• 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

Lord of Planar said:
I seriously doubt that scientists read those magazines. They are written by journalists with a small science background. Not by scientists.


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.


Oil companies are for profit, and welcome the government subsidies by playing ball with what congress writes into law.


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.


Aside from the comments about China (who seems ready to make big bucks on alternative energy) which seem sensible, you seem to believe there is some vast conspiracy, such that scientists are not writing articles, but pundits, who deliberately misrepresent what the scientists actually say, with the cooperation of their pundit peers who review these non-scientific articles.

One small question: what's the motive? Who influenced the scientists, pundits, AAAS, the greedy magazines, etc.? What disease poisoned the leadership in 190 countries, sparing only Donald Trump?

As Joe Hill said before they executed him, "Don't mourn, organize." Get busy: get congress to reject any notion of mileage standards; get support for the hapless oil companies and let them flex their muscles, show up in strength at any future international meetings.
Click to expand...
 
Sunsettommy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry... All I was trying to say is for skeptics on this issue is to counter the bad information they see with better information. I am not a scientist; I have no valid arguments. But I trust the scientific community and its apparent quasi-consensus and the international community, whose scientists apparently agree. If this is a huge fraud, debunk it. First step, tell Trump to shut up. He lies too much to be trusted. Pressure him and democrats to put together an evenly divided panel to study the issue and let the chips fall where they may. Or just have the GOP name the panel. Adjust domestic policies accordingly, and take evidence and arguments to the relevant international organizations.
 
Lord of Planar said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the journal and the newsstand magazine. So find me an article in Science that debunks the theory of human caused climate change. Or publish one in the journal of your choice. Fight back with evidence that counters the myth. Come up with a theory you can back up and enter the fray.

If sufficient new evidence surfaces that smoking doesn't cause cancer, that acid rain doesn't effect lakes, that exhaust from cars doesn't cause smog, that pesticides are not harmful, we can change policies in those areas as well. If you can expose the facts that newsstand magazines like Scientific American don't have qualified people writing for them, we can challenge their articles that support taking steps on the climate.

And again, someone please explain how so many nations were fooled. It's not impossible that could happen, and it would be of use to see how this thing developed, if it resembled how witch hunts, the stories of huge cults of satanic-worshipping child abusers, the red scare, and similar things in other countries -- like the Inquisition -- developed.
 
Nickyjo said:
Sorry... All I was trying to say is for skeptics on this issue is to counter the bad information they see with better information. I am not a scientist; I have no valid arguments. But I trust the scientific community and its apparent quasi-consensus and the international community, whose scientists apparently agree. If this is a huge fraud, debunk it. First step, tell Trump to shut up. He lies too much to be trusted. Pressure him and democrats to put together an evenly divided panel to study the issue and let the chips fall where they may. Or just have the GOP name the panel. Adjust domestic policies accordingly, and take evidence and arguments to the relevant international organizations.
Click to expand...

You seem to be avoiding me.

Would you care to answer which you disagree with yet? [3]

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
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?
Click to expand...
 
Nickyjo said:
Sorry... All I was trying to say is for skeptics on this issue is to counter the bad information they see with better information. I am not a scientist; I have no valid arguments. But I trust the scientific community and its apparent quasi-consensus and the international community, whose scientists apparently agree. If this is a huge fraud, debunk it. First step, tell Trump to shut up. He lies too much to be trusted. Pressure him and democrats to put together an evenly divided panel to study the issue and let the chips fall where they may. Or just have the GOP name the panel. Adjust domestic policies accordingly, and take evidence and arguments to the relevant international organizations.
Click to expand...

Trump is not a relevant factor because the AGW failures were known long before he became President, thus his alleged lies are irrelevant on the issue of Global Warming.

Many skeptics already counter bad/failed research by picking on the modeling failures of the IPCC. Warmists never accept the well demonstrated prediction/projection failures because that would destroy their entire belief system over a trace gas with a trace IR absorption window.

Warmists needs to grow up, stop fighting the hard evidence and get to work cleaning up real pollution, CO2 is a NOT pollutant!
 
Nickyjo said:
I was referring to the journal and the newsstand magazine. So find me an article in Science that debunks the theory of human caused climate change. Or publish one in the journal of your choice. Fight back with evidence that counters the myth. Come up with a theory you can back up and enter the fray.

If sufficient new evidence surfaces that smoking doesn't cause cancer, that acid rain doesn't effect lakes, that exhaust from cars doesn't cause smog, that pesticides are not harmful, we can change policies in those areas as well. If you can expose the facts that newsstand magazines like Scientific American don't have qualified people writing for them, we can challenge their articles that support taking steps on the climate.

And again, someone please explain how so many nations were fooled. It's not impossible that could happen, and it would be of use to see how this thing developed, if it resembled how witch hunts, the stories of huge cults of satanic-worshipping child abusers, the red scare, and similar things in other countries -- like the Inquisition -- developed.
Click to expand...

If you spend any time here, you will notice that the sources they use are fronts for, and puppets of, Big Oil.

The science was settled decades ago, but money can buy anything in this country.
 
late said:
If you spend any time here, you will notice that the sources they use are fronts for, and puppets of, Big Oil.

The science was settled decades ago, but money can buy anything in this country.
Click to expand...

I await your provision of evidence to support your claim that "Big Oil" supports WUWT, for example.
 
late said:
If you spend any time here, you will notice that the sources they use are fronts for, and puppets of, Big Oil.

The science was settled decades ago, but money can buy anything in this country.
Click to expand...

The very phrase "The science is settled" make clear you have no idea what you are talking about, because science research is ongoing in many areas with new discoveries and increased knowledge of the world around us. It is a NEVER ENDING PROCESS, which is why they continue to fund research.

You have no idea how silly you are when you make thumper statements out of ignorance.
 
Jack Hays said:
I await your provision of evidence to support your claim that "Big Oil" supports WUWT, for example.
Click to expand...

The "big Oil" funding canard is so dumb and boring, since it has been an irrelevant canard for 20 years now. Meanwhile they continually ignore the well documented IPCC prediction/projection failures, which were known by skeptics years ago.
 
Sunsettommy said:
The very phrase "The science is settled" make clear you have no idea what you are talking about, because science research is ongoing in many areas with new discoveries and increased knowledge of the world around us. It is a NEVER ENDING PROCESS, which is why they continue to fund research.

You have no idea how silly you are when you make thumper statements out of ignorance.
Click to expand...

Sigh.

I've studied the history of science, the philosophy of science, basic college level methodology.

Propaganda aside, the community of climate scientists stooped fighting over 20 years ago. The big dustup was in the 90s, that was a hell of a row. A few year later, the science community, as a whole, added their support. That's as good as it gets.

Of course the science is ongoing, but it's simply not the way you usually describe it.
 
late said:
Sigh.

I've studied the history of science, the philosophy of science, basic college level methodology.

Propaganda aside, the community of climate scientists stooped fighting over 20 years ago. The big dustup was in the 90s, that was a hell of a row. A few year later, the science community, as a whole, added their support. That's as good as it gets.

Of course the science is ongoing, but it's simply not the way you usually describe it.
Click to expand...

You stated:

The science is settled
Click to expand...

That was enough to prove that you don't understand what science research is really about.

You have ignored the well documented IPCC PER DECADE Warming rate and the Tropospheric "hot spot" modeling failures.

You can do a lot better than that.
 
Sunsettommy said:
You stated:



That was enough to prove that you don't understand what science research is really about.

You have ignored the well documented IPCC PER DECADE Warming rate and the Tropospheric "hot spot" modeling failures.

You can do a lot better than that.
Click to expand...

This is for those of us not in lala land...

512px-Climate_science_opinion_graph_3Path.svg.png


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
 
late said:
Sigh.

I've studied the history of science, the philosophy of science, basic college level methodology.

Propaganda aside, the community of climate scientists stooped fighting over 20 years ago. The big dustup was in the 90s, that was a hell of a row. A few year later, the science community, as a whole, added their support. That's as good as it gets.

Of course the science is ongoing, but it's simply not the way you usually describe it.
Click to expand...

[h=2]Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic[/h]
 
RAMOSS said:
Hum. Let's see, 2017 was the second hottest year on record, just slighly below 2016.

So, one year is cooler than the previous year, which happens quite frequently (particularly when you are coming off a peak)

That doesn't mean it' global cooling.

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/its-official-2017-was-the-second-hottest-year-on-record
Click to expand...

The Atlantic is entering a cool phase that will change the world’s weather [link]

[FONT=&quot]. . . 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. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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. . . .[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
The Atlantic is entering a cool phase that will change the world’s weather [link]

[FONT="]. . . The good news is our latest research, published in the journal [URL="https://www.debatepolitics.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Fnature%2Fjournal%2Fv521%2Fn7553%2Ffull%2Fnature14491.html"]Nature[/URL], 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. [/FONT]
[FONT="]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. . . .[/FONT]
Click to expand...

This is considerably more recent:

"The findings are important because it could happen again, a result of both the Greenland Ice Sheet melting and a significant rise in fresh water from the Arctic through increased rain and snow. The study also highlights how sensitive the Atlantic current is to changes in the input of fresh water."

"Models show that as the planet warms the Arctic will receive more snow in the winter and more rain in the summer," Carlson said. "The increase in precipitation is already happening."


https://phys.org/news/2018-01-freshwater-route-ice-rapid-cooling.html
 
late said:
No, I ignore your propaganda.

Like changing the subject when your assertion gets blown to hell.
Click to expand...

Explain this IPCC failure:

1. Warming rate predictions

1990 IPCC FAR: “Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C).” See here, page xi.

Reality check: Since 1990 the warming rate has been from 0.12 to 0.19°C per decade depending on the database used, outside the uncertainty range of 1990. CO2 emissions have tracked the “Business as Usual” scenario. An interesting discussion of the 1990 FAR report warming predictions and an analysis of them through April of 2015 can be seen here. A list of official warming rates from various datasets and for various time spans can be seen here.

I exposed your profound ignorance of the failures easily.

Cheers.
 
2. Temperature predictions

1990 IPCC FAR: “Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases … this will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025.” See here, page xi.

Reality check: From 1990 to 2017 (first 8 months) the increase in temperatures has been 0.31 to 0.49°C depending on the database used. CO2 emissions have tracked the Business as Usual scenario.

An even bigger failure is unfolding.
 
Sunsettommy said:
2. Temperature predictions

1990 IPCC FAR: “Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases … this will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025.” See here, page xi.

Reality check: From 1990 to 2017 (first 8 months) the increase in temperatures has been 0.31 to 0.49°C depending on the database used. CO2 emissions have tracked the Business as Usual scenario.

An even bigger failure is unfolding.
Click to expand...

Interesting, you provide a quote from some website without giving the readers a link to said site.

I think you know that this year is 2018. For some reason, NOAA tells us that the temperature has already risen to 0.94C above the average for the 20th Century.
Highlights:
  • During 2016, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.69°F (0.94°C) above the twentieth-century century average.
  • This was the third year in a row, and the fifth time since 2000, that a new temperature record was set.
  • 1976 was the last time the annual average temperature was cooler than the twentieth-century average.
  • All 16 years of the twenty-first century rank among the 17 warmest years on record.
Click to expand...

Long-term warming trend continued in 2017: NASA, NOAA
 
Sunsettommy said:
Explain this IPCC failure:

1. Warming rate predictions

1990 IPCC FAR: “Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C).” See here, page xi.

Reality check: Since 1990 the warming rate has been from 0.12 to 0.19°C per decade depending on the database used, outside the uncertainty range of 1990. CO2 emissions have tracked the “Business as Usual” scenario. An interesting discussion of the 1990 FAR report warming predictions and an analysis of them through April of 2015 can be seen here. A list of official warming rates from various datasets and for various time spans can be seen here.

I exposed your profound ignorance of the failures easily.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

What a fail post.

The actual warming is a bit above 0.2 degrees per decade, as I showed before. This is EXACTLY in line with the predictions of 0.2-0.5, later versions of IPCC, working with better estimates, show a 0.2 rise for the next couple decades, increasing in later decades.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf
 
late said:
This is considerably more recent:

"The findings are important because it could happen again, a result of both the Greenland Ice Sheet melting and a significant rise in fresh water from the Arctic through increased rain and snow. The study also highlights how sensitive the Atlantic current is to changes in the input of fresh water."

"Models show that as the planet warms the Arctic will receive more snow in the winter and more rain in the summer," Carlson said. "The increase in precipitation is already happening."


https://phys.org/news/2018-01-freshwater-route-ice-rapid-cooling.html
Click to expand...

My reaction is mixed.
"Models show . . . " means: "Credibility stops here."
No one doubts increased fresh water into the North Atlantic would alter the current. The important point is the result would be cooling.
I don't think the question of Younger Dryas origin is settled, regardless of these claims.
 
Jack Hays said:
1) "Models show . . . " means: "Credibility stops here."

2)No one doubts increased fresh water into the North Atlantic would alter the current. The important point is the result would be cooling.
I don't think the question of Younger Dryas origin is settled, regardless of these claims.
Click to expand...

1) Not among scientists. They took to computer models like a duck to water. As did engineers. As did philosophers of science, using modeling as a metaphor for the way we understand science.

2) But I get the impression they are zeroing in on the solution.
 
Somerville said:
Interesting, you provide a quote from some website without giving the readers a link to said site.

I think you know that this year is 2018. For some reason, NOAA tells us that the temperature has already risen to 0.94C above the average for the 20th Century.


Long-term warming trend continued in 2017: NASA, NOAA
Click to expand...

OOops my mistake, thanks for pointing it out.

Will add the link.

However the IPCC started their prediction/projection at year 1990 for their continuous failed Per Decade warming rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom