• 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

Jack Hays said:
Looks authoritative enough to me. In keeping with his background, he brings an environmental focus to his AGW commentary.

[h=3]Patrick Moore (environmentalist) - Wikipedia, the free ...[/h]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)


Wikipedia


Patrick Moore (born 1947) is a Canadian scientist and former president of Greenpeace Canada. He has sharply and publicly differed with many policies of major ...Education‎: ‎PhD in Ecology (1974), B.Sc. ...
Nationality‎: ‎Canadian

Employer‎: ‎Ecosense Environmental Inc., ...
Occupation‎: ‎lobbyist, public speaker, en...
Click to expand...

Lobbyist. For oil and coal companies.

Real objective, this one.
 
Threegoofs said:
Ah. It's a conspiracy.

That's always a convenient excuse when the facts don't go your way.
Click to expand...

It's ClimateGate, not a conspiracy. Those are simply facts which you can't address, and because you can't, you won't. Those recorded temperatures you reference instead of proxy data for the 20th century are in large part made up crap by a programmer tasked with making a corrupt database work in some fashion or another.
 
Threegoofs said:
(Citation needed...and not local or regional studies)
Click to expand...

And what was it Marcott and Mann used in theirs then ?

There isn't a real world study from anywhere on Earth that evokes the Marcott or Mann result (even within their own studies) so how can any compilation of such studies ever do so ?

As ever find me just one from anywhere which does ? :waiting:
 
flogger said:
Once these so called 'experts'can present empirical evidence or indeed any kind of compelling case why this modest warming phase is somehow different from the dozens of others since the last ice age I'll start believing them.
Click to expand...

Climatologists have made a very strong effort to present evidence (whether or not it is valid) for their claims unlike the OP. If you do not believe so then you are obviously not very well informed on the topic.

So far the silence on that front has been deafening.
Click to expand...

Maybe try removing your ear phones.

Ice Cores
Click to expand...

By the way, the ice core data you linked is only data from Greenland which is local temperature not global temperature.

This is the agenda driven hijacking of a natural phenomenon to suit poltical ends nothing more
Click to expand...

Nice to know your opinion.
 
flogger said:
And what was it Marcott and Mann used in theirs then ?

There isn't a real world study from anywhere on Earth that evokes the Marcott or Mann result (even within their own studies) so how can any compilation of such studies ever do so ?

As ever find me just one from anywhere which does ? :waiting:
Click to expand...

You could have just said you have no citations, you know.
 
humbolt said:
It's ClimateGate, not a conspiracy. Those are simply facts which you can't address, and because you can't, you won't. Those recorded temperatures you reference instead of proxy data for the 20th century are in large part made up crap by a programmer tasked with making a corrupt database work in some fashion or another.
Click to expand...

Like I said, a conspiracy.
 
Jack Hays said:
Looks authoritative enough to me. In keeping with his background, he brings an environmental focus to his AGW commentary.

[h=3]Patrick Moore (environmentalist) - Wikipedia, the free ...[/h]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)

Wikipedia

Patrick Moore (born 1947) is a Canadian scientist and former president of Greenpeace Canada. He has sharply and publicly differed with many policies of major ...Education‎: ‎PhD in Ecology (1974), B.Sc. ...
Nationality‎: ‎Canadian

Employer‎: ‎Ecosense Environmental Inc., ...
Occupation‎: ‎lobbyist, public speaker, environmental consultant...
Click to expand...

He's a lobbyist, public speaker and consultant. I'm missing the part of his CV that says, "climate scientist"..... So remind me why I care what a lobbyist etc. has to say about the science, of the climate or anything else?
 
JasperL said:
He's a lobbyist, public speaker and consultant. I'm missing the part of his CV that says, "climate scientist"..... So remind me why I care what a lobbyist etc. has to say about the science, of the climate or anything else?
Click to expand...

He's not a lobbyist. He's a consultant with a robust scientific background in environmental issues. His views make you uncomfortable. So be it.
 
humbolt said:
It's ClimateGate, not a conspiracy. Those are simply facts which you can't address, and because you can't, you won't. Those recorded temperatures you reference instead of proxy data for the 20th century are in large part made up crap by a programmer tasked with making a corrupt database work in some fashion or another.
Click to expand...

So the BEST study that independently confirmed the temperature data, was made up too, funded in part by Koch money? And I'm no climate scientist, but even I know there are not one, not two, but MANY different temperature data sets - here's a link to five major ones, and it references several others. They're ALL "made up crap"?

Can you cite ANY published research that indicates fatal problems with ALL the temperature data. I mean, if the data are "made up crap" surely someone out there has verified the "crap" status and published those results, right? I know the temperature data have been extensively vetted, so point me to some objective evidence that we really can't know anything about temps in the 20th and 21st centuries because the data are hopelessly unusable.
 
Jack Hays said:
He's not a lobbyist. He's a consultant with a robust scientific background in environmental issues. His views make you uncomfortable. So be it.
Click to expand...

LMAO. Are you climate change denialists always this blind. Did you look at what YOU quoted from Wiki? Here it is...."Occupation‎: ‎lobbyist, public speaker, environmental consultant." Of course, "consultant" and "PR" are just different words for the same work done by "lobbyists" just sometimes in slightly different contexts.

And his views make me no more uncomfortable than any other ignoramus on the climate, like politicians or... other lobbyists, sorry, "consultants." When I want to know something about science, I tend to listen to scientists doing science, and not paid 'consultants' who know no more about the science than does Al Gore or Barbra Streisand, who are equally irrelevant.
 
Jack Hays said:
He's not a lobbyist. He's a consultant with a robust scientific background in environmental issues. His views make you uncomfortable. So be it.
Click to expand...

One more comment on this. I went back to the OP and this caught my eye. Lobbyist/PR hack/Consultant Dr. Moore:

“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,”
Click to expand...

With that short phrase, the hack might as well have put a sign on his lapel, "PAID SHILL." There is no scientist that I'm aware of that discusses climate in terms of the existence or lack of "scientific proof." Climate science, really ANY science, doesn't seek and can never obtain "scientific proof" - not ever. Scientists can accumulate evidence that appears to confirm theories, and the more evidence, the more comfortable scientists are relying on the theory, but that's it. There is no "scientific proof" of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. There is no "scientific proof" smoking causes cancer.

So when a hack wants to talk about the climate, he uses the term "scientific proof" and it's because if he's not a complete idiot he knows that no matter how much evidence might accumulate, no science will ever "prove" any theory. I imagine it's a lesson they teach in "Propaganda 101."

BTW, I also went back a bit and Patrick Moore has favorably cited the Oregon Petition, in his BOOK, that presumably was edited, etc. I love it because there is no better way to identify an obvious hack than someone favorably citing that crap as evidence for anything at all.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
He's a lobbyist, public speaker and consultant. I'm missing the part of his CV that says, "climate scientist"..... So remind me why I care what a lobbyist etc. has to say about the science, of the climate or anything else?
Click to expand...

Why isn't this good enough:


Full Definition of ECOLOGY
1
: a branch of science concerned with the interrelationship of organisms and their environments
2
: the totality or pattern of relations between organisms and their environment
3
: human ecology
4
: environment, climate <the moral ecology>; also : an often delicate or intricate system or complex <the ecology of language>
​

Ecology | Definition of ecology by Merriam-Webster
 
distraff said:
My problem is that the OP did not directly present any actual evidence against global warming, only the opinion of a non-expert on the subject.
Click to expand...
How can one present "evidence" that something doesn't exist? Isn't that a little unrealistic of you to expect "evidence against Global Warming"? What could you present to show there is no Tooth Fairy? Shouldn't you be demanding science that shows, beyond any doubt or subjective opinion, that Global Warming is more than just an unfalsifiable religion?
 
JasperL said:
Scientists can accumulate evidence that appears to confirm theories, and the more evidence, the more comfortable scientists are relying on the theory, but that's it.
Click to expand...

With that short phrase, you might as well have put a sign on your lapel, "Playing Pretend Scientist."

Science is not concerned with "supporting evidence," ...only in falsifying evidence. No one goes around dropping things to "confirm" the theory of gravity. The scientific method is all about trying to prove theories false, not about showing that something might be true. Supporting "evidence" is the mainstay of religion and politics. The scientific method is all about cherry picking those observations/data/measurements that will have the best chance at showing something to be false and then designing experiments around them.

No observations, data, measurements or any other trivia constitute science, but they sure are useful in inspiring falsifiable models. But once a falsifiable model exists the objective is to prove it false. That's why science requires falsifiable models and not "supportable" models.

Shall we heat some things to "confirm" the laws of thermodynamics?
 
distraff said:
Climatologists have made a very strong effort to present evidence (whether or not it is valid) for their claims unlike the OP. If you do not believe so then you are obviously not very well informed on the topic.
Click to expand...

I'm very well informed on the topic and have studied the pros and cons of it for many years

Maybe try removing your ear phones.

By the way, the ice core data you linked is only data from Greenland which is local temperature not global temperature.
Click to expand...

Maybe try and remove your blindfold because both poles are represented here. Why are fluctuations of Arctic ice temperatures important one minute yet irrelevent the next ?

You want global then ? OK

Medieval Warm Period
 
flogger said:
I'm very well informed on the topic and have studied the pros and cons of it for many years



Maybe try and remove your blindfold because both poles are represented here. Why are fluctuations of Arctic ice temperatures important one minute yet irrelevent the next ?

You want global then ? OK

Medieval Warm Period
Click to expand...

Yes, the medieval warm period:
2.jpg

What about it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom