• 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!

Lindzen on the Dishonesty of Climate Alarmism

Jack Hays said:
What's Seen & What Is Not Seen, Climate Edition
Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian

[FONT="]. . . And then, somehow, all these press releases and follow-on articles just disappeared. Any guesses as to what might be happening? Perhaps we should just go and check in on the satellite temperature data set over this period:

[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000][FONT="]
1494277395899



[/FONT]
[FONT="]Aha! The global lower atmosphere temperature has dropped a full .56 deg C (that's almost exactly one full degree F) since its peak in February 2016. Do you think that any of these people would have the common decency to openly admit that fact and discuss it honestly? Don't kid yourself.

[/FONT]
Click to expand...
I have said we really will not know if 2016 was anything significant, until the El Nino is averages out, and that will take about 20 months total.
 
[h=2]ACMA, media watchdog, says lies by omission at the ABC are OK[/h]
This story of Beliaik’s is making waves, cross-posted already at Catallaxy. Through letters and FOI’s he shows that the ABC won’t publish expert stories that don’t fit their personal political beliefs (specifically on climate and corals), and that the main industry “watchdog” is such a puppet they don’t even mind.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]ACMA, media watchdog, says lies by omission at the ABC are OK[/h]
This story of Beliaik’s is making waves, cross-posted already at Catallaxy. Through letters and FOI’s he shows that the ABC won’t publish expert stories that don’t fit their personal political beliefs (specifically on climate and corals), and that the main industry “watchdog” is such a puppet they don’t even mind.
Click to expand...

Next, you can blow the doors off how the media won't publicize expert stories on intelligent design, or the witchcraft theory of disease.
 
Threegoofs said:
Next, you can blow the doors off how the media won't publicize expert stories on intelligent design, or the witchcraft theory of disease.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read the article before making a fool of yourself.
 
Jack Hays said:
Perhaps you should read the article before making a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...

As opposed to copy/pasting from a ridiculous source and making a fool of yourself?

Again, I look forward to your exposé on how mainstream media downplays the theory of witches causing diseases.
 
Threegoofs said:
As opposed to copy/pasting from a ridiculous source and making a fool of yourself?

Again, I look forward to your exposé on how mainstream media downplays the theory of witches causing diseases.
Click to expand...

Feel free to dispute the account in the linked article.
 
I lost my draft screed on this topic, but it essentially came down to a couple of questions: since the GOP is where the skeptics in the USA tend to dwell, and since the party controls the WH and congress, why not appoint a commission to study all the available science, have their report peer reviewed, and suggest relevant policy according to the results? Republicans have the power and the purse to end this foolishness. Have at it. They will be honored as visionaries, however the study turns out, having either set us on a right course through their courage, or prevented us from continuing down some foolish path through their wisdom.

Second, assuming that this is all a big con that has fooled all the major political parties in the world excepting part of the GOP, the oil companies, a significant number of scientists, Science and Scientific American magazines, what do we lose with continuing to limit the use of coal and regulate the use of oil -- other than dirty air?
 
Nickyjo said:
I lost my draft screed on this topic, but it essentially came down to a couple of questions: since the GOP is where the skeptics in the USA tend to dwell, and since the party controls the WH and congress, why not appoint a commission to study all the available science, have their report peer reviewed, and suggest relevant policy according to the results? Republicans have the power and the purse to end this foolishness. Have at it. They will be honored as visionaries, however the study turns out, having either set us on a right course through their courage, or prevented us from continuing down some foolish path through their wisdom.

Second, assuming that this is all a big con that has fooled all the major political parties in the world excepting part of the GOP, the oil companies, a significant number of scientists, Science and Scientific American magazines, what do we lose with continuing to limit the use of coal and regulate the use of oil -- other than dirty air?
Click to expand...

The science will be better off if kept away from politics.
 
Jack Hays said:
The science will be better off if kept away from politics.
Click to expand...

You mean we should listen to the scientists, rather than political blogs with an agenda?

I think you can start with the joint publication by the NAS and Royal Society.
 
Gotta give credit where credit is due. A comic strip is a step up in sources for Jack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom