• 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!

Welcome to a much greener Earth!

Lord of Planar said:
It depends on where you draw the line for "significant."
Click to expand...

If you read the article, you must have noticed that the number they used to claim a 97% consensus with scientists is completely bogus. It's actually a lower quantity of scientists then the number of people who post on this talk board on any given day. When the global warming fanatics use that number to claim a 97% scientific consensus, they are either telling a bald faced lie or they are just completely ignorant and buy into whatever pablum they are fed. In any case, the figures involved in the 97% claim must be based on intellectual honesty before the term "significance" has any meaning.
 
Threegoofs said:
Right. But more accurate context.
Click to expand...

Sure.:roll:

This from the OP. What context do you find inaccurate?

". . . The authors note that the beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilisation have previously been cited by contrarians to argue that carbon emissions need not be reduced.

Co-author Dr Philippe Ciais, from the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences in Gif-sur‑Yvette, France (also an IPCC author), said: "The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change are not acknowledged.
"Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatise to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilisation effect diminishes over time." Future growth is also limited by other factors, such as lack of water or nutrients. . . ."
 
ObamacareFail said:
If you read the article, you must have noticed that the number they used to claim a 97% consensus with scientists is completely bogus. It's actually a lower quantity of scientists then the number of people who post on this talk board on any given day. When the global warming fanatics use that number to claim a 97% scientific consensus, they are either telling a bald faced lie or they are just completely ignorant and buy into whatever pablum they are fed. In any case, the figures involved in the 97% claim must be based on intellectual honesty before the term "significance" has any meaning.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you have seen my several posts that I agree that around 97% of the scientists acknowledge AGW has an effect, but that there is no 97% consensus that AGW is most the warming.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm sure you have seen my several posts that I agree that around 97% of the scientists acknowledge AGW has an effect, but that there is no 97% consensus that AGW is most the warming.
Click to expand...

I do not buy the 97% consensus claim in either category.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, you can count me in with the 97% that agrees man has an impact of warming.
Click to expand...

My point is that regardless of your views or mine, the 97 percent scientific consensus claim is both bogus and intellectually dishonest.
 
ObamacareFail said:
My point is that regardless of your views or mine, the 97 percent scientific consensus claim is both bogus and intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm surprised it wasn't 100% of the scientists saying we impact temperature. The 97% is bogus because the pundits lie about what the number actually represents.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, I'm surprised it wasn't 100% of the scientists saying we impact temperature. The 97% is bogus because the pundits lie about what the number actually represents.
Click to expand...

We do have a slight effect on the temperature. For instance heat does reflect off of a concrete sidewalk, etc, however we have 0% influence on the climate.
 
ObamacareFail said:
We do have a slight effect on the temperature. For instance heat does reflect off of a concrete sidewalk, etc, however we have 0% influence on the climate.
Click to expand...

We still have a small influence at least on the micro-climates.

I acknowledge we impact nature. I just dispute what the pundits claim the number represents.
 
Lord of Planar said:
We still have a small influence at least on the micro-climates.

I acknowledge we impact nature. I just dispute what the pundits claim the number represents.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, nature tosses in more then we can hope to contribute. That includes carbon dioxide, sequestered or not. Climate change is just a natural occurrence and is not all bad. I am just not convinced that we contribute to climate change at all at this point in time.
 
[h=1]Global Warming – a Good Thing?[/h] Posted on 10 May 16 by Paul Matthews • 13 Comments
Bjorn Lomborg has an interesting new article in the Telegraph, No one ever says it, but in many ways global warming will be a good thing. This seems to have been prompted by the recent story of “global greening”, thought to be caused mainly by increasing carbon dioxide levels but with warming playing a role …
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=1]Global Warming – a Good Thing?[/h] Posted on 10 May 16 by Paul Matthews • 13 Comments
Bjorn Lomborg has an interesting new article in the Telegraph, No one ever says it, but in many ways global warming will be a good thing. This seems to have been prompted by the recent story of “global greening”, thought to be caused mainly by increasing carbon dioxide levels but with warming playing a role …
Click to expand...

But wait... I thought you guys said its not warming.

Guess you need to cover all the denier bases just to be sure.
 
Threegoofs said:
But wait... I thought you guys said its not warming.

Guess you need to cover all the denier bases just to be sure.
Click to expand...

Why can't you say the truth about what others say?

Why must you always lie?

Is your position that weak?

Your opposition is not saying the globe is not warming. The disagreement is:

1) How much is real with the constant "corrections?"

2) How much is AGW vs. natural.

3) of the AGW component, how much:

3a) greenhouse gasses
3b) land use
3c) aerosols changing the emissivity, albedo, and transparency of the atmosphere
3d) aerosols changing the emissivity and albedo snow and ice
3e) I'm sure i forgot a few at the spur of the moment...

The only thing the alarmists have that the sheeple will agree to follow, is greenhouse gasses, so the alarmists rarely focus on the other real causes.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
Why can't you say the truth about what others say?

Why must you always lie?

Is your position that weak?

Your opposition is not saying the globe is not warming. The disagreement is:

1) How much is real with the constant "corrections?"

2) How much is AGW vs. natural.

3) of the AGW component, how much:

3a) greenhouse gasses
3b) land use
3c) aerosols changing the emissivity, albedo, and transparency of the atmosphere
3d) aerosols changing the emissivity and albedo snow and ice
3e) I'm sure i forgot a few at the spur of the moment...

The only thing the alarmists have that the sheeple will agree to follow, is greenhouse gasses, so the alarmists rarely focus on the other real causes.
Click to expand...

And, just to cover all the bases, if the reality is that 100% of warming is from CO2, and it's as warm as expected.... It's all good!

CO2 is plant food! Yay!

Science. Try it sometime.
 
Threegoofs said:
Science. Try it sometime.
Click to expand...

I do. It is you that uses confirmation bias to chose what science to believe, as stated buy others, without reading and understanding papers.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I do. It is you that uses confirmation bias to chose what science to believe, as stated buy others, without reading and understanding papers.
Click to expand...

"As stated by others".... by 'others', of course, you mean 'experts in their fields'. Because as we've shown you over and over and over and over again, the experts are in pretty solid agreement.
 
Threegoofs said:
"As stated by others".... by 'others', of course, you mean 'experts in their fields'. Because as we've shown you over and over and over and over again, the experts are in pretty solid agreement.
Click to expand...

There are experts in the same field that disagree.
 
When it comes to planets, I take a terraforming Doritos approach. Crunch all you want we'll make more.
Not really, just my mind goes there :D

Its not bad news at all. Unless the Government is involved then they are making mind control plants...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom