• 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!

Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?

Threegoofs said:
Clueless denier fallacy. Couldn’t find one’s ass with both hands fallacy.

You apparently read fast.

When one reads that fast, one clearly loses comprehension.

Take your time.
Click to expand...

CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. Attempted redirection discarded as an evasion.

Why do we need an alternative energy? What's wrong with oil and oil products?
 
longview said:
We have oil refining down fairly well, but finding and extracting oil is not easy or cheap.
Click to expand...
Yes it is.
longview said:
Saying something is expensive is very subjective without numbers attached.
Click to expand...
Anyone can look up the price of oil. Try Google. Anyone can look up the commodity value of any currency too. Try Google.
longview said:
It looks like the man made fuels will become economically viable when oil get to about $90 a barrel.
Click to expand...
Oil has already been above $100 a barrel. We already make oil. We've done that since WW2. Getting it out of the ground is still much cheaper. The stuff we make is for specialty purposes.

Using an absolute figure like $90 is pointless. It depends on what the dollar is worth (commodity value of a currency). The dollar has dropped a lot in just a few decades (now about 3/100th of it's value since 1960). It still continues to decline.
longview said:
(this is based on wholesale electricity being about $50 per Mwh)
Click to expand...
Again, absolute numbers are pointless. Oil is also used for more than just fixed power plants.
longview said:
This number may be lower, once the people with the real expertise in petrochemicals start talking about their research.
Click to expand...
The talent in the oil industry to improve yield has been marvelous.
longview said:
Again the problem with oil is that if we tried to allow everyone on the planet to live the lifestyle we already enjoy,
the supplies of oil would run down quite quickly.
Click to expand...
No one is prohibiting it. The problem is not oil. The problem is food, water, shelter, wars, religions, or just simply lack of need.
longview said:
While there is plenty of oil left,
Click to expand...
There IS plenty of oil left. It's also renewing.
longview said:
the large reserves are very difficult to extract, difficult also means expensive.
Click to expand...
No, they aren't. The market price of oil is cheap. Against the commodity value of any popular currency, it is MUCH cheaper than it was in 1960, when gas cost $0.30 a gallon.
 
Into the Night said:
CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. Attempted redirection discarded as an evasion.

Why do we need an alternative energy? What's wrong with oil and oil products?
Click to expand...

Repetitive meaningless blabber fallacy.
 
Threegoofs said:
Repetitive meaningless blabber fallacy.
Click to expand...

You can't seem to answer the question. You keep evading. Is it just because you are just believing the religion of the Church of Global Warming?

Why do we need an alternative energy? What's wrong with oil and oil products?
 
MrPeanut said:
I have to admit that it seems like a really cool job, but I'm pretty sure that the majority of scientists still support AGW. I'm not sure what you would know that they wouldn't.
Click to expand...

How about all of the experts who dissagree with the UNited Nations AGW reports? This has become a political and financial football rather than a scientific issue thanks to those of you on the left who know nothing of politics or science but do the bidding of your GODs, leftist politicians.
 
Into the Night said:
You can't seem to answer the question. You keep evading. Is it just because you are just believing the religion of the Church of Global Warming?

Why do we need an alternative energy? What's wrong with oil and oil products?
Click to expand...

Fallacy of Repitition.
 
Threegoofs said:
Fallacy of Repitition.
Click to expand...

Fallacy fallacy. Evasion by redirection fallacy.

You can't seem to answer the question. You keep evading. Is it just because you are just believing the religion of the Church of Global Warming?

Why do we need an alternative energy? What's wrong with oil and oil products?



Maybe you don't answer because you don't know?? You are just chanting what someone else gave you?
 
Into the Night said:
Fallacy fallacy. Evasion by redirection fallacy.

You can't seem to answer the question. You keep evading. Is it just because you are just believing the religion of the Church of Global Warming?

Why do we need an alternative energy? What's wrong with oil and oil products?



Maybe you don't answer because you don't know?? You are just chanting what someone else gave you?
Click to expand...


Can’t read a ****in’ link fallacy.


Read the link.

Then we can talk.

Orherwize, it’s just you committing a Lazy Fallacy.
 
Threegoofs said:
Can’t read a ****in’ link fallacy.


Read the link.

Then we can talk.

Orherwize, it’s just you committing a Lazy Fallacy.
Click to expand...

The Church of Global Warming is not an answer. You have now admitted that you are just chanting what someone told you to chant.
 
Threegoofs said:
You mean I read and understand what the science says?

Yep. Guilty.
Click to expand...

Contextomy fallacy. There is no such thing as a 'science' of global warming. The very phrase 'global warming' is a meaningless buzzword. It can only be defined by itself. Science has theories based on a void argument, since no theory at all (scientific or otherwise) can be based on a void argument.

The Church of Global Warming (and you) deny the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics. You also deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You also deny statistical mathematics.

Redefinition fallacy. You are attempting to redefine 'religion' as 'science'.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
 
Into the Night said:
Contextomy fallacy. There is no such thing as a 'science' of global warming. The very phrase 'global warming' is a meaningless buzzword. It can only be defined by itself. Science has theories based on a void argument, since no theory at all (scientific or otherwise) can be based on a void argument.

The Church of Global Warming (and you) deny the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics. You also deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You also deny statistical mathematics.

Redefinition fallacy. You are attempting to redefine 'religion' as 'science'.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Click to expand...

Yes. All those physicists who work on this issue dont know.... the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Do you even read your own posts?
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes. All those physicists who work on this issue dont know.... the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Click to expand...
Physicists don't work on 'global warming' (whatever that actually is). Are you actually trying to claim that physics has falsified the laws of thermodynamics?

Science isn't physicists. It isn't a climate 'scientist' either. It isn't data. It uses no supporting evidence. It does not use consensus. It isn't a government agency, university, academy, society, or any other political group. It is not even people at all. Apparently you are not aware the biasing nature of science funding in most countries, including the United States.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Threegoofs said:
Do you even read your own posts?
Click to expand...
No need to. I wrote them.
 
Into the Night said:
Physicists don't work on 'global warming' (whatever that actually is). Are you actually trying to claim that physics has falsified the laws of thermodynamics?

Science isn't physicists. It isn't a climate 'scientist' either. It isn't data. It uses no supporting evidence. It does not use consensus. It isn't a government agency, university, academy, society, or any other political group. It is not even people at all. Apparently you are not aware the biasing nature of science funding in most countries, including the United States.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


No need to. I wrote them.
Click to expand...

Oh.

I guess the American Physical Society, which is the main scientific organization composed of physicists, doesn’t understand the Laws of Thermodynamics as well as you, Mr Anonymous Poster.

Climate Change

:roll:
 
Threegoofs said:
Oh.

I guess the American Physical Society, which is the main scientific organization composed of physicists, doesn’t understand the Laws of Thermodynamics as well as you, Mr Anonymous Poster.

Climate Change

:roll:
Click to expand...

Compositional error involving people as the class...bigotry.

The APS does not represent the opinion of each and every one of its members.

Science does not use consensus. Science is not any political group. You are still failing to recognize the effect of bias among scientists due to funding.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is YOU and the Church of Global Warming that denies the laws of thermodynamics, particularly the 2nd law.

Try to explain the 'greenhouse effect' without violating any law of science. Explain it yourself. Don't just point to websites.
 
Into the Night said:
Compositional error involving people as the class...bigotry.

The APS does not represent the opinion of each and every one of its members.

Science does not use consensus. Science is not any political group. You are still failing to recognize the effect of bias among scientists due to funding.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is YOU and the Church of Global Warming that denies the laws of thermodynamics, particularly the 2nd law.

Try to explain the 'greenhouse effect' without violating any law of science. Explain it yourself. Don't just point to websites.
Click to expand...

So your argument is that only a whole bunch of physicists don’t understand the Laws of Thermodynamics.

And apparently, none of the ones that DO understand them has bothered to point out that their own organization supports a view that is opposed to these fundamental laws of physics.

I’d laugh at you, but it’s actually getting sad.
 
Threegoofs said:
So your argument is that only a whole bunch of physicists don’t understand the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Click to expand...
No. My argument is that YOU don't understand the laws of thermodynamics.
Threegoofs said:
And apparently, none of the ones that DO understand them has bothered to point out that their own organization supports a view that is opposed to these fundamental laws of physics.
Click to expand...
Bigotry again.
 
Into the Night said:
No. My argument is that YOU don't understand the laws of thermodynamics.

Bigotry again.
Click to expand...

Sorry... what does it matter what MY understanding is?

Especially when the Laws are obviously so controversial, TRAINED PHYSICISTS don’t even understand them, according to you?
 
[h=1]Failed Prognostications of Climate Alarm[/h][FONT=&quot]By Rob Bradley writing at IER “If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit [between now and] the year 2025 to 2050…. The rise in global temperature is predicted to … caus[e] sea levels to rise by one…
[/FONT]
 
Renae said:
Spent ten years Active Duty Navy as an AG, so I at least have a practical background in the matter. Unlike so many here.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your service.
 
MrPeanut said:
I have to admit that it seems like a really cool job, but I'm pretty sure that the majority of scientists still support AGW. I'm not sure what you would know that they wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Truth is not something determined by majority opinion, and it remains debatable whether or not the majority of credible scientists even go along with all of the global warming alarmist hype to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom