• 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!

Globval warming reality check

IPCC is not trustworthy and only reports if it promotes GW it is a bias source

Oh hey it's the broken record again!
You still haven't offered proof of this statement.
 
They run several different models based on different scenarios of human-driven global carbon emissions.

Scenarios are for movies, not scientific explorations. You're right about one thing, though. The whole Global Warming scenario is just a badly written plot for another B movie.

ricksfolly
 
Scenarios are for movies, not scientific explorations. You're right about one thing, though. The whole Global Warming scenario is just a badly written plot for another B movie.

ricksfolly

This post is so absurd I can't even begin to describe it. A projection of temperature would HAVE to be based on some sort of scenario, seeing as how human choices affect the outcome. If we stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow cold turkey we'd have a very different outcome from if we decided "Eh, **** it" and never tried to curb emissions at all.
 
This post is so absurd I can't even begin to describe it. A projection of temperature would HAVE to be based on some sort of scenario, seeing as how human choices affect the outcome. If we stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow cold turkey we'd have a very different outcome from if we decided "Eh, **** it" and never tried to curb emissions at all.

Scenarios are planned events that could happen. They don't apply to phenomenas where you already claim to know the outcome. Don't take my word for it look at your own dictionary.

As I said before, the dooms day prediction may happen or it may not happen and there is no crystal ball, or tarot card, to tell us it will.

You predict the unpredictable future. I'll do the more sensible thing, take it one day at a time.

ricksfolly
 
Scenarios are planned events that could happen. They don't apply to phenomenas where you already claim to know the outcome. Don't take my word for it look at your own dictionary.

As I said before, the dooms day prediction may happen or it may not happen and there is no crystal ball, or tarot card, to tell us it will.

You predict the unpredictable future. I'll do the more sensible thing, take it one day at a time.

ricksfolly

I don't think you understand the concept of these models. Or projections in general.
 
I don't think you understand the concept of these models. Or projections in general.

Maybe not the concept, or the models, but I do understand Projection is what happens in the unpredictable future, and future predictions based on the past is where you and I differ.

ricksfolly
 
This post is so absurd I can't even begin to describe it. A projection of temperature would HAVE to be based on some sort of scenario, seeing as how human choices affect the outcome. If we stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow cold turkey we'd have a very different outcome from if we decided "Eh, **** it" and never tried to curb emissions at all.

Prove it. How much would temp change?
 
Blogs and tabloids. You're just spamming at this point. Standard denialist tactics of confusion.

Address the facts in the posts. If not you have no answer to the facts
 
Ok, all BS aside, all the G W scientists have going for them is a rising temperature trend, and, as those who have invested in the stock market have found out the hard way, trends change up and down and there's no way to predict what they it will do tomorrow, a year from now, or ten years from now.

Horses are also picked by past performance records, and as we all know, no matter how many scientific charts are made, and how much effort is put into figuring out all all 24 measurable variables, the odds-on favorite still only wins 1/3 of the time.

What it all comes down to is GW scientists expect us to bet our life style on only ONE measurable variable (rising temperature trend) that they might be right.

No thanks. If I bet on anything, it'll be the Yankees. If I lose, it's only ten bucks.

ricksfolly

You really need to do some homework.

Come back when you have half a clue what you're talking about...
 
If that means you believe scientists can predict the future, you're the one who needs a reality check.

ricksfolly

Prediction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The purpose of science is to use it to make predictions about the future - and then to apply those predictions to something useful. If science couldn't predict the future, no technology would exist.
 
Prediction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The purpose of science is to use it to make predictions about the future - and then to apply those predictions to something useful. If science couldn't predict the future, no technology would exist.

Scientists use theories, not predictions, but I suppose you could say they amount to the same thing.

Myself, I distrust all modern scientists, because they rarely consider cause, only effect, and effect is only half complete. They also carry over theories from the past that have never been, and never will be, proven. Just their exalted words and sketches isn't nearly enough for an engineer who only deals in provable facts.

ricksfolly
 
Yet all of Hansen's predictions did not happen so we can not believe these lies
In general, you believe the predictions that have scientific observations and theories backing them up. As Hansens incorrect predictions have been show to be based on a misunderstanding of data, you're quite right - we shouldn't believe those ones.

The IPCC report makes sound predictions, though - based on a far greater wealth of information, and a far greater understanding. Just because people have made misleading statements about AGW does not mean that it isn't happening.

Scientists use theories, not predictions, but I suppose you could say they amount to the same thing.

Myself, I distrust all modern scientists, because they rarely consider cause, only effect, and effect is only half complete. They also carry over theories from the past that have never been, and never will be, proven. Just their exalted words and sketches isn't nearly enough for an engineer who only deals in provable facts.

ricksfolly
We've gone over your notions of what is 'provable' before. While that's your call to make, I can't help but find your reasoning inconsistent and fairly flawed.
EDIT: A little more detail. You trust things your entire life based purely on 'effect' and not 'cause' - you know that pressing the 'P' letter on your keyboard has the effect of a corresponding symbol appearing on the screen, but I seriously doubt you know all the physics of semiconductors and LCD screens, chip logic, machine code etc which causes this to happen. That's science - and it works, whether you trust it or not.
 
Last edited:
In general, you believe the predictions that have scientific observations and theories backing them up. As Hansens incorrect predictions have been show to be based on a misunderstanding of data, you're quite right - we shouldn't believe those ones.

The IPCC report makes sound predictions, though - based on a far greater wealth of information, and a far greater understanding. Just because people have made misleading statements about AGW does not mean that it isn't happening.

We've gone over your notions of what is 'provable' before. While that's your call to make, I can't help but find your reasoning inconsistent and fairly flawed.
EDIT: A little more detail. You trust things your entire life based purely on 'effect' and not 'cause' - you know that pressing the 'P' letter on your keyboard has the effect of a corresponding symbol appearing on the screen, but I seriously doubt you know all the physics of semiconductors and LCD screens, chip logic, machine code etc which causes this to happen. That's science - and it works, whether you trust it or not.

Hansen is NASA'S top climate scientist so you are saying some climate scientist are right some are not? Care to show where the predictions of the IPCC have been right.
 
Hansen is NASA'S top climate scientist so you are saying some climate scientist are right some are not? Care to show where the predictions of the IPCC have been right.
I'm not saying that anyone is 'always right' or 'always wrong', I'm saying that you should judge predictions by looking at the evidence supporting them. Hansens earlier predictions were based on poor evidence; they were later shown to be false. The IPCC repor is based on very strong evidence, and is still being vindicated by more and more evidence that the earth is warming - see the medly of recent threads on the topic. As such, it makes more sense to trust the IPCCs predictions.
 
I'm not saying that anyone is 'always right' or 'always wrong', I'm saying that you should judge predictions by looking at the evidence supporting them. Hansens earlier predictions were based on poor evidence; they were later shown to be false. The IPCC repor is based on very strong evidence, and is still being vindicated by more and more evidence that the earth is warming - see the medly of recent threads on the topic. As such, it makes more sense to trust the IPCCs predictions.

You mean the lies they get caught in or maybe the manipulation of temp by where they put recording stations. IPCC is not reliable or credible. They are more about politics than they are science.
 
You mean the lies they get caught in or maybe the manipulation of temp by where they put recording stations. IPCC is not reliable or credible. They are more about politics than they are science.
'lies they got caught in' is a non seq. The temperature stations that were rated as 'good' by the skeptics give a practically identical dataset to the original one. The IPCC has the overwhelming support of the vast majority of scientists, and the main body of it has never been discredited. The job of the IPCC was to show the science to politicians, so I'd call it a 50/50 split.

I've responded to all of these before, in different threads. Jumping about on a topic will get you nowhere, especially if you just return to already-covered ground.
 
'lies they got caught in' is a non seq. The temperature stations that were rated as 'good' by the skeptics give a practically identical dataset to the original one. The IPCC has the overwhelming support of the vast majority of scientists, and the main body of it has never been discredited. The job of the IPCC was to show the science to politicians, so I'd call it a 50/50 split.

I've responded to all of these before, in different threads. Jumping about on a topic will get you nowhere, especially if you just return to already-covered ground.

Nice spin but the IPCC is run by the UN that is not credible and is a political body not a science institute. This is nothing more than politics and and a way to tax the world.

Lord Monckton reports on Pachauri’s eye opening Copenhagen presentation | Watts Up With That?

Peter Foster: IPCC meltdown - FP Comment

IPCC Insider Admits Climate Consensus Claim Was a Lie | The Beacon
 
Nice spin but the IPCC is run by the UN that is not credible and is a political body not a science institute. This is nothing more than politics and and a way to tax the world.

Lord Monckton reports on Pachauri’s eye opening Copenhagen presentation | Watts Up With That?

Peter Foster: IPCC meltdown - FP Comment

IPCC Insider Admits Climate Consensus Claim Was a Lie | The Beacon
Which part of the IPCC do you deny? That the earth is getting warmer, or that we are the cause?
 
Which part of the IPCC do you deny? That the earth is getting warmer, or that we are the cause?

The lies and corruption that show they are not credible but just pushing an agenda and facts do not matter
 
Back
Top Bottom