• 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!

Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

AlbqOwl said:
That is what the AGW religionists just don't get. When we skeptics--and a skeptic is not the same thing as a denier despite how many times the AGW religionists say they are--when we skeptics observe again and again that what they say is happening doesn't happen, you have to think there is good reason to back up and look at it all more objectively or with a critical eye. If the popular scientific view was that there is no gravity, a great many of us would question that purely based on our observation that nothing that falls ever falls in any direction but down.

When we skeptics can observe that the doomday prophecies of the AGW cult fail to materialize again and again and again, we have to question whether anybody really knows what they are talking about. And when we observe that those promoting the AGW cult themselves do not demonstrate lifestyles that suggest they are in any way personally concerned about AGW, you have to question how deeply they believe it themselves. And when you observe that so very few scientists who are NOT receiving grant monies to promote AGW are buying into the doctrine, you wonder how much politics and money is running the show.

It is not a matter of being anti-science. It is a matter of observing the obvious.
Click to expand...

Except a scientist would know that things don't just fall down, they can also continuously fall sideways around the Earth in orbit, just as the Earth is continuously falling into the Sun. Sometimes things are more complicated than the common person may understand and are not quite what they seem.

Btw I would also call you a denier since you use their language and express their views to a T... "AGW religionists", "cultists", "doomsday", politics, grant money conspiracies... You also expouse ignorance on the issue as you claim "prophecies" have come and gone without incidence. No such thing has ever been promoted in mainstream AGW science as disaster scenarios unfolding before 2014 today. If you get past your own hyperbolic strawman you would see the projected effects for what they are.

Effects of climate change on humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Climate change and agriculture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Threegoofs said:
Hmmm. So the fringe goes wild when multiple surveys of publishing climate scientists show 97% agreement that AGW is real and a problem.

Then a survey of the general public comes out and the fringe tries to make the case that AGW is still unsettled.

Funny.
Click to expand...


Yea," 97 percent of Scientists " agree the best way to prove the existence of AGW is to refer to corrupted Computer models.

Even the NOAA recently had to admit their " Hottest Summer " proclamation was a hoax.

That's not " Science", thats propaganda.
 
AGW doesn't even exist...

There is not an ounce of evidence to suggests that man/humans has a significant impact on the climate...... NONE.

Anyone who buys this AGW nonsense is nothing more than a follower - they just listen and do as they're told..........

The climate changes but to assert man has anything to do with it is absolute nonsense at this point in the game.

I guarantee before NY is under water or there is some sort of crisis we will have a "super volcano" or a significant natural event that has absolutely nothing to do with "climate change" er as progressives put it "man made global warming."
 
Moreover, can anyone in this thread tell me how much carbon makes up our atmosphere?

Yeah, you have more percentage of bugs in your lunch than you have carbon in the atmosphere.
 
Mr.Nick said:
AGW doesn't even exist...

There is not an ounce of evidence to suggests that man/humans has a significant impact on the climate...... NONE.

Anyone who buys this AGW nonsense is nothing more than a follower - they just listen and do as they're told..........

The climate changes but to assert man has anything to do with it is absolute nonsense at this point in the game.

I guarantee before NY is under water or there is some sort of crisis we will have a "super volcano" or a significant natural event that has absolutely nothing to do with "climate change" er as progressives put it "man made global warming."
Click to expand...

You really need to let every single major national and international scientific organization know of your findings.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I can't wait to see what your thoughts are about gravitational wave theory, nuclear physics, and molecular biology are.
 
Middleground said:
Yes, I know. Extracting oil from sand, blowing off mountain tops and mixing water with horrible chemicals into the ground to extract shale is just SO MUCH BETTER!!!!11!!!!1
Click to expand...
Solely reducing CO2 is an anti-pollution, 'return the environment to a more pristine nature' philosophy. How could it prevent global warming? It fails to curb the highest concentrations of greenhouse gases (water vapor) and fails to curb a greenhouse gas that's at least 25 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2. Some have said the earth is in imminent danger with global warming, yet they turn to ideology (not science and logic) to try to prevent it.
 
Threegoofs said:
You really need to let every single major national and international scientific organization know of your findings.

Climate Change: Consensus

I can't wait to see what your thoughts are about gravitational wave theory, nuclear physics, and molecular biology are.
Click to expand...

Yea, I cant prove a negative wrong........It just so happens that this nonsense is the biggest myth since the idea that the sun revolved round the earth.

Believe me I would love to tell these quacks that they're idiots and call them out.... It doesn't take much intelligence to realize their game -- $$$$$$$$....
 
Verax said:
This is the result of ignorance. People who don't understand science but think they do. I will never understand why people think that an idea they had while looking out the window is just as valid as a scientist... A professional, a person who went to college and got a degree, who spent many years studying after college and while working in the field many years as a career.

I've said this many times in the environmental forum and I will say it again here. Almost all of the questions about global warming can be answered simply by reading an introductory science textbook. The remaining questions can be answered by studying climate science and reading the IPCC's reports.

If you don't know anything about these things, you should not have an opinion that you think AGW is X(anything), because you have no idea. If you are going to have an opinion at least do a bare minimum of research and learn basic science first, it is not that hard at all. If you don't do this, you are at the mercy of whatever nonsense is spewed from television, radio, the internet. It is laughably stupid and you will immediately spot it once you learn a few basic things.
Click to expand...

I have heard that a large portion of the IPCC's panel are not even scientist?? I heard this a couple times so not real sure if its accurate?
 
Mr.Nick said:
Yea, I cant prove a negative wrong........It just so happens that this nonsense is the biggest myth since the idea that the sun revolved round the earth.

Believe me I would love to tell these quacks that they're idiots and call them out.... It doesn't take much intelligence to realize their game -- $$$$$$$$....
Click to expand...

Yes, you definitely need to inform the NAS and AAAS of your startling findings.

They'll certainly have to reassess their position there, 'Dr.' Nick.
 
Gringo allstar said:
I have heard that a large portion of the IPCC's panel are not even scientist?? I heard this a couple times so not real sure if its accurate?
Click to expand...

Given a significant proportion of the IPCC relates to economic impacts of AGW, this shouldn't be surprising to anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the Subject.
 
Threegoofs said:
You really need to let every single major national and international scientific organization know of your findings.

Climate Change: Consensus

I can't wait to see what your thoughts are about gravitational wave theory, nuclear physics, and molecular biology are.
Click to expand...

Is this the same nasa that a few years back said their "new mission" was to promote outreach to the muslim community???
 
Gringo allstar said:
Is this the same nasa that a few years back said their "new mission" was to promote outreach to the muslim community???
Click to expand...

I would imagine.

Of course, if you bothered to look at the link, it lists the scientific organizations that have issues statements on AGW.
 
Global warming is real. It's happening. After evaluating the evidence I have come to my own conclusion that the way we currently do things is damaging the world in which we live. A way of doing things that will, ultimately, lead to terrible consequences if continued.

With that being said...the global warming debate seems a bit different than other scientific debates. Anybody who questions any part of the science is ruthlessly attacked and silenced. There is a great deal of censorship and close-mindedness that makes me quite uncomfortable. We seem to be losing our grip on what makes science so great. Science must be questioned. Always. A true scientist ALWAYS assumes he is wrong, even when he is right. This skepticism is what has, in the past, propelled scientific advancement. But recently skepticism and dissent seem to be devoid in science. It really is quite saddening.
 
Threegoofs said:
Given a significant proportion of the IPCC relates to economic impacts of AGW, this shouldn't be surprising to anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the Subject.
Click to expand...

Well how many are scientists on the panel and how many are not?? Little testy are ya
 
Threegoofs said:
I would imagine.

Of course, if you bothered to look at the link, it lists the scientific organizations that have issues statements on AGW.
Click to expand...

I realize that, I just thought it was a very bizarre statement from Nasa about their "new mission" muslim outreach. I mean why do we have to PC up science, and what purpose does it serve?
 
cabse5 said:
Solely reducing CO2 is an anti-pollution, 'return the environment to a more pristine nature' philosophy. How could it prevent global warming? It fails to curb the highest concentrations of greenhouse gases (water vapor) and fails to curb a greenhouse gas that's at least 25 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2. Some have said the earth is in imminent danger with global warming, yet they turn to ideology (not science and logic) to try to prevent it.
Click to expand...

It tips the delicate balance, cabse5. And not by a lot, too. And it's that tip that is cause our planet to warm.
 
Gringo allstar said:
I realize that, I just thought it was a very bizarre statement from Nasa about their "new mission" muslim outreach. I mean why do we have to PC up science, and what purpose does it serve?
Click to expand...

Thats a topic. But it really isnt this thread's topic now, is it?

I suppose you could post a new thread. Maybe in the 'academia - science' section. I bet you'll get reasoned replies there.
 
Verax said:
Except a scientist would know that things don't just fall down, they can also continuously fall sideways around the Earth in orbit, just as the Earth is continuously falling into the Sun. Sometimes things are more complicated than the common person may understand and are not quite what they seem.

Btw I would also call you a denier since you use their language and express their views to a T... "AGW religionists", "cultists", "doomsday", politics, grant money conspiracies... You also expouse ignorance on the issue as you claim "prophecies" have come and gone without incidence. No such thing has ever been promoted in mainstream AGW science as disaster scenarios unfolding before 2014 today. If you get past your own hyperbolic strawman you would see the projected effects for what they are.

Effects of climate change on humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Climate change and agriculture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Ah well, at least you have a lot of company among those who don't have a clue what a straw man is. And those who seem to read a whole lot into my comments that I didn't say. But thanks for the commentary and do have a nice day.
 
Threegoofs said:
Hmmm. So the fringe goes wild when multiple surveys of publishing climate scientists show 97% agreement that AGW is real and a problem.

Then a survey of the general public comes out and the fringe tries to make the case that AGW is still unsettled.

Funny.
Click to expand...

Tell me how you would solve the supposed problem?
 
AlbqOwl said:
Ah well, at least you have a lot of company among those who don't have a clue what a straw man is. And those who seem to read a whole lot into my comments that I didn't say. But thanks for the commentary and do have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.
Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:
That is what the AGW religionists just don't get. When we skeptics--and a skeptic is not the same thing as a denier despite how many times the AGW religionists say they are--when we skeptics observe again and again that what they say is happening doesn't happen, you have to think there is good reason to back up and look at it all more objectively or with a critical eye. If the popular scientific view was that there is no gravity, a great many of us would question that purely based on our observation that nothing that falls ever falls in any direction but down.

When we skeptics can observe that the doomday prophecies of the AGW cult fail to materialize again and again and again, we have to question whether anybody really knows what they are talking about. And when we observe that those promoting the AGW cult themselves do not demonstrate lifestyles that suggest they are in any way personally concerned about AGW, you have to question how deeply they believe it themselves. And when you observe that so very few scientists who are NOT receiving grant monies to promote AGW are buying into the doctrine, you wonder how much politics and money is running the show.

It is not a matter of being anti-science. It is a matter of observing the obvious.
Click to expand...

Mainstream AGW science never predicted "doomsday" scenarios by 2014. The hyperbole of this is also deceptive. The effects of global warming are more about grinding consequences that worsen many human scenarios around the world than some kind of doomsday cataclysm.
 
One solution for increasing renewable energy and reduding C02 is community power. This is also a way giving more indepdence and power to individuals and communities. Instead of countining being dependent on big multinational companies. That instead of having huge expensive powerplant for example coal that only big companies or the goverment can run you instead have small renewable solutions that can be own and run by communities.

https://www.foeeurope.org/community-Power-benefits-briefing-011213

One other thing is reducing the consumption of meat. That USA but also many other countries today are mulicultural. With imigrants from the medditarien countries, India and other places with a lot of great vegetarian or partly vegatarian dishes. So maybee it's possible to try some of those dishes and if you like it find some new great dishes to eat.
 
Last edited:
Bergslagstroll said:
One solution for increasing renewable energy and reduding C02 is community power. This is also a way giving more indepdence and power to individuals and communities. Instead of countining being dependent on big multinational companies. That instead of having huge expensive powerplant for example coal that only big companies or the goverment can run you instead have small renewable solutions that can be own and run by communities.

https://www.foeeurope.org/community-Power-benefits-briefing-011213

One other thing is reducing the consumption of meat. That USA but also many other countries today are mulicultural. With imigrants from the medditarien countries, India and other places with a lot of great vegetarian or partly vegatarian dishes. So maybee it's possible to try some of those dishes and if you like it find some new great dishes to eat.
Click to expand...


Huh ?

Lol !! Communal locally run power plants using what ? Wind ? Solar ?

They don't work, just ask Germany.

And Red Meat ? WTH ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom