• 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!

The Consensus of Scientists

Renae said:
97% again? How many times does that need to be debunked?
Click to expand...

Trying to explain it to them is like trying to convince a Christian that God isn't real.

Their faith is strong.
 
Lord of Planar said:
And I ask again.

What are the credentials of the three people listed at the bottom of that page.
Click to expand...

You think the people that write the page are lying? Do they do that for the other NASA pages?
 
Lord of Planar said:
And I ask again.

What are the credentials of the three people listed at the bottom of that page.
Click to expand...

Why does the editor of a web sites creditnals matter, when it is the articles that are written, and who wrote them that matter more?
 
RAMOSS said:
Why does the editor of a web sites creditnals matter, when it is the articles that are written, and who wrote them that matter more?
Click to expand...

It is like saying the printer is responsible for what is in the NY Times. LOL
 
Lord of Planar said:
Trying to explain it to them is like trying to convince a Christian that God isn't real.

Their faith is strong.
Click to expand...

Well, I cannot agree with your analogy, though I do understand your comment.
 
[h=1]An Inconvenient Split?[/h]Posted on 13 Aug 17 by PAUL MATTHEWS • 1 Comment
In many ways, the climate debate has hardly changed since I got interested in it about ten years ago. Public opinion wobbles up and down with hardly any real change. The same tired arguments and claims come round again: every climate conference is the last chance to save the planet; the Arctic ice is always … Continue
 
Renae said:
The only deniers are the ones that deny that climate, changes.
Click to expand...

The deniers are the people who claim that humans are not causing the present climate change. Their position denies basic laboratory and satellite findings. It's as foolish as disbelieving in evolution, or the effectiveness of vaccines, or any other basic findings of science.
 
Wisdom said:
The deniers are the people who claim that humans are not causing the present climate change. Their position denies basic laboratory and satellite findings. It's as foolish as disbelieving in evolution, or the effectiveness of vaccines, or any other basic findings of science.
Click to expand...

You mean the findings of no warming for 20+ years?

You mean those entities that believe an increase in a trace gas is going to cause some serious shift in the climate?

A trace gas. That's measured in parts per million, in a system as chaotic and as little understood as what goes on in the air around the earth.

We do not understand all the forces, the interplay, the effect of all that, PLUS the influence of the Sun.
 
Renae said:
You mean the findings of no warming for 20+ years?

You mean those entities that believe an increase in a trace gas is going to cause some serious shift in the climate?

A trace gas. That's measured in parts per million, in a system as chaotic and as little understood as what goes on in the air around the earth.

We do not understand all the forces, the interplay, the effect of all that, PLUS the influence of the Sun.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The hottest year on record was last year, and the hottest year before that was the previous year, etc., etc. You can't even acknowledge the most basic facts. You science deniers flat-out lie. You do such things as take especially warm years due to el nino, and you use that as an arbitrary starting point, knowing after the el nino is gone the subsequent years will likely be cooler. Yet, when one mathematically adjusts for such effects, we have essentially a linear warming line, always ignored by science deniers.

You are simply nutty people. Pure scum really.
 
Renae said:
You mean the findings of no warming for 20+ years?

You mean those entities that believe an increase in a trace gas is going to cause some serious shift in the climate?

A trace gas. That's measured in parts per million, in a system as chaotic and as little understood as what goes on in the air around the earth.

We do not understand all the forces, the interplay, the effect of all that, PLUS the influence of the Sun.
Click to expand...
Yes....they once said that about cigarettes
 
vegas giants said:
You think the people that write the page are lying? Do they do that for the other NASA pages?
Click to expand...

They have misinterpreted the consensus data with their conformation bias. It may not be ab intentional lie. Just indoctrinated, like you are.
 
RAMOSS said:
Why does the editor of a web sites creditnals matter, when it is the articles that are written, and who wrote them that matter more?
Click to expand...

They are the science writers and editor.

They are not scientists.
 
Lord of Planar said:
They have misinterpreted the consensus data with their conformation bias. It may not be ab intentional lie. Just indoctrinated, like you are.
Click to expand...

That is the funniest thing I have ever heard.
 
Wisdom said:
The deniers are the people who claim that humans are not causing the present climate change. Their position denies basic laboratory and satellite findings. It's as foolish as disbelieving in evolution, or the effectiveness of vaccines, or any other basic findings of science.
Click to expand...

Who is saying that we don't cause some of the observed changes? can you name one person here in the last couple months who denies we have an impact?

I suggest you consider giving CO2 a lower value, and give land use and aerosols a larger value of impact.

Your statement also suggests that none of the present impact is natural.
 
Wisdom said:
Nonsense. The hottest year on record was last year, and the hottest year before that was the previous year, etc., etc. You can't even acknowledge the most basic facts. You science deniers flat-out lie. You do such things as take especially warm years due to el nino, and you use that as an arbitrary starting point, knowing after the el nino is gone the subsequent years will likely be cooler. Yet, when one mathematically adjusts for such effects, we have essentially a linear warming line, always ignored by science deniers.

You are simply nutty people. Pure scum really.
Click to expand...

And in the 30's, those mercury thermometers didn't show rapid spikes like thermisters do today. If you do a 30 minute to 1 hr smoothing on today's measuring equipment to simulate the response of a mercury thermometer, the results would be different. Then the solar influence is higher using a 50+ year smoothing than anytime since the maunder Minima.

Yes, we have a small influence. just not as much as nature has.
 
Lord of Planar said:
And in the 30's, those mercury thermometers didn't show rapid spikes like thermisters do today. If you do a 30 minute to 1 hr smoothing on today's measuring equipment to simulate the response of a mercury thermometer, the results would be different. Then the solar influence is higher using a 50+ year smoothing than anytime since the maunder Minima.

Yes, we have a small influence. just not as much as nature has.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but when someone claims that the temperatures have not changed at all during the past 20 years, when the hottest years on record have occurred within that period of time, then I don't have the time, nor the inclination to discuss the issue further. A person who denies the most basic facts of reality is too delusional for me to spend time on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom