These debates happen regularly. Historically, the alarmists don't do very well in them and most of them have learned to avoid debating the issues. Here's some examples you can watch: National Press Club Debate Christopher Monckton v. Richard Denniss (2011) Global Warming: A Fair and Balanced Debate Heartland Institute Senior Fellow James Taylog debates Ray Bellamy, Dr. Tim Ball & Elizabeth May MP - Climate Debate C-Fax Radio Here's one reported on by the rather left-wing DailyKos.com. Of course they put as much spin on it as they can but the fact is that they have to report that, indeed, the students at Oxford voted against the Alarmist side: Climate Skeptics Win Debate at Oxford Daily Kos, May 26, 2010 Last week, members of the historic Oxford Union Society, "the world's premier debating society", held a debate on climate change policy, with skeptics carrying the day by a vote of 135 to 110. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/05/26/870212/-Climate-Skeptics-Win-Debate-at-Oxford#
Thanks, I have only watched the first one, and they mirror much of what happens here in the debates. One place where I am able to comment is on the Lord's insistence that because the weather is chaotic (governed by non-linear equations) that it cannot be predicted. This is accurate because he is talking about weather, but inaccurate as the climate is not weather. One of the defining features of chaotic systems is that they may have attractors, often explained in a somewhat contradictory but perfectly formal science by saying " deterministic chaos" whic is what climate is all about. In fact Lorenz discovered them precisely in the context of climate. The most important part of this is stated thus: "To sum up, the weather is chaotic because it can run free, climate is on a leash. Pull the leash hard enough and the climate responds." http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=134 Another way of saying that is that weather is chaotic, meaning it can be anywhere on the the lorenz attractor. But climate __is__ the attractor, and that is what is in danger. The oceans are [one of the] the stabilizing effect on the weather that __gives__ us an attractor at mild mean global temperatures, otherwise life probably wouldn't exists on Earth. It is no accident that when we look for life elsewhere in the universe,we look for worlds with water. To me and everyone else on the planet has noticed the violence of extreme storms. This could be seasonal or accidental. But it is a smoking gun that huge amounts of energy [see below where this energy comes from] has gone into the oceans as a result of CO2 heat trapping [on the order of the equivalent energy as the release of many billions of atomic bombs] and the oceans are dissipating it as the only physical law known to man that is indisputable demands, the second law of thermodynamics: —Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927) Where does the energy come from? From the sun in the form of high energy photons [The energy of the Sun comes from nuclear fusion in which hydrogen atoms combine to form helium and in the process release a tremendous amount of energy. Oddly, there is not enough pressure in the Sun to cause the fusion directly. If there were, most of the fusion would occur fairly rapidly as it does in more massive stars, instead of over the billions of years of our Sun's "main sequence". The fusion in the Sun occurs because of a rare effect called "quantum tunneling". In this process, fusion takes several separate steps to form helium and release energy. During the process of making a helium atom, about 0.7% of the original hydrogen is converted from matter to energy. In the Sun, even though quantum tunneling occurs extremely rarely to atoms, there are so many atoms that more than four million metric tons of hydrogen is converted to energy each second. That is the equivalent of exploding a billion hydrogen bombs a second Even at this rate, over the Sun's 4.57 billion year existence, only around 100 Earth-masses of matter have been converted into energy leaving about 332,900 Earth-masses remaining. Quantum tunneling is so rare that far less energy is produced per kilogram of matter in the Sun than heat produced per kilogram in human bodies by chemical means. But the sun is extremely massive and the total energy production is immense.]
But piezoe, we have gone through this already. Deep ocean is not the same as the ocean. The following chart shows the ocean that is not considered deep ocean. The error bars are not large because of the small temp change since it is not temperature alone that determines heat content. Nice attempt at deception.... liar. You are relying on everyone to be have as poor as reading comprehension as you do. In fact, being stupid is a requirement for denying AGW. Again, I'm not even going to bother to read the rest of your crap since it's obvious that you either stupid or intentionally lying.
Nice who's who of frauds and fools. Again I ask. Are you for real? Do you work for an interested party? This is complete and total horsehit. You are either a moron or a liar. Or both.
"WANT to fix the climate? Then we need a global investment of £15 billion a year – the same amount used to put a man on the moon...the biggest technological obstacle to widespread adoption of solar and wind energy: how to store and distribute it so it can be used as and when needed." http://www.newscientist.com/article...-budget-to-boost-renewables.html#.VX3kmK0Viko Tesla batteries and global warming may be intertwined soon... http://www.freecleansolar.com/Tesla...E0hjhQgDwb6NPzZz2NlznTYexAEh5Rf77kaAqN28P8HAQ TSLA stock will go exponential if they are able to perfect their batteries, and governments begin to make these investments http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/tsla
The problem is that as these no carbon energy sources become more viable and used more, the price of fossil fuels decreases making it hard for them to compete. There needs to be a slowly ramping carbon tax - that can returned to the taxpayers. As it is now, the true cost of their use is not included in their price. Their current unpaid cost is future climate disruption. But it is encouraging how these are advancing. But we should not forget nuclear. It can be done right and it supplies large amounts of energy that can be used to charge cars etc.
You should overlay that against the increase in seismic and volcanic activity at Mauna Loa for the same time period, no small wonder there's an increase. Why anyone would use CO2 data from the area of an active Volcano?
So this is the "debate" that TooOld puts forth as an example of "skeptics winning" I quote from the article... the debate was a bit "stacked" given that it was sponsored by theScience and Public Policy Institute, an organization whose mission statement includes the following: The Institute urges critical appraisal of legislative "climate fixes" for their social, political, and economic and security costs, along with their relative utility or futility. Proposals demanding prodigious economic or political sacrifices for the sake of negligible climatic benefits should be rejected in favor of policies to address graver, more immediate concerns about which something constructive can actually be done. In addition the question to be debated was not phrased in terms of, "is man-made climate change real?", but in relative terms: "That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change" So, basically more deception and lies from TooOld