• 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!

Why are US scientific agencies still pushing AGW?

V

vegas giants

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2017
Messages
122,485
Reaction score
19,845
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If the gop controls congress and the presidency and thus controls all grants and funding....why are US science agencies still pushing AGW? I thought it was all about the money. Can't Trump ask the heads of NASA, NOAA and the National Academies of Science to resign?
 
China will continue to pump bribe money to those agencies, no matter who's in charge. Until those God damned red Chi Coms are exposed, we're all helpless victims.



:D
 
ecofarm said:
China will continue to pump bribe money to those agencies, no matter who's in charge. Until those God damned red Chi Coms are exposed, we're all helpless victims.



:D
Click to expand...

China is bribing NASA, NOAA and the national Academy of Sciences? Really?
 
vegas giants said:
China is bribing NASA, NOAA and the national Academy of Sciences? Really?
Click to expand...

Doesn't make any sense whatsoever, no matter how you look at it. China is going to take over the renewable energy market, as Trump lessens the US involvement. China is increasing infrastructure for trade routes with all of Europe, ensuring business partnerships well into the future. Trump's isolation of the US plays right into China's hands, so they don't care about his irrational decisions.
 
vegas giants said:
If the gop controls congress and the presidency and thus controls all grants and funding....why are US science agencies still pushing AGW? I thought it was all about the money. Can't Trump ask the heads of NASA, NOAA and the National Academies of Science to resign?
Click to expand...

Why are they still "pushing AGW"? Because the scientific evidence is overwhelming and it's an objective fact. Nothing Trump can say or do can change that.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Why are they still "pushing AGW"? Because the scientific evidence is overwhelming and it's an objective fact. Nothing Trump can say or do can change that.
Click to expand...

Objective AGW's fact my rear. There's PLENTY of objective scientific fact especially concerning historical CO2 levels and historical cyclic temperature levels. But not a lick of it points directly or indirectly for that matter at AGW. Historical CO2 levels have had highs in the 7000+ ppm range with the lowest range being 140 ppm. We are 440 right now. Further we are on the ass end of a natural cooling/warming cycle. That's 100,000 years of ice age and about 10,000 years of warming, wash rinse and repeat for the last 2.5 plus million years. All of these facts are on the record. Kind of hard to say something is abnormal when you are smack dab in the middle of normal.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Objective AGW's fact my rear. There's PLENTY of objective scientific fact especially concerning historical CO2 levels and historical cyclic temperature levels. But not a lick of it points directly or indirectly for that matter at AGW. Historical CO2 levels have had highs in the 7000+ ppm range with the lowest range being 140 ppm. We are 440 right now. Further we are on the ass end of a natural cooling/warming cycle. That's 100,000 years of ice age and about 10,000 years of warming, wash rinse and repeat for the last 2.5 plus million years. All of these facts are on the record. Kind of hard to say something is abnormal when you are smack dab in the middle of normal.
Click to expand...

It's about rate of change, not absolute value. Yes, the earth does go in cycles, over periods of 10's of thousands of years. We've had thousands of years worth of increased CO2 over just a century and a half of industrialization. It is a fact that burning liquid dinosaurs puts CO2 into the air and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's also important to note that large changes in CO2 over earth's history have had disasterous effects for life on earth.

Burying your head in the sand and saying that no amount of us pumping CO2 into the atmosphere could ever have an effect on the environment and life on earth is disingenuous and ignores the science. Meanwhile we continue to have the hottest years on record one after another.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Objective AGW's fact my rear. There's PLENTY of objective scientific fact especially concerning historical CO2 levels and historical cyclic temperature levels. But not a lick of it points directly or indirectly for that matter at AGW. Historical CO2 levels have had highs in the 7000+ ppm range with the lowest range being 140 ppm. We are 440 right now. Further we are on the ass end of a natural cooling/warming cycle. That's 100,000 years of ice age and about 10,000 years of warming, wash rinse and repeat for the last 2.5 plus million years. All of these facts are on the record. Kind of hard to say something is abnormal when you are smack dab in the middle of normal.
Click to expand...


scientists go with the best info available and right wingers are anti knowledge.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
It's about rate of change, not absolute value. Yes, the earth does go in cycles, over periods of 10's of thousands of years. We've had thousands of years worth of increased CO2 over just a century and a half of industrialization. It is a fact that burning liquid dinosaurs puts CO2 into the air and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's also important to note that large changes in CO2 over earth's history have had disasterous effects for life on earth.

Burying your head in the sand and saying that no amount of us pumping CO2 into the atmosphere could ever have an effect on the environment and life on earth is disingenuous and ignores the science. Meanwhile we continue to have the hottest years on record one after another.
Click to expand...
It is questionable if the recent 40 years or so of anomalous temperature increases is unusual.
Within the thermometer record we have a similar period from 1910 to 1944,
and the longer proxy records claim to have an average resolution of 120 years.
For all the shroud waving, we only have a single piece of empirical data that shows CO2 is causing warming.
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
It shows the energy imbalance from CO2 forcing to be .2 Wm-2 for a 22 ppm increase in CO2.
This number is much lower than the IPCC estimates, and would yield an ECS of about 1.8 C, if we actually
succeeded in doubling the CO2 level.
 
Last edited:
Politics
[h=1]Trump To Steer UN Global Warming Funds To Coal, Gas Projects[/h]Michael Bastasch 12:39 PM 07/14/2017 From The Daily Caller The Trump administration will use its position as a donor to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to steer money towards coal-fired power plants and natural gas infrastructure, according to an unnamed White House official. President Donald Trump will do his best to use the Obama administration’s…
 
vegas giants said:
If the gop controls congress and the presidency and thus controls all grants and funding....why are US science agencies still pushing AGW? I thought it was all about the money. Can't Trump ask the heads of NASA, NOAA and the National Academies of Science to resign?
Click to expand...

There are still open questions. Politically it is becoming increasingly uninteresting other than propagandistically. Solar and wind generation technologies are becoming cost efficient and batteries have been too. Infrastructure will be a certain challenge, when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. This is meaning that plans of transportation from Greece to North Germany to connect wind generators are being developed. It might mean volatility in prices and require double capacity with periodic overproduction, but we are probably on a trajectory that will require increasingly less political interference.
 
Opinion
[h=1]The Foibles of Climate Research[/h]Government Created Misuse of Climate Research; Even a Little More Government is Not the Solution. Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt wants to set up a Red and Blue team approach to climate research. It appears to be a commendable goal given the effective exclusion of one of the…
 
Jack Hays said:
Politics
[h=1]Trump To Steer UN Global Warming Funds To Coal, Gas Projects[/h]Michael Bastasch 12:39 PM 07/14/2017 From The Daily Caller The Trump administration will use its position as a donor to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to steer money towards coal-fired power plants and natural gas infrastructure, according to an unnamed White House official. President Donald Trump will do his best to use the Obama administration’s…
Click to expand...

I am no friend of subsidies, but if he can claw back a billion dollars? That wouldn't be the worst thing he's done.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
It's about rate of change, not absolute value. Yes, the earth does go in cycles, over periods of 10's of thousands of years. We've had thousands of years worth of increased CO2 over just a century and a half of industrialization. It is a fact that burning liquid dinosaurs puts CO2 into the air and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's also important to note that large changes in CO2 over earth's history have had disasterous effects for life on earth.

Burying your head in the sand and saying that no amount of us pumping CO2 into the atmosphere could ever have an effect on the environment and life on earth is disingenuous and ignores the science. Meanwhile we continue to have the hottest years on record one after another.
Click to expand...

Abrupt climate change has happened rather recently.

Two examples of abrupt climate change

"as much as 10C in 10 years"
 
Last edited:
joG said:
I am no friend of subsidies, but if he can claw back a billion dollars? That wouldn't be the worst thing he's done.
Click to expand...

Boy my question must be REALLY hard to answer directly!
 
Jack Hays said:
Opinion
[h=1]The Foibles of Climate Research[/h]Government Created Misuse of Climate Research; Even a Little More Government is Not the Solution. Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt wants to set up a Red and Blue team approach to climate research. It appears to be a commendable goal given the effective exclusion of one of the…
Click to expand...

My question?
 
Jack Hays said:
Bureaucratic inertia.
Click to expand...

Yep. It can take many miles to turn a large ship. Such things are not satisfying to the immediate gratification crowd. For those, I suggest a trip to Chuck E Cheese during the interim between a course change and it's effect.
 
humbolt said:
Yep. It can take many miles to turn a large ship. Such things are not satisfying to the immediate gratification crowd. For those, I suggest a trip to Chuck E Cheese during the interim between a course change and it's effect.
Click to expand...

How long now has the GOP controlled funding for these agencies. Now you have even more power and we see not a SINGLE one chnage positions yet? This is hilarious....you are grasping at straws. If in the next three years will you then finally admit it is not all about the money? What will it take? LOL
 
vegas giants said:
How long now has the GOP controlled funding for these agencies. Now you have even more power and we see not a SINGLE one chnage positions yet? This is hilarious....you are grasping at straws. If in the next three years will you then finally admit it is not all about the money? What will it take? LOL
Click to expand...

I'm not grasping at anything. I'm merely pointing out that change takes time. That's particularly true of our government agencies. When the AGW community, and you, drops the gas bag approach to science and becomes objectively truthful, then I'll be willing to take a look. Until then I see little that motivates AGW supporters but power and money associated with the before mentioned gas baggery.
 
vegas giants said:
How long now has the GOP controlled funding for these agencies. Now you have even more power and we see not a SINGLE one chnage positions yet? This is hilarious....you are grasping at straws. If in the next three years will you then finally admit it is not all about the money? What will it take? LOL
Click to expand...
What gives you the idea that the GOP's motives are as pure as the driven snow?
The GOP is at best the lesser of two evils.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom