• 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!

2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

Threegoofs said:
Right. And you referenced IPCC AR4, which said rise was 3-4mm per year.

Meaning scientists are not saying FL will be underwater in a decade, but possibly significantly swamped in a century.
FAQ 5.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 5: Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level
Click to expand...

Oh you're speaking of the article which refuted former claims of higher rates in the rise in sea levels?

That's true, that article did not say that, it only refuted those who did…

But I wantcha to know, that it's mighty white of ya to admit that there is no threat from rising sea levels due to the unenviable effects of the scam: AGW.

I'm sure the board will be greatly relieved.
 
ABC, you come off as an ignorant, obnoxious fool. I would never trust a single thing you say.
 
AmericanbyChoic said:
Oh! The appeal to ignorance… Folks this particular fallacy is among my fave… it says, in modern terms: "If you can't provide a link, it can't be true." When in truth, there is no actual correlation between the existence of a link and whether or not the claim is true.

You need only use your own experience in the terms of the daily dose from the Chicken little herd… and where you heard some advocate of AGW making such a claim, then you know it to be true. Those of you who have not, need only stand by… as we're never too far from one.
Click to expand...

Well, I only request it because you seem to be spewing stuff at random, and its probably best to establish at least one fact before we continue dismantling your entire argument.

Seems like you could find SOMEONE who wrote this down, as you claimed that scientists claimed it..and scientists generally are really good about publishing their work.

Not bring able to support your first claim looks pretty bad.
 
AmericanbyChoic said:
Oh you're speaking of the article which refuted former claims of higher rates in the rise in sea levels?

That's true, that article did not say that, it only refuted those who did…

But I wantcha to know, that it's mighty white of ya to admit that there is no threat from rising sea levels due to the unenviable effects of the scam: AGW.

I'm sure the board will be greatly relieved.
Click to expand...

That's also untrue.

The IPCC is generally the paper that lays out tge state of AGW research best. And it says AGW is a serious threat to sea level. 3-4mm per year means about 18 inches of sea level rise by 2100- assuming the rate won't accelerate with increasingly thinner glaciers. That's pretty threatening if you live on the keys.

Like I said...my guess is you don't give a crap because your time horizon is not quite that long.
 
Verax said:
ABC, you come off as an ignorant, obnoxious fool. I would never trust a single thing you say.
Click to expand...

Well that's very rude, unfounded and wholly subjective… which just proves ONCE AGAIN, you can NOT hide a socialist!

I absolutely LUV you people. In my humble opinion, you are the absolute BEST value, dollar for dollar, that entertainment has to offer.

So with that said: Backatcha Karl.
 
Threegoofs said:
That's also untrue.

The IPCC is generally the paper that lays out tge state of AGW research best. And it says AGW is a serious threat to sea level. 3-4mm per year means about 18 inches of sea level rise by 2100- assuming the rate won't accelerate with increasingly thinner glaciers. That's pretty threatening if you live on the keys.

Like I said...my guess is you don't give a crap because your time horizon is not quite that long.
Click to expand...

Wow… did it say that?

Well, from THAT we can rest assured that we will see virtually no increase in sea levels by 2100…

Needless to say, in 2100, when my ancestors are telling some schmoe that they saw some article back in 2013 that claimed that the earth's sea levels would rise a foot and a half between now and then, that there will be some schmoe demanding a link, and claiming that without one, it can't be true.

It should be noted that the Left has been claiming the increase in sea level for 40 years… that's a third of a century… so using the 18 inches in 85 years… we'd have seen increases of 6" over the last 40 years.

Now we know for an ABSOLUTE, UNDENIABLE, INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT: We haven't seen anywhere NEAR 6" increase in SL over the last 40 years. What we HAVE seen in terms of increase in sea level over the last 40 years, has been NO DISCERNIBLE RISE IN SEA LEVELS.
 
Last edited:
Now, ill preface this with an apology, because I'm referencing National Geographic and not a published study, but I'm pretty sure it's a better source than some Hannityite takes up on Makers Mark.

Sea level has risen about 6 inches in the last century, and the acceleration of its rise has roughly doubled.

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/
 
AmericanbyChoic said:
What I claim is that the AGW lobby is a sad little cult, who's hopes and dreams rest upon irrational beliefs… not the least of which is that the SUN is more or less irrelevant where the earth's atmosphere is concerned. This resting upon the INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT: That the sun is the predominate factor in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere, with there being no close second.

Meaning that if ya take the sun out of the equation… the earth quickly becomes a ball of ice covered rock, shortly before it takes leave of the ice and spends eternity as just another rock, where NO AMOUNT of capitalism will EVER be able to warm it….
Click to expand...

The original statement:

Originally Posted by Lord of Planar
There are also people who thinks the sun doesn't matter. I never understood that since the sun is the source of 99.99+% of the energy that becomes measurable temperature on earth.
Click to expand...

The challenge that has not, and can not be met:

Quote Originally Posted by Deuce
Find me one person who thinks the sun "doesn't matter."
Click to expand...

Unless the Lord or one of his minions can come up with someone who actually said that the sun doesn't matter, then the entire argument is a straw man.

and no amount of trying to change the subject, no amount of ranting about how important the sun may be, is going to change it into a real argument.

Of course the sun is important! If that's what you're trying to argue, then it shouldn't be too hard.
 
Well, at least they're FINALLY admitting the sun exists… which naturally requires that it has SOME influence on the temperature of the earth's atmosphere and while it ain't much, it's somethin'…
 
Threegoofs said:
Now, ill preface this with an apology, because I'm referencing National Geographic and not a published study, but I'm pretty sure it's a better source than some Hannityite takes up on Makers Mark.

Sea level has risen about 6 inches in the last century, and the acceleration of its rise has roughly doubled.

Sea Level Rise -- National Geographic
Click to expand...

ROFLMNAO!

Hysterical…
 
AmericanbyChoic said:
Well that's very rude, unfounded and wholly subjective… which just proves ONCE AGAIN, you can NOT hide a socialist!

I absolutely LUV you people. In my humble opinion, you are the absolute BEST value, dollar for dollar, that entertainment has to offer.

So with that said: Backatcha Karl.
Click to expand...

Labels are the weapon of the weak. The reason Karl is so hated is because his criticisms of capitalism hit the nail on the head. That's not to say we should adopt something other than capitalism, just that we need to be mindful of its intricent weaknesses and work towards a system that is fair and balanced for everyone. But that would throw a monkey wrench in the plots of the ultra greedy so they sucker fools like you to be their spokespersons.
 
AmericanbyChoic said:
Well, at least they're FINALLY admitting the sun exists… which naturally requires that it has SOME influence on the temperature of the earth's atmosphere and while it ain't much, it's somethin'…
Click to expand...

I assume you are you referring to them admitting it ain't much, not the influence of the sun.

What's next?

Will they realize that water and land absorb and radiate more heat into the atmosphere than ice, which reflects it back into space? How many acres and how much heat does the earth gain by the ice caps moving and exposing just 1 foot more land and sea? But then again, those pesky glaciers only started retreating after mankind kindly put more CO2 into the atmosphere, right?

That some planets/moons are actually heated by friction caused by mechanical movements during changes in gravitational forces during rotation around the sun? Titan, the largest moon of Saturn, actually has surface liquid due to this affect. But I guess that rather large reflective object in our sky that recently passed through it's closest approach to our planet had no such affect upon us.

A couple years ago, we experienced lower than cooler temperatures during the month of August, which was attributed to rapid cooling during low sun spot activity. Strange, no one ever mentions increased sun spot activity when discussing warming.

The level of cosmic radiations hitting the planet, which affects the level of cloudiness also probably isn't a factor.

How much heat is generated and what changes have there been in the radioactive liquid core of the planet? Why don't we see this mentioned in environmental studies?

These and many other factors affect our planet, but for some reason, environmentalist blame everything on man-made emissions and never tell us about everything else. Why is that? What are they trying to hide from us?
 
DVSentinel said:
I assume you are you referring to them admitting it ain't much, not the influence of the sun.

What's next?

Will they realize that water and land absorb and radiate more heat into the atmosphere than ice, which reflects it back into space? How many acres and how much heat does the earth gain by the ice caps moving and exposing just 1 foot more land and sea? But then again, those pesky glaciers only started retreating after mankind kindly put more CO2 into the atmosphere, right?

That some planets/moons are actually heated by friction caused by mechanical movements during changes in gravitational forces during rotation around the sun? Titan, the largest moon of Saturn, actually has surface liquid due to this affect. But I guess that rather large reflective object in our sky that recently passed through it's closest approach to our planet had no such affect upon us.

A couple years ago, we experienced lower than cooler temperatures during the month of August, which was attributed to rapid cooling during low sun spot activity. Strange, no one ever mentions increased sun spot activity when discussing warming.

The level of cosmic radiations hitting the planet, which affects the level of cloudiness also probably isn't a factor.

How much heat is generated and what changes have there been in the radioactive liquid core of the planet? Why don't we see this mentioned in environmental studies?

These and many other factors affect our planet, but for some reason, environmentalist blame everything on man-made emissions and never tell us about everything else. Why is that? What are they trying to hide from us?
Click to expand...


Yup… well said.
 
Threegoofs said:
Hmm. I overestimated with the Makers Mark guess.

More like Old Crow.
Click to expand...

MUST one explain it? It ruins it…

Oh well, I suppose this is the price one pays when one plays with the intellectually less fortunate.

Which of the varying degrees of sea level rise, which you've stood up this evening, would you like to settle upon? I only ask beause of the post prior to the one you're crowing about above, you had SL rising 18" in 85 years… only to return in your next rhetorical breath to celebrate a 'reported' 6" rise in SL over a CENTURY.
 
AmericanbyChoic said:
MUST one explain it? It ruins it…

Oh well, I suppose this is the price one pays when one plays with the intellectually less fortunate.

Which of the varying degrees of sea level rise, which you've stood up this evening, would you like to settle upon? I only ask beause of the post prior to the one you're crowing about above, you had SL rising 18" in 85 years… only to return in your next rhetorical breath to celebrate a 'reported' 6" rise in SL over a CENTURY.
Click to expand...

Yeah. That's not a contradiction.

Look up the word 'accelerating' and get back to me.
 
"Since records began."

So, how long would that be, using instruments as standardized, calibrated and accurate as ours today?
 
Oftencold said:
"Since records began."

So, how long would that be, using instruments as standardized, calibrated and accurate as ours today?
Click to expand...

Mid 1800s, roughly. Thermometers were pretty damn accurate back then, and the Victorians were pretty anal on measurements.

But good data exists to suggest its warmer than anytime in the last 11,000 years.

Thanks for asking.
 
Threegoofs said:
Mid 1800s, roughly. Thermometers were pretty damn accurate back then, and the Victorians were pretty anal on measurements.

But good data exists to suggest its warmer than anytime in the last 11,000 years.

Thanks for asking.
Click to expand...

Even if the instruments n the mid 1800s were exquisitely accurate, and by our standards they weren't, there would have been no reliable way to calibrate them so that they were in agreement to a similar degree. Even clocks wee set to different times in towns a few miles apart.

Good data is not conclusive data, nor is it proof of cause.

For instance, England once had a large wine exports, and vineyards were grown in Greenland.


I am skeptical of AGW for many reasons, not the least of which is our abyssal record of predicting much of anything through science. We can't predict with accuracy the weather, earthquakes, the progress and appearance of new diseases, the behavior of galaxies, the behavior of individual subatomic particles, economic trends, human behavior or the likelihood of a happy marriage.

And yet, governments and the academic institutions that they fund wish to seize and exercise unprecedented power to control a climatological trend that they tell us that they can predict accurately. No one gullible enough to fall for this without great skepticism can afford to feed and house themselves for long if they are equally gullible where their money is concerned.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Unless the Lord or one of his minions can come up with someone who actually said that the sun doesn't matter, then the entire argument is a straw man.

and no amount of trying to change the subject, no amount of ranting about how important the sun may be, is going to change it into a real argument.

Of course the sun is important! If that's what you're trying to argue, then it shouldn't be too hard.
Click to expand...
You entirely miss my point on that. It doesn't surprise me.

Anyone here that understand science?
 
Lord of Planar said:
You entirely miss my point on that. It doesn't surprise me.

Anyone here that understand science?
Click to expand...

You can not back up your statement, and that doesn't surprise me.
Yes, I have an understanding of how the scientific process works, but that isn't the question. The question is, just who ever said that the sun doesn't matter?
 
Oftencold said:
Even if the instruments n the mid 1800s were exquisitely accurate, and by our standards they weren't, there would have been no reliable way to calibrate them so that they were in agreement to a similar degree. Even clocks wee set to different times in towns a few miles apart.

Good data is not conclusive data, nor is it proof of cause.

For instance, England once had a large wine exports, and vineyards were grown in Greenland.


I am skeptical of AGW for many reasons, not the least of which is our abyssal record of predicting much of anything through science. We can't predict with accuracy the weather, earthquakes, the progress and appearance of new diseases, the behavior of galaxies, the behavior of individual subatomic particles, economic trends, human behavior or the likelihood of a happy marriage.

And yet, governments and the academic institutions that they fund wish to seize and exercise unprecedented power to control a climatological trend that they tell us that they can predict accurately. No one gullible enough to fall for this without great skepticism can afford to feed and house themselves for long if they are equally gullible where their money is concerned.
Click to expand...

The thermometers were actually very accurate and calibrated. There weren't too many though, but British Naval records are pretty useful here.

Either way, its confirmed and backed up by temperature proxies that prove the temperature is rising faster than ever before. This isn't a disputed scientific point.

I actually think science has a fantastically good record of predictions. In drug discovery, I'm constantly amazed at chemists designing a molecule that inhibits an enzyme exactly as they say it will. And that inhibition, dontcha know, does pretty much what the physiologists and biologists say it will. It's science.
 
Lord of Planar said:
You entirely miss my point on that. It doesn't surprise me.

Anyone here that understand science?
Click to expand...

You said scientists are saying the sun "doesn't matter" but have yet to back up that statement in any way. So which is it. Are they saying the sun "doesn't matter" or are they saying the sun doesn't matter as much as you think it matters?

Because there's an enormous difference between those two statements, and you don't get to whine about "understanding science" if you can't properly distinguish the two.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom