• 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!

In Defense of Statellite Temperature Data

bubbabgone said:
That's another thing we've all noticed.
They don't read the stuff but they know it's not true.
They don't read the emails but they know they're out of context.
And they never ... never ... answer questions.
Click to expand...

Alarmists don't accept that there is a debate. As far as they are concerned, the debate never happened because it never needed to happen because they were always right. They can't intelligently address dissent, because their science is not based on discovering the evidence needed to lead to a consensus, but on insisting that there is a consensus and that accordingly there is no need to debate the evidence.

Scientific debates have often had big stakes for humanity , but Global Warming is one of the few whose real world implications are as big as its philosophical consequences. At stake is nothing less than the question of whether the human presence on earth is a blight or a blessing, and whether every person must be tightly regulated by a global governance mechanism for the sake of saving the planet.

The cult have pushed their agenda through with alarmist claims and hysteria. They have flown jets around the world to argue that everyone must be taxed for their carbon footprint. They have smeared and intimidated anyone who stood up to them. That is not the behavior of people arguing over numbers. It's a battle of much larger ideas. Its about the fundamentals of what human freedom should represent

The world is not in any danger, but human beings are, as usual, wrangling over their theories of how the world should be with global warming simply representing the latest incarnation of that. Its part of the great green revolution which will see everyone taxed into oblivion in order to save us from ourselves :(

Rant over
 
flogger said:
Alarmists don't accept that there is a debate. As far as they are concerned, the debate never happened because it never needed to happen because they were always right. They can't intelligently address dissent, because their science is not based on discovering the evidence needed to lead to a consensus, but on insisting that there is a consensus and that accordingly there is no need to debate the evidence.

Scientific debates have often had big stakes for humanity , but Global Warming is one of the few whose real world implications are as big as its philosophical consequences. At stake is nothing less than the question of whether the human presence on earth is a blight or a blessing, and whether every person must be tightly regulated by a global governance mechanism for the sake of saving the planet.

The cult have pushed their agenda through with alarmist claims and hysteria. They have flown jets around the world to argue that everyone must be taxed for their carbon footprint. They have smeared and intimidated anyone who stood up to them. That is not the behavior of people arguing over numbers. It's a battle of much larger ideas. Its about the fundamentals of what human freedom should represent

The world is not in any danger, but human beings are, as usual, wrangling over their theories of how the world should be with global warming simply representing the latest incarnation of that. Its part of the great green revolution which will see everyone taxed into oblivion in order to save us from ourselves :(

Rant over
Click to expand...

The science couldn't be settled if they accepted that.
 
bubbabgone said:
The science couldn't be settled if they accepted that.
Click to expand...

This isn't science, it's the continuing battle against industrialization, the modern society and the rights of the individual dressed up in the garb of a morality driven climate theory. Its a debate over whether the world would be better off if we never existed, which lately seems to have become the theme of the environmentalist movement.

This is to be a human society organized into a moral collective allegedly for the betterment of all, compelling us to form into ranks and goose step in recycled rubber boots into the greenwashed future. There is obviously no place in this scenario for the betterment and aspiration of the individual. :(
 
flogger said:
This isn't science, it's the continuing battle against industrialization, the modern society and the rights of the individual dressed up in the garb of a morality driven climate theory. Its a debate over whether the world would be better off if we never existed, which lately seems to have become the theme of the environmentalist movement.

This is to be a human society organized into a moral collective allegedly for the betterment of all, compelling us to form into ranks and goose step in recycled rubber boots into the greenwashed future. There is obviously no place in this scenario for the betterment and aspiration of the individual. :(
Click to expand...

Club Of Rome stuff.
 
flogger said:
Alarmists don't accept that there is a debate. As far as they are concerned, the debate never happened because it never needed to happen because they were always right. They can't intelligently address dissent, because their science is not based on discovering the evidence needed to lead to a consensus, but on insisting that there is a consensus and that accordingly there is no need to debate the evidence.

Scientific debates have often had big stakes for humanity , but Global Warming is one of the few whose real world implications are as big as its philosophical consequences. At stake is nothing less than the question of whether the human presence on earth is a blight or a blessing, and whether every person must be tightly regulated by a global governance mechanism for the sake of saving the planet.

The cult have pushed their agenda through with alarmist claims and hysteria. They have flown jets around the world to argue that everyone must be taxed for their carbon footprint. They have smeared and intimidated anyone who stood up to them. That is not the behavior of people arguing over numbers. It's a battle of much larger ideas. Its about the fundamentals of what human freedom should represent

The world is not in any danger, but human beings are, as usual, wrangling over their theories of how the world should be with global warming simply representing the latest incarnation of that. Its part of the great green revolution which will see everyone taxed into oblivion in order to save us from ourselves :(

Rant over
Click to expand...

Greetings, flogger. :2wave:

I didn't see what you posted as being a "rant!" :no: You stated facts, for one thing, which effectively reveal that those who argue that AGW is a looming catastrophy to everyone on this planet appear to exempt themselves by ignoring their own large carbon footprints caused by using their jets to fly around the world to attend meetings on this subject, which probably cause more air pollution in one day than many women in poor countries do in a month by cooking food outdoors over a small fire to feed their families! I'd suggest teleconferencing, but no one apparently wants to miss an important meeting being held in Paris! :2party:
 
flogger said:
Alarmists don't accept that there is a debate. As far as they are concerned, the debate never happened because it never needed to happen because they were always right. They can't intelligently address dissent, because their science is not based on discovering the evidence needed to lead to a consensus, but on insisting that there is a consensus and that accordingly there is no need to debate the evidence.

Scientific debates have often had big stakes for humanity , but Global Warming is one of the few whose real world implications are as big as its philosophical consequences. At stake is nothing less than the question of whether the human presence on earth is a blight or a blessing, and whether every person must be tightly regulated by a global governance mechanism for the sake of saving the planet.

The cult have pushed their agenda through with alarmist claims and hysteria. They have flown jets around the world to argue that everyone must be taxed for their carbon footprint. They have smeared and intimidated anyone who stood up to them. That is not the behavior of people arguing over numbers. It's a battle of much larger ideas. Its about the fundamentals of what human freedom should represent

The world is not in any danger, but human beings are, as usual, wrangling over their theories of how the world should be with global warming simply representing the latest incarnation of that. Its part of the great green revolution which will see everyone taxed into oblivion in order to save us from ourselves :(

Rant over
Click to expand...

This isn't a scientific debate.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, flogger. :2wave:

I didn't see what you posted as being a "rant!" :no: You stated facts, for one thing, which effectively reveal that those who argue that AGW is a looming catastrophy to everyone on this planet appear to exempt themselves by ignoring their own large carbon footprints caused by using their jets to fly around the world to attend meetings on this subject, which probably cause more air pollution in one day than many women in poor countries do in a month by cooking food outdoors over a small fire to feed their families! I'd suggest teleconferencing, but no one apparently wants to miss an important meeting being held in Paris! :2party:
Click to expand...

Howdy Polgara.

Its estimated that last junket in Paris cost some $1.4 BILLION to stage too. :(
 
flogger said:
It never was :wink:
Click to expand...

The first time in a long while you said something true.

It's not a scientific debate in the literature, because the science is fairly well settled. It's not a scientific debate here, because it's a bunch of half informed amateurs pretending to prove that scientists are wrong.
 
Threegoofs said:
The first time in a long while you said something true.

It's not a scientific debate in the literature, because the science is fairly well settled. It's not a scientific debate here, because it's a bunch of half informed amateurs pretending to prove that scientists are wrong.
Click to expand...

You don't read the literature and wouldn't really care what it said if you did.
 

[h=1]How not to measure temperature (or climate change) #96[/h] From the “global warming data looks better with heat-sinks and air conditioners” department. Dr. Mark Albright, of the University of Washington writes: Here is a great example of how NOT to measure the climate! On our way back to Tucson from Phoenix on Monday we stopped by to see the Picacho 8 SE coop site…
Continue reading →
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom