• 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!

Green/communist's method and goal

Jack Hays said:
Your focus on Gwyn Morgan is a disappointing (and I must say dishonest) dodge. The point is big AGW advocacy money being used to twist Canadian politics.
Click to expand...

They dodge debate most of the time because they prefer to focus on smearing people, denigrate their positions and extend their bigotry to opposing viewpoints and sources.

It is a common tactic to attack the person (easy for lazy people who lack intellectual vigor) than to attack what they write or talk about (which require having read up on the issue and debate on them rationally, which is too hard for most warmists), that is why most warmists are often hilarious in their replies, they respond from ignorance.

Since most warmists are science illiterates as they embrace their religion on guessed climate models, which lack verification/ falsification thus a waste of time. They ignore The Scientific Method constantly, and embrace modeling as their science nirvana.
 
Sunsettommy said:
They dodge debate most of the time because they prefer to focus on smearing people, denigrate their positions and extend their bigotry to opposing viewpoints and sources.

It is a common tactic to attack the person (easy for lazy people who lack intellectual vigor) than to attack what they write or talk about (which require having read up on the issue and debate on them rationally, which is too hard for most warmists), that is why most warmists are often hilarious in their replies, they respond from ignorance.

Since most warmists are science illiterates as they embrace their religion on guessed climate models, which lack verification/ falsification thus a waste of time. They ignore The Scientific Method constantly, and embrace modeling as their science nirvana.
Click to expand...

One of the main problems with catastrophic AGW as envisioned by the IPCC is that the math simply does not add up.
The most basic premise is that if we double the CO2 level, it will force ~1.1C of warming, atmospheric feedbacks will react
to this perturbation, and cause total warming between 1.5 and 4.5 C
The problem with the simple numbers is that the Hadcrut4 temperature has increased by .88 C, of which .28 occurred befor 1950 and is considered natural warming.
The CO2 instantaneous forcing from the 130 ppm already added, would account for .61 C of warming.
For this all to work, the feedbacks should have reacted to the .28 C of pre 1950 warming to produce some amplified response,
but .28 C + .61 C is already slightly higher than the total observed warming.
So we have a .28 C temperature perturbation, and 69 years of equalization time.
James Hansen says that roughly 60% of ECS will occur within 37.5 years.
If ECS were actually 3 C centered around 3 C, as has been stated repeatedly, then the feedbacks would require an
amplification factor of 2.72 to move the 2XCO2 1.1C temperature perturbation to 3 C.
The same amplification factor would need to be applied to the earlier 2.8 C of natural warming.
.28C X 2.72 X .6= .45C, so the amplification factor cannot be that high.
 
[FONT=&quot]Green New Deal[/FONT]
[h=1]Guardian: “Ending climate change requires the end of capitalism”[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest essay by Eric Worrall Capitalism has to go – but apparently we shouldn’t listen to unhinged claims from the “pro free market” wing that the climate action movement was always just a Communist Trojan Horse. Ending climate change requires the end of capitalism. Have we got the stomach for it? Phil McDuff Mon 18…
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/18/guardian-ending-climate-change-requires-the-end-of-capitalism/"]
Green-Hammer-and-Sickle-220x126.png
[/URL]Green New Deal[/FONT]
[h=1]Guardian: “Ending climate change requires the end of capitalism”[/h][FONT="]Guest essay by Eric Worrall Capitalism has to go – but apparently we shouldn’t listen to unhinged claims from the “pro free market” wing that the climate action movement was always just a Communist Trojan Horse. Ending climate change requires the end of capitalism. Have we got the stomach for it? Phil McDuff Mon 18…
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

I have a better answer.

Ending climate change means getting our politicians from stop blowing all that hot air.
 
Sunsettommy said:
They dodge debate most of the time because they prefer to focus on smearing people, denigrate their positions and extend their bigotry to opposing viewpoints and sources.

It is a common tactic to attack the person (easy for lazy people who lack intellectual vigor) than to attack what they write or talk about (which require having read up on the issue and debate on them rationally, which is too hard for most warmists), that is why most warmists are often hilarious in their replies, they respond from ignorance.

Since most warmists are science illiterates as they embrace their religion on guessed climate models, which lack verification/ falsification thus a waste of time. They ignore The Scientific Method constantly, and embrace modeling as their science nirvana.
Click to expand...

You've pretty much described your favorite Watts Up With That pseudoscience conspiracy blog and it's scientifically illiterate rabid zealous climate truther followers who mostly just slag off and attack scientists, rant about 'lefty' conspiracy theories, and praise any old 'sciency sounding' crap any lay-person posts as long as it's anti-science.
 
Sunsettommy said:
They dodge debate most of the time because they prefer to focus on smearing people, denigrate their positions and extend their bigotry to opposing viewpoints and sources.

It is a common tactic to attack the person (easy for lazy people who lack intellectual vigor) than to attack what they write or talk about (which require having read up on the issue and debate on them rationally, which is too hard for most warmists), that is why most warmists are often hilarious in their replies, they respond from ignorance.

Since most warmists are science illiterates as they embrace their religion on guessed climate models, which lack verification/ falsification thus a waste of time. They ignore The Scientific Method constantly, and embrace modeling as their science nirvana.
Click to expand...

So you think the 76 Nobel Laureates who signed the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change are "science illiterates"? Occam's razor says that you are the science illiterate.
 
Quaestio said:
You've pretty much described your favorite Watts Up With That pseudoscience conspiracy blog and it's scientifically illiterate rabid zealous climate truther followers who mostly just slag off and attack scientists, rant about 'lefty' conspiracy theories, and praise any old 'sciency sounding' crap any lay-person posts as long as it's anti-science.
Click to expand...

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

You did it, just as I spelled it out.

Thank you for supporting my post.
 
Surface Detail said:
Sorry, but WTH are you blathering about?
Click to expand...

You replied to this:

They dodge debate most of the time because they prefer to focus on smearing people, denigrate their positions and extend their bigotry to opposing viewpoints and sources.

It is a common tactic to attack the person (easy for lazy people who lack intellectual vigor) than to attack what they write or talk about (which require having read up on the issue and debate on them rationally, which is too hard for most warmists), that is why most warmists are often hilarious in their replies, they respond from ignorance.

Since most warmists are science illiterates as they embrace their religion on guessed climate models, which lack verification/ falsification thus a waste of time. They ignore The Scientific Method constantly, and embrace modeling as their science nirvana.
Click to expand...

"They ignore The Scientific Method constantly, and embrace modeling as their science nirvana."

This section is pure unsupported babble:

"...Although there remains uncertainty as to the precise extent of climate change, the conclusions of the scientific community contained in the latest IPCC report are alarming, especially in the context of the identified risks of maintaining human prosperity in the face of greater than a 2°C rise in average global temperature. The report concludes that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the likely cause of the current global warming of the Earth. Predictions from the range of climate models indicate that this warming will very likely increase the Earth’s temperature over the coming century by more than 2°C above its pre-industrial level unless dramatic reductions are made in anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases over the coming decades...."

When it comes to climate modeling stuff, they ignore The Scientific Method, it a madness that they do that.
 
Last edited:
Sunsettommy said:
You replied to this:



"They ignore The Scientific Method constantly, and embrace modeling as their science nirvana."

This section is pure unsupported babble:

"...Although there remains uncertainty as to the precise extent of climate change, the conclusions of the scientific community contained in the latest IPCC report are alarming, especially in the context of the identified risks of maintaining human prosperity in the face of greater than a 2°C rise in average global temperature. The report concludes that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the likely cause of the current global warming of the Earth. Predictions from the range of climate models indicate that this warming will very likely increase the Earth’s temperature over the coming century by more than 2°C above its pre-industrial level unless dramatic reductions are made in anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases over the coming decades...."

When it comes to climate modeling stuff, they ignore The Scientific Method, it a madness that they do that.
Click to expand...

I suspect that the 76 Nobel Laureates are somewhat more knowledgeable on the scientific method than you are.
 
Surface Detail said:
I suspect that the 76 Nobel Laureates are somewhat more knowledgeable on the scientific method than you are.
Click to expand...

Do you know how often scientists are wrong and that many consensus claims are often wrong?

Think about it, while you are pushing your silly boring education/authority fallacies.

No, they are infatuated with long into the future unverifiable climate modeling constructs, which is always a red flag for ANY rational being.
 
Tim the plumber said:
YouTube

The methods of the KGB to use mental methods to bring down an enemy state.

Obviously the same is now happening with the Green movement attacking our minds and collective thinking. They have, already, gained the consensus.
Click to expand...

They are also affecting our precious bodily fluids.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]The New Green Threat: Extinction Rebellion[/h][FONT=&quot]Translated from The Ilmastotiede blog If you’ve seen news reports of this winter’s climate campaigns, you may have spotted logos and banners of Extinction Rebellion. Is it just another new climate movement? It didn’t really show up on my radar until after I started wondering why climate activism suddenly seems to be following very similar…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/02/the-new-green-threat-extinction-rebellion/"]
clip_image013-436x260.png
[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]The New Green Threat: Extinction Rebellion[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Translated from The Ilmastotiede blog If you’ve seen news reports of this winter’s climate campaigns, you may have spotted logos and banners of Extinction Rebellion. Is it just another new climate movement? It didn’t really show up on my radar until after I started wondering why climate activism suddenly seems to be following very similar…[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/02/the-new-green-threat-extinction-rebellion/"]Continue reading →[/URL][/FONT]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

The plan is to replace the ”criminal” western political systems with a ”better democracy” designed by Extinction Rebellion in which e.g. voting is no longer needed (sortition is preferred instead). The practical post-revolution steps have also been thought out well in advance.
Click to expand...

No surprises there at all.
 
Idiometer said:
They are funding every denier with the least bit of scientific credentials they can find to keep as many of us as possible blind to how much they have to lose when we stop using their toxic products. (gasoline, diesel fuel)
Click to expand...

PLEASE STOP USING THESE *TOXIC PRODUCTS* IMMEDIATELY ! ! ! DON'T GET IN ANY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION THAT USES THEM EITHER.

If you do, you're a hypocrite of the highest order. Take Al Gore, please. And Sir Richard Branson. And Hollywood Ignorati. And *intellectuals* in ivory towers.
 
MrWonderful said:
PLEASE STOP USING THESE *TOXIC PRODUCTS* IMMEDIATELY ! ! ! DON'T GET IN ANY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION THAT USES THEM EITHER.

If you do, you're a hypocrite of the highest order. Take Al Gore, please. And Sir Richard Branson. And Hollywood Ignorati. And *intellectuals* in ivory towers.
Click to expand...

Oh, please ... I wish I had a dollar for every denier who gave this same nonsense reply. What's YOUR "carbon footprint," Mr. Wonderful?

There is no way for the average American to completely go green at the current state of technology and industrialization, but I think you know that. So I do what I can.

- I shop with washable, reusable canvas grocery bags.
- I walk whenever possible (although right now, I'm recovering from a total knee replacement thanks to a lot of that walking).
- Several times over the course of my career, I made it a point to live within walking distance of my workplace, or at least a very short drive.
- I'm retired, and living in a house at least partially powered by the sun.
- My driving is light enough that I rarely fill the tank more than once per month; usually about every five weeks.
- I recycle as much as I can, including outdated or broken electronic devices like phones and tablets.

How about you, Mr. Wonderful? How do you contribute to the greater good? Excoriating people you don't know doesn't count, FYI. Maybe you should climb down off of that high horse before you hurt yourself.
 
Idiometer said:
Oh, please ... I wish I had a dollar for every denier who gave this same nonsense reply. What's YOUR "carbon footprint," Mr. Wonderful?

There is no way for the average American to completely go green at the current state of technology and industrialization, but I think you know that. So I do what I can.

- I shop with washable, reusable canvas grocery bags.
- I walk whenever possible (although right now, I'm recovering from a total knee replacement thanks to a lot of that walking).
- Several times over the course of my career, I made it a point to live within walking distance of my workplace, or at least a very short drive.
- I'm retired, and living in a house at least partially powered by the sun.
- My driving is light enough that I rarely fill the tank more than once per month; usually about every five weeks.
- I recycle as much as I can, including outdated or broken electronic devices like phones and tablets.

How about you, Mr. Wonderful? How do you contribute to the greater good? Excoriating people you don't know doesn't count, FYI. Maybe you should climb down off of that high horse before you hurt yourself.
Click to expand...

Feckless virtue signaling of no real importance.
 
Idiometer said:
Oh, please ... I wish I had a dollar for every denier who gave this same nonsense reply. What's YOUR "carbon footprint," Mr. Wonderful?

There is no way for the average American to completely go green at the current state of technology and industrialization, but I think you know that. So I do what I can.

- I shop with washable, reusable canvas grocery bags.
- I walk whenever possible (although right now, I'm recovering from a total knee replacement thanks to a lot of that walking).
- Several times over the course of my career, I made it a point to live within walking distance of my workplace, or at least a very short drive.
- I'm retired, and living in a house at least partially powered by the sun.
- My driving is light enough that I rarely fill the tank more than once per month; usually about every five weeks.
- I recycle as much as I can, including outdated or broken electronic devices like phones and tablets.

How about you, Mr. Wonderful? How do you contribute to the greater good? Excoriating people you don't know doesn't count, FYI. Maybe you should climb down off of that high horse before you hurt yourself.
Click to expand...

I'm not on the High Horse. You're the one sitting up there with Al Gore and Sir Richard Branson and Hollywood Ignorati.
Now to straighten you out on a number of counts.

1. YOU'RE the one who called gasoline "toxic." You can't even define the term. Not a clue.
2. IF it's indeed toxic, as YOU claim, you shouldn't use any. You shouldn't use any of the products it brings to your grocery store daily.
But you do, like a Leftist hypocrite, who continues preaching after being shown your hypocrisy.
3. Everyone interested in saving money does those things you cited. They're just as much selfish as they are for "the greater good."
4. "Powered by the sun" is wasteful. Lots of money was spent for solar panels and their installation by teams who DROVE their Tox O Mobiles to your house.
Solar power costs much more per kilowatt hour than other traditional sources. Didn't you even know that?
5. For forty years, I have cut my grass with a push mower, no engine in it. Do YOU?? Don't make me laugh and claim that you do.
6. I'm not a Thermageddonite so I can use as much energy as I wish, but nevertheless I have long conserved, unlike Barack Obama and Al Gore and UN Functionaries.

Did you know that the Eco-Hypocrites who flew to the global warming fest at Davos, Switzerland overloaded the local airports with 1400 private jets?

Here's a list of their TOXO-TRAVELS around the world, instead of collaborating online:

Conference Alerts - Topic Listing

Why don’t they videoconference, instead of burning millions of gallons of that *nasty* fossil fuel they’re always condemning?
 
This video is pretty much in the "Must see it to believe it category."

 
Steve Case said:
This video is pretty much in the "Must see it to believe it category."

Click to expand...

What a joke, she clearly has not read much history, other wise she would know she was describing the people from her own party
who protested against the civil rights movement. George Wallace was a democrat before he ran as an independent.
As for my grandchildren, they will laugh at people like AOC.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]NPR: 8 Ways To Indoctrinate School Children With Warmunist Propaganda[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest reality check by David Middleton 8 Ways To Teach Climate Change In Almost Any Classroom April 25, 2019 ANYA KAMENETZ NPR/Ipsos conducted a national poll recently and found that more than 8 in 10 teachers — and a similar majority of parents — support teaching kids about climate change. But in reality, it’s not always happening:…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Steve Case said:
This video is pretty much in the "Must see it to believe it category."

Click to expand...


Unfricken unbelievable!

It was the Democrats who pushed the numerous voting barriers against blacks starting in the early 1880's. then got Segregation to be the law, they were the members of the KKK, they were the ones who set up the Dread Scott decision denigrating black people. They attacked and murdered blacks, gets away with it.

It was the Republicans who passed Amendments over Democratic opposition, for the right to vote, grant Citizenship and end Slavery for good. It was the Republicans who encouraged Blacks to run for office, some that win elections in the 1870-1880's until Democrats regained control of the South, then they drove blacks from office back into a plantation life that continued until the early 1960's when it was finally outlawed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom