This video has a debate about global warming with 6 people including Richard Lindzen (an anti-global warming debater and scientist):
A good way to begin a debate about global warming is to watch this video and say which ideas you think won the debate, what you found convincing.
So e.g. I might talk to one person who says "yeah Lindzen won that debate, his opponents were mediocre, but global warming is right b/c of some other arguments they didn't use". And a different person would say "i thought global warming won that debate". Those are two really different perspectives that are worth separating.
if someone says I'm right to think global warming lost in that particular debate, i'd want to know what they think is convincing. e.g. is there a debate Lindzen lost in video or, even better, writing? or are there some arguments he's never given a response to?
if someone thinks global warming won that debate, I'd want to know how they evaluate some specific statements. analyze some quotes from both side of the debate. show me some mistakes from Lindzen and his allies, and some key points from his opponents that should have been convincing but which he ignored or answered badly.
i think the pro global warming people in the video are irrational clowns who make fools of themselves. i say that not to flame but to express a perspective. i think it's a notable difference whether i evaluate someone as a clown and someone else sees a rational debater or, alternatively, they agree those people are clowns but think there are some much better pro global warming debaters elsewhere.
i too could analyze some specific statements. but i don't want to do it preemptively. it'd be a bad way to proceed with someone who says that particular debate wasn't convincing for global warming but something else is. if you want me to do it, debate me, say you think that video is convincing re global warming (rather than that you'll want to rely on other sources), share some of your analysis, and ask for mine. i find, in general, despite the alleged 97% consensus for global warming, there's a shortage of people who disagree with me and are willing to rationally discuss the matter.
People often want to debate the issues directly, from scratch. If your goal is to reach a conclusion about the field (rather than to practice debating or learn some introductory info), it's much more effective to look at what's already know, what smart people who study it have already said, and try to evaluate some of those ideas. Using existing knowledge gives you a head start compared to starting over. Looking at a debate like this helps you start to get a picture of the field, the issues, the relevant arguments, and so on. It's incomplete, it's in voice instead of writing, there are many flaws, but it's more productive to start with existing materials and then point out problems with them and start adding in some other sources rather than to start at zero and say you're own ideas about global warming.
PS here are some other videos with Lindzen that I liked:
I have my own independent thoughts on climate change that have nothing to do with this debate.
But judging this debate alone:
With the exception of Krauss the guys on the right definitely were more convincing. For everything Lindzen said, the scientists on the right would point out that he's working with 20 year old data and is mistaken. They had answers to Lindzen, Lindzen did not have answers to them.
The other 2 on the left didn't say much of substance, and the co2 measuring device gig is not likely to convince anyone. Indeed the equivalent of bringing a snowball as evidence.
#14337 Do you care what's true about this? Do you want to debate? https://elliottemple.com/debate-policy
Susan Crockford | The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened
I recommend the video. Here's the description with italics added:
> Dr Susan Crockford's presentation to the GWPF Monday 21st October 2019
> Since 2005 Arctic biologists have insisted the polar bear is extremely sensitive to sharp reductions in sea ice. However, research shows that assumption to be false: summer sea ice fell decades before it was expected yet the predicted devastation of polar bears never happened. *I have been publicly vilified and expelled from academia for pointing out this simple fact.*
> Dr Susan Crockford is an evolutionary biologist and has been working for 35 years in archaeozoology, paleozoology and forensic zoology. She is the author of the book The Polar Bear Catastrophe that never happened and has authored several reports and videos for GWPF. Susan Crockford blogs at www.polarbearscience.com
#14359 How many times do we have to teach you this lesson old man?
#14360 I'll say this once just to clear up any doubt or ambiguity. You're unwelcome here. You're posting in bad faith with the goal of harassing me. You flame but won't debate. You've never told me why you hate me, what your grudge is over, or what I ever did to you. I can't address whatever it is that pissed you off when you won't say what it is. You have no interest in problem solving. Your comments aren't constructive. Leave.
Bias in Academia
Prestigious peer reviewed journals are like biased internet forum moderators. PNAS didn't publish a Lindzen paper, stating:
> Both scientists are formally eligible for refereeing according to the PNAS rules, but
In other words, according to the formal, written rules, Lindzen should have been published, but they decided not to.
PNAS is *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America*. Published since 1915, some Wikipedia source claims it's the second most cited scientific journal from 2008-18. I think we can confidently say it's big and important.
> Andy Dessler Smokes Richard Lindzen
No argument or explanation is given for this claim. But there are two block quotes, both from Dessler. The first is:
>> it all fits together, its this coherence of data, and even if any one of these data set is wrong, it really would not affect your confidence because we have so much other data which suggests it's warming and because of this the IPCC calls this unequivocal, which means essentially beyond doubt. . . . The key thing to look at is look for coherence, look for lots of evidence supporting a point and you will clearly see why scientists are convinced that the mainstream view of climate science is right
He smoked Lindzen by proclaiming that, even if he's wrong about some points, he won't change his mind. That's so gross and irrational, and in the view of the blogger it's a *great highlight* rather than a low point.
What Dessler said in the video before that was basically how there are a bunch of different data sources that agree and fit together. My takeaway was if one is wrong, then that throws into doubt all the stuff that fit with it. If they should fit together, but new data says they don't, then you have a major problem to investigate, not a non-issue to ignore.
Throughout the video, Dessler made a bunch of inductivist arguments about how having a lot of data adds up to a position no one should doubt.
Lindzen, by contrast, said that a common error is people use data too much for supporting claims instead of for testing claims. So he's much more Popperian :)
PS I don't recommend that debate video. Bad audio quality, very little interaction between the debaters, and most of what Lindzen says is reused material that he's presented elsewhere.
I liked Lindzen's 5 minute video for Prager U. It has summary info related to the global warming debate:
I liked this 50min interview with Lindzen:
This Lindzen 23min talk is OK, not a favorite of mine though:
Leaks reveal lots of global warming advocates commit fraud, try to manipulate the public, don't have scientific integrity, try to remove opponents from the peer reviewed journals, etc.
Lindzen talks about temperature measurements, climate models & government in science:
> "Susan Crockford | The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened
I recommend the video"
Which is on par with recommending a video where a tobacco-industry-funded organization brings in a non-expert to say smoking is not a health risk, while you willfully ignore all the peer-reviewed scientific studies showing that it is a health risk. That's how bad your source is, as covered in this published paper:
"Internet blogs, polar bears, and climate-change denial by proxy"
(Corrigendum: https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/68/4/237/4966961 )
There's a reason why scientifically-informed people don't rely on such sources for their science information:
"Unlike mainstream climate scientists, who publish primarily in peer reviewed journals, these critics typically employ a range of non-peer-reviewed outlets, ranging from blogs to the books we are examining. [...]
The general lack of peer review allows authors or editors of denial books to make inaccurate assertions that misrepresent the current state of climate science. Like the vast range of other non-peer-reviewed material produced by the denial community, book authors can make whatever claims they wish, no matter how scientifically unfounded."
N recommended this forum to me to debate global warming:
If this is the best I can expect from here, then this is largely a waste of my time. It'd be on par with debating anti-vaxxers on websites about how vaccines cause autism, because they saw a Youtube video from a non-expert saying so and they willfuly ignore peer-reviewed scientific studies showing otherwise.
Below I'll give you a summary of what the scientific evidence shows on how anthropogenic climate change affects polar bears (along with citations of some of the relevant literature), in contrast to what you unreliable source claimed. If you want to ignore that in favor of dubious sources that tell you things you find ideologically-convenient, then that that's your choice.
Anthropogenic global warming results in more Arctic sea ice loss and land ice loss. More sea ice loss, in the long-term, is strongly linked to worse health for female polar bears and their cubs; however, other factors can influence polar bear survival in the short-term. This ice loss is also linked to polar bears (and their prey) being exposed to more pollutants, and to polar bears coming on land earlier to catch prey; both of these factors adversely affect prey populations. Polar bears can attempt to acclimate to this ice loss and warmer temperatures, but these acclimation strategies aren't working very well in many regions.
Despite these negative effects on polar bear populations, humans can help maintain polar bear populations by, for example, limiting hunting of polar bears. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that climate change is having a negative effect on polar bears, anymore than treating people's lung cancer changes the fact that smoking has a negative effect on people's lung health. Reducing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions can also aid the polar bear populations by limiting sea ice loss in the long-term.
The above information is covered sources such as:
"Effects of climate warming on polar bears: a review of the evidence"
"Greenhouse gas mitigation can reduce sea-ice loss and increase polar bear persistence"
"Anthropogenic flank attack on polar bears: interacting consequences of climate warming and pollutant exposure"
"A review of ecological impacts of global climate change on persistent organic pollutant and mercury pathways and exposures in arctic marine ecosystems"
"Demography of an apex predator at the edge of its range: impacts of changing sea ice on polar bears in Hudson Bay"
"Forecasting the relative influence of environmental and anthropogenic stressors on polar bears"
"Arctic marine mammal population status, sea ice habitat loss, and conservation recommendations for the 21st century"
"Polar bear population dynamics in the southern Beaufort Sea during a period of sea ice decline"
"Trends in body condition in polar bears (Ursus maritimus) from the Southern Hudson Bay subpopulation in relation to changes in sea ice"
"Demography and Population Status of Polar Bears in Western Hudson Bay, Canada"
"Effects of Earlier Sea Ice Breakup on Survival and Population Size of Polar Bears in Western Hudson Bay"
"Climate change impacts on wildlife in a High Arctic archipelago – Svalbard, Norway"
"Climate change and the increasing impact of polar bears on bird populations"
"Variation in the response of an Arctic top predator experiencing habitat loss: feeding and reproductive ecology of two polar bear populations"
"Summer declines in activity and body temperature offer polar bears limited energy savings"
"Can polar bears use terrestrial foods to offset lost ice-based hunting opportunities?"
"Conservation status of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in relation to projected sea-ice declines"
The information is also covered by NASA:
#14544 A commendable effort. But you're trying to use facts and evidence against ideology. You can present 999 papers stating climate change is real, but if one Randian posts a YouTube video stating it is not real. They are going to go with the Youtube