• 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!

Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

Re: UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

j-mac said:
"The amount of meat I eat?" Are you serious? But you don't want to control anyone do you?
Click to expand...

Swwwoooossshhh!

Not the point at all. Not at all. :damn:2funny:
 
Last edited:
UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

Boo Radley said:
Swwwoooossshhh!

Not the point at all. Not at all. :damn:2funny:
Click to expand...

Then why'd you say it...I get your larger point just fine, but you included that into it, why?
 
Re: UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

j-mac said:
Then why'd you say it...I get your larger point just fine, but you included that into it, why?
Click to expand...

Because I repeatedly underestimate the ability you have to skip the point being made to focus on some irrelevant thing said, often out of context as you did here, in order to not talk about the point being made. The tactic is annoying and weak, but you and others are consistent at doing it. The writer merely pointed out that despite the evidence on these things, we had largely not changed. There was no call to control you. Only an idiot reads it that way. Or someone being dishonest. The point was, and partly being made by the meat comment, is that we go against science and actual evidence because we don't want to change.

So, I repeat: Swooooshhh!!
 
UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

Boo Radley said:
Because I repeatedly underestimate the ability you have to skip the point being made to focus on some irrelevant thing said, often out of context as you did here, in order to not talk about the point being made. The tactic is annoying and weak, but you and others are consistent at doing it. The writer merely pointed out that despite the evidence on these things, we had largely not changed. There was no call to control you. Only an idiot reads it that way. Or someone being dishonest. The point was, and partly being made by the meat comment, is that we go against science and actual evidence because we don't want to change.

So, I repeat: Swooooshhh!!
Click to expand...

You're right, in that "you" specifically didn't make the comment about eating meat, but you linked it, so I assume you agree with it. But, the larger point he is making is that non supporters of AGW must be led, (forced) to compliance because they are just too dumb to understand the issue. It remains insulting and ineffective.
 
Re: UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

j-mac said:
You're right, in that "you" specifically didn't make the comment about eating meat, but you linked it, so I assume you agree with it. But, the larger point he is making is that non supporters of AGW must be led, (forced) to compliance because they are just too dumb to understand the issue. It remains insulting and ineffective.
Click to expand...

You're still missing it. Lord. No one said anything about force. Not the article. Not me.

And dumb wasn't what they said either.

So, once again, SSSWWWOOOOOISSSSSH!!!!
 
Last edited:
UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

Boo Radley said:
You're still missing it. Lord. No one said anything about force. Not the article. Not me.

And dumb wasn't what they said either.

So, once again, SSSWWWOOOOOISSSSSH!!!!
Click to expand...

Just that they are either too selfish in their lifestyle, or they can't face the certainty, either way, it is insulting. It also does make the case that because of this, those who "understand" the issue will have bring them along... , (force)
 
Re: UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

j-mac said:
Just that they are either too selfish in their lifestyle, or they can't face the certainty, either way, it is insulting. It also does make the case that because of this, those who "understand" the issue will have bring them along... , (force)
Click to expand...

So, if you see a person on welfare, who is capable of working but doesn't even try, you wouldn't call them out on it?

Yes, we can call it an insult. And you or others may see it that way. But if it's the truth, do we refrain and just placate you or do we state it plainly? The FACT is in those examples, the real and actual evidence is being ignored and replaced by excuse making. This is a truth.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

Boo Radley said:
Which GW theory fits. There is little debate on it outside of political hacks.
Click to expand...



Just go through it point by point:

"It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before.)
It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.
It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)"

0 for 5 in this group.

"The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[2]"

AGW compared to these is an empty shell of a notion which is why no reputable science organization or even those not so reputable will elevate this swindle to the defintion of being a Theory.

You saying that you feel like it is just doesn't cut it.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

code1211 said:
Just go through it point by point:

"It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before.)
It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.
It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)"

0 for 5 in this group.

"The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[2]"

AGW compared to these is an empty shell of a notion which is why no reputable science organization or even those not so reputable will elevate this swindle to the defintion of being a Theory.

You saying that you feel like it is just doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...

All you show here is that you don't know enough. Your massive conspiracy is beyond any reasonableness person believing.
 
admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

Boo Radley said:
So, if you see a person on welfare, who is capable of working but doesn't even try, you wouldn't call them out on it?

Yes, we can call it an insult. And you or others may see it that way. But if it's the truth, do we refrain and just placate you or do we state it plainly? The FACT is in those examples, the real and actual evidence is being ignored and replaced by excuse making. This is a truth.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think most people, right or left acknowledge climate change, but are highly skeptical of what those who have politicized the issue, or those claiming they have the irrefutable truth as they scheme to get rich off of it, and rightly so.

But the fact is things are being developed by private industry that work, and I have no problem with. When arrogance, and insult are the main argument, I think you have to check yourself.
 
Re: admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

j-mac said:
I disagree. I think most people, right or left acknowledge climate change, but are highly skeptical of what those who have politicized the issue, or those claiming they have the irrefutable truth as they scheme to get rich off of it, and rightly so.

But the fact is things are being developed by private industry that work, and I have no problem with. When arrogance, and insult are the main argument, I think you have to check yourself.
Click to expand...

It is odd to me tat you so clearly see, in your mind, that scientist must be getting rich by claiming man contributes to GW, but cannot see way to question those paid by groups who's bottom line depends on it not being true as being possibly inaccurate. Not only that, you can't see how that might point to your bias.

There are too many, an overwhelming majority, for it to be the type of thing you suggest. The fringe element that you so reverently accept is much more likely to be influenced by money. Odd you can't see that.

Also, arrogance nor ignorance has not been the main argument in any way. Your either over sensitivity or inability to grasp the what is really being argued is more the problem. I personally think it is over sensitivity. Looking so hard to be insulted, so hard to see some one "ordering" you that you don't really engage what us being said.

Today, people still choose to smoke for example. All evidence clearly makes that a poor choice, but some see pointing hat as being insulting. It isn't. Some people do drugs or drink and drive, and there is plenty if evidence to show the hazards of both. Pointing the arrogance of ignoring the evidence is justified. Thinking that you or me as untrained people who cannot know everything are more informed, more knowledgable, and less, corrupt than the overwhelming bulk of scientist is true arrogance. If you or I can't see that we are ignorant, we can't know as much, we lack the education or training to know, makes us both arrogant and more than just ignorant.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

Boo Radley said:
All you show here is that you don't know enough. Your massive conspiracy is beyond any reasonableness person believing.
Click to expand...



There is no conspiracy. That is a straw man that the Diehards like to joust with when confronted by the data that any reasonable person accepts to proving that there is no compelling reason for concern on this swindle.

People like Michael Griffin, the head of NASA:

NASA Chief Questions Urgency of Global Warming : NPR

<snip>
"... I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. ..."
<snip>
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

Threegoofs said:
By 'relevant' you mean guys in the earlier part of the century predicting today's record heat?

The models were right on.
Click to expand...



I'm not sure you know what that phrase means.

View attachment 67153524
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

code1211 said:
There is no conspiracy. That is a straw man that the Diehards like to joust with when confronted by the data that any reasonable person accepts to proving that there is no compelling reason for concern on this swindle.

People like Michael Griffin, the head of NASA:

NASA Chief Questions Urgency of Global Warming : NPR

<snip>
"... I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. ..."
<snip>
Click to expand...

As I showed you before, from your source:

Climate scientists agree that humans are causing climate change, and they have agreed on this for some time.

Climate Change: Blog

You're cherry picking to the extreme.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

Boo Radley said:
As I showed you before, from your source:

Climate scientists agree that humans are causing climate change, and they have agreed on this for some time.

Climate Change: Blog

You're cherry picking to the extreme.
Click to expand...



From you link:

"Drawing from 11,944 climate science abstracts from scientific journals between 1991 and 2011, the team found 66.4 percent of the abstracts expressed no opinion, 32.6 percent explicitly endorsed AGW, 0.7 percent rejected it and 0.3 percent expressed uncertainty on the cause of global warming. Then the authors invited a subset of these papers’ authors to place their own papers into the same categories that Cook and his collaborators had used. These authors overwhelmingly endorsed the statement that most of the past century’s warming was caused by human greenhouse gas emissions."

So 66% agree that there is no consensus.

Now THAT'S a consensus.

When you need to lie about having an overwhelming consensus and the existence of an overwhelming consensus is your only proof, that calls to question the quality of your proof, don't you think?

No. Seriously. Don't you think?
 
Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W

code1211 said:
From you link:

"Drawing from 11,944 climate science abstracts from scientific journals between 1991 and 2011, the team found 66.4 percent of the abstracts expressed no opinion, 32.6 percent explicitly endorsed AGW, 0.7 percent rejected it and 0.3 percent expressed uncertainty on the cause of global warming. Then the authors invited a subset of these papers’ authors to place their own papers into the same categories that Cook and his collaborators had used. These authors overwhelmingly endorsed the statement that most of the past century’s warming was caused by human greenhouse gas emissions."

So 66% agree that there is no consensus.

Now THAT'S a consensus.

When you need to lie about having an overwhelming consensus and the existence of an overwhelming consensus is your only proof, that calls to question the quality of your proof, don't you think?

No. Seriously. Don't you think?
Click to expand...

Uh, no. 66% didn't bother to comment in their papers because they weren't discussing causes. It's like papers in physics discussing gravity...you can't pretend there is no consensus on gravity because cause want addressed.

But when cause IS addressed, the imbalance is 36:1. That's pretty definitive for those of us based in reality.

Would you rather us state the conclusion the other way? Only 0.3% of papers on climate dispute AGW. That's just as accurate...
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

code1211 said:
From you link:

"Drawing from 11,944 climate science abstracts from scientific journals between 1991 and 2011, the team found 66.4 percent of the abstracts expressed no opinion, 32.6 percent explicitly endorsed AGW, 0.7 percent rejected it and 0.3 percent expressed uncertainty on the cause of global warming. Then the authors invited a subset of these papers’ authors to place their own papers into the same categories that Cook and his collaborators had used. These authors overwhelmingly endorsed the statement that most of the past century’s warming was caused by human greenhouse gas emissions."

So 66% agree that there is no consensus.

Now THAT'S a consensus.

When you need to lie about having an overwhelming consensus and the existence of an overwhelming consensus is your only proof, that calls to question the quality of your proof, don't you think?

No. Seriously. Don't you think?
Click to expand...

Yep, and not significant nor meaningful.

And yes, there is a consensus. An overwhelming consensus. That was just from the journal articles. Not every article would go to cause. Again, your misreading and lack of understanding hinders you.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

Boo Radley said:
Do you have a special kind of dyslexia like syndrome? The reverse is more true.
Click to expand...



You have yet to explain why the warming effect of CO2 has stopped.

You have yet to explain why no scientific organization on the planet has accepted this to be a theory.

You have yet to link to the test that can falsify this notion which is the key characteristic of a Scientific Hypothesis.

You have yet to explain why the warming trend that we currently enjoy started 150 years before the cause you cite came into being.

All you have is a strong belief. You have no proof at all and an infinite amount of faith. You might as well be tossing virgins into a volcano.

If you do have proof, however, feel free to present it.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W

Threegoofs said:
Uh, no. 66% didn't bother to comment in their papers because they weren't discussing causes. It's like papers in physics discussing gravity...you can't pretend there is no consensus on gravity because cause want addressed.

But when cause IS addressed, the imbalance is 36:1. That's pretty definitive for those of us based in reality.

Would you rather us state the conclusion the other way? Only 0.3% of papers on climate dispute AGW. That's just as accurate...
Click to expand...



The "study" was a rigged compilation of papers by an agenda driven group conducted to prove a point of view that was determined prior to the start of the exercise.

"The abstracts from these papers were randomly distributed between a team of 24 volunteers recruited through the "myth-busting" website skepticalscience.com, who used set criteria to determine the level to which the abstracts endorsed that humans are the primary cause of global warming. Each abstract was analyzed by two independent, anonymous raters."

I defy you to find an article in the Skeptical Science Web site that gives full throated support to the idea that man has had no impact on the climate or that man cannot affect the climate.

This is an agenda driven site that has only one view point on this topic.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

Boo Radley said:
Yep, and not significant nor meaningful.

And yes, there is a consensus. An overwhelming consensus. That was just from the journal articles. Not every article would go to cause. Again, your misreading and lack of understanding hinders you.
Click to expand...

Just reading what the agenda driven biased site wrote.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

code1211 said:
You have yet to explain why the warming effect of CO2 has stopped.

You have yet to explain why no scientific organization on the planet has accepted this to be a theory.

You have yet to link to the test that can falsify this notion which is the key characteristic of a Scientific Hypothesis.

You have yet to explain why the warming trend that we currently enjoy started 150 years before the cause you cite came into being.

All you have is a strong belief. You have no proof at all and an infinite amount of faith. You might as well be tossing virgins into a volcano.

If you do have proof, however, feel free to present it.
Click to expand...

You are factual wrong on hose points and I did link to that earlier, sir. Knight. :coffeepap
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

Boo Radley said:
You are factual wrong on hose points and I did link to that earlier, sir. Knight. :coffeepap
Click to expand...



You have linked to none of these.

Why do you think you have?
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

code1211 said:
You have linked to none of these.

Why do you think you have?
Click to expand...

Here's one I'm sure you can remember seeing before:

Matalin said, "for the last decade the climate has been cooling." That suggests there has been a distinct reversal of the steady warming that scientists have documented for many years. But a review of the data shows that's not the case. The numbers show that in the past 10 years, global temperatures have not continued their sharp increase. But they have not cooled either. In fact, some years in the last decade have been hotter than the previous years. At most, they could be described as hitting a plateau. But they haven't cooled as Matalin said. We find her claim False.

PolitiFact | Matalin claims the Earth is cooling


You will likely ignore this again as you did last time, and as you have the others. But try not to forget that you got this one. And maybe go back and read the other posts you forgot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom