• 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!

Warm Periods Have Happened Before

Media_Truth said:
I've asked this question before, and none of the three, who must spend their entire day posting anti-AGW messages denied it. Even Jack's latest post just said "unfound allegation"; and I agree, it is an unfound allegation. But none of the three have ever said, "I am not being paid". You may be correct in your assessment. Maybe they're just full-time fossil fuel industry lovers, believing that oil and coal offer are a way to spiritual enlightenment.
Click to expand...

Posters on multi-topic forums that only engage in discussions relating to one topic are:
1) Obsessed with that topic to the exclusion of all others
2) Being paid to post about that topic
3) ?

The topics Abortion, AGW, Islam/Muslims, and the 2nd Amendment all have them. There are probably others I haven't noticed.
 
Media_Truth said:
I've asked this question before, and none of the three, who must spend their entire day posting anti-AGW messages denied it. Even Jack's latest post just said "unfound allegation"; and I agree, it is an unfound allegation. But none of the three have ever said, "I am not being paid". You may be correct in your assessment. Maybe they're just full-time fossil fuel industry lovers, believing that oil and coal offer are a way to spiritual enlightenment.
Click to expand...

Or maybe they wanna be super special scientists that figured something out and almost no one understands or even see. In a more normal sense, uncommon knowledge. Most of us get it through work, school, hobby, reading, whatever. Some get it from CT blogs. They want to believe their time investment was worth something; unfortunately, they have no uncommon knowledge.

Hello, CT people: You have not discovered something that 99.99% of us don't know. A blog did not provide you the knowledge to teach others. You've been wasting your time. Learn something useful.
 
Media_Truth said:
I've asked this question before, and none of the three, who must spend their entire day posting anti-AGW messages denied it. Even Jack's latest post just said "unfound allegation"; and I agree, it is an unfound allegation. But none of the three have ever said, "I am not being paid". You may be correct in your assessment. Maybe they're just full-time fossil fuel industry lovers, believing that oil and coal offer are a way to spiritual enlightenment.
Click to expand...

I am not being paid.
 
JamesBY said:
You may deliberately miskew my meaning and that is OK, because your words validate my points.
Click to expand...

"CT links are not worthy links to read. The overwhelming majority of reputable scientists say it is so. I am not concerned about the thirteen scientists who disagree."
Those are your words.
Anyone who reads them will know you meant "because that's what I heard" and reading anything else is not worthy.

Calling something CT is just a comfortable excuse for laziness.
 
bubbabgone said:
"CT links are not worthy links to read. The overwhelming majority of reputable scientists say it is so. I am not concerned about the thirteen scientists who disagree."
Those are your words.
Anyone who reads them will know you meant "because that's what I heard" and reading anything else is not worthy.Calling something CT is just a comfortable excuse for laziness.
Click to expand...
Your CT argument runs around in circles. I am no more going to argue much about AGW than I am that Obama was kenyan muslim socialist wingo dingo. Those are CTs. Oh, so is Bigfoot.
 
JamesBY said:
Your CT argument runs around in circles. I am no more going to argue much about AGW than I am that Obama was kenyan muslim socialist wingo dingo. Those are CTs. Oh, so is Bigfoot.
Click to expand...

Climate skepticism requires no conspiracy theory. To claim that it does is both dishonest and lazy.
 
The Fl fossil record shows that giant land tortoises were here but have since gone extinct. At one time, winters never froze here, they could not survive freezes.
 
JamesBY said:
Your CT argument runs around in circles. I am no more going to argue much about AGW than I am that Obama was kenyan muslim socialist wingo dingo. Those are CTs. Oh, so is Bigfoot.
Click to expand...

Is it a conspiracy theory that almost all newspapers endorse Democrats? No, it's just a fact that almost all reporters are liberal Democrats. Same with climate climate science. Almost all memebers of academia are liberal Democrats. the field of climate science is dominated by liberal Democrats. So if yy studies in that field as a student, you were taught by a liberal Democrat. Unless you have an IQ of about 91, you know that the professor's politcail ideology seeps through through the science. I see it all the time, with grad students giving presentations parroting the left wing party line so obvioulsy laid down by the mentor.

And if you don't believe there's a bit of conspiracy going, you haven't critically and objectively looked the climategate scandal.
rom Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
Prof Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the editor of Climate Research, a scientific journal that published papers downplaying climate change.

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
Prof Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the editor of Climate Research, a scientific journal that published papers downplaying climate change.
 
So you deflect about the dems to a mainstream Republican (me) because you can't argue the facts of the matter.

Instead everything is a 'librul' conspiracy: CT again.

Critical objectivity is antithetical to so many of the far and alt right.
 
ecofarm said:
How many OPs have you made claiming peer review is a scam?

Can't keep your claims straight when all you do is spam a CT blog.
Click to expand...
Once again, the science denier.

Deny anything that doesn't fit your confirmation bias and religion.
 
Geoist said:
So you'll go with the 3% who question it over the 97% who accept it. I hope you aren't a gambling man.
Click to expand...

I'll bet you cannot accurately explain what the 97% means.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Once again, the science denier.
Click to expand...

I got my climate science in grad school. You got yours from a CT blog. Your position, not mine, denies accepted science.

Denying a CT blog is not denying science.

Deny anything that doesn't fit your confirmation bias and religion.
Click to expand...

You really don't see the irony, do you.
 
ecofarm said:
I got my climate science in grad school. You got yours from a CT blog. Your position, not mine, denies accepted science.

Denying a CT blog is not denying science.



You really don't see the irony, do you.
Click to expand...

You're unsupported allegations of my education shows just how little integrity you have. Do you like having no honor?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, I see you have others telling you what to believe.
Click to expand...

On the contrary. I was once a global warming skeptic. I decided to do the research and that resulted in a change of heart on the issue.


That supports my contention that YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN IT!
Click to expand...

The 97% comes from numerous peer-reviewed studies, including those from: American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Medical Association, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, The Geological Society of America, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, U.S. Global Change Research Program, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, along with over 200 other organizations.

You guys have... who?... some former NASA scientist who is also a creationist? Lol.
 
Geoist said:
On the contrary. I was once a global warming skeptic. I decided to do the research and that resulted in a change of heart on the issue.




The 97% comes from numerous peer-reviewed studies, including those from: American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Medical Association, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, The Geological Society of America, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, U.S. Global Change Research Program, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, along with over 200 other organizations.

You guys have... who?... some former NASA scientist who is also a creationist? Lol.
Click to expand...

So why are you too afraid to link one of them?
 
Geoist said:
I linked you the 200 organizations. :lamo :doh

I'll also give you the first one I mentioned, the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/aaas_climate_statement.pdf
Click to expand...

Why is it so difficult to pick one and link of the studies that produces the 97% number?

Is it because you never read one of them...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom