• 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 Conspiracy theories

MrWonderful said:
You calling the remarks of a Nobel laureate in physics "a rant" is so typical of Al Gore and followers. Al Gore flunked out of Vanderbilt Divinity School and earned a grade of "D" in the only science class he ever took.

You calling the remarks of countless scientists, of NASA staff members, and others "a rant" is inaccurate, biased, unscientific, and petty.

The internet is not filled with scientists and scholars dissenting from the Climate Change Sharia for nothing. It's not a "rant" because you can't handle the facts.
Click to expand...

Gore's Law - RationalWiki
 
OscarLevant said:
The problem with your "consensus doesn't equal true" argument, while that may be true, but climate change is the one subject, if true, represents an existential threat.

Therefore, if we are to err, since it is debatable and many in science uphold it, why not err on trying to do something about it, tather than doing nothing?

It could definitely represent an existential threat, which is why I am of the above opinion.


If we are wrong, by doing something, all we lose are some jobs and some money (and even that is debatable ).


Losing those things is not an existential threat.

But, not doing something about climate change ( if it is possible, and it might be ) does represent a possible existential threat.
Click to expand...

I think you quoted the wrong poster.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Funny, but true. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, Climate Truthers bring up Al Gore because they don't have a freakin' clue about science. Lazy whiny ignorant bunch.
 
Quaestio said:
Yes, Climate Truthers bring up Al Gore because they don't have a freakin' clue about science. Lazy whiny ignorant bunch.
Click to expand...

As soon as this subject becomes politicised by the unqualified, all hope of a rational conversation on the subject is lost.
 
Deuce said:
In the sense that you can design an airplane in hours too. You can do it, it'll just be terrible work and probably kill a bunch of people.
Click to expand...

And a Nobel prize winning physicist would spot that within a few minutes.

Even though he is not an aircraft design graduate.

Go figure!
 
OscarLevant said:
The problem with your "consensus doesn't equal true" argument, while that may be true, but climate change is the one subject, if true, represents an existential threat.

Therefore, if we are to err, since it is debatable and many in science uphold it, why not err on trying to do something about it, tather than doing nothing?

It could definitely represent an existential threat, which is why I am of the above opinion.


If we are wrong, by doing something, all we lose are some jobs and some money (and even that is debatable ).


Losing those things is not an existential threat.

But, not doing something about climate change ( if it is possible, and it might be ) does represent a possible existential threat.
Click to expand...

Does the cost of millions of unnecessary deaths per year that is currently being paid by the poor matter at all?
 
Glitch said:
There are no scientists in the IPCC, just politicians and administrators. The IPCC is a government entity whose sole purpose is to pervert actual science in order to serve their Marxist agenda to redistribute wealth.
Click to expand...

Really? Tell us more about this massive worldwide conspiracy where tens of thousands of scientists, every major Science institution and University from all over the planet are all in on the coverup....
 
OscarLevant said:
How do you figure?
Click to expand...

Today 40% of American arable farming production is diverted to biofuel. The EU does a similar thing with different crops. The largest customer of grain in the UK i,ports Russian grain to make diesel.

The effect of all this is to make basic food prices to be twice as high as they should be.

For us rich people that will add up to around $700 per year. It hardly matters, we don't really notice that.

For the poor of the world it is devastating. 3 billion people live on less than $2.50 a day. For these people, who will be paying around $500 per year more than they would be if we stopped this, it causes them to massively die lots.

The live expectancy of people who have this sort of income is in the 40s. If they were able to buy food at the price it should be, that without the artificial inflation, they would have life expectancies around 60.

20 million less deaths is a conservative figure I think.

This article from the world bank comes out with a figure of 200,000.

Biofuels Policy May Kill 200,000 Per Year in the Third World

I don't think they are right. But maybe their crayon is rusty. Or maybe they don't really care about poor people like Quaestio.
 
Last edited:
Tim the plumber said:
Today 40% of American arable farming production is diverted to biofuel. The EU does a similar thing with different crops. The largest customer of grain in the UK i,ports Russian grain to make diesel.

The effect of all this is to make basic food prices to be twice as high as they should be.

For us rich people that will add up to around $700 per year. It hardly matters, we don't really notice that.

For the poor of the world it is devastating. 3 billion people live on less than $2.50 a day. For these people, who will be paying around $500 per year more than they would be if we stopped this, it causes them to massively die lots.

The live expectancy of people who have this sort of income is in the 40s. If they were able to buy food at the price it should be, that without the artificial inflation, they would have life expectancies around 60.

20 million less deaths is a conservative figure I think.

This article from the world bank comes out with a figure of 200,000.

Biofuels Policy May Kill 200,000 Per Year in the Third World

I don't think they are right. But maybe their crayon is rusty. Or maybe they don't really care about poor people like Quaestio.
Click to expand...

So scratch biofuels from the new green deal list.
 
I wonder if people saying a physicist would not know much about the how greenhouse gasses work,
also discount the work of James Hansen who has his PhD in Physics,
or Michael Mann who also has his terminal degree in Physics.
Physics is at the very heart of the concept of AGW, and is by no means settled.
No one yet has a valid explanation why the majority of the observed average warming
is occurring in the minimum temperatures and not the maximum temperatures.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.4688
A understanding of CO2's quantum energy states and extremely long stable energy states (tens of ms),
leads to something called a population inversion which would limit it's absorption capabilities.
CO2 likely has less than a .1% chance of absorbing a 15 um photon and re emitting another 15 um photon.
Far more likely is that the higher CO2 energy state would be lowered by collision with other atoms or molecules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom