• 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!

Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040

iguanaman said:
LOL I find that those that hate Trump the most are (former) Republicans and with good reason. Trump has destroyed the GOP and it will never recover. Gore is nothing but low hanging fruit for blind partisans who insist that the health of the Earth is a strictly partisan issue.
Click to expand...

You're just evading the issue. The parallel is nearly exact.
 
Jack Hays said:
You're just evading the issue. The parallel is nearly exact.
Click to expand...

LOL Gore has not been involved in politics since 2004 and Trump is the most divisive President in history. There is no comparison.
 
iguanaman said:
Al Gore is not a climate scientist, why would he debate on climate science? A better question is why are all deniers obsessed with him?
Click to expand...

He's the poster-boy of the global warming nut-cases.

He also based his entire movie and theories on faulty science that his mentor, Roger Revelle, refuted later in life after gathering more evidence.
Gore promptly called his mentor senile, and then shortly after Revelle's death, proudly accepted the Revelle award.
Gore's a lyin' sack o' **** and a back-stabbing little jack-ass.

Just one of those "Inconvenient Truths"...
 
Buzz62 said:
He's the poster-boy of the global warming nut-cases.

He also based his entire movie and theories on faulty science that his mentor, Roger Revelle, refuted later in life after gathering more evidence.
Gore promptly called his mentor senile, and then shortly after Revelle's death, proudly accepted the Revelle award.
Gore's a lyin' sack o' **** and a back-stabbing little jack-ass.

Just one of those "Inconvenient Truths"...
Click to expand...

Sounds like SOMEBODY has been reading a little to much World Net Daily. [emoji2957]
 
Buzz62 said:
He's the poster-boy of the global warming nut-cases.

He also based his entire movie and theories on faulty science that his mentor, Roger Revelle, refuted later in life after gathering more evidence.
Gore promptly called his mentor senile, and then shortly after Revelle's death, proudly accepted the Revelle award.
Gore's a lyin' sack o' **** and a back-stabbing little jack-ass.

Just one of those "Inconvenient Truths"...
Click to expand...

LOL Since when is the greenhouse effect "faulty science? I think you are the faulty one. AGW is real and it is pointless to debate it.

59690_cartoon_main.jpg
 
Last edited:
bubbabgone said:
I got it directly from the first book which, I assume, got it from the second book. No blog was involved.

Don't you realize that everyone can see you're avoiding addressing the fact that an alarmist insider acknowledged that the IPCC is rife with government influence?
That's what "governed by a Bureau consisting of selected governmental representatives, thus ensuring that the Panel's work was clearly seen to be serving the needs of government and policy. The Panel was not to be a self-governing body of independent scientists." means.
And that climate change is "a classic example of post-normal science" means that AGW is being used as a tool ... in this case for socio-political purposes.
Oh yeah, Hulme also admitted AGW is a means to a political end.
Care to comment this time?

All you have is this failed diversion attempt about blogs so it would be better if you just slinked away.
Either way, your cred is already shot.
Click to expand...

I call BS. You got it from a conspiracy climate truther blog dishonestly using quote-mines and have never read the books themselves. You just swallowed it whole and accepted it. Climate truthers are yawningingly predictable in their tactics, much like anti-science Creationists.

Meanwhile, you miss the glaringly obvious fact that the science (and reality) just isn't on your 'side'. You have zero credibility.
 
Last edited:
Quaestio said:
I call BS. You got it from a conspiracy climate truther blog dishonestly using quote-mines and have never read the books themselves. You just swallowed it whole and accepted it. Climate truthers are yawningingly predictable in their tactics, much like anti-science Creationists.

Meanwhile, you miss the glaringly obvious fact that the science (and reality) just isn't on your 'side'. You have zero credibility.
Click to expand...

Claims without foundation.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL Since when is the greenhouse effect "faulty science? I think you are the faulty one. AGW is real and it is pointless to debate it.

59690_cartoon_main.jpg
Click to expand...

It has been very profitable for the fossil fuel companies to keep the debate about AGW alive. That they have delayed the transition away from fossil fuels by funding massive disinformation campaigns for many decades. While at the same time they have known that AGW was real and would have devasting effects.

https://www.smokeandfumes.org/fumes

That this have led to that it today will be very hard to avoid many of the devasting effects of climate change. Even if we have both a duty and opportunity to try to reduce those negative effects. Like for example that even American coal states like Indiana is abandoning coal for cheaper renewable energy.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/0...ith-renewables-will-save-customers-4-billion/
 
Quaestio said:
I call BS. You got it from a conspiracy climate truther blog dishonestly using quote-mines and have never read the books themselves. You just swallowed it whole and accepted it. Climate truthers are yawningingly predictable in their tactics, much like anti-science Creationists.

Meanwhile, you miss the glaringly obvious fact that the science (and reality) just isn't on your 'side'. You have zero credibility.
Click to expand...
And I call diversion BS.
I own the book, I've read the book, and can show you a snapshot of the pages with the quotes.

Now, address what Hulme said about the IPCC ... "governed by a Bureau consisting of selected governmental representatives, thus ensuring that the Panel's work was clearly seen to be serving the needs of government and policy. The Panel was not to be a self-governing body of independent scientists." Was he lying?
And about AGW itself he said it was "a classic example of post-normal science". Maybe you don't know what that means.

What he said should be your concern ... not who reported what he said.

You're pretty typical of armchair alarmists so you come off as incredibly naive about many aspects of the AGW industry ... and it is an industry.
 
bubbabgone said:
And I call diversion BS.
I own the book, I've read the book, and can show you a snapshot of the pages with the quotes.

Now, address what Hulme said about the IPCC ... "governed by a Bureau consisting of selected governmental representatives, thus ensuring that the Panel's work was clearly seen to be serving the needs of government and policy. The Panel was not to be a self-governing body of independent scientists." Was he lying?
And about AGW itself he said it was "a classic example of post-normal science". Maybe you don't know what that means.

What he said should be your concern ... not who reported what he said.

You're pretty typical of armchair alarmists so you come off as incredibly naive about many aspects of the AGW industry ... and it is an industry.
Click to expand...

You get your info from Heartland and Regenery Press, and you have the cojones to tell someone ELSE that they are naïve!

LOLZ
 
Threegoofs said:
Sounds like SOMEBODY has been reading a little to much World Net Daily. [emoji2957]
Click to expand...

Or maybe this SOMEBODY is not willing to simply choke down sketchy theories when all the latest and real evidence shows the whole thing is based on faulty assumptions.
Revelle himself, as well as numerous NASA scientists have said as much.
 
Buzz62 said:
Or maybe this SOMEBODY is not willing to simply choke down sketchy theories when all the latest and real evidence shows the whole thing is based on faulty assumptions.
Revelle himself, as well as numerous NASA scientists have said as much.
Click to expand...

I’ll stick with scientists who actually study this, thanks.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL Since when is the greenhouse effect "faulty science? I think you are the faulty one. AGW is real and it is pointless to debate it.

59690_cartoon_main.jpg
Click to expand...

Then why did Revelle and numerous NASA scientists say otherwise???
 
Last edited:
Bergslagstroll said:
It has been very profitable for the fossil fuel companies to keep the debate about AGW alive. That they have delayed the transition away from fossil fuels by funding massive disinformation campaigns for many decades. While at the same time they have known that AGW was real and would have devasting effects.

https://www.smokeandfumes.org/fumes

That this have led to that it today will be very hard to avoid many of the devasting effects of climate change. Even if we have both a duty and opportunity to try to reduce those negative effects. Like for example that even American coal states like Indiana is abandoning coal for cheaper renewable energy.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/0...ith-renewables-will-save-customers-4-billion/
Click to expand...

Yes the fossil fuel industry has taken a page from "big tobacco's" playbook and spends millions to create doubt where there is none. They do "research" on alternative energy simply so they can claim "It's not ready yet".

cg52ceb077cb2ed.jpg
 
Buzz62 said:
:lamo
You don't even know who Revelle was...do you.

Oh and then there...
https://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4
That little Inconvenient Truth... :roll:
Click to expand...

Why do you latch on to the tiny minority of contrarians- most of whom are not even educated in a relevant field? Do you know how many people work for NASA?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/12/attacks-climate-science-nasa-staff

"These are individuals purporting to be experts but whose views are inconsistent with established knowledge. Fake experts have been used extensively by the tobacco industry who developed a strategy to recruit scientists who would counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke."

We have seen many examples of climate denialists producing long lists of fake experts, for example the Oregon Petition and the Wall Street Journal 16. Now we have yet another of these lists of fake experts. 49 former National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) employees (led by Harrison Schmitt, who was also one of the Wall Street Journal 16) have registered their objection to mainstream climate science through the most popular medium of expressing climate contrarianism - a letter. As is usually the case in these climate contrarian letters, this one has no scientific content, and is written by individuals with not an ounce of climate science expertise, but who nevertheless have the audacity to tell climate scientists what they should think about climate science.
 
Cassandra said:
Why do you latch on to the tiny minority of contrarians- most of whom are not even educated in a relevant field? Do you know how many people work for NASA?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/12/attacks-climate-science-nasa-staff

"These are individuals purporting to be experts but whose views are inconsistent with established knowledge. Fake experts have been used extensively by the tobacco industry who developed a strategy to recruit scientists who would counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke."

We have seen many examples of climate denialists producing long lists of fake experts, for example the Oregon Petition and the Wall Street Journal 16. Now we have yet another of these lists of fake experts. 49 former National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) employees (led by Harrison Schmitt, who was also one of the Wall Street Journal 16) have registered their objection to mainstream climate science through the most popular medium of expressing climate contrarianism - a letter. As is usually the case in these climate contrarian letters, this one has no scientific content, and is written by individuals with not an ounce of climate science expertise, but who nevertheless have the audacity to tell climate scientists what they should think about climate science.
Click to expand...

Mostly because I don't believe this doomsday crap.
Also because the Father of Global Warming himself, recanted his original findings after further data was available.
 
Threegoofs said:
I’ll pass. Now you’re digging up eight year old denier blog posts.

Meanwhile,

417b740990572fdcf0d67067ec19ff1f.jpg
Click to expand...

:lamo
Ya whatever...

They're gonna spend hundreds of millions...if not billions...and find it had little to no effect.
In the meantime, the entire global economy will be adversely affected...over nothing.

Bravo lemmings.
 
bubbabgone said:
And I call diversion BS.
I own the book, I've read the book, and can show you a snapshot of the pages with the quotes.

Now, address what Hulme said about the IPCC ... "governed by a Bureau consisting of selected governmental representatives, thus ensuring that the Panel's work was clearly seen to be serving the needs of government and policy. The Panel was not to be a self-governing body of independent scientists." Was he lying?
And about AGW itself he said it was "a classic example of post-normal science". Maybe you don't know what that means.

What he said should be your concern ... not who reported what he said.

You're pretty typical of armchair alarmists so you come off as incredibly naive about many aspects of the AGW industry ... and it is an industry.
Click to expand...

Sure you 'own the book'. But go ahead and waste your money buying it now just to try to prove a point on an anonymous forum. ;)

Once again, you refuse to write what conspiracy blog you got the quote mines from. Typical attempts at deflection from the fact that you are clueless about the science, and that pseudoscience conspiracy blogs are your sources of 'information'

(PS: Visbek already destroyed your conspiracy based 'argument' about the IPCC)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom