooling in the high atmosphere (stratosphere) with simultaneous warming in the lower atmosphere (troposphere). > > ``` > > How do we know it’s us? > > By way of brief explanation, if the warming over the 20th century were due to some deep ocean process, we would not expect to see continents warming more rapidly than the oceans, or the oceans warming from the top down. > > For increases in solar radiation, we would expect to see warming of the stratosphere rather than the observed cooling trend. > > Similarly, greater global warming at night and during winter is more typical of increased greenhouse gases, rather than an increase in solar radiation. > > There is a range of other observations that show the enhanced greenhouse effect is real. > > The additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been identified through its isotopic signature as being fossil fuel in origin. > > The increased carbon dioxide absorbed by the oceans is being recorded as a measured decrease in ocean alkalinity. > > Satellite measurements of outgoing long-wave radiation from the planet reveal increased absorption of energy in the spectral bands corresponding to carbon dioxide, exactly as expected from fundamental physics. > > It is important to remember that the enhanced greenhouse effect is not the only factor acting on the climate system. > > In the short term, the influence of greenhouse gases can be obscured by other competing forces. > > These include other anthropogenic factors such as increased industrial aerosols and ozone depletion, as well as natural changes in solar radiation and volcanic aerosols, and the cycle of El Niño and La Niña events. > > By choosing a range of indicators, by averaging over decades rather than years, and by looking at the pattern of change through the entire climate system, scientists are able to clearly discern the fingerprint of human-induced change. Tell yourself that **Blake** , No worries over here from me, you are only having a beef with a bloke on the internet that is really just a messenger and is learning also. Your beef should be with the climate scientists. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/110 "2012-01-31T06:56:17Z")
Gee, a post from Gigobuster consisting of nothing but spam from an alarmist website. Well, I guess we’re all convinced now. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/111 "2012-01-31T07:00:22Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Gee, a post from Gigobuster consisting of nothing but spam from an alarmist website. > > Well, I guess we’re all convinced now. 😃 Guess he forgot to scroll down: > [@](#): > > The signatories below jointly authored this article, and some may also contribute to the forthcoming series of analyses. > > Signatories > > Winthrop Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, Australian Professorial Fellow, UWA > > Dr. Matthew Hipsey, Research Assistant Professor, School of Earth and Environment, Centre of Excellence for Ecohydrology, UWA > > Dr Julie Trotter, Research Assistant Professor, School of Earth and Environment, UWA Oceans Institute, UWA > > Winthrop Professor Malcolm McCulloch, F.R.S., Premier’s Research Fellow, UWA Oceans Institute, School of Earth and Environment, UWA > > Professor Kevin Judd, School of Mathematics and Statistics, UWA > > Dr Thomas Stemler, Assistant Professor, School of Mathematics and Statistics, UWA > > Dr. Karl-Heinz Wyrwoll, Senior Lecturer, School of Earth and Environment, UWA > > Dr. Andrew Glikson, Earth and paleoclimate scientist, School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Research School of Earth Science, Planetary Science Institute, ANU > > Prof Michael Ashley, School of Physics, Faculty of Science, UNSW > > Prof David Karoly, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne > > Prof John Abraham, Associate Professor, School of Engineering, University of St. Thomas > > Prof Ian Enting, ARC Centre for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems, University of Melbourne > > Prof John Wiseman, Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, University of Melbourne > > Associate Professor Ben Newell, School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, UNSW > > Prof Matthew England, co-Director, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW > > … … Followed by dozens more scientists that in **Blake** ’s world are alarmists. Better go back to apologizing for Monckton. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/112 "2012-01-31T07:04:16Z")
Gee, a post from Gigobuster consisting of nothing but spam from an alarmist website. Now with added “science by consensus”. Well, I guess we’re all doubly convinced now. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/113 "2012-01-31T07:05:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > So you defend his trolling, interesting. Where on Amenothep’s minivan did I mention anything other than his tone. I like his completely anachronistic tone of voice and self-importance. Of course, in GIgoland this means I want to have his children. > [@](#): > > Not really, as mentioned before I go for what Peter Hadfiel says: [Yes really](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_gallery). > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **wikipedia** > A peanut gallery is an audience that heckles the performer Please, please, respond by saying that wikipedia is a warmist site and link to skepticalscience. If there is no point in disagreeing with him, I’m sure there is no point in agreeing with him. He has, and I’m looking only at the cite you yourself posted, no opinion. > [@](#): > > As cited already, Peter Hadfield is not a generic activist, so there you go again ignoring cites. Since you brought Petey to the party you have to vouch for him. I was talking about greenman3610. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/114 "2012-01-31T07:05:59Z")
BTW, if anybody wants to actually \*debate \*this subject, I’m up for it. And by debate I mean actually present arguments, rather than just posting Spam and claiming that the argument and answers to all questions are hidden in there somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/115 "2012-01-31T07:11:59Z")
Meh, Lets he make those papers for no one.. I recommend the OP and others to also check NASA’s site on climate. > **[Climate Change - NASA Science](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/)** > > NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate. > **[Evidence - NASA Science](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/)** > > Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of > [@](#): > > This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Source: NOAA) And apparently NASA is spam to Blake, not that I’m surprised. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/116 "2012-01-31T07:12:15Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > BTW, if anybody wants to actually \*debate \*this subject, I’m up for it. And by debate I mean actually present arguments, rather than just posting Spam and claiming that the argument and answers to all questions are hidden in there somewhere. I would like to hear what you think is going on, instead of just responding to GIGO. I’d love to debate you, but I think we’re on the same side. IMHO, we just don’t know exactly what’s going on. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/117 "2012-01-31T07:17:16Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Where on Amenothep’s minivan did I mention anything other than his tone. I like his completely anachronistic tone of voice and self-importance. Of course, in GIgoland this means I want to have his children. What is important is that you check what he really is, **why do you think he is not be commended**? > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > [Yes really](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_gallery). Reading comprehension trouble, I’m not dealing with the peanut gallery but what Hadfield did say. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > If there is no point in disagreeing with him, I’m sure there is no point in agreeing with him. He has, and I’m looking only at the cite you yourself posted, no opinion. And educated opinion is the best one, demanding then that that I should have a different one from the ones that I choose to cite is really silly. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/118 "2012-01-31T07:20:26Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I would like to hear what you think is going on, instead of just responding to GIGO. I’d love to debate you, but I think we’re on the same side. IMHO, we just don’t know exactly what’s going on. As it is the subject of the thread, the only item it is needed here is just to check what NASA and other science places report and the information they provide to educate others, accusing them of being alarmists is not helpful. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/119 "2012-01-31T07:34:41Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As it is the subject of the thread, the only item it is needed here is just to check what NASA and other science places report and the information they provide to educate others, accusing them of being alarmists is not helpful. I didn’t accuse anyone of being an alarmist in this thread. There are alarmists out there, and there is, as always, bad science as well. Blake has been pointing out the ways that the findings do not lead to the conclusions you claim, and I think some of the scientists claim. But IMHO, where there is fact, there is logic, and I don’t see it here. Read my earlier post. There is no doubt that humans affect the global climate. So do cows. So do termites. So what? If you have some real science instead of ‘scientists’ taking political action, you can cite it, and I’ll read it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/120 "2012-01-31T07:47:35Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I didn’t accuse anyone of being an alarmist in this thread. There are alarmists out there, and there is, as always, bad science as well. Blake has been pointing out the ways that the findings do not lead to the conclusions you claim, and I think some of the scientists claim. But IMHO, where there is fact, there is logic, and I don’t see it here. Read my earlier post. There is no doubt that humans affect the global climate. So do cows. So do termites. So what? If you have some real science instead of ‘scientists’ taking political action, you can cite it, and I’ll read it. Well, you have to take into account that besides attempting to deny what he said about Monckton he raised the accusation of me using Alarmist sites or scientists twice before I said anything about any denialist cites from him. But getting to the subject, of course Nature is affecting the climate, the problem is that the excess CO2 released by humans is affecting the balance of the CO2 that was there in nature before. > **[What does past climate change tell us about global warming?](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm)** > > Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past... > [@](#): > > Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate’s sensitivity to CO2. > [@](#): > > Ironically, when skeptics cite past climate change, they’re in fact invoking evidence for strong climate sensitivity and net positive feedback. Higher climate sensitivity means a larger climate response to CO2 forcing. Past climate change actually provides evidence that humans can affect climate now. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172.md?page=7)