• 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!

Most of The World Could Be 100% Powered With Renewables by 2050

Lord of Planar said:
Wikipedia is actually a very good source for anything that isn't contentious. Climate change is a contentious topic, so the most persistent editing wins on heir agenda. Anything in wiki that isn't solid information from sources, is subject to be wrong.
Click to expand...

I think it's fine for the definition of fossil and the various kinds of fossils.

Using an absurdly limited definition is a common rhetorical device, but an understanding that fossils are "any trace" is probably elementary school level knowledge so in this case it's particularly absurd.
 
ecofarm said:
I think it's fine for the definition of fossil and the various kinds of fossils.

Using an absurdly limited definition is a common rhetorical device, but an understanding that fossils are "any trace" is probably elementary school level knowledge so in this case it's particularly absurd.
Click to expand...

I was speaking about the accuracy of wiki in general.
 
Threegoofs said:
Maybe you should read the IPCC, WG 3.
Click to expand...

I have. I'll lay odd you have not read its 754 pages, so here it is: SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS; CLIMATE CHANGE 2001: MITIGATION

Now when you compare that to the real sciences, and even that of Working Group 1, you can see the wish-washy wording they use. I guess equivocation of wording (lying) is acceptable to push an agenda.

That one is for TAR. Need links for the AR4 WG3 and AR5 WG3 as well?

In many ways, the second (SAR) than third (TAR) assessment reports were the best. They pushed the agenda less in them.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I have. I'll lay odd you have not read its 754 pages, so here it is: SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS; CLIMATE CHANGE 2001: MITIGATION

Now when you compare that to the real sciences, and even that of Working Group 1, you can see the wish-washy wording they use. I guess equivocation of wording (lying) is acceptable to push an agenda.

That one is for TAR. Need links for the AR4 WG3 and AR5 WG3 as well?

In many ways, the second (SAR) than third (TAR) assessment reports were the best. They pushed the agenda less in them.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you’re linking to old reports.

My point is that environmental costs are addressed. Sorry that economics isn’t as exact as physics, but that’s kinda how the world works.
 
Threegoofs said:
Not sure why you’re linking to old reports.
Click to expand...

Then why did you invoke WG3? WG3 in the AR4 and AR5 just got more and more aggressive in their agenda bias than in the FAR, SAR, or TAR.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Then why did you invoke WG3? WG3 in the AR4 and AR5 just got more and more aggressive in their agenda bias than in the FAR, SAR, or TAR.
Click to expand...

WG3 is the working group.

And the ‘aggressiveness’ represents a reality you don’t seem to comprehend- the longer deniers pretend it’s not serious, the more serious the situation becomes.
 
Threegoofs said:
WG3 is the working group.

And the ‘aggressiveness’ represents a reality you don’t seem to comprehend- the longer deniers pretend it’s not serious, the more serious the situation becomes.
Click to expand...

Your opinion has no merit, in my opinion.

You still didn't say why you invoked the WG3.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yet neither of you bother to address the environmental costs of fossil fuels.

That’s the price our grandchildren will pay.
Click to expand...

Yes, that even fossil fuel companies have known about the negative effect of manmade global warming for a long time.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...h-climate-change-20-years-ago-documents-show/

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968

While also federal agencies under Trump acknowledge manmade global warming and its negative effect.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...gencies-break-with-trump-over-climate-threats

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/climate/us-climate-report.html

You also have other forms of pollution from fossil fuel. Like for example that over 7,500 deaths each year are attributable to fine particle pollution from U.S. power plants.

Death and Disease from Power Plants - Clean Air Task Force (CATF)
 
Lord of Planar said:
Wikipedia is actually a very good source for anything that isn't contentious. Climate change is a contentious topic, so the most persistent editing wins on heir agenda. Anything in wiki that isn't solid information from sources, is subject to be wrong.
Click to expand...

I have found otherwise. Many Wikipedia articles tend to be badly written, incomplete, or just plain wrong. In any case, I do not accept it as a valid source of anything, even though you do. I dismiss it on sight.

You will find that I tend to dismiss any type of Holy Link or Holy Quote, since the use of them is stealing another's argument as your own. Links and references are okay as long as they are not the argument primary argument being represented and any data referenced meets my standards for data.

My standards for data is simple. I must know where the data comes from, what instruments were used to collect it, how those instruments were calibrated, who collected it and when, and what methods were used to remove bias. If a summary is presented, I require the margin of error calculation, and the declaration of variance source (and its justification) as well as the mean calculation and that the rules of statistical analysis are followed in selecting data.

Yes...my standards for data is much higher than practically anyone here. My standards for sources is likewise higher than most people here. I reject any source used as the primary argument. It only shows weak thinking on the part of the individual using a source this way. It only shows they have no mind of their own and must depend on the arguments of others as their own argument.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Yes, that even fossil fuel companies have known about the negative effect of manmade global warming for a long time.
...deleted Holy Links and Holy Quotes...
Click to expand...
There are no fossil fuel companies. Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions. These are meaningless buzzwords used by the Church of Global Warming to predict the end of the world.
Bergslagstroll said:
Like for example that over 7,500 deaths each year are attributable to fine particle pollution from U.S. power plants.
...deleted Holy Link...
Click to expand...
Argument from randU. Quoting scripture from the Church of Global Warming means nothing.

The Church of Global Warming denies science (specifically the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics) and mathematics (specifically the branches of random numbers, probability, and statistics).
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Claim: Bangkok Climate Conference Failure USA’s Fault For Not Providing Money and Free Stuff[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest essay by Eric Worrall Despite the overall failure to achieve their stated goals, the now concluded Bangkok climate conference actually made some progress – they all agreed to jointly attack the USA for not providing all the climate cash and free technology transfers demanded by delegates. Meet fails to agree climate change rules ……
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/09/claim-bangkok-climate-conference-failure-usas-fault-for-not-providing-money-and-free-stuff/"]
cop24-wheres-our-money-460x260.jpg
[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Claim: Bangkok Climate Conference Failure USA’s Fault For Not Providing Money and Free Stuff[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Guest essay by Eric Worrall Despite the overall failure to achieve their stated goals, the now concluded Bangkok climate conference actually made some progress – they all agreed to jointly attack the USA for not providing all the climate cash and free technology transfers demanded by delegates. Meet fails to agree climate change rules ……[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/09/claim-bangkok-climate-conference-failure-usas-fault-for-not-providing-money-and-free-stuff/"]Continue reading →[/URL][/FONT]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Once again... Follow the money...
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/09/claim-bangkok-climate-conference-failure-usas-fault-for-not-providing-money-and-free-stuff/"]
cop24-wheres-our-money-460x260.jpg
[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Claim: Bangkok Climate Conference Failure USA’s Fault For Not Providing Money and Free Stuff[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Guest essay by Eric Worrall Despite the overall failure to achieve their stated goals, the now concluded Bangkok climate conference actually made some progress – they all agreed to jointly attack the USA for not providing all the climate cash and free technology transfers demanded by delegates. Meet fails to agree climate change rules ……[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/09/claim-bangkok-climate-conference-failure-usas-fault-for-not-providing-money-and-free-stuff/"]Continue reading →[/URL][/FONT]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

More WUWT :bs
 
[FONT=&quot]Climate cash[/FONT]
[h=1]Bangkok Part Deux: “You’ll Get Nothing and Like It!”[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest hit & run by David Middleton This is sort of a sequel to Eric Worrall’s post on the Bangkok Blame Trump Climate Conference… Rich Nations Vowed Billions for Climate Change. Poor Countries Are Waiting. By Mike Ives Sept. 9, 2018 HONG KONG — When industrialized nations pledged in 2009 to mobilize $100 billion a…
[/FONT]
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Highlights From the 2018 BP Statistical Review of World Energy[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest highlighting by David Middleton Statistical Review of World Energy Global primary energy consumption grew strongly in 2017, led by natural gas and renewables, with coal’s share of the energy mix continuing to decline Energy developments Primary energy consumption growth averaged 2.2% in 2017, up from 1.2 % last year and the fastest since 2013.…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Bergslagstroll said:
The profit was 257 billions dollar in 2014 for public fossil fuel related companies in the United States and Canada.

Profits for Oil, Gas & Coal Companies Operating in the U.S. and Canada - Oil Change InternationalOil Change International

Compared to the 100 billions dollar that globally should be mobilized to the green climate fund up until 2020.

https://www.greenclimate.fund/how-we-work/resource-mobilization
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the money spent in grants for AGW papers vs. papers of reality. That's greater than a 99:1 ratio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom