• 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!

The TRUTH about the Climate Change MYTH

reason10

reason10

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
915
Reaction score
116
Location
Southwest Florida. Got hit by Hurricane Charley
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
More Scientists Debunking Climate Change Myths

Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, quit the activist environmental organization in 1986 after it strayed away from objective science and took a sharp turn to the political left.

Testifying on Feb. 25 before the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight, he took issue with the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim that “Since the mid-20th century it is ‘extremely likely’ that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming."
Click to expand...

Moore pointed out “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years,” arguing that “perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of extreme certainty is to look at the historical record.”
Click to expand...

FOUNDER OF GREENPEACE.
 
From the same article:
James Lovelock, a highly respected scientist, predicted in 2006 that: “Before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where climate remains tolerable.”

More recently, however, he admitted to MSNBC: “We don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books . . . mine included . . . because it looked clear cut . . . but it hasn’t happened.”
Click to expand...
 
https://reason.com/archives/2013/08/07/climate-change-myths

Climatologist Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, says humans don't have as much impact on global temperature as the doomsayers feared.

"Forecasts of global warming -- particularly in the last two years -- have begun to come down," he says. "We're seeing the so-called 'sensitivity' of temperature being reduced by 40 percent in the new climate models. It means we're going to live."

Michaels is tired of dire predictions. "I have lived through nine end-of-the-world environmental apocalypses, beginning with (the 1962 environmental book) 'Silent Spring,' and, you know, we're still here."

As a consumer reporter, I fell for dire predictions about cellphones, Y2K and pesticides.
Click to expand...
 
Paris Climate Talks Are Doomed Because China Knows 'Climate Change' Is A Hoax
Like a lot of the president’s statements on climate change this isn’t actually true. In fact there are lots and lots of people in the world who know it’s a hoax. And among them, unfortunately, happen to be the ruling elite of the most significant carbon emitting nation of them all: China.

We know this because of a devastating report, released today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, written by one of the West’s leading experts on the Chinese environmental economy, Patricia Adams.

Adams, an economist, executive director of Toronto-based Probe International, who has been working with the Chinese environmental movement since the mid-Eighties, is under absolutely no illusions about China’s real position on “climate change.”

China sees it as a brilliant opportunity to fleece the gullible gwailo for as much money as it can, to burnish its international image by making all the right green noises, and to blackmail the West into providing it with free technology.

But it has no intention whatsoever of sacrificing economic growth by reducing its carbon dioxide emissions.

China knows this. The West either knows this or strongly suspects this. So any agreement reached next week which pretends otherwise will either be a fudge, a lie, or an outright capitulation by Western negotiators – because China knows what it wants and it isn’t budging, no sirree.
Click to expand...

I'll be as nice as I can here.

Chicken littles predicted global cooling in the 70s. They were wrong.
They predicted global warming in the 90s. The earth COOLED for 10 years.

Now those idiots are predicting human caused climate change when they are too ****ing stupid to even predict the weather.

Anyone who believes humans can influence the climate is an idiot.
 
reason10 said:
Anyone who believes humans can influence the climate is an idiot.
Click to expand...

Wow.

You need help.

What is the significance placed on the definition: influence?
 
In your quoted outtake of the second link:

Climatologist Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, says humans don't have as much impact on global temperature as the doomsayers feared.

"Forecasts of global warming -- particularly in the last two years -- have begun to come down," he says. "We're seeing the so-called 'sensitivity' of temperature being reduced by 40 percent in the new climate models. It means we're going to live."

Michaels is tired of dire predictions. "I have lived through nine end-of-the-world environmental apocalypses, beginning with (the 1962 environmental book) 'Silent Spring,' and, you know, we're still here."

As a consumer reporter, I fell for dire predictions about cellphones, Y2K and pesticides.
Click to expand...

Nowhere does anything credible say we have "no influence."

Again, misrepresenting the truth does no good, but make you look bad...
 
Lord of Planar said:
Wow.

You need help.

What is the significance placed on the definition: influence?
Click to expand...
Excellent question. And what is "climate" by the way? Is it a phenomenon in nature that can be measured, or is it a completely notional concept, e.g. trends, statistics, averages, etc..?'

Oh, and what are the units of measure for "climate"? Is "climate sensitivity" measured in the same units?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Wow.

You need help.

What is the significance placed on the definition: influence?
Click to expand...

Some people just grew up without the benefit of having a globe in a classroom.

The largest surface area of the planet is WATER. The smallest portion of that surface is land. The largest portion of that land is wilderness. The smallest portion is inhabited by humans. Climate was changing before humans came along, and NOTHING has changed in the patterns of climate.

Your precious morons who sit glued all day long to computer models (hell, those idiots might as well be playing video games) can't even PREDICT the weather, much less the climate.

THEY HAVE BEEN WRONG FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS.

Only a total moron would believe them now.
 
reason10 said:
Some people just grew up without the benefit of having a globe in a classroom.

The largest surface area of the planet is WATER. The smallest portion of that surface is land. The largest portion of that land is wilderness. The smallest portion is inhabited by humans. Climate was changing before humans came along, and NOTHING has changed in the patterns of climate.

Your precious morons who sit glued all day long to computer models (hell, those idiots might as well be playing video games) can't even PREDICT the weather, much less the climate.

THEY HAVE BEEN WRONG FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS.

Only a total moron would believe them now.
Click to expand...

You completely miss my point.

I am saying that being a denier like you are, is just as wrong of a position as the alarmists. You are the opposite end of them, and the truth lies somewhere between. They are not entirely wrong.

Yes, they have been wrong. Repeatedly so of modeled predictions. The sciences will come around. The last two studies I read that attempts to quantify CO2 forcing, has it around 1/8th and around 1/4 of what the IPCC accepted material has it at.

Just because they lie about the truth, doesn't make it right for you to use lies that are claiming we have no effect.

We do have an effect. It's just not worth worrying about, because it is small.

I don't know what whacked out blogger you are reading, but learn the sciences rather than let these people full you full of horse pucky. It's a rather ignorant thing to do, repeating these lies like teenage girls gossip. You should verify what they say before repeating their lies.

And please... Link good sources. Not activist sites.
 
reason10 said:
Nice try at spinning this.

You lose again.
Click to expand...

Funny, coming from someone who fails to understand the science.

How do i know?

Because you say things about it that are flat out wrong. You are as bad as the alarmists that way.

Like the warmers, you repeat other people's lies like a parrot.
 
It's really not surprising the leftists sign up to and support AGW.

That they do confirms they very basic instincts they hold near and dear in their ideology:

  • The Western world and Western civilization is fundamentally evil and in need of punishment
  • Businesses are evil, and in need of punishment
  • The Western middle class have it too good, and need to give up their standard of living
  • Brown people are incapable of doing it themselves, we have to do it for them / they need our help

The first 3 need to be punished by being given away the fruits of their labor on some dubious wealth redistribution scheme, this time to 2nd and 3rd world countries (just so long as they aren't affected all is good).

When 'A' spends 'B's money for 'C's benefit, there's something seriously rotten in Denmark.

'Why do it in a known to work, cheap and effective way, when there's an experimental, more expensive way to do it?'

This entire thing has all the hallmarks of one great big con game / scam.
 
I am saying that being a denier like you are, is just as wrong of a position as the alarmists. You are the opposite end of them, and the truth lies somewhere between. They are not entirely wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm not denying that the climate changes. Only an idiot would deny that. I'm just denying that human activity has anything to do with it. Only a LIAR or a gullible ****ing idiot would think that.

The climate Nazis have predicted global warming. The planet cooled. They predicted for the last two summers very active hurricane seasons. And not ONE hurricane touched the mainland over that time.

So they predict climate change 25 years out, when no one today can possibly tell if they were right?

Excuse me, but only a ****ing idiot would take them seriously.
 
reason10 said:
I'm not denying that the climate changes. Only an idiot would deny that. I'm just denying that human activity has anything to do with it. Only a LIAR or a gullible ****ing idiot would think that.

The climate Nazis have predicted global warming. The planet cooled. They predicted for the last two summers very active hurricane seasons. And not ONE hurricane touched the mainland over that time.

So they predict climate change 25 years out, when no one today can possibly tell if they were right?

Excuse me, but only a ****ing idiot would take them seriously.
Click to expand...

Yes. Only an idiot takes them serious as only an idiot thinks we have zero effect on climate.
 
reason10 said:
Some people just grew up without the benefit of having a globe in a classroom.

The largest surface area of the planet is WATER. The smallest portion of that surface is land. The largest portion of that land is wilderness. The smallest portion is inhabited by humans. Climate was changing before humans came along, and NOTHING has changed in the patterns of climate.

Your precious morons who sit glued all day long to computer models (hell, those idiots might as well be playing video games) can't even PREDICT the weather, much less the climate.

THEY HAVE BEEN WRONG FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS.

Only a total moron would believe them now.
Click to expand...

By being totally ignorant of the science you make the case for the alarmist side.

You deny any human influence on climate. That is rediculous. Obviously human activity has an influence on climate. Large cities are warmer at night and during winter than the rural areas around them etc.

Leave the lying to the other side.
 
Tim the plumber said:
By being totally ignorant of the science you make the case for the alarmist side.

You deny any human influence on climate. That is rediculous. Obviously human activity has an influence on climate. Large cities are warmer at night and during winter than the rural areas around them etc.

Leave the lying to the other side.
Click to expand...
Urban Heat Island Effect. That is why cities are warmer. There is so much that absorbs the heat during the day that it radiates off at night. That's before you factor heat generating items. But the question reminds is it really affecting the climate, and if so is it only local or does it have a significant impact on global climate?
 
maquiscat said:
Urban Heat Island Effect. That is why cities are warmer. There is so much that absorbs the heat during the day that it radiates off at night. That's before you factor heat generating items. But the question reminds is it really affecting the climate, and if so is it only local or does it have a significant impact on global climate?
Click to expand...

So you do understand the humans have some effect on climate.

That saying that we have zero effect is a lie.

That the discussion is about how much effect we have.

Good.

Then you can stop being guilty of denying science and join in the sensable skeptics who argue that there is nothing to worry about due to humanity's slight influence on climate.
 
maquiscat said:
Urban Heat Island Effect. That is why cities are warmer. There is so much that absorbs the heat during the day that it radiates off at night. That's before you factor heat generating items. But the question reminds is it really affecting the climate, and if so is it only local or does it have a significant impact on global climate?
Click to expand...

It has an effect on the data presented to represent the change in climate. That is certain.

However, especially so with "Hansenized" data, the data presented bears only a calculated similarity to the actual data collected.
 
Tim the plumber said:
By being totally ignorant of the science you make the case for the alarmist side.

You deny any human influence on climate. That is rediculous. Obviously human activity has an influence on climate. Large cities are warmer at night and during winter than the rural areas around them etc.

Leave the lying to the other side.
Click to expand...

Larger cities are warmer because of the heat island effect. All that concrete. If you want to blame the human beings who built the cities, you might have a case for humans causing the warming of a small area. And the planet has cooled for the past 10 years, so the global warming myth has been completely debunked.

How again does building concrete in New York City influence whether or not we get an afternoon rain shower in Florida? How does all that concrete in Los Angeles create the monsoon season in Indochina, when THERE HAVE BEEN MONSOON SEASONS IN INDOCHINA BEFORE LOS ANGELES WAS EVER BUILT?

And if humans could control the climate, why haven't they stopped hurricanes and tornadoes?

The climate was changing before humans got to the planet. Nothing in the patterns have changed. THAT'S proof that climate change is NOT caused by human activity.
 
Tim the plumber said:
By being totally ignorant of the science you make the case for the alarmist side.

You deny any human influence on climate. That is rediculous. Obviously human activity has an influence on climate. Large cities are warmer at night and during winter than the rural areas around them etc.

Leave the lying to the other side.
Click to expand...

Oh, and I'm not ignorant of any SCIENCE.

A bunch of money hungry political scientists trying to get grant money from socialists by reading computer models all day long does NOT equate to any kind of SCIENCE at all.

Hell, you might as well get predictions from 20 somethings who live at home with their parents and play video games all day long. You might actually get more science out of them.
 
reason10 said:
Larger cities are warmer because of the heat island effect. All that concrete. If you want to blame the human beings who built the cities, you might have a case for humans causing the warming of a small area. And the planet has cooled for the past 10 years, so the global warming myth has been completely debunked.
Click to expand...

The planet has not cooled for the last 10 years. It has not warmed either.

The data is so close to no change that any slight alteration in the numbers is well within the error level of the instruments. So to claim that there has been either warming or cooling is a lie.

How again does building concrete in New York City influence whether or not we get an afternoon rain shower in Florida? How does all that concrete in Los Angeles create the monsoon season in Indochina, when THERE HAVE BEEN MONSOON SEASONS IN INDOCHINA BEFORE LOS ANGELES WAS EVER BUILT?

And if humans could control the climate, why haven't they stopped hurricanes and tornadoes?
Click to expand...

Being deliberately ignorant will not win you any argument. Obviously there have been climate changes before. Obviously there are other things which can change the climate. Human activity clearly has some influence. It's complex. Not for the stupid to pronounce results with certainty.
Click to expand...

The climate was changing before humans got to the planet. Nothing in the patterns have changed. THAT'S proof that climate change is NOT caused by human activity.
Click to expand...

What patterns are these then????

If you can use these pattern only you know about to predict the climate do so, write a paper, get it published, win a Nobel prize.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom