Quote from: Spendulus on February 16, 2020, 06:43:36 PM

No, I am not aware of any people that claim we are in an ice age. (looking outside) Does not look that way around here.

I (honestly) can't tell if you're being sarcastic. If you are disregard this paragraph, but if you're not, then this becomes a bit concerning to me, because that was supposedly fundamental knowledge: we are in an "ice age", but on an interglacial period. We've been in an "ice age" for quite a while now. We're just not in the glacial period per se. And the wide majority of people who talk about climate knows that. If they don't, that just points a lack of fundamental knowledge.

My original arguments were: (A) there are people who use the thought of "we're in an Ice Age" to "debunk" global warming and (B) the concept of global cooling isn't a thing (for our current environment; I'm not talking about it never happened in Earth's 4.5 billion years of age).

Quote from: Spendulus on February 16, 2020, 06:43:36 PM

As for the "article I pointed to", I pointed to the logical fallacy of your argument, based on YOUR ARTICLE.

I still don't get what is the "logical fallacy" of your argument that I haven't addressed. Besides, both articles you mention (the one you pointed to & the one I linked) I have already debunked. So, if they're supposed to somehow counter what I said, they're already off the table.

Plus, it seems a bit interesting how you're overall avoiding touching on the "sun activity is important in our current climate" part of the debate, which has been the largest target of my counter arguments - and something you've been a bit adamant in defending.

Quote from: Spendulus on February 16, 2020, 06:43:36 PM

As for "global cooling," of course it can exist, and does exist historically. It is no more than another term in any simplified linear equation of climate. It may be a weak or a strong term, with high or low uncertainty, still, the summation of the equation rules. (I'm simplifying a bit here, but likely you get it). For example, the Earth has radiative input factors, but also radiative output. Generally, that would mean outflow of watts from the lower stratosphere outwards. A global cooling factor, obviously.

I didn't understand what you said, but "global cooling" implies the average Earth temperature is decreasing. (Is this what you were referring to?)

And if that's what you're arguing is happening right now, that is not what the majority of scientists who research and look at scientific data tend on agreeing.

A discussion among many scientists regarding this topic.

Physicists calling out global cooling a bit thoroughly.

And the icing of the cake, A more thorough explanation on how most measures point global warming is happening right now.

Quote from: Spendulus on February 16, 2020, 06:43:36 PM

Not exactly. Gore worked with Dr. James Hansen, and used Michael Mann's "hockey stick." Those are / were well published and known researchers. He did not come up with his alarmist ideas by himself. Well, maybe the idea of using the scissors lift was his. And maybe the idea of breaking the AC system in August 1988 when Hansen did his seminal report to the Senate, insuring they were all unbearably hot while the subject of the presentation was "global warming..." maybe that was Gore's work.

I'm not debating whether Hansen or Mann's concepts are trustworthy or not, I'm saying that Al Gore and his awareness campaign was alarmist. Similarly to, for instance, someone who reports on US-Iran conflicts and then points to an alarmist prediction of a Third World War.

And once again, no evidences of a climatic conspiracy worldwide.

Quote from: Spendulus on February 16, 2020, 06:43:36 PM

Let's just call (A) Beliefs, for a moment.

The argument now becomes "Agree with Beliefs," and you "Are a good person." I'll point out the fallacies in that.

The propagator of the argument is free to modify "Beliefs", while those subscribing to them still must adhere to the Dogma. This is pseudo-religion and has no scientific basis and no basis in any rational mode of life. Each of those sub-arguments in list (A) should be considered on it's merits or lack of. Essentially this is a power play, an attempt to gain control of people through word arguments and propaganda tactics.

Oh, and if you want to learn about eco-friendly habits, take a look at Singapore.

You're missing my point. My personal admiration or loathing for climate skeptics/agree-ers is disregardable. And in honesty that piece serves no purpose, so let's just scratch it and leave it as misargumentation of my part.