• 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!

Global Cooling Is Under Way

Do you realize by stating things like this you are just destroying your own argument? 2016 was extremely hot. Compared to any other recent period. The fact that two years after this are cooler doesn't say much. Especially when you look at it in the larger picture where 2 years of data really doesn't change much at all. Especially since the "cooler" years are still much warmer than the past. You are either being purposely misleading, or are ignorant in regards to very basic statistics and the scientific method.

Your hyperbole is amusing, considering nothing horrible or way out of average happened that year. In my area year 2015 was HOT with highs reaching 112 F, over 108F for 5 days, yet nobody died. It is rare to have highs over 103F in my area, yet life goes on.

Warmists are now nearly in total disregard to the Per Decade warming rate prediction/projection as published by the IPCC, because they learned a while ago that it is a failure. Now they just run into hyperbolic warmest year on record bullcrap in its place, which doesn't help the AGW conjecture at all.
 
It was destroyed, repeatedly, several times here.

Mithrae did an especially good job of eviscerating you, if I recall.

Then you can do the same.

I am always willing to discuss the effect of doubling the price of food on the world's poor.
 
Then you can do the same.

I am always willing to discuss the effect of doubling the price of food on the world's poor.

Yes, and then someone will do the same in three months, when you repeat the ludicrous claim.

We’ve all seen this charade before, dude.
 
Yes, and then someone will do the same in three months, when you repeat the ludicrous claim.

We’ve all seen this charade before, dude.

Do you disagree with any of these statements?

1, That the use of 30% or so of the rich world's food production goes into biofuel.

2, That this has very greatly increased the world price of food.

3, That this mean that if you live on less than $2.50 per day, as does almost half the world, it is causing your life expectancy to drop to by about 15 to 20 years.

4, That removal of this artificial price increase would result in a very fast rise of the economy of the poor of the world. This being different from the economic figures for any particular nation as the rich of a poor country make up most of the GDP.

5, That it would be a good thing if this was to stop.

Or is it that you don't care about poor people who you don't meet?
 
The data for low climate sensitivity to CO2 has been Published, most recently Lewis Curry 2018,
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1

But a more complete answer to your question, would first involve an understanding of what the consensus of
scientist are in agreement about. I contend the consensus is only that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that will cause some
warming if we double the level.
When Scientist look at the way the climate has reacted to the CO2 increases of the past (observational data),
they find the climate's sensitivity to added CO2 to be in the low end of the IPCC's range.

You ask what is the downside, I say plenty! Humanity has several real problems that we need to address to move into the future.
By not identifying the correct problems, we waste precious resources, on irrelevant problems.
The two real problems are energy and fresh water, but the right supply of energy can solve both.
Consider this, Our planet does not have enough stored hydrocarbon energy to allow the current population
to live a first world lifestyle for more than a few decades.
There is more than enough solar energy hitting the surface of the earth to have a sustainable future for everyone,
but the low duty cycle of that energy makes it more like a second or third world supply.
(the electricity is on sometime, but no guarantees.)
If we want to utilize solar power, we need a way to store and accumulate, in a usable form.
In research, many times, it helps to see how nature does a task, and try to mimic that process.
For storing energy, nature mostly uses hydrocarbons, and sugars, (which are hydrocarbons with some oxygen bonds).
The Navy, Audi Sunfire, and a few others have publicly been working in this area.
Green Syngas - Sunfire
U.S. Navy Wants to Fuel Ships Using Seawater - D-brief

Science and Scientific American await your peer reviewed article. Call up Inhoff and testify. Enter the fray.

Do you believe that if Trump commissioned top scientists in the field to do a study of the issue, they would come to different conclusions than the conventional wisdom?
 
Do you disagree with any of these statements?

1, That the use of 30% or so of the rich world's food production goes into biofuel.

2, That this has very greatly increased the world price of food.

3, That this mean that if you live on less than $2.50 per day, as does almost half the world, it is causing your life expectancy to drop to by about 15 to 20 years.

4, That removal of this artificial price increase would result in a very fast rise of the economy of the poor of the world. This being different from the economic figures for any particular nation as the rich of a poor country make up most of the GDP.

5, That it would be a good thing if this was to stop.

Or is it that you don't care about poor people who you don't meet?

You didn’t learn from the last ten beatdowns on the issue, why would I bother with #11?
 
No, but the news release you linked is an effort to hide what's happening. Temperatures are going down. The fact that they're still higher (for now) than a baseline figure is just statistical sleight-of-hand.
Isn't that why we call it climate change now instead of global warming?
 
Your hyperbole is amusing, considering nothing horrible or way out of average happened that year. In my area year 2015 was HOT with highs reaching 112 F, over 108F for 5 days, yet nobody died. It is rare to have highs over 103F in my area, yet life goes on.

Warmists are now nearly in total disregard to the Per Decade warming rate prediction/projection as published by the IPCC, because they learned a while ago that it is a failure. Now they just run into hyperbolic warmest year on record bullcrap in its place, which doesn't help the AGW conjecture at all.

Well its a good thing you have such a great understanding of how your local weather is all that matters within the world!
 
You didn’t learn from the last ten beatdowns on the issue, why would I bother with #11?

You simply do not care at all about people you have not met so cannot picture.

All your emotions are focused on being part of the percieved heard.
 
Could someone, skeptic or otherwise explain few points to me? 1- why not present your data for an article in Science or Scientific American to spread the word among scientists and torpedo the alarmists. 2- can you trace just how the notion of human caused climate changes insinuated itself into the scientific community. Why would they falsify data? Only explanation I have heard posited is that they don't want to buck the consensus and lose fellowships or something, pretty weak tea. 3- I assume that energy companies have financed doubt due to their economic interests, but oil company websites seem to acknowledge the phenomenon, and talk about the changes they are enacting.

But what are the downsides of the actions proposed to deal with climate change? As Sen McCain, put it, if what is posited is real, we should be doing stuff; if not real, much of what is suggested we do is good policy anyway.

You have linked the post where 3goofs has told you that my responce was beaten last time.

You thus must, surely, have read the bit he was responding to.

Have you any challenge to any of my points?


Do you disagree with any of these statements?

1, That the use of 30% or so of the rich world's food production goes into biofuel.

2, That this has very greatly increased the world price of food.

3, That this mean that if you live on less than $2.50 per day, as does almost half the world, it is causing your life expectancy to drop to by about 15 to 20 years.

4, That removal of this artificial price increase would result in a very fast rise of the economy of the poor of the world. This being different from the economic figures for any particular nation as the rich of a poor country make up most of the GDP.

5, That it would be a good thing if this was to stop.

Or is it that you don't care about poor people who you don't meet?
 
The Atlantic is entering a cool phase that will change the world’s weather [link]

. . . The good news is our latest research, published in the journal Nature, gives us a much better understanding of these Atlantic oscillations. We now know that accelerations in sea-level rise in cities like New York and Boston on the north-east coast of the US are linked to a cold spell in the Atlantic.
The bad news, at least if you’re an African farmer or have a coastal property in New England? We’re about to go into a cold phase. . . .
 
Do you disagree with any of these statements?

1, That the use of 30% or so of the rich world's food production goes into biofuel.

2, That this has very greatly increased the world price of food.

3, That this mean that if you live on less than $2.50 per day, as does almost half the world, it is causing your life expectancy to drop to by about 15 to 20 years.

4, That removal of this artificial price increase would result in a very fast rise of the economy of the poor of the world. This being different from the economic figures for any particular nation as the rich of a poor country make up most of the GDP.

5, That it would be a good thing if this was to stop.

Or is it that you don't care about poor people who you don't meet?

Of course he will disagree.

Rational thought is not in his programming.
 
Science and Scientific American await your peer reviewed article. Call up Inhoff and testify. Enter the fray.

Do you believe that if Trump commissioned top scientists in the field to do a study of the issue, they would come to different conclusions than the conventional wisdom?

He linked a valid peer reviewed study. Science and Scientific American are for profit magazines. Not peer reviewed journals.

Your priorities are backwards.
 
Could someone, skeptic or otherwise explain few points to me? 1- why not present your data for an article in Science or Scientific American to spread the word among scientists and torpedo the alarmists.
I seriously doubt that scientists read those magazines. They are written by journalists with a small science background. Not by scientists.

2- can you trace just how the notion of human caused climate changes insinuated itself into the scientific community. Why would they falsify data? Only explanation I have heard posited is that they don't want to buck the consensus and lose fellowships or something, pretty weak tea.
Only a very small number of scientists falsify anything. It is the pundits who lie about what the scientists actually say in the papers they write.

3- I assume that energy companies have financed doubt due to their economic interests, but oil company websites seem to acknowledge the phenomenon, and talk about the changes they are enacting.
Oil companies are for profit, and welcome the government subsidies by playing ball with what congress writes into law.

But what are the downsides of the actions proposed to deal with climate change? As Sen McCain, put it, if what is posited is real, we should be doing stuff; if not real, much of what is suggested we do is good policy anyway.
Too expensive for too small of results. Our actions will not make any global change until the real polluters like China and other nations become as clean as we are.

 
He linked a valid peer reviewed study. Science and Scientific American are for profit magazines. Not peer reviewed journals.

Your priorities are backwards.

LOL.

The guy who brags about subscribing to so many journals doesn’t understand:

- The difference between Scientific American and Science....which is probably in the top three prestigious journals in the world.

- the fact that Science is published by the AAAS, which is a nonprofit organization.

- the fact that Science publishes peer reviewed work, and I’m pretty sure Sci Am probably does some peer review too, although they don’t publish original research much

- the fact that most scientific journals (such as the Nature Publishing Group, which I think owns Sci Am now) are FOR PROFIT publishers.

But he ‘knows’ all the scientists are wrong....
 
Okay well, they aren't going down. Sorry if you believe that. Its simply not true.

It is cold. Right now. And wet. That means global cooling. And it is cloudy...
 
He linked a valid peer reviewed study. Science and Scientific American are for profit magazines. Not peer reviewed journals.

Your priorities are backwards.

Great...match that against the other scores of peer reviewed articles that come to different conclusions. Have skeptics do a study, make presentations to Congress. Have Trump send his scientists to the next international meeting with studies in hand, do a presentation. Make part of any trade deal with China have them admit this was a hoax they perpetrated. End all this foolishness.

If not Science and Scientific American, where should one publish? Btw, isn't Science part of the AAAS? Have they been corrupted also?
 
Science and Scientific American await your peer reviewed article. Call up Inhoff and testify. Enter the fray.

Do you believe that if Trump commissioned top scientists in the field to do a study of the issue, they would come to different conclusions than the conventional wisdom?

Your reply indicate that you have no valiant arguments to offer. Being snotty doesn't work for veteran skeptics who have seen your mocking style for years.

Try something better and deeper.
 
Great...match that against the other scores of peer reviewed articles that come to different conclusions. Have skeptics do a study, make presentations to Congress. Have Trump send his scientists to the next international meeting with studies in hand, do a presentation. Make part of any trade deal with China have them admit this was a hoax they perpetrated. End all this foolishness.

If not Science and Scientific American, where should one publish? Btw, isn't Science part of the AAAS? Have they been corrupted also?

Publish in a science journal.

My God... What's going through your head?

Yes, AAAS has a journal called "Science." But since your education level believes that Scientific American is an authority, but is just a newsstand magazine, it is natural to assume you are referring to the magazine called Science. Not the Journal.

You make yourself look bad.
 
It is cold. Right now. And wet. That means global cooling. And it is cloudy...

And what happens when its warm? Well its not warm enough for people to die, so its okay!
 
And what happens when its warm? Well its not warm enough for people to die, so its okay!

When it is warm people will die? Where the hell do you live?
 
Back
Top Bottom