• 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!

2017 is the 2nd Warmest Year on Record

Media_Truth said:
Your "possibilities" are only supported by blogs and extreme minorities, while the AGW theories are postulated by the National Academy of Science, the NOAA, and the IPCC.
Click to expand...

Please, stop your broken record routine and think for yourself.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Population is not yet a problem, except in poverty stricken nations. You would have to selectively reduce the population of certain world regions. Not the world average.
Click to expand...

If population is not a problem, then you must assume that those who claim that man created climate change are wrong.

I would not disagree that some areas have a larger problem than others, but isn't the AGW claim that the problem is worldwide?
 
longview said:
The top two problems facing Humanity are Energy and Fresh Water.
If we can solve our energy problem, Fresh water will no longer be a problem ether.
The problem with energy is that we simply do not have enough hydrocarbons to allow
all of earth's population to live a first world lifestyle.
We receive enough sunlight, but the duty cycle does not match the energy density or demand needs,
To that end we need some way to store and accumulate solar electricity on a massive enough scale
to bridge the gaps in the duty cycle.
Click to expand...

Until crude oil was discovered and somebody figured out what to do with it, the world functioned quite well without petroleum and used wind, water, wood, coal, beasts of burden including humans, and such to move the first pieces of heavy transportation. Until somebody figured out how plentiful natural gas was, the world made do with wood and coal and such for heat.

I think we are short sighted if we think there are no energy sources yet to be discovered, harnessed, perfected or that we won't have energy after the carbon based fuels have been depleted.

Humankind is very resourceful and we are learning all the time. Just this month, we watched a film at the Natural History Museum showing how warp speeds can be achieved in space. And as that technology increases, interplanetary travel may become possible and that opens up whole new possibilities for the survival of humankind. I suspect we are still babes in our technological advancement and we know far less than what is yet to be learned.

I am not worried about AGW. Not with the flimsy speculation we thus far have to go on. I wish we would put our imagination and energies and vision into making things better instead of trying to fix what most likely isn't broken.
 
jimbo said:
If population is not a problem, then you must assume that those who claim that man created climate change are wrong.

I would not disagree that some areas have a larger problem than others, but isn't the AGW claim that the problem is worldwide?
Click to expand...

When you think of global averages, yes. Problem is, when you tackle a problem, you cannot average out a method. Each unique aspect must be addressed in a manner specific to that problem.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Please, stop your broken record routine and think for yourself.
Click to expand...

No, I think I will align with Scientists who can put a man on the moon. They know more than I do, and I admit that. Of course, you know better than NASA. And you know better than the National Academy of Science. The NOAA. The IPCC.
 
Media_Truth said:
The first nine months of 2017 are the 2nd hottest on record, dating back to 1880, according to the NOAA, which tracks worldwide data. September was the 4th warmest ever, 1.57 deg F above the 20th century average. This newscast really emphasizes the effect on ice melt, weather patterns, etc.

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/2017-second-warmest-year-noaa/

Seldom do you hear News agencies talk about wildfires, and climate change. They don't discuss the Western wildfires of 2017, but I believe that is one of the most proven correlations.
Click to expand...


But...but....but... 2016 was the hottest!

In other words, the earth is cooling.
 
Media_Truth said:
No, I think I will align with Scientists who can put a man on the moon. They know more than I do, and I admit that. Of course, you know better than NASA. And you know better than the National Academy of Science. The NOAA. The IPCC.
Click to expand...

Then don't pay attention to these scientists.
Skeptic Papers 2017 (1)
Skeptic Papers 2017 (2)


NASA's is the official liberal Deomcrat position, ipso facto they can't be wrong.
 

[h=1]So far this year, 400 scientific papers debunk climate change alarm[/h]400 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm by Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone During the first 10 months of 2017, 400 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise question the efficacy of…
Continue reading →
 
KLATTU said:
Then don't pay attention to these scientists.
Skeptic Papers 2017 (1)
Skeptic Papers 2017 (2)


NASA's is the official liberal Deomcrat position, ipso facto they can't be wrong.
Click to expand...

While I acutely appreciate the fact that politically driven suckers can be fooled by internet blogs listing papers that literally say the opposite of what the wingnuts want to believe, you probably should put your posts in the CT forum.
 
Threegoofs said:
While I acutely appreciate the fact that politically driven suckers can be fooled by internet blogs listing papers that literally say the opposite of what the wingnuts want to believe, you probably should put your posts in the CT forum.
Click to expand...
A quick gleaning of the papers do not show they are supportive of alarmist AGW.
Here is one example.
As long as any natural variations in the CO2 concentrations are not accurately known,
the ECS [equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling] cannot be used as a reliable indicator only for an anthropogenic global warming.
Click to expand...
and,
It is shown that none of the above descriptions can withstand the rigours of scientific scrutiny when the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics are applied to them.
Click to expand...
 
longview said:
A quick gleaning of the papers do not show they are supportive of alarmist AGW.
Here is one example.

and,
Click to expand...

A quick gleaning of the papers shows they are regional paleoclimate studies that literally have nothing to do with the topic of AGW.
 
Threegoofs said:
A quick gleaning of the papers shows they are regional paleoclimate studies that literally have nothing to do with the topic of AGW.
Click to expand...

I am sure you would like to believe that, but there are many examples,
In this situation, it is recommended that we return to the observational facts,
which provides global sea level records varying between ±0.0 and +1.0 mm/yr;
i.e. values that pose no problems in coastal protection
Click to expand...
Spanning the period 1186-2014 CE, the new reconstruction reveals overall warmer conditions around 1200 and 1400,
Click to expand...
While many of the studies are regional, many are global.
For things like sea level, local studies may be more important.
 
KLATTU said:
Then don't pay attention to these scientists.
Skeptic Papers 2017 (1)
Skeptic Papers 2017 (2)


NASA's is the official liberal Deomcrat position, ipso facto they can't be wrong.
Click to expand...

I see how this works. If they don't agree with your conspiracy theory, they are Liberal. I'm sure you'll say the same thing about the National Academy of Science, the IPCC, and the NOAA.
 
Media_Truth said:
I see how this works. If they don't agree with your conspiracy theory, they are Liberal. I'm sure you'll say the same thing about the National Academy of Science, the IPCC, and the NOAA.
Click to expand...

That they're stacked with liberal? DUH.
(Did you not know that?)
 
KLATTU said:
That they're stacked with liberal? DUH.
(Did you not know that?)
Click to expand...
I don't know that they are all liberal, but they do know how to keep the grant money flowing in.
If the flow of grant money for finding evidence of AGW disappears, so will most of the findings.
 
longview said:
I don't know that they are all liberal, but they do know how to keep the grant money flowing in.
If the flow of grant money for finding evidence of AGW disappears, so will most of the findings.
Click to expand...

Do you realize how many scientists you are accusing of colluding together? You might as well start preaching the Flat Earth conspiracy!
 
longview said:
I don't know that they are all liberal, but they do know how to keep the grant money flowing in.
If the flow of grant money for finding evidence of AGW disappears, so will most of the findings.
Click to expand...

Yeah they mostly are, just as I said. It's pretty common knowledge.
 
Media_Truth said:
Do you realize how many scientists you are accusing of colluding together? You might as well start preaching the Flat Earth conspiracy!
Click to expand...

Common interest is not collusion. Homeowners don't "collude" to protect the mortgage interest deduction, but they behave similarly in its favor.
 
Media_Truth said:
Do you realize how many scientists you are accusing of colluding together? You might as well start preaching the Flat Earth conspiracy!
Click to expand...
No one is colluding, researchers know how to respond to RFP's to increase their odds of winning grants, and to win follow on grants.
You saying there is collusion, implies that millions of people who go to work every day are colluding to make a living.
 
KLATTU said:
Yeah they mostly are, just as I said. It's pretty common knowledge.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is sad, they wrote the grant proposal knowing what the grant authors were looking for.
If you watch some of the wording many of the results lean in to the edges of the uncertainty,
to make their results look to be in agreement. "Putting lipstick on the Pig!"
 
longview said:
No one is colluding, researchers know how to respond to RFP's to increase their odds of winning grants, and to win follow on grants.
You saying there is collusion, implies that millions of people who go to work every day are colluding to make a living.
Click to expand...

Not true. You are saying much more than that. You are saying that all these scientists are willing to "live a lie" to protect their livelihood. If the World Trade Center collapses were an inside job - demolition - so many people would have had to have been involved, that many would have come forward. Same discussion.
 
Media_Truth said:
Not true. You are saying much more than that. You are saying that all these scientists are willing to "live a lie" to protect their livelihood. If the World Trade Center collapses were an inside job - demolition - so many people would have had to have been involved, that many would have come forward. Same discussion.
Click to expand...


Please see #43. Your post is dishonest.
 
longview said:
I am sure you would like to believe that, but there are many examples,


While many of the studies are regional, many are global.
For things like sea level, local studies may be more important.
Click to expand...

Didn't see any global ones, but after seeing a half dozen, why would I assume there are ones that aren't lies in the bunch? More pointedly, why would you excuse them?
 
Media_Truth said:
Do you realize how many scientists you are accusing of colluding together? You might as well start preaching the Flat Earth conspiracy!
Click to expand...

He sounds like a stupid laymans idea of a smart scientist.


I wonder how many other scientific collusions there are that are championing librul causes? Evolutionary biology? LIBRULS! Nanotechnology? LIBRULS!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom