• 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!

Sharp rise in Arctic temperatures now inevitable – UN

Woah wait a minute. AlphaOmega, you're the one who made a bizarre conspiracy claim about scientist's work 'disappearing' and refuse to back it up with any evidence.

Your attempt at deflection isn't working. Just admit you have no evidence for your wild conspiracy claim.

It was a hypothetical designed to make the readers think. Obviously it isn't always successful with some readers. Does Mueller keep investigating Russia collusion when he finds no evidence or do I jeed to prove he stops as well? You people have no idea how the science field works.
 
Given that I have not claimed to have why should I?

However, you may wish to have a look at the thread https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...d-ice-melt.html?highlight=day+length+ice+mass.

I used rotational dynamics to look at the evidence to ice loss or gain at the poles.

Do you have any evidence you can cite that you have the slightest clue about any science at all?

So you haven't even read one University level science textbook in ANY field of science but you are convinced you can "prove" with grade-school arithmetic that qualified scientists who have spent years of research in their fields of expertise are "wrong"? LOL! Is there a plumbing forum you can post on where you discuss how to best fix blocked drains?
 
It was a hypothetical designed to make the readers think. Obviously it isn't always successful with some readers. Does Mueller keep investigating Russia collusion when he finds no evidence or do I jeed to prove he stops as well? You people have no idea how the science field works.

So basically you just lied and are still trying to deflect. Got it.
 
So you haven't even read one University level science textbook in ANY field of science but you are convinced you can "prove" with grade-school arithmetic that qualified scientists who have spent years of research in their fields of expertise are "wrong"? LOL! Is there a plumbing forum you can post on where you discuss how to best fix blocked drains?

I choose not to demonstrate such a thing. Any such text books I read were many years ago. I also dropped out of university very quickly. I did not get around to reading many.

Can you cite any university engineering or physics text book you have read?

Can you cite any bit of science you do understand? Which is it?
 
I choose not to demonstrate such a thing. Any such text books I read were many years ago. I also dropped out of university very quickly. I did not get around to reading many.

Can you cite any university engineering or physics text book you have read?

Can you cite any bit of science you do understand? Which is it?

Just from my e-book library on my current laptop:

textbooks1.JPGtextbooks2.JPG

I have hard copies of other textbooks like this:

Pierrehumbert, R. T. (2010). Principles of planetary climate. Cambridge University Press.

Principles planetary climate | Climatology and climate change | Cambridge University Press

By the way, I do not, nor ever will claim to be 'expert' just because I've read some textbooks to try understand some of the science involved.

You couldn't even explain to Into The Night, how the 'greenhouse' effect actually works like I challenged you to do, yet you go around harassing posters to do your dopey arithmetic "tests" to "prove" they are "worthy" of a discussion with you. LOL!

It's such a joke that you believe you know more about climate science than qualified experienced research scientists do. :3oops:
 
Last edited:
I believe that's true. But all the dates I cited, were before 1900. Climate change has happened long before 1900, or even before man was a factor.
People who assert that AGW is demanding urgent action, see only the climate change caused by Humans as the problem.
 
Just from my e-book library on my current laptop:

View attachment 67253079View attachment 67253080

I have hard copies of other textbooks like this:

Pierrehumbert, R. T. (2010). Principles of planetary climate. Cambridge University Press.

Principles planetary climate | Climatology and climate change | Cambridge University Press

Hey Tim, you couldn't even explain to that 'greenhouse' effect denying poster Into The Night, how the 'greenhouse' effect actually works like I challenged you to do. :3oops:

Allowing for the meaning you tried to get out of your last sentence.

Can you cite any evidence you have ever read any of those books by explaining something from one of them in your own words.

Explaining anything to ITN was never possible.

However this is the idea of the greenhouse effect;

The sun's energy comes to us in a wide range of wavelengths. Some get through our atmosphere better than others. The higher energy UV gets through easier than the IR which is reflected back a bit.

The heat of the earth causes it to radiate IR. Not UV so much. Some of the IR is reflected back a bit.

The more that the atmosphere is reflective to IR whilst allowing the UV through the more the ground surface temperature is going to rise as the capacity to lose heat is reduced more than the incoming heat is blocked.

Now back to you, what science do you understand? What is you area of expertise?
 
Allowing for the meaning you tried to get out of your last sentence.

Can you cite any evidence you have ever read any of those books by explaining something from one of them in your own words.

Explaining anything to ITN was never possible.

However this is the idea of the greenhouse effect;

The sun's energy comes to us in a wide range of wavelengths. Some get through our atmosphere better than others. The higher energy UV gets through easier than the IR which is reflected back a bit.

The heat of the earth causes it to radiate IR. Not UV so much. Some of the IR is reflected back a bit.

The more that the atmosphere is reflective to IR whilst allowing the UV through the more the ground surface temperature is going to rise as the capacity to lose heat is reduced more than the incoming heat is blocked.

Now back to you, what science do you understand? What is you area of expertise?

Oh dear. Thanks for showing you have a rather piss poor understanding of even the basic concept of the 'greenhouse' effect.. Perhaps try reading a textbook Tim? Or maybe the NASA climate for kids website?. :oops:

Before continually slagging off everyone else and claiming they are scientifically illiterate, perhaps you should look at yourself?
 
Last edited:
Oh dear. Thanks for showing you have a rather piss poor understanding of even the basic concept of the 'greenhouse' effect.. Perhaps try reading a textbook Tim? Or maybe the NASA climate for kids website?. :oops:

Before continually slagging off everyone else and claiming they are scientifically illiterate, perhaps you should look at yourself?

Go ahead and point out where my explanation is wrong then oh great one!

You clearly have no clue at all!
 
So basically you just lied and are still trying to deflect. Got it.

If you think thats a lie, I find your education hilarious. Please answer my original question or don't and demonstrate exactly what I was looking for. The fact that NONE if you global warmers can answer the on topic question honestly. Don't worry you are not alone. They never answer. That's why I asked.
 
I see you’re just going to give up on the ‘Im a scientist’ tack and move on to the next lie.
I see you can't answer my question. Your little insult tactics don't work with me. You are dodging. I would ask myself why I needed to do that if I were you, but then again I'm not the one afraid of an honest answer.
 
I see you can't answer my question. Your little insult tactics don't work with me. You are dodging. I would ask myself why I needed to do that if I were you, but then again I'm not the one afraid of an honest answer.

I believe the dodging here comes from the guy who pretends he’s a scientist, but somehow doesn’t know the answer to his own very basic question on funding.
 
Just from my e-book library on my current laptop:

View attachment 67253079View attachment 67253080

I have hard copies of other textbooks like this:

Pierrehumbert, R. T. (2010). Principles of planetary climate. Cambridge University Press.

Principles planetary climate | Climatology and climate change | Cambridge University Press

By the way, I do not, nor ever will claim to be 'expert' just because I've read some textbooks to try understand some of the science involved.

You couldn't even explain to Into The Night, how the 'greenhouse' effect actually works like I challenged you to do, yet you go around harassing posters to do your dopey arithmetic "tests" to "prove" they are "worthy" of a discussion with you. LOL!

It's such a joke that you believe you know more about climate science than qualified experienced research scientists do. :3oops:

Impressive backgrounds doesn't mean you can understand the difference between far into climate models that are considered "data" and empirical data that can be used in reproducible research.

Which is testable, verifiable?

That is the question warmists often fail, even epically.

There have been too many times people with a lot of education in a field still be pushed aside by an amateur who simply understood how to do research much better than the "PHD'er who relies on consensus, models and authority.

Look up Milton Humason, Clyde Tombaugh, Alfred Wegener, none who had any college degree at the time of great discoveries.

Warmists downfall has been the overreliance on unverifiable climate models.
 
Impressive backgrounds doesn't mean you can understand the difference between far into climate models that are considered "data" and empirical data that can be used in reproducible research.

Which is testable, verifiable?

That is the question warmists often fail, even epically.

There have been too many times people with a lot of education in a field still be pushed aside by an amateur who simply understood how to do research much better than the "PHD'er who relies on consensus, models and authority.

Look up Milton Humason, Clyde Tombaugh, Alfred Wegener, none who had any college degree at the time of great discoveries.

Warmists downfall has been the overreliance on unverifiable climate models.

I did look them up, and I discovered that you are talking utter bollocks. Alfred Wegener, for example, had a doctorate in astronomy and was working as a lecturer in meteorology, applied astronomy and cosmic physics at the University of Marburg when he published his initial ideas on continental drift in 1912.
 
Impressive backgrounds doesn't mean you can understand the difference between far into climate models that are considered "data" and empirical data that can be used in reproducible research.

Which is testable, verifiable?

That is the question warmists often fail, even epically.

There have been too many times people with a lot of education in a field still be pushed aside by an amateur who simply understood how to do research much better than the "PHD'er who relies on consensus, models and authority.

Look up Milton Humason, Clyde Tombaugh, Alfred Wegener, none who had any college degree at the time of great discoveries.

Warmists downfall has been the overreliance on unverifiable climate models.
I watched a video this morning of the sea level expert DR. Nies-Axel Morner,
one of his statements stuck me as being very accurate.
"We have the facts, they have the models!"
 
Just as it turned out polar bears are thriving, fat and happy, it turns out there aren't any hockey sticks either.

[h=2]Busted Hockey Sticks: 35 Non-Global Warming Papers Have Been Published In 2019[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 22. March 2019
[h=4]Could a transition in paleoclimate reconstruction be underway? More and more, scientists aren’t hiding statements or graphical depictions of the lack of modern warming or the much-warmer Holocene past.[/h]
Non-Hockey-Sticks-2019.jpg

A compilation of 35 papers from across the globe indicate that modern climate is not unusual, remarkable or unprecedented, and that large regions of the Earth were as warm or warmer than now when CO2 concentrations were much lower (260 to 350 ppm).
This development continues apace with the trends from the last two years, when 253 non-hockey stick papers were published.


 
I watched a video this morning of the sea level expert DR. Nies-Axel Morner...

This, of course is the problem.

Actual experts on the issue don’t get their information from you tube videos.

Especially ones showcasing deniers.
 
I did look them up, and I discovered that you are talking utter bollocks. Alfred Wegener, for example, had a doctorate in astronomy and was working as a lecturer in meteorology, applied astronomy and cosmic physics at the University of Marburg when he published his initial ideas on continental drift in 1912.

You are correct about his Astronomy education, but I was talking about him having ZERO education in GEOLOGY the field he made his big discoveries in, the ones many degreed Geologists of the day said he was talking utter bollocks.

"On 6 January 1912 he publicized his first thoughts about continental drift in a lecture at a session of the Geologischen Vereinigung at the Senckenberg Museum, Frankfurt am Main and in three articles in the journal Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen"

LINK

Notice you didn't mention the other two at all, there are more too but these three was enough to make my point.
 
You are correct about his Astronomy education, but I was talking about him having ZERO education in GEOLOGY the field he made his big discoveries in, the ones many degreed Geologists of the day said he was talking utter bollocks.

"On 6 January 1912 he publicized his first thoughts about continental drift in a lecture at a session of the Geologischen Vereinigung at the Senckenberg Museum, Frankfurt am Main and in three articles in the journal Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen"

LINK

Notice you didn't mention the other two at all, there are more too but these three was enough to make my point.

You said: "...none who had any college degree at the time of great discoveries."

Words have meaning, you know!
 
You said: "...none who had any college degree at the time of great discoveries."

Words have meaning, you know!

True, it was a mistake, but my point still stands since Wegener didn't have ANY background in Geology, which the Geologists of his day mocked him on. Eventually his point about Continential Drift was proven to be true, even when his explanation about HOW they drift was wrong.
 
You are correct about his Astronomy education, but I was talking about him having ZERO education in GEOLOGY the field he made his big discoveries in, the ones many degreed Geologists of the day said he was talking utter bollocks.

"On 6 January 1912 he publicized his first thoughts about continental drift in a lecture at a session of the Geologischen Vereinigung at the Senckenberg Museum, Frankfurt am Main and in three articles in the journal Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen"

LINK

Notice you didn't mention the other two at all, there are more too but these three was enough to make my point.

Thoughts are not discoveries,
 
True, it was a mistake, but my point still stands since Wegener didn't have ANY background in Geology, which the Geologists of his day mocked him on. Eventually his point about Continential Drift was proven to be true, even when his explanation about HOW they drift was wrong.

It is true that, on occasion, self-educated amateurs have made findings that, after further investigation, have transpired to be important discoveries. However, this is very much the exception, and it would be a logical fallacy to deduce from this that every crackpot theory made by people with no expertise in a field should be taken seriously!
 
Thoughts are not discoveries,
You cannot even complete the sentence.
On 6 January 1912 he publicized his first thoughts about continental drift in a lecture at a session of the Geologischen Vereinigung at the Senckenberg Museum, Frankfurt am Main and in three articles in the journal Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen"
not thoughts but lectures and publications.
 
Back
Top Bottom