• 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!

Climate Change Causing Extreme Weather

longview said:
The point is that concerns in the 1970 were that an ice age was coming, and not just magazine articles, but Scientific reports issued
by the Government.
Click to expand...

I looked this up awhile, and there were about 2 reports, which were quickly debunked. The focus quickly turned to Warming, and the data ever since then has been accurate.
 
Jack Hays said:
1. It is simply a lie to claim oil industry or Koch funding for WUWT.
2. Israel Times???
Click to expand...

Check your link. BS! No LIE. Watts co-authored a report with at least one individual who was a speaker for the Koch events. He is undoubtedly on the Donor's Trust payroll, which is heavily funded by the Kochs.
 
Media_Truth said:
Check your link. BS! No LIE. Watts co-authored a report with at least one individual who was a speaker for the Koch events. He is undoubtedly on the Donor's Trust payroll, which is heavily funded by the Kochs.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure Watts has been on the sidewalk with Koch employees too. Big deal. Co-author with someone who spoke at Koch events means nothing except to tinfoil hatted conspiracy theorists.
 
Jack Hays said:
And I'm sure Watts has been on the sidewalk with Koch employees too. Big deal. Co-author with someone who spoke at Koch events means nothing except to tinfoil hatted conspiracy theorists.
Click to expand...

OH - the convenience of naivety.
 
A useful overview of the lies used to sell the idea that climate change is causing extreme weather.

[FONT=&quot]Climate Politics[/FONT]
[h=1]Three Examples That Prove the Media and Politicians Have No Clue What They Are Doing in Climate Science Inconvenient Truths: Opinion by Chris Martz and Daniel Lai[/h][FONT=&quot]Reposted from Awesome Weather Facts Blog Thursday, May 30, 2019 Disclaimer: Both of us appreciate the fact that the media exists to spread useful information around to people on a daily basis. However, when there is bias and poorly conducted journalism, it needs to be addressed seriously. Introduction Time and time again, media outlets and…
[/FONT]
 
Media_Truth said:
I looked this up awhile, and there were about 2 reports, which were quickly debunked. The focus quickly turned to Warming, and the data ever since then has been accurate.
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha, your lies are so obvious since Jack showed in post 40 that there were many published science papers warning of a global cooling trend and even talk of a new glaciation phase in some papers.

Here are a few examples from Jacks link, you ignored:

U.S. Central Intelligence Agency,1974

Potential Implications of Trends in World Population, Food Production, and Climate

“According to Dr. Hubert Lamb–an outstanding British climatologist–22 out of 27 forecasting methods he examined predicted a cooling trend through the remainder of this century. A change of 2°-3° F. in average temperature would have an enormous impact. … A number of meteorological experts are thinking in terms of a return to a climate like that of the 19th century. This would mean that within a relatively few years (probably less than two decades, assuming the cooling trend began in the 1960’s) there would be brought belts of excess and deficit rainfall in the middle-latitudes; more frequent failure of the monsoons that dominate the Indian sub-continent, south China and western Africa; shorter growing seasons for Canada, northern Russia and north China. Europe could expect to be cooler and wetter. … n periods when climate change [cooling] is underway, violent weather — unseasonal frosts, warm spells, large storms, floods, etc.–is thought to be more common.”

or,

Collis, 1975

“It is not clear how such favorable and relatively consistent conditions are related to the higher temperatures in this century or the peaking of temperatures around 1940. The reversal of this warming trend, however, could mark the beginning of a new ice age as some climatologists have indicated. It should be noted, though, that even if we are in fact heading for another ice age, many years or decades will elapse before this will become apparent”

or,

Kukla, 1972

“A new glacial insolation regime, expected to last 8000 years, began just recently. Mean global temperatures may eventually drop about 1oC in the next hundred years.”

or,

Douglas, 1975

[T]he weather in the first part of this century has been the warmest and best for world agriculture in over a millenium, and, partly as a result, the world’s population has more than doubled. Since 1940, however, the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere has been steadily falling: Having risen about 1.1 degrees C. between 1885 and 1940, according to one estimation, the temperature has already fallen back some 0.6 degrees, and shows no signs of reversal. Specific areas, of course, may experience changes markedly different from the average. During the warming period, temperatures in parts of Norway rose five times more than the hemisphere average, and since the cooling trend began again, Iceland’s temperature has dropped nearly 2.0 degrees, threatening continued existence of some crops.

According to the academy report on climate, we may be approaching the end of a major interglacial cycle, with the approach of a full-blown 10,000-year ice age a real possibility.

===========================================
There are over 200 such papers, going to ignore them all?

:2wave:
 
Jack Hays said:
Your failure to comprehend is complete.
Click to expand...

Oh please... I have shown on numerous occasions that I comprehend the subject matter consistently better than you do.

Jack Hays said:
I decided some time ago that the lack of honesty and/or interest in a real discussion among AGW advocates would preclude any actual exchange.
Click to expand...

Now, this is just total BS!! You used to try and debate in this forum back several years ago but you found out that you were frequently unable to defend the denialist lies and misinformation. So... you just decided to quit trying to debate the subject at all. And now you are just admitting that you can't debate the subject matter. Remember how you frequently used to end a debate that you had lost by telling everyone that they should take issue with the original author of the disproven denialist misinformation or outright lie while at the same time denying responsibility for cutting and pasting the BS in the first place?

Fact of the matter is that this is just an admission from you that you are not here to debate AGW but to just push denialist propaganda.

And I personally think you should just quit posting on this forum if you're not willing to actually debate the subject matter.

Jack Hays said:
I therefore set myself the task to establish a record of evidence presented, so that when the AGW narrative collapses you will not be able to say you had doubts all along. You will be forced to own your error.
Click to expand...

No... what you decided to do was ignore any counter arguments and just declare all of them to be wrong no matter if they were or not.

Jack Hays said:
And that collapse is near. There are three topic areas where the AGW narrative has been (and will continue to be) undermined.
Click to expand...

Only in your deluded mind. As long as the planet continues to warm the science of AGW is further confirmed.

Jack Hays said:
1. There is mounting evidence for low ECS and TCR, incompatible with AGW.
Click to expand...

There is also mounting evidence for higher ECS and TCR that is compatible with AGW. Your problem is that you only see and consider one side of the argument.

Jack Hays said:
2. It's clear now that solar climate influence is significantly greater than has been admitted to date by the IPCC.
Click to expand...

Actually... most of the evidence says the opposite. But you only consider what a couple of scientists say while you ignore that a significantly larger number of scientists say otherwise.

Jack Hays said:
3. Cooling began in 2016 and will continue indefinitely, with an occasional El Nino pause.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Yeah... cooling except for El Ninos. Like this?



:lamo

Jack Hays said:
So please, continue to take refuge in your know-nothing whining about "cut and pastes" -- nothing really but a showcase for your aversion to substance. I look forward to reminding you of this exchange one day.
Click to expand...

Whatever Jack. It is obvious to most people who the know-nothing whiner is around here. And I will gladly admit I was wrong if your prediction comes true. But will you be willing to do the same if it is you who is proven wrong? I doubt it.
 
Buzz said:
Oh please... I have shown on numerous occasions that I comprehend the subject matter consistently better than you do. . . .

Whatever Jack. It is obvious to most people who the know-nothing whiner is around here. And I will gladly admit I was wrong if your prediction comes true. But will you be willing to do the same if it is you who is proven wrong? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Keep up the denial. I suppose it comforts you.
If I'm proven wrong I'll be happy to concede.
 
Jack Hays said:
Keep up the denial. I suppose it comforts you.
Click to expand...

Is it really denial? Prove it. Oh, that's right... you don't actually debate the subject matter anymore. Never mind...

Jack Hays said:
If I'm proven wrong I'll be happy to concede.
Click to expand...

No, you won't. You almost never concede you are wrong about anything anymore.
 
Buzz said:
Is it really denial? Prove it. Oh, that's right... you don't actually debate the subject matter anymore. Never mind...



No, you won't. You almost never concede you are wrong about anything anymore.
Click to expand...

That's because I'm not wrong very often.
 
Jack Hays said:
That's because I'm not wrong very often.
Click to expand...

:lamo

You are actually the most frequently disproven person in this section of the forum.
 
Jack Hays said:
They can't help themselves.

Recent Tornadoes are Due to Unusually Cold Weather

May 29th, 2019I had an op-ed published at Foxnews.com yesterday describing the reason why we have had so many tornadoes this year. The answer is the continuing cold weather stretching from Michigan through Colorado to California. A persistent cold air mass situated north and west of the usual placement of warm and humid Gulf air in the East is what is required for rotating thunderstorms to be embedded in a strong wind shear environment.
The strong wind shear and warm advection provided at the “tightened” boundary between the warm and cold air masses is the usual missing ingredient in tornado formation, unlike Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s claim that a New Jersey tornado warning was somehow tied to global warming.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, a trend line fit to the number of strong to violent U.S. tornadoes has gone down from 60 in 1954 to 30 in 2018. . . .

In other words, the number of most damaging tornadoes has, on average, been cut in half since U.S. statistics started to be compiled:
Or, phrased another way, the last half of the 65-year U.S. tornado record had 40% fewer strong to violent tornadoes than the first half.
To claim that global warming is causing more tornadoes is worse than speculative; it is directly opposite to the clear observational evidence.
Click to expand...

While NOT ALWAYS true, cooler/colder springs tend to be heralds of more severe storms. Cold air is the engine, warm moist air the fuel and the location of the Jet Stream the fire for such. hell half of severe wx is just plain dumb luck. Sometimes the points coverage and fireworks happen.
 
Buzz said:
:lamo

You are actually the most frequently disproven person in this section of the forum.
Click to expand...

Hardly, Jack's one of the better posters in here.
 
Buzz said:
Oh please... I have shown on numerous occasions that I comprehend the subject matter consistently better than you do.



Now, this is just total BS!! You used to try and debate in this forum back several years ago but you found out that you were frequently unable to defend the denialist lies and misinformation. So... you just decided to quit trying to debate the subject at all. And now you are just admitting that you can't debate the subject matter. Remember how you frequently used to end a debate that you had lost by telling everyone that they should take issue with the original author of the disproven denialist misinformation or outright lie while at the same time denying responsibility for cutting and pasting the BS in the first place?

Fact of the matter is that this is just an admission from you that you are not here to debate AGW but to just push denialist propaganda.

And I personally think you should just quit posting on this forum if you're not willing to actually debate the subject matter.



No... what you decided to do was ignore any counter arguments and just declare all of them to be wrong no matter if they were or not.



Only in your deluded mind. As long as the planet continues to warm the science of AGW is further confirmed.



There is also mounting evidence for higher ECS and TCR that is compatible with AGW. Your problem is that you only see and consider one side of the argument.



Actually... most of the evidence says the opposite. But you only consider what a couple of scientists say while you ignore that a significantly larger number of scientists say otherwise.



:lamo

Yeah... cooling except for El Ninos. Like this?



:lamo



Whatever Jack. It is obvious to most people who the know-nothing whiner is around here. And I will gladly admit I was wrong if your prediction comes true. But will you be willing to do the same if it is you who is proven wrong? I doubt it.
Click to expand...


When you post a video with the term "deniers" and your side is the one denying Climate, changes.... and that political leaders can stop it... you've lost all credibility.
 
Buzz said:
Damn longview... you have taken this quote completely out of context and misrepresented what the report is all about!!

It is, in no way what so ever, a prediction of a cooling planet and is actually about how science needs to advance to be able to predict what the climate is likely to do.

You are wrong yet again!

Seriously long... you should just quit quoting science because you get your facts wrong so often that you can't be trusted to get anything right.
Click to expand...
The reason I included the quote from the report about the advancing ice sheets, is that it demonstrated their concerns in the report.
Once again,
It is not primarily the advance of a major ice
sheet over our farms and cities that we must fear, devastating as this
would be, for such changes take thousands of years to evolve. Rather,
it is persistent changes of the temperature and rainfall in areas com-
mitted to agricultural use, changes in the frost content of Canadian and
Siberian soils, and changes of ocean temperature in areas of high nutri-
ent production, for example, that are of more immediate concern.
Click to expand...
 
Media_Truth said:
I looked this up awhile, and there were about 2 reports, which were quickly debunked. The focus quickly turned to Warming, and the data ever since then has been accurate.
Click to expand...
Um! The National Research Council report "UNDERSTANDING CLIMATIC CHANGE" was not debunked,
it's observational concerns ceased to be relevant when it stopped cooling and started warming.
 
longview said:
The reason I included the quote from the report about the advancing ice sheets, is that it demonstrated their concerns in the report.
Click to expand...

Yeah.... that quote may express the authors concerns about a cooling world but that does not mean that that is what the report is about.

From the report:

Broadly speaking, the purposes of this report are twofold: first, to advise the United States Government through the National Research Council's United States Committee for garp on the urgent need for a coherent national research program on the problem of climatic variation;and, second, to advise on the steps necessary to address the same problem in the international scene.
Click to expand...

Sorry long... but this study isn't about or predicting global cooling. And claiming that it is is either willful ignorance or another lie.
 
Buzz said:
Yeah.... that quote may express the authors concerns about a cooling world but that does not mean that that is what the report is about.

From the report:



Sorry long... but this study isn't about or predicting global cooling. And claiming that it is is either willful ignorance or another lie.
Click to expand...

The study assumes global cooling is an imminent problem, and focuses on necessary preparedness and remediation. It qualifies.
 
Jack Hays said:
The study assumes global cooling is an imminent problem, and focuses on necessary preparedness and remediation. It qualifies.
Click to expand...

Wrong! Try reading it before you make yourself look ignorant again.
 
longview said:
Um! The National Research Council report "UNDERSTANDING CLIMATIC CHANGE" was not debunked,
it's observational concerns ceased to be relevant when it stopped cooling and started warming.
Click to expand...

Big deal. Deniers need to get a LIFE.
 
Buzz said:
Yeah.... that quote may express the authors concerns about a cooling world but that does not mean that that is what the report is about.

From the report:



Sorry long... but this study isn't about or predicting global cooling. And claiming that it is is either willful ignorance or another lie.
Click to expand...
You may downplay it all you want, but the central concern of the report was that we were cooling,
Since the 1940's, mean temperatures have declined and
are now nearly halfway back to the 1 880 levels.
Click to expand...
The report as will most scientific papers was a request to study the problem for a better understanding of the cycles,
but the reason to do the report in the first place were concerns the the pattern was in a cooling phase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom