• 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!

Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says[W:46]

Stop with your pseudo-psycho babble... You're not qualified to make that kind of determination.

But, maybe you are right, it's stupid to look at the raw data to determine if it validates or violates the running hypothesis.

How is it that I am the one not accepting facts when I'm looking at the data, and you tell me I'm wrong based on dogma?

Oh, almost missed how it's ME that changes the terms whenever the previous terms stop getting people to buy into the scam?

Again not wrong based on dogma. You are wrong based on the observable facts.

Yes, it is climate change deniers who keep changing the argument. First it was OK, climate change is real and we need to do something about but it should be market based solutions. That then turned into climate is just a bunch a bull****. Then as the science became more and more a concensus the argument morphed into well not all scientist agree anyway this is still a bunch of bull****. Then climate change started to occur in a observable ways and became a threefold argument against it. First, climate change exists but it is not caused by human actions. Second argument is climate change may or not be happening and may or may not be caused by humans but there is nothing we can do about it anyway. The third and last argument being climate change may exist but we would ruin the U.S. economy by tryiing to do something about and besides the Chinese are worse. This last one is my most favorite because it is the age old argument that second graders used to make until they found it out it doesn't work. "I may be wrong but they are wronger see....see....
 
:lamo You guys are killing me. You're so caught up in your elaborate imagination, taking to heart what you hear from right-wing propaganda, you've taken the bait hook, line, and sinker.

Ignorance and the inability to think critically is the root evil that is corrupting America.
Naw, dood...whats killing you is your pathetic pretense it ISNT people like you that bailed on the AGW phrase.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

The ice cap is growing. You know that, right?

Here in Louisiana it snowed three times this winter.

Hell, I'll be glad when global warming kicks in! LOL!!

That is a very interesting comment from someone who lives in a state who is losing marshland to the Gulf of Mexico at a rate of more than two acres per hour.
 
Naw, dood...whats killing you is your pathetic pretense it ISNT people like you that bailed on the AGW phrase.

You're seriously arguing that a label is the linchpin that sways the debate?

I've already tried to explain what the two different labels mean, yet you cling to the notion it is the product of poor science coming apart at the seams. Bizarre does not begin to describe this kind of rationale.
 
So let me get this right. The scientists are all part of a conspiracy to falsify data? You also don't listen to the right-wing propaganda sites because they are no good too? You however, have the data, the calculations, you've got it all figured out that it is all a big lie. Ohhhkay, :thumbs:

Why don't you build a website and showcase all this.

It's better than that. The scientists falsify and manipulate the data, and then falsify and manipulate the interpretation of the data, and then falsify the fact that thee is a consensus based upon the false data with manipulated interpretation.

But miraculously, BMan knows it's not true because he has the data. From those scientists. Presented in graphs. That apparently everyone believes because there is no consensus.


LOL.
 
You're seriously arguing that a label is the linchpin that sways the debate?

I've already tried to explain what the two different labels mean, yet you cling to the notion it is the product of poor science coming apart at the seams. Bizarre does not begin to describe this kind of rationale.
Look how easily you cede the point. Yes...you HAD to abandon the AGW label because the data always falls short. You have to try to find SOME new tactic to make it relevant, so you co-opt a label that is undeniable. OF COURSE the climate changes.

Now...about that whole 'proof that man causes climate change" thing....

You what is REALLY pathetic? People like you kept your mouths shut on Global Warming until Bush became president. Even though Kyoto was passed in 1996, people didnt say dick about Bill Clintons 'failure' to sign Kyoto. They waited until George Bush became pres and then for 8 years you wore your arms out banging that drum. Since Obama became president? Crickets. If a republican is elected, you will go right back to the protests and rallies and demands for action. If a democrat is elected...more silence.

Pathetic.
 
Solar power on a large scale is at best an oxymoron - at worst a waste of money. Solar power is too inefficient and you couldn't move a train if you tried with solar power.

Wind and turbines on the other hand makes way more sense.

Obviously free energy is impossible but wind turbines is the key to the future of energy - that and different forms of friction.
Photovoltaic power is indeed low density, but now that we have the ability to store energy in man made hydrocarbons,
the density of the energy is not as important.
By having a real storage method, the energy can be accumulated, to the desired density.
A quick back of the napkin calculation.
SolarEdge Solar Power System - 20 SolarWorld Solar Panels
this system says it has 20, 275 watt panels and produces 741 kWh per month,
the panels are 25 '^2 each,
An acre is 44,000 square feet, so lets say you can cover 25,000 '^2 with panels.
25,000/25= 1000, IF 20 panels produced 741 kWh per month,
1000 panels would produce 741*50 = 37,050 kWh per month.
Diesel takes about 66kWh per gallon to make, so one acre of panels,
would make about 37,050/66= 561 gallons per month.
This may not sound like much, until you see how much corn you can get out of an acre,
or how many acres you need for each wind turbine.
the wind does not blow everywhere, but the sun shines almost every day, and every where.
 
Look how easily you cede the point. Yes...you HAD to abandon the AGW label because the data always falls short. You have to try to find SOME new tactic to make it relevant, so you co-opt a label that is undeniable. OF COURSE the climate changes.

Now...about that whole 'proof that man causes climate change" thing....

You what is REALLY pathetic? People like you kept your mouths shut on Global Warming until Bush became president. Even though Kyoto was passed in 1996, people didnt say dick about Bill Clintons 'failure' to sign Kyoto. They waited until George Bush became pres and then for 8 years you wore your arms out banging that drum. Since Obama became president? Crickets. If a republican is elected, you will go right back to the protests and rallies and demands for action. If a democrat is elected...more silence.

Pathetic.

This is actually humorous. All the labelling changes have always been a product of politics and the media. The science and scientific theory has never wavered. What is equally funny is this second grade game of well they are just as bad as us name calling. To top all this off your facts are just more than a little off. The Clinton Administration DID sign onto the Kyoto Protocols what they did not do, as a result of politics, was submit the treaty for approval noting Senate opposition. The furor of the Bush Administration began shortly after they took over in '01 because they immediately scrapped the Kyoto Protocols and removed the U.S. from participation. The two are not exactly equal and to say the Clinton Administration did nothing is a lie.
 
Look how easily you cede the point. Yes...you HAD to abandon the AGW label because the data always falls short. You have to try to find SOME new tactic to make it relevant, so you co-opt a label that is undeniable. OF COURSE the climate changes.

Now...about that whole 'proof that man causes climate change" thing....

You what is REALLY pathetic? People like you kept your mouths shut on Global Warming until Bush became president. Even though Kyoto was passed in 1996, people didnt say dick about Bill Clintons 'failure' to sign Kyoto. They waited until George Bush became pres and then for 8 years you wore your arms out banging that drum. Since Obama became president? Crickets. If a republican is elected, you will go right back to the protests and rallies and demands for action. If a democrat is elected...more silence.

Pathetic.

Nobody has abandoned AGW, regardless of the label it is still the driver of climate change. When somebody says "global warming" it sounds as if the effect is that it gets warmer everywhere on Earth. Overall this is true but it does not really tell the whole story. Climate change is a much better label because it encompasses all the many effects of global warming. It is wetter in some areas, drier in others, weather patterns change, warmer in some areas, cooler in others. Under AGW "climate change" the climate is still getting warmer overall.

I imagine you did not read the Wikipedia links about global warming and climate change so that you can understand for yourself what the labels mean.

Clinton, Bush, Obama... I really do not give a **** about them. They are not our daddies that we need to make everything better for us. If we want to change policy for the better it is up to the people to demand it. As long as many remain ignorant and support the destruction of the environment in exchange for short term profits we are going to be bound by a serious problem that will likely have devastating consequences. This is bigger than petty left vs right politics.
 
Nobody has abandoned AGW, regardless of the label it is still the driver of climate change. When somebody says "global warming" it sounds as if the effect is that it gets warmer everywhere on Earth. Overall this is true but it does not really tell the whole story. Climate change is a much better label because it encompasses all the many effects of global warming. It is wetter in some areas, drier in others, weather patterns change, warmer in some areas, cooler in others. Under AGW "climate change" the climate is still getting warmer overall.

I imagine you did not read the Wikipedia links about global warming and climate change so that you can understand for yourself what the labels mean.

Clinton, Bush, Obama... I really do not give a **** about them. They are not our daddies that we need to make everything better for us. If we want to change policy for the better it is up to the people to demand it. As long as many remain ignorant and support the destruction of the environment in exchange for short term profits we are going to be bound by a serious problem that will likely have devastating consequences. This is bigger than petty left vs right politics.
Its funny you continue this pretense that the names and labels dont matter, and yet...what happened to the Global Warming rhetoric? It was abandoned...because for all the hype and all the 'consensus', the raw data has great big gaping holes. Thats why the AGW crowd has usurped the "Climate change" label...because hell...at least we KNOW the climate will always change. Then if someone questions mans involvement in the process you can scream like Donald Sutherland and have SOME semblance of credibility.
 
This is actually humorous. All the labelling changes have always been a product of politics and the media. The science and scientific theory has never wavered. What is equally funny is this second grade game of well they are just as bad as us name calling. To top all this off your facts are just more than a little off. The Clinton Administration DID sign onto the Kyoto Protocols what they did not do, as a result of politics, was submit the treaty for approval noting Senate opposition. The furor of the Bush Administration began shortly after they took over in '01 because they immediately scrapped the Kyoto Protocols and removed the U.S. from participation. The two are not exactly equal and to say the Clinton Administration did nothing is a lie.
Cute. SO...they signed the treaty which did nothing and refused to submit it to the Senate for passage for 4 years (and not because of 'politics' but because the Byrd Amendment GUARANTEED it would never pass)...but boy...you can come out from under the rocks when Bush was president (and you did...for 8 long years). And now...poooooooooof....vapor...
 
Its funny you continue this pretense that the names and labels dont matter, and yet...what happened to the Global Warming rhetoric? It was abandoned...because for all the hype and all the 'consensus', the raw data has great big gaping holes. Thats why the AGW crowd has usurped the "Climate change" label...because hell...at least we KNOW the climate will always change. Then if someone questions mans involvement in the process you can scream like Donald Sutherland and have SOME semblance of credibility.

:doh

I think I'm going to give up on you. Cling to ignorance and right-wing conspiracy, I don't care. A morning of basic research could clean up all these misconceptions but you are resistant to new information.
 
:doh

I think I'm going to give up on you. Cling to ignorance and right-wing conspiracy, I don't care. A morning of basic research could clean up all these misconceptions but you are resistant to new information.
Dont give up...just tell me you have definitive poof that mankind has caused the 'global warming' and show us the raw data that supports it. Or...you know...just admit that you are a cause driven puppet that bought into the Global Warming Argument when Gore was banging that drum like a monkey and you are un-curious and un-skeptical and believe everything without questioning and are willing to parrot other peoples words in the glorious pursuit of your cause.

You know what the one constant has been about the climate since there has BEEN a climate? Change.
 
Dont give up...just tell me you have definitive poof that mankind has caused the 'global warming' and show us the raw data that supports it. Or...you know...just admit that you are a cause driven puppet that bought into the Global Warming Argument when Gore was banging that drum like a monkey and you are un-curious and un-skeptical and believe everything without questioning and are willing to parrot other peoples words in the glorious pursuit of your cause.

You know what the one constant has been about the climate since there has BEEN a climate? Change.

Have you ever taken a look at the evidence? I know you haven't because you say things that make it obvious you know absolutely nothing about climate science or science in general. Take for instance your meme about "climate has always been changing". Ignorant people think this is witty, little do they know they give away their understanding when they do it. Of course the climate is constantly changing, anyone who was awake during high school Earth science would know this. When we talk about agw we are talking about changing the climate from its natural variability. If you took even a preliminary look at the evidence you would know this.

You mock me for having faith in science? Look at what science has given us, the computer you're communicating with, the moon landing, the theory of relativity. Science as a whole has a stellar record. So what am I going to trust? Science or... right-wing blogs? Politicians? I don't trust Al Gore, I trust science. Should I trust the fossil fuel industry over science? I don't think so. If you knew even the first thing about science and scientists, you would know that they care about the truth more than money, or fame, or anything. They are devoted to their work and only care about discovery, about learning. Yet you think these same people are all part of an elaborate conspiracy to lie? How stupid is that.

So really, who is the fool here? Tell me who it is you trust?
 
QUOTE=VanceMack;1063311427]Cute. SO...they signed the treaty which did nothing and refused to submit it to the Senate for passage for 4 years (and not because of 'politics' but because the Byrd Amendment GUARANTEED it would never pass)...but boy...you can come out from under the rocks when Bush was president (and you did...for 8 long years). And now...poooooooooof....vapor...[/QUOTE]

So you admit that your previous post was either in error or intentionally misleading whe you stated President Clinton failed to sign Kyoto. A little progress here.

Now to the larger point of your argument. Does it really matter what other Presidents have or have not done in the past? Or how active people are or are not at any point in time on this issue? We are confronted with the accelerating effects climate change. Finger pointing seems to me to be just a bit childish at this point.
 
We are confronted with the accelerating effects climate change. Finger pointing seems to me to be just a bit childish at this point.
Global temperatures are still warming, but the decade to decade growth has slowed down A LOT!
decade_delta.png
From the GISS global average data set.
The 2003 to 2013 rate of acceleration was 39 times slower than the 1993 to 2003 rate.
So it is still warming, but the amount of warming is down in the noise.
 
Global temperatures are still warming, but the decade to decade growth has slowed down A LOT!
View attachment 67166921
From the GISS global average data set.
The 2003 to 2013 rate of acceleration was 39 times slower than the 1993 to 2003 rate.
So it is still warming, but the amount of warming is down in the noise.

Please provide a link to the data you are using. There are a lot of charts floating around out there that show a wide variety of information. Most of which is hand picked. If you pick on specific spot or spots to choos data from your results can be skewed. As you can see from my link it is clear that overall, over both land an sea temperatures are rising and rising at an accelerating rate.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
 
Please provide a link to the data you are using. There are a lot of charts floating around out there that show a wide variety of information. Most of which is hand picked. If you pick on specific spot or spots to choos data from your results can be skewed. As you can see from my link it is clear that overall, over both land an sea temperatures are rising and rising at an accelerating rate.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

Up until 18 years ago. ...

God damn for a group that claims to be about the science, you people are oblivious to the data.
 
Up until 18 years ago. ...

God damn for a group that claims to be about the science, you people are oblivious to the data.

Please provide a link to your "data". Or is it super-secret climate deniers eyes only.
 
Please provide a link to the data you are using. There are a lot of charts floating around out there that show a wide variety of information. Most of which is hand picked. If you pick on specific spot or spots to choos data from your results can be skewed. As you can see from my link it is clear that overall, over both land an sea temperatures are rising and rising at an accelerating rate.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
I used the J-D column, and expressed the data in degrees C.
I just started with the GISS last full year, and got the difference from the decade before,
repeating back to 1883.
 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
I used the J-D column, and expressed the data in degrees C.
I just started with the GISS last full year, and got the difference from the decade before,
repeating back to 1883.

Wouldn't a five year moving average be a bit more....honest?

a7enuzy9.jpg
 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
I used the J-D column, and expressed the data in degrees C.
I just started with the GISS last full year, and got the difference from the decade before,
repeating back to 1883.

Thanks for the link. To me doing the data that way is a flawed way of looking at the data. The reason is it pulling data from random specific years does not take into account outliers and has a tendency to miss the large picture. A more accurate representation would be to take an average of each decade and compare them that way. That has its own problems also (taking and average of an average is fraught with inaccuracy). Their are two possible ways to get a better more accurate representation of the data. One is to perform a year by year comparison of each decades average. The second way is plot a line chart with all the data. If you apply a line chart it becomes much easier to see. You can however see it also straight from the chart. It isn't that easy but one quick way to gauge is just on the sheer number of negative temperature (temp drops). They completely disappear after 1994. If you again look closer at the chart you can tell that while the numbers may not be getting too much higher than where they were in the 90's and early 2000's the lower numbers are not anywhere near the lower numbers for the 90's.
 
Have you ever taken a look at the evidence? I know you haven't because you say things that make it obvious you know absolutely nothing about climate science or science in general. Take for instance your meme about "climate has always been changing". Ignorant people think this is witty, little do they know they give away their understanding when they do it. Of course the climate is constantly changing, anyone who was awake during high school Earth science would know this. When we talk about agw we are talking about changing the climate from its natural variability. If you took even a preliminary look at the evidence you would know this.

You mock me for having faith in science? Look at what science has given us, the computer you're communicating with, the moon landing, the theory of relativity. Science as a whole has a stellar record. So what am I going to trust? Science or... right-wing blogs? Politicians? I don't trust Al Gore, I trust science. Should I trust the fossil fuel industry over science? I don't think so. If you knew even the first thing about science and scientists, you would know that they care about the truth more than money, or fame, or anything. They are devoted to their work and only care about discovery, about learning. Yet you think these same people are all part of an elaborate conspiracy to lie? How stupid is that.

So really, who is the fool here? Tell me who it is you trust?
Oh I believe in science...just not the mindless junk science that is continuously promoted by the AGW crowd. The one constant in the push to prove that man has created Global Warming (again...notice how you capitulate on the global warming and lower the bar...please...GAWD let us prove man is somehow INFLUENCING the climate change) is that the science has NOT proven that man is causing global warming. Hell, they have to create computer models and manipulate data to try and get it to show what it is 'supposed' to show.
 
QUOTE=VanceMack;1063311427]Cute. SO...they signed the treaty which did nothing and refused to submit it to the Senate for passage for 4 years (and not because of 'politics' but because the Byrd Amendment GUARANTEED it would never pass)...but boy...you can come out from under the rocks when Bush was president (and you did...for 8 long years). And now...poooooooooof....vapor...

So you admit that your previous post was either in error or intentionally misleading whe you stated President Clinton failed to sign Kyoto. A little progress here.

Now to the larger point of your argument. Does it really matter what other Presidents have or have not done in the past? Or how active people are or are not at any point in time on this issue? We are confronted with the accelerating effects climate change. Finger pointing seems to me to be just a bit childish at this point.[/QUOTE]Not at all. Clinton sent Gore to endorse the Treaty but the treaty is WORTHLESS until it is ratified by the senate and signed by the president. And that happened...never.

Its really NOT about what the presidents did or did not do. Its about the Global Warming crowd and their tendency to find their voice ONLY when it is a republican in the White House.
 
Last edited:
So you admit that your previous post was either in error or intentionally misleading whe you stated President Clinton failed to sign Kyoto. A little progress here.

Now to the larger point of your argument. Does it really matter what other Presidents have or have not done in the past? Or how active people are or are not at any point in time on this issue? We are confronted with the accelerating effects climate change. Finger pointing seems to me to be just a bit childish at this point.
Not at all. Clinton sent Gore to endorse the Treaty but the treaty is WORTHLESS until it is ratified by the senate and signed by the president. And that happened...never.

Its really NOT about what the presidents did or did not do. Its about the Global Warming crowd and their tendency to find their voice ONLY when it is a republican in the White House.[/QUOTE]

You stated just a few posts ago and I quote....

Bill Clintons 'failure' to sign Kyoto.

Now you are saying he may of signed it but Congress didn't ratify it. Ergo your original statement above is eithr wrong or you were intentionally trying to mislead people. Either way it doesn't matter.

The idea of relegating climate change to partisan issue is assanine.

To your point about "junk" science you are fool if you do not believe there is good science backing up AGW. The indication of which dates back to 1883. We know for a FACT that CO2 absorbs long-wave radiation and deflects it back in all directions. Solar radiation is predominantly short wave. Ergo Short wave comes in heats up the earth the earth emits long-wave radiation. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the more heat gets radiated back to the earth. This really is eigth grade science. It is not junk science. It is provable, observable and recreatable.
 
Back
Top Bottom