• 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!

Fraudulent Warmist Conspiracy Theorizing

RabidAlpaca said:
Climate denial on the other hand is a lot more objective. Do the actions of human beings effect the climate? The scientific consensus overwhelmingly says yes and there are mountains of evidence and peer reviewed studies to prove it. This is an objective, measurable fact.

In either case, yes, political agenda should be left out of it, which is precisely why the Republicans that push this nonsense and the Democrats who fear monger about GMOs should both cut it out for the good of the nation.
Click to expand...

Primary scientific opposition to the primacy of CO2 in climate science comes from Europe, not the US, and has nothing to do with the Republican party. An example:

Radiation Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming ...

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2017/9251034/


by H Harde - ‎2017 - ‎Cited by 2 - ‎Related articles
Nov 1, 2016 - To deduce the lw absorptivity at cloudiness from the radiation transfer calculations, the absorbed intensity listed in column 6 of Table 3, which now reflects the total absorption caused by the GH gases and the clouds, has to be reduced by the cloud fraction.

[h=4]Abstract[/h]
We present detailed line-by-line radiation transfer calculations, which were performed under different atmospheric conditions for the most important greenhouse gases water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone. Particularly cloud effects, surface temperature variations, and humidity changes as well as molecular lineshape effects are investigated to examine their specific influence on some basic climatologic parameters like the radiative forcing, the long wave absorptivity, and back-radiation as a function of an increasing CO2concentration in the atmosphere. These calculations are used to assess the CO2 global warming by means of an advanced two-layer climate model and to disclose some larger discrepancies in calculating the climate sensitivity. Including solar and cloud effects as well as all relevant feedback processes our simulations give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of

= 0.7°C (temperature increase at doubled CO2) and a solar sensitivity of

= 0.17°C (at 0.1% increase of the total solar irradiance). Then CO2 contributes 40% and the Sun 60% to global warming over the last century.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
That's wasn't my point.

The term 'fake news' was my point. People who spew that out now about any news they don't agree with sound like lemmings, reminds me of that Orwellian '1984' Apple commercial showing a brainwashed line of people walking single file into a theater to watch their savior on the screen, but nowadays while they are marching they will all be chanting ..., FAKE NEWS....FAKE NEWS.....FAKE NEWS... in unison.

Still waiting for that woman with a hammer though.
Click to expand...

It's not a term I use lightly or often, but the sad fact is that there is fake news among the real news. In this case the dishonesty of the NY Times needs to be called out.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
If you're right and the world's scientists are wrong, publish your findings and have them challenged by the scientific community. That's how science works. . . .
Click to expand...

The great work proceeds.

[h=3]Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud ... - Nature[/h]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2
by H Svensmark - ‎2017
Dec 19, 2017 - Ions produced by cosmic rays have been thought to influence aerosols and clouds. In this study, the effect of ionization on the growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei is investigated theoretically and experimentally. We show that the mass-flux of small ions can constitute an important addition to ...‎Results · ‎Discussion · ‎Methods · ‎References
 
Aristaeus said:
Can you give me a believable reason why every government in the world and 98% of climate scientists have engaged in a conspiracy theory for the past 40 years and what do they stand to gain?

Why are governments spending money on combating a thing you claim they invented?
Click to expand...

That is not my claim, and you seem not to have read the OP. The conspiracy theorizing is among the AGW believers, and is aimed at skeptics. You have it backwards.
 
Aristaeus said:
Jeez. You think you can overturn 40 years of almost universal scientific agreement with one graph pasted from the internet?

I mean, do you think climatologists aren't aware of historic temperatures or something?
Click to expand...

I think that climatologists might be aware of this, but finding a person with a Doctorate in Climatology is challenging. What universities offer this program?

That aside, though, if this was a legitimate science, then the evidence would be quantifiable and easily presented. Water boils at the same temperature at a given altitude. Air pressure at altitude is predictable. Same with water pressure at a particular depth.

The "Science" of Climatology seems to be of no use whatever in making accurate predictions. In truth almost all, much more than 90%, of the predictions are wrong and almost all are wrong on the warm side of the range.

It seems like an honest roll of the dice in making predictions of future climate performance without an agenda driving the outcomes would produce an error range much more in the 50-50 range with half being too warm and half being too cool.

This is not the case.

95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong « Roy Spencer, PhD


 
wellwisher said:
If we assume that there is manmade global warming, and this is caused by green house gases, the government will have an excuse to to use fear, to control all of industry and then all the citizens since we all contribute carbon. This is a prelude dance to a socialist paradise.
Click to expand...
:lamo

The industries that make huge sums of money off fossil fuels have created that narrative and spent tons of money spreading it.

It actually seems to have found a home with the anti-government (except the huge military/police portions) right and the young-earth home schoolie crowd in the USA. The rest of the world does not seem to be buying it.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
:lamo

The industries that make huge sums of money off fossil fuels have created that narrative and spent tons of money spreading it.

It actually seems to have found a home with the anti-government (except the huge military/police portions) right and the young-earth home schoolie crowd in the USA. The rest of the world does not seem to be buying it.
Click to expand...

So then why is it the principal scientific opponents of AGW orthodoxy are Europeans whose political leanings (to the extent they are known) seem to be Social Democratic?
 
Jack Hays said:
So then why is it the principal scientific opponents of AGW orthodoxy are Europeans whose political leanings (to the extent they are known) seem to be Social Democratic?
Click to expand...

I'm not following the puppets, just the financing. Can you provide a link (not from Watts' site) showing the beliefs and financing of the scientists you are referring to?
 
<alt>doxygen said:
I'm not following the puppets, just the financing. Can you provide a link (not from Watts' site) showing the beliefs and financing of the scientists you are referring to?
Click to expand...

If you're unwilling to accept data from WUWT then you have fallen victim to the false narrative exposed in the OP of this thread.

I refer you to Bjorn Lomborg of Denmark, Henrik Svensmark of the Technical University of Denmark, and Nir Shaviv, Chairman of the Raccah Institute for Physics at Hebrew University of Jerusalem and IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
If you're right and the world's scientists are wrong, publish your findings and have them challenged by the scientific community. That's how science works. Science is not you cherry picking **** from a blog you found on the internet.

You're on a debate forum because you know you lack the credibility and knowledge to actually contribute to the field. You're as bad as the 9/11 truthers and flat earth conspiracy theorists. All accusations and fear, no facts, evidence or science.
Click to expand...

In a nutshell, that's exactly what he does. Cherry picks and then refuses to refute credible science. On a par with the "no moon landing" peeps.
 
Last edited:
It is telling that, presented with specific evidence in a specific case and a focused OP, our orthodox AGW believer friends can do no better than broad ad hominem rants. They seem uninterested in facts, evidence or data, and instead respond with insults and baseless accusations. It's disappointing.
 
Aristaeus said:
Can you give me a believable reason why every government in the world and 98% of climate scientists have engaged in a conspiracy theory for the past 40 years and what do they stand to gain?

Why are governments spending money on combating a thing you claim they invented?
Click to expand...

I see you have not read any of those 97%/98% papers.

they only say in one way or another that 97% believe AGW has at least some effect. The pundits then lie and claim 97% claim AGW is most the warming. Only the one by Cook is a lie within the paper. PS... Cook is an activist blogger that somehow managed to get a paper published.

I challenge you who have this blind faith to find and read the papers yourself.

There is no conspiracy, it is all self interest, paid for politically. The governments are paying research grants to look for AGW, and such papers get over 99% of that funding in the climate sciences.

Don't be fooled by the numbers. Follow where the grant money comes from, and when some one claims "right wing think tanks," understand that their contribution to these sciences is well under 1%. More than 99% of the money is for mare pro AGW papers.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I see you have not read any of those 97%/98% papers.

they only say in one way or another that 97% believe AGW has at least some effect. The pundits then lie and claim 97% claim AGW is most the warming. Only the one by Cook is a lie within the paper. PS... Cook is an activist blogger that somehow managed to get a paper published.

I challenge you who have this blind faith to find and read the papers yourself.
Click to expand...

Really Lord? Lying about Cook's paper again even after I pointed out that you are mischaracterizing it.
 
Buzz said:
Wow... Shaviv is an idiot or a liar because he makes the false claim that "there was virtually no global warming since 2000". He also states "The lack of warming in the past 2 decades is a clear sign that sensitivity is low". Just another denialist ignoring the significant warming of 2015 and 2016.
Click to expand...

"Virtually no" simply means insignificant. It also depends on the resolution of the numbers you look at, and how you consider the error bands.

I see you are still proving you have no concept of science.
 
Lord of Planar said:
"Virtually no" simply means insignificant. It also depends on the resolution of the numbers you look at, and how you consider the error bands.
Click to expand...

Weasel words.

And do you really think these trends are insignificant?

trend4.jpg

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Lord of Planar said:
I see you are still proving you have no concept of science.
Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:
You don't know squat...
Click to expand...

I guess I must just be getting lucky with all the times I have shown you to be wrong.
 
Buzz said:
Wow... Shaviv is an idiot or a liar because he makes the false claim that "there was virtually no global warming since 2000". He also states "The lack of warming in the past 2 decades is a clear sign that sensitivity is low". Just another denialist ignoring the significant warming of 2015 and 2016.
Click to expand...

Significant in science means measurable.

Significant in normal English means important.

There has been measurable (just) increase in world temperature over the last 20 years. There has been no increase of any importance. Both true.
 
Buzz said:
Wow... Shaviv is an idiot or a liar because he makes the false claim that "there was virtually no global warming since 2000". He also states "The lack of warming in the past 2 decades is a clear sign that sensitivity is low". Just another denialist ignoring the significant warming of 2015 and 2016.
Click to expand...

2015-2016 is just an El Nino weather phenomenon. There is another thread to discuss the near-complete lack of warming 2002-2012.
 
code1211 said:
I think that climatologists might be aware of this, but finding a person with a Doctorate in Climatology is challenging. What universities offer this program?

That aside, though, if this was a legitimate science, then the evidence would be quantifiable and easily presented. Water boils at the same temperature at a given altitude. Air pressure at altitude is predictable. Same with water pressure at a particular depth.

The "Science" of Climatology seems to be of no use whatever in making accurate predictions. In truth almost all, much more than 90%, of the predictions are wrong and almost all are wrong on the warm side of the range.

It seems like an honest roll of the dice in making predictions of future climate performance without an agenda driving the outcomes would produce an error range much more in the 50-50 range with half being too warm and half being too cool.

This is not the case.

95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong « Roy Spencer, PhD
Click to expand...

Gavin Schmidt tweeted this out today.

He’s a scientist, by the way. And he actually has published these things in scientific journals, rather than a blog.

b40e0bbadd7ac9c50689cbe49d8b8c6e.jpg


d941162c00f1b63cd3d13628429ceaa3.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom