• 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!

Chuck Todd says his show is 'not going to give time to climate deniers'

Threegoofs said:
Wrong.

It’s because at this point, it’s like debating creationists.
Click to expand...
Why would you think Hansen debating a distinguished professor of atmospheric physicist from MIT,
would equate to debating a creationists?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Hansen is too smart to debate other people knowledgeable on the topic. He knows the inconvenient facts. He chooses to ignore them out of activism.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

It’s because at this point, it’s like debating creationists.
 
longview said:
Why would you think Hansen debating a distinguished professor of atmospheric physicist from MIT,
would equate to debating a creationists?
Click to expand...

See post 553.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm sorry for your ignorance. I don't know how to help you.

A pity...
Click to expand...

I know what would help him but he's already admitted in a thread last year that reading isn't the best way to learn about climate science. He really did. So waddya gonna do.
 
bubbabgone said:
I know what would help him but he's already admitted in a thread last year that reading isn't the best way to learn about climate science. He really did. So waddya gonna do.
Click to expand...

It's just more proof that he listens to the prophets of AGW.
 
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released “Global Warming of 1.5 C,” dubbed SR15, an IPCC special report last week, claiming that, unless governments virtually eliminate human production of carbon dioxide (CO2), we are headed toward a climate catastrophe.

The UK’s The Guardian reported that the report authors say, “urgent and unprecedented changes are needed to reach the target, which they say is affordable and feasible although it lies at the most ambitious end of the Paris Agreement pledge to keep temperatures between 1.5C and 2C.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate forecasts were wrong from their earliest reports in 1990. They were so inaccurate that they stopped calling them forecasts and made three “projections”: low, medium, and high. Since then, even their “low” scenario projections were wrong.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change created an illusion of certainty about their science, and therefore their forecasts. They let people think that they study all causes of climate change when they only look at human-caused change. That is impossible unless you know and understand total climate change and the mechanisms, and we don’t. It allowed them to ignore all non-human causes of change, including the Sun.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/15/why-un-climate-report-cannot-be-trusted/
____________________________________________________

The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the --- full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report -- the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate -were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.

Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.

The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:

-- "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

-- "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

-- "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
 
Sadling said:
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released “Global Warming of 1.5 C,” dubbed SR15, an IPCC special report last week, claiming that, unless governments virtually eliminate human production of carbon dioxide (CO2), we are headed toward a climate catastrophe.

The UK’s The Guardian reported that the report authors say, “urgent and unprecedented changes are needed to reach the target, which they say is affordable and feasible although it lies at the most ambitious end of the Paris Agreement pledge to keep temperatures between 1.5C and 2C.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate forecasts were wrong from their earliest reports in 1990. They were so inaccurate that they stopped calling them forecasts and made three “projections”: low, medium, and high. Since then, even their “low” scenario projections were wrong.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change created an illusion of certainty about their science, and therefore their forecasts. They let people think that they study all causes of climate change when they only look at human-caused change. That is impossible unless you know and understand total climate change and the mechanisms, and we don’t. It allowed them to ignore all non-human causes of change, including the Sun.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/15/why-un-climate-report-cannot-be-trusted/
____________________________________________________

The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the --- full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report -- the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate -were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.

Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.

The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:

-- "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

-- "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

-- "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
Click to expand...

It’s a conspiracy
 
Threegoofs said:
It’s a conspiracy
Click to expand...
It's a nonresponse . . .

Anyway:

The IPCC is the primary proponent of dramatic global warming, yet its argument is fundamentally flawed because of the way it selectively uses science and manipulates data to support its views. The particularly concerning areas include:

-the lack of consideration of views apposing its own (true science considers opposing views)
-the nature of IPCC's existence is a conflict of interest
-manipulation of the data
-political funding biases

There is no question about climate change. It changes all the time and has done so naturally all for centuries. This is not, however, reflected in the IPCC's selective use of 'science'. It's manipulation of research data and opinion has fueled an extremely biased view that does not reflect the planet's actual climate.

True science is empirical and replicated--it constantly probes doubts, investigates, examines, and welcomes dissent. Yet the IPCC did not invite one single person who did not agree with its pre-decided outcome for major reports to review or comment on them. IPCC has published five reports since 1990, the latest being No.5 in 2013. For this No.5 report, it was claimed that a 95% consensus–that global warming is both occurring and man-made–exist, in spite of overwhelming evidence of nil, or minimal natural, warming. Of 11,944 papers considered, only 41of them actually claim global warming is caused by man-made CO2 (that's an alarming or 0.3 of 1%). Those that disproved global warming were dismissed. Lord Christopher Monckton (2013) of the UK's Science and Public Policy Institute has released an exhaustive statistical research paper that concludes that scientific consensus affirming man-made global warming is just 0.3%, not 97% claimed by the global warming whiners.

The IPCC is a conflicted institution pushing a mandate that lacks true scientific rigor. Moore (2013) says: "by its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse. The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled."

For about 25 years, the IPCC's climate predictions have been far from accurate. In addition to not welcoming nor considering dissenting opinion, there has been an increasing and continuous legacy of evidence that data has been manipulated.

There are countless examples of the data manipulation (please see Appendix C). The levels of deception stretch across all the data involved. In any developed country, to seek public funding by tampering with data would see the culprits jailed.

https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Davison Michael 09053.pdf
_____________________________________________

Is Global Warming Caused by Rising CO2?

No tangible, physical evidence exists for a cause–and–effect relationship between changing atmospheric CO2 and global temperature changes over the last 150 years. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that CO2 has increased doesn’t prove that CO2 has caused the warming phases observed from 1915 to 1945 and 1977 to 1998. As shown by isotope measurements from ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica and by measurements of atmospheric CO2 during El Nino warming, oceans emit more CO2 into the atmosphere during climatic warming. The ice core records indicate that after the last Ice Age, temperatures rose for about 600–800 years before atmospheric CO2 rose, showing that climatic warming caused CO2 to rise, not vice versa. The present high level of atmospheric CO2 may be the result of human input, but the contribution that it makes to global warming is very small.

Global warming of ~0.4° C occurred from about 1910 to 1940 without any significant increase in atmospheric CO2. Global cooling occurred from the mid 1940s to 1977 despite soaring CO2 in the atmosphere (Fig. 12A,B). Global temperatures and CO2 both increased from 1977 to 1998 but that doesn’t prove that the warming was caused by increased CO2. Although CO2 has risen from 1998 to 2008 no global warming has occurred. In fact, the climate has cooled. Thus, global warming bears almost no correlation with rising atmospheric CO2.

http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/CO2_atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.pdf
 
Sadling said:
It's a nonresponse . . .

Anyway:

The IPCC is the primary proponent of dramatic global warming, yet its argument is fundamentally flawed because of the way it selectively uses science and manipulates data to support its views. The particularly concerning areas include:

-the lack of consideration of views apposing its own (true science considers opposing views)
-the nature of IPCC's existence is a conflict of interest
-manipulation of the data
-political funding biases

There is no question about climate change. It changes all the time and has done so naturally all for centuries. This is not, however, reflected in the IPCC's selective use of 'science'. It's manipulation of research data and opinion has fueled an extremely biased view that does not reflect the planet's actual climate.

True science is empirical and replicated--it constantly probes doubts, investigates, examines, and welcomes dissent. Yet the IPCC did not invite one single person who did not agree with its pre-decided outcome for major reports to review or comment on them. IPCC has published five reports since 1990, the latest being No.5 in 2013. For this No.5 report, it was claimed that a 95% consensus–that global warming is both occurring and man-made–exist, in spite of overwhelming evidence of nil, or minimal natural, warming. Of 11,944 papers considered, only 41of them actually claim global warming is caused by man-made CO2 (that's an alarming or 0.3 of 1%). Those that disproved global warming were dismissed. Lord Christopher Monckton (2013) of the UK's Science and Public Policy Institute has released an exhaustive statistical research paper that concludes that scientific consensus affirming man-made global warming is just 0.3%, not 97% claimed by the global warming whiners.

The IPCC is a conflicted institution pushing a mandate that lacks true scientific rigor. Moore (2013) says: "by its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse. The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled."

For about 25 years, the IPCC's climate predictions have been far from accurate. In addition to not welcoming nor considering dissenting opinion, there has been an increasing and continuous legacy of evidence that data has been manipulated.

There are countless examples of the data manipulation (please see Appendix C). The levels of deception stretch across all the data involved. In any developed country, to seek public funding by tampering with data would see the culprits jailed.

https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Davison Michael 09053.pdf
_____________________________________________

Is Global Warming Caused by Rising CO2?

No tangible, physical evidence exists for a cause–and–effect relationship between changing atmospheric CO2 and global temperature changes over the last 150 years. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that CO2 has increased doesn’t prove that CO2 has caused the warming phases observed from 1915 to 1945 and 1977 to 1998. As shown by isotope measurements from ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica and by measurements of atmospheric CO2 during El Nino warming, oceans emit more CO2 into the atmosphere during climatic warming. The ice core records indicate that after the last Ice Age, temperatures rose for about 600–800 years before atmospheric CO2 rose, showing that climatic warming caused CO2 to rise, not vice versa. The present high level of atmospheric CO2 may be the result of human input, but the contribution that it makes to global warming is very small.

Global warming of ~0.4° C occurred from about 1910 to 1940 without any significant increase in atmospheric CO2. Global cooling occurred from the mid 1940s to 1977 despite soaring CO2 in the atmosphere (Fig. 12A,B). Global temperatures and CO2 both increased from 1977 to 1998 but that doesn’t prove that the warming was caused by increased CO2. Although CO2 has risen from 1998 to 2008 no global warming has occurred. In fact, the climate has cooled. Thus, global warming bears almost no correlation with rising atmospheric CO2.

http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/CO2_atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.pdf
Click to expand...

Either it’s a conspiracy, or the scientists don’t know science.

Pick one.
 
Threegoofs said:
Either it’s a conspiracy, or the scientists don’t know science.

Pick one.
Click to expand...

Loaded question.

It's a political/scientific cult, the climate cult. Anyone who doesn't toe the
line and accept the dogma is branded a denier. It's really quite ugly.
 
Steve Case said:
Loaded question.

It's a political/scientific cult, the climate cult. Anyone who doesn't toe the
line and accept the dogma is branded a denier. It's really quite ugly.
Click to expand...

Just like those medical doctors acted around people who denied tobacco causes cancer.

Actually... since the tobacco deniers and climate deniers overlap quite a bit.... exactly like them.
 
Visbek said:
That's the response it deserves.
Click to expand...

The handful of DP climate truthers are piling on with their irrational gullible conspiracy ideation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom