• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

While I am sorry to hear of more job losses, I am not surprised that is happening as more and more people are waking up to the HOAX "Global Warming is.

About a week ago NASA put to rest the HOAX with a report that basically it's all BS and man have going on nothing to do with is the natural cycle.
 
While I am sorry to hear of more job losses, I am not surprised that is happening as more and more people are waking up to the HOAX "Global Warming is.

About a week ago NASA put to rest the HOAX with a report that basically it's all BS and man have going on nothing to do with is the natural cycle.

What? No they didn't.
 
Read the story. NASA says those who promote the idea the greenhouse gases are man caused etc. alarmists, that makes their position a HOAX.

The environmentally ill who back this HOAX are in it either for the money those who run the groups who make 6 figure salaries and then there are followers who do all grunt work for nothing because they fell for the BS.

Hell Al Gores movie can't be show in schools in the UK unless there is a warning given that it contains a number of glaring errors.

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything,"
 
While I am sorry to hear of more job losses, I am not surprised that is happening as more and more people are waking up to the HOAX "Global Warming is.

About a week ago NASA put to rest the HOAX with a report that basically it's all BS and man have going on nothing to do with is the natural cycle.

Shhhh! Just because you're ignorant of science and don't know better, don't go parading it around town for everyone to see! It's better to keep you mouth shut and let everyone suspect you're a fool...
 
Read the story. NASA says those who promote the idea the greenhouse gases are man caused etc. alarmists, that makes their position a HOAX.

What? I'd love to respond, but your command of the English language doesn't permit me to do so. If you think that humans don't put CO2 in the atmosphere when they burn things like fossil fuels... which it seems you may be saying... you're absolutely. completely. wrong. As a matter of fact, that isn't what the story says. Also, you might note that in the article - which you didn't link too, it states:

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide

oh. well. that sounds a little different, doesn't it? You see, I'm not a geophysicist, and I haven't read this researcher's paper. But even if I assume it is totally accurate and correct (a big assumption), it does not change every other of the countless aspects of AGW theory that have been well documented and tested for decades. This is a common rhetorical device of anti-science writers of all stripes, but the refutation of a single detail in a wide-reaching theory does not destroy the theory. In fact, this is how science progresses and theories become stronger as new evidence is accumulated.

I fear I waste my words on you though.
 
Shhhh! Just because you're ignorant of science and don't know better, don't go parading it around town for everyone to see! It's better to keep you mouth shut and let everyone suspect you're a fool...

NASA is saying that the computer models are wrong but he's the one ignoring science? Should we not ignore scientific models built upon false assumptions?
 
Read the story. NASA says those who promote the idea the greenhouse gases are man caused etc. alarmists, that makes their position a HOAX.

The environmentally ill who back this HOAX are in it either for the money those who run the groups who make 6 figure salaries and then there are followers who do all grunt work for nothing because they fell for the BS.

Hell Al Gores movie can't be show in schools in the UK unless there is a warning given that it contains a number of glaring errors.



"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything,"

You are wrong in so many ways I don't even know where to start, so I'll just start with the main error:

This is not something NASA is saying. I'm guessing that's why you didn't post a link - this article was written by a lawyer from the (edit: ) Heartland Institute

NASA is saying that the computer models are wrong but he's the one ignoring science? Should we not ignore scientific models built upon false assumptions?

NASA isn't saying anything here. C-man is lying to you.

edit: Either that or he didn't bother to actually read the article he decided not to post a link to.
 
Last edited:
NASA is saying that the computer models are wrong but he's the one ignoring science? Should we not ignore scientific models built upon false assumptions?

Two points:

1. This new research is questionable. Since it contradicts, and does not confirm expectations about cirrus cloud formation as surface temperatures rise, it will have to be taken in context with other new findings from the new NASA Terra satellite. Note that the new data only confirms a trend already seen in the previous generation of satellite data. Nonetheless, I'll leave it to the atmospheric scientists to figure out (I'm a biologist). So I will concede the point without reservation:

Cirrus cloud formation and humidity have not increased as quickly as predicted by some climate change models.

2. This new finding (even if completely true) does NOTHING to change the facts of AGW. What I mean by that is that the response of cirrus cloud formation to increases in atmospheric temperature is just 1 variable in a host of equations used by climate modeling systems. The direct absorption by CO2, CH4, H2O, etc. remains unchallenged. The massive loss of land and sea ice - also unchallenged. The observed changes in global land and sea temperatures - unchallenged. The point is that even if detail 17b is incorrect, the headline does not need to be changed.
 
All of that has been challenged. It's why AGW has been dismissed.
 
More on Councilman's Non-linked article for those not familiar.

The writer is James M. Taylor, a lawyer who writes for the Heartland Institute. (a libertarian think tank) In the article, Taylor is talking about a paper put out by Roy W. Spencer and William D. Braswell. In the paper, they say that climate sensitivity is lower than what "mainstream" climate scientists put it at. A few problems:

1) They use a "simplified model" of their own creation. This model assumes that clouds act as a forcing rather than a feedback - i.e. that some other, unknown cycle of cloud formation kickstarts a change in temperature.
2) The dataset used is very small - 2000-2010.
3) The paper was published in the journal Remote Sensing, not a journal that typically deals with this sort of analysis of climate.
4) Even the paper itself makes no declarations anywhere near as strong as Libertarian Lawyer claims it says. (this is very common. when you read an opinion article that talks about a paper, always check the paper itself to see that the article accurately represents it) From the paper:

The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.
Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing,
probably due to natural cloud variations. That these internal radiative forcings exist and likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satellite
and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model. While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of
lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy
in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due
primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations
.

So it's an unsolvable discrepancy of an unknown magnitude, and that's taking the paper at face value! Of course, quite a few scientists have already come out and pointed out technical flaws with the paper.
 
All of that has been challenged. It's why AGW has been dismissed.

AGW hasn't been dismissed by NASA, contrary to what C-man has just told you.
 
Two points:

1. This new research is questionable. Since it contradicts, and does not confirm expectations about cirrus cloud formation as surface temperatures rise, it will have to be taken in context with other new findings from the new NASA Terra satellite. Note that the new data only confirms a trend already seen in the previous generation of satellite data. Nonetheless, I'll leave it to the atmospheric scientists to figure out (I'm a biologist). So I will concede the point without reservation:

Cirrus cloud formation and humidity have not increased as quickly as predicted by some climate change models.

2. This new finding (even if completely true) does NOTHING to change the facts of AGW. What I mean by that is that the response of cirrus cloud formation to increases in atmospheric temperature is just 1 variable in a host of equations used by climate modeling systems. The direct absorption by CO2, CH4, H2O, etc. remains unchallenged. The massive loss of land and sea ice - also unchallenged. The observed changes in global land and sea temperatures - unchallenged. The point is that even if detail 17b is incorrect, the headline does not need to be changed.

You shouldn't concede anything because NASA hasn't dismissed anything. A lawyer has.
 
AGW hasn't been dismissed by NASA, contrary to what C-man has just told you.

Of course not. They have been a believer for years so I wouldn't expect them to quit cold turkey. It's just another case of showing where the models have used biased assumptions to come to the desired conclusion.
 
Two points:

1. This new research is questionable. Since it contradicts, and does not confirm expectations about cirrus cloud formation as surface temperatures rise, it will have to be taken in context with other new findings from the new NASA Terra satellite. Note that the new data only confirms a trend already seen in the previous generation of satellite data. Nonetheless, I'll leave it to the atmospheric scientists to figure out (I'm a biologist). So I will concede the point without reservation:

Cirrus cloud formation and humidity have not increased as quickly as predicted by some climate change models.

2. This new finding (even if completely true) does NOTHING to change the facts of AGW. What I mean by that is that the response of cirrus cloud formation to increases in atmospheric temperature is just 1 variable in a host of equations used by climate modeling systems. The direct absorption by CO2, CH4, H2O, etc. remains unchallenged. The massive loss of land and sea ice - also unchallenged. The observed changes in global land and sea temperatures - unchallenged. The point is that even if detail 17b is incorrect, the headline does not need to be changed.

This is what climate change deniers don't get. They feverishly pass on every finding or blog post that they think (99.99% of the time incorrectly) casts some doubt on AGW as if there's a possibility that a silver bullet will come along making the whole thing go away. But it doesn't work that way. It's a huge theory supported by many disciplines providing confirmation from multiple data sets covering multiple overlapping time periods and scores of models that look at the problem from all kinds of different directions. There are literally thousands and thousands of peer reviewed papers supporting it. There is never going to be a EUREKA moment one way or the other.
 
Of course not. They have been a believer for years so I wouldn't expect them to quit cold turkey. It's just another case of showing where the models have used biased assumptions to come to the desired conclusion.

Yes, that's exactly what Spencer's model is.
 
You shouldn't concede anything because NASA hasn't dismissed anything. A lawyer has.

Truthfully, I agree with you, and am skeptical of the findings. But, the point is only to say that even if they are completely right about cirrus clouds, they are still completely wrong about AGW.
 
All of that has been challenged. It's why AGW has been dismissed.

...by people that don't know better.

Stick to economics and politics where you can just make stuff up without the need for controlled experiments, objective data, repeatability, or testable hypotheses.

Science is real.
 
I hate to break this to you, guys, by Roy Spencer is clearly on a mission to try to discredit AGW theory and he has been discredited time and time again. Some years ago he received quite a bit of acclaim for "proving" that satellite data showed atmospheric temperature anomolies that were inconsistent with AGW theory. I think he even won some kind of award. The only problem was that his math was wrong, which he was later forced to acknowledge. In fact the data absolutely supported AGW and the award was rescinded. This has happened time and time again with his stunning discoveries. In short, notwithstanding his legitimate credentials, the guy has pretty much used up whatever credibility he may once have had. If you want to read more about Spencer's ridiculously bad science, it pretty well laid out here: Roy Spencer - RCwiki
 
Last edited:
If it costs money to emit carbon, less carbon will be put in the atmosphere. Whenever something is taxed, less of it will be produced, all other things remaining equal.

That will change the climate how?
 
By people at large. There will be no cap and trade. Carbon tax, etc.

People at large and people that don't know better are not mutually exclusive groups. Much to my dismay, I also agree with your prediction about carbon taxation.
 
Really? You don't know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas driving global warming?

I know what Co2 is but have seen nothing that convinces me it is driving global warming.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom