Rules for debating global warming:
1. No ad hominem attacks. You all should have learned in Logic 101 that an ad hominem attack proves nothing. Al Gore can sit in his backyard and flare natural gas 24 hours a day for fun. That does not refute global warming.
2. No anecdotal evidence. Who cares about a freak storm in Missouri. Neither a hot summer nor a cold winter proves anything. It is a trend over many years that demonstrates global warming. That trend has been observed. Further, part of global warming theory is an increase in weather extremes (hotter hots, colder colds, increased and more intense storms).
3. No lame and easily refuted arguments:
a. Scientist were wrong in 1970 about global cooling, therefore they are always wrong. In 1970, it took a computer the size of a VW bug to play a game of tic-tac-toe and there were only a handful of crude weather satellites. You just cannot compare the state of science in 1970 to what it is today. And the argument also assumes that scientists never learn from an incorrect hypothesis. Lame.
b. Requirements of absolute scientific certainty. Unless there is a laboratory with a bunch of planets identical to the planet Earth in which we can run numerous experiments, we will never reach the kind of scientific certainty we can reach with other disciplines. Climatology is infinitely complex. Uncertainty is inherent and assumed in any argument one way or the other. Uncertainty does not refute global warming theory. It is just an accepted part of global climate science. Lame.
Ok doubters, answer the following without citation to industry funded climate change doubters:
1. CO2, methane and other gasses get trapped in the atmosphere and reflect heat back onto the Earth. Data has shown that temperatures in the atmosphere just above trapped greenhouse gasses have been cooling, demonstrating that more heat is being trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere and less heat is radiating back into space.
2. NASA has shown a dramatic loss of arctic sea ice. Less sea ice means more warming as water absorbs more heat than ice does.
3. Research shows that oceans remove tremendous amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, but have recently reached a point of saturation. This means that further input of CO2 into the atmosphere will snowball global warming effects.
And finally, identify the nearest habitable planet in our galaxy. Prepare an analysis cost effective method of transporting the entire human race and supporting plant and animal species to that planet in case global warming predictions are correct. No government intervention. Just use free market principles.
If you can debate global warming within these confines, then please do. It will be productive. Otherwise, go start a thread bashing Webb.