• 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!

Are There Any Conservatives Here Who Accept the Science of Climate Change?

All real man.

Just ask Algore.
:roll:

One of your "leftist loons" that you know to dismiss out of hand.

BTW, who are these "leftist loons" exactly?

Who are the "leftist loons" that you DO DENY? And why should they be denied?

Since you accept science, but deny pseudoscience, could you point to some examples of climate researchers, aka leftist loons, that everyone should be on the lookout for?
 
So, you start out by saying liberals are actually the ones that deny science...

and then you deny science.

Classic.

I don't deny science, I embrace it. What you and your ilk are selling, ain't science.
 
I don't deny science, I embrace it. What you and your ilk are selling, ain't science.

"Ain't science" is where the denial begins. The first step in recovery is admission of a problem.
 
The AGW hypothesis is a jewel of 19th century physics. I believe it has been superseded by the 21st century physics of the solar/GCR hypothesis, as put forward by Svensmark, Shaviv and Veizer, among others. A recent research result suggests support for their hypothesis. I started a thread to discuss that, but it drew little interest among AGW advocates.

Radiation Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming by CO2

AGW has moved beyond the realm of hypothesis.
 
Here's an example of a true hypothesis: "I believe if I exercise and eat right I will lose weight."

Through a series of experiments I lost 15lbs.

My hypothesis is true.

So is the same with AGW.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Your certitude is the antithesis of science.

I'm not intimidated by your being aloof. It does nothing to dissuade what actually is.
 
Here's an example of a true hypothesis: "I believe if I exercise and eat right I will lose weight."

Through a series of experiments I lost 15lbs.

My hypothesis is true.

So is the same with AGW.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You achieved a result that supports your hypothesis. Unless your experiments excluded all other possible causes that's all you can say.
 
Well?

:2wave:
It really depends on how you define "the science of climate change"?
If you mean that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, whose addition can cause some warming, sure.
If on the other had you mean accepts the full suite of the IPCC catastrophic predictions, then I do not accept that political position.
What actual science that exists for AGW, is the satellite measurements of changes in the
energy in and out of the earth over a change in CO2 levels.
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
This shows that the aggregate of all of the feedbacks minimize the role of CO2.
A .2 Wm-2 change for an increase in CO2 between 369 ppm to 392 ppm,
means the CO2 double increase would be 2.29 Wm-2 not the 3.71 Wm-2 used in all the models.
At some point we have to say that the data we can actually measure, is more accurate than the model results.
 
I would imagine conservative reservation stem from the fact most proposed solutions are "tax and regulate". Climate change may be a scientific issue, but the "solutions" are anything but.

That is the crux of the matter in many political debates. If one does not accept the proposed solution to a given problem then they are said to be "denying the problem" or, taken even further, are said to be "supporting the problem". This may stem from (misuse of?) the old adage "if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem". The reality, in a political context, is often more akin to "if you object to my solution then you are causing me problems".
 
Not crazy.

Irrational.

Your Party leaders deny they have to do anything about climate change even if we live in a country with 5% of the population and more than 25% of emissions. (the stats may have changed in the past few years)

The problem with Conservatives is that they are paid off pieces of human sewage... They didn't want to pay for Sandy (ask both the Texas Senators) and now they want us all to pay for Harvey and Irma because they hit mostly Republical voter States :)

How convenient!

If you ever wonder why quite a few people pay no attention to the so called warmist alarmists, reread your post.
 
The best action we can take is stop using dirty burning techniques of fossil fuels. We need to do away with, or update all old technology. It's not the fossil fuels, but the fact we are no using efficient clean burning techniques in many places of the world.

The climate always changes. Over very long periods of time...

I see the usage of "climate change" as an intentional misrepresentation of fact. We have very long climatic cycles, and there really is no way to say the changes we see are not natural.

Yes CO2 has an effect on both temperature and absolute humidity, but in both cases it is within the normal parameters of weather changes with a climate system.

What bothers me the mos is they only see what they shine the light on. They only look at greenhouse gasses, then have to amplify their effects with hypothesis after hypothesis.

Land use changes have a dramatic effect on the local microclimates. Aerosols from dirty fossil fuel emissions likel have a more profound effect than greenhouse gasses as well.

When you take several hundred square miles of land, and over 200 years go from almost all natural landscape, to over 80% covered by concrete, asphalt, and building... This is dramatic for the immediate area, and affects the temperature for several miles around as well. What is lost is the natural cooling of evapotranspiration. Rain water that once was absorbed in the ground, and cooled he surface as it evaporated, is now channeled int storm sewers and no longer cools. Nearby meteorological stations can never be correctly "corrected" for this loss of cooling and show an unnatural rise in temperatures as this nearby coolng is lost, and the winds blow the right way...

Soot is probably the worse of the problems. The higher latitude coal plants rain invisible aerosols on the ice. The albedo of the ice is changed, Consier that it wakes very litle so, and i is invisible to the naked eye to change the albedo of ice fro 0.85 to 0.70.

Class...

Anyone know what this means?

Albedo is reflectivity. Changing from a 0.85 to 0.70 means the ice went from absorbing 15% tp 30% , or a doubling in the melting rate...... This is why we are losing the norther ice....

Then as more arctic ocean is exposed, the absorption goes past 50%, where it used to be only 15%.

This is the simple parts of the sciences. I really don't know what people trust the pundits instead of seeking the truth.

At NAS Brunswick, and I've shown a pict of this before, our reporting station was 20 yards from the tarmac in a grassy area.

One of our people lived off base less than 2 miles away or so.

His temps were lower than our temps, he had an exact replica and was using same equip and procedures.

Yet the bases numbers were the official ones fed into the system...
 
Not crazy.

Irrational.

Your Party leaders deny they have to do anything about climate change even if we live in a country with 5% of the population and more than 25% of emissions. (the stats may have changed in the past few years)

The problem with Conservatives is that they are paid off pieces of human sewage... They didn't want to pay for Sandy (ask both the Texas Senators) and now they want us all to pay for Harvey and Irma because they hit mostly Republical voter States :)

How convenient!

OK, in order for the US to no longer be outside of the (desired?) emissions per capita limit (balance?) then the US must reduce its emissions by 80% - what, exactly, is the demorat proposal to do that?
 
I would imagine conservative reservation stem from the fact most proposed solutions are "tax and regulate". Climate change may be a scientific issue, but the "solutions" are anything but.
Not only that but also those that are zealots refuse to talk about any other possible causes that contribute to climate change. Its not enough to buy into climate change they demand that you also buy into it being caused by mankind. They show no tolerance for alternative thoughts on the subject.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
"Ain't science" is where the denial begins. The first step in recovery is admission of a problem.

Ad hom, it's really all you've got, and why we can't have an honest discussion about, well, pretty much anything. To use the modern colloquialism, it's why we can't have nice things.
 
Ad hom, it's really all you've got, and why we can't have an honest discussion about, well, pretty much anything. To use the modern colloquialism, it's why we can't have nice things.

Because "leftist loons" is a term of endearment.

You have made it clear you are unwilling to discuss the topic, not surprised, someone maintaining it's all a liberal conspiracy to steal the wealth of nations doesn't have much to stand on.
 
Not only that but also those that are zealots refuse to talk about any other possible causes that contribute to climate change. Its not enough to buy into climate change they demand that you also buy into it being caused by mankind. They show no tolerance for alternative thoughts on the subject.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Greetings, trouble13. :2wave:

That's what happens when science is politicized, IMO. Millions of dollars at stake does tend to influence the thinking process of those that stand to benefit, which is what I believe has happened. :thumbdown:
 
Well?

:2wave:

The science of climate change ? Sure, our climate is anything but static.
The bogus claim of man made global warming ? Hell no.
 
Because the perception is that science is now too corrupt to trust.There are very good reasons to think in that direction.

And your perception is that science is more corrupt that politics? :doh
 
And your perception is that science is more corrupt that politics? :doh

This is not the first time I have found you to be unreasonably rude in your questioning.

If you have a beef with me out with it, let's deal with it.

If you desire an answer then rephrase.
 
Before reading the rest of the thread, I'd say virtually unique in the USA! AGW denial appears to be a purely political position, since the science is clear.

It's not clear, if it was clear the predictions of 20 years ago would be seen today, they aren't. If the predictions are all real, why are all the solutions political?
 
I see it as being the other way around - since the perfect solution is global income redistribution then you carefully define (politically frame?) all problems as needing that solution.

And that redistribution cools the planet somehow?
 
OK, in order for the US to no longer be outside of the (desired?) emissions per capita limit (balance?) then the US must reduce its emissions by 80% - what, exactly, is the demorat proposal to do that?

crickets
 
Back
Top Bottom