• 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!

Freeman Dyson on the Unreliability of Climate Modeling

Jack Hays said:
Gavin Schmidt actually has no science background at all. He's a mathematician.
Click to expand...

Oh, right. I forget how abjectly ignorant you are about science and scientific training.


PhD in applied mathematics. His thesis, and all his initial research is on modeling the variability of oceans and climate using general circulation models. He has published extensively in the area.

Dyson was retired by the time any of this research was being extensively done.
 
Threegoofs said:
Oh, right. I forget how abjectly ignorant you are about science and scientific training.


PhD in applied mathematics. His thesis, and all his initial research is on modeling the variability of oceans and climate using general circulation models. He has published extensively in the area.

Dyson was retired by the time any of this research was being extensively done.
Click to expand...

Models.:lamo As I said, not science.

As for Dyson, you're wrong about him too. As for "retired:"


 
Jack Hays said:
Models.:lamo As I said, not science.

As for Dyson, you're wrong about him too. As for "retired:"


Click to expand...

Thanks for the valuable vault and paste, which reinforces my point.

Also thanks for obligingly demonstrating that you literally have no clue what science is.
 
Obscurity said:
Direct correlation between temperature and co2 has been conclusively proven.

Climate change is real. You dont get to have a choice in believing it or not. Belief implies choice.

The science is settled. Co2 and temperatures are directly related and human activity has increased emissions.

This is undeniable fact.

And yet we have an entire swathe of people believing right wing rhetoric that they have a choice in the matter.

To me this is abject. It is amoral and the right wing is guilty of politicizing climate change via donations from big oil.

Shame on you all. For peddling the conspiracy, and for peddling big oils lies.

Shame. Shame. Shame.
Click to expand...

If you had actually bothered to look at the articles and videos, you will actually realize that most critics agree that there has been some warming of the atmosphere, where they disagree is the predicted calamities that the climate jihadists are up in arms about. But then again, talking to people like you is like talking to a brick wall- your minds are set, and no amount of facts or common sense will change it. I was like you once, until I read up on the evidence- the difference is I have an open mind.
 
PoS said:
If you had actually bothered to look at the articles and videos, you will actually realize that most critics agree that there has been some warming of the atmosphere, where they disagree is the predicted calamities that the climate jihadists are up in arms about. But then again, talking to people like you is like talking to a brick wall- your minds are set, and no amount of facts or common sense will change it. I was like you once, until I read up on the evidence- the difference is I have an open mind.
Click to expand...

I think it’s so open your brains fell out.

The consensus of the scientific community is overwhelming. You’re just spreading CTs
 
Threegoofs said:
I think it’s so open your brains fell out.

The consensus of the scientific community is overwhelming. You’re just spreading CTs
Click to expand...

Back to ad homs and lies about the "consensus" again. Im so glad to be out of your fanatical climate jihadist circle.
 
PoS said:
A cherry picked lie.

97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus" | Climate Dispatch

And science isnt determined by consensus- but then you wouldnt know that since you hate science.
Click to expand...

Odd. I didnt say anything about a 97% consensus or surveys of scientists.

But I guess when you have one tool in your argument box, you use it. Maybe some denier will give you the party line on the consensus of organizations. You might note that its rock solid stupidity, but you’ll parrot it anyway.
 
Jack Hays said:
Complete nonsense, and dishonest to boot.
The principal challenge to the orthodox AGW narrative is neither right wing nor connected to any industry.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Its settled science. There is no challenge. And yes. The right wing is in bed with this conspiracy. This proliferation of ignorance. This affluophilia. The fake science saying the climate isn't impacted by fossil fuels is surprisingly all paid for by the fossil fuel industry.

You dont get a choice. It's happening. And it's happening because we continuously upset a stable chemical system with greenhouse gasses.

What's complete nonsense is your embrace of fringe idiocy and opinion as "science".

Same thing as evolution and every other scientific advance. It's truly pathetic.

Remember. When the oceans rise and claim your home it doesnt gaf if you're liberal or conservative.
 
Sunsettommy said:
It is always amusing to read what a fanatic writes, where he makes clear that he is against debate, employs the usual funding fallacies and attacks groups he never debates with, yet they are guilty of something. He claims "rightwingers" politicize climate change, when it is the Democrats, along with their leftist Media, Universities, and government officials who are the main pusher of the propaganda, the very same ones who attacks others as "deniers", complain of oil money and squelch debate.

This dude, employs a false narrative so many warmists employs:

Thinks skeptics dispute that Climate Change, which is false. Thinks skeptics denies that CO2 has some warm forcing power, which is also false.

Thinks science is settled, which is evidence the person making this claim has no real science skill or education to draw from, because real science research is NEVER truly settled.

CO2 and Temperature is NOT directly related, there are plenty of evidence that CO2 lags in many time frames. The known lags are from 6-9 months to 400-800 years.

Shame on you for the lies you promote here, the fallacies, the absolutist statements you state, it is clear that YOU have a problem with honesty and your inability to be truthful.
Click to expand...

Total abject ignorance on your behalf. You can keep thinking you have a choice.

You dont.
 
PoS said:
If you had actually bothered to look at the articles and videos, you will actually realize that most critics agree that there has been some warming of the atmosphere, where they disagree is the predicted calamities that the climate jihadists are up in arms about. But then again, talking to people like you is like talking to a brick wall- your minds are set, and no amount of facts or common sense will change it. I was like you once, until I read up on the evidence- the difference is I have an open mind.
Click to expand...

And talking to people like you is like talking to an evangelist, claiming you support science and then denying it outright.

Climate jihadists? Pathetic.

Big oil paid for the lies you peddle just like big tobacco paid for the lies that cogs didnt cause cancer.

You lot ignore science. Its settled. Co2 is undeniably linked to an increase in atmospheric temperature based on countless ice core samples, and yet typical of braindead conthought you guys insist it's a liberal hoax.

Pathetic and unconvincing trash, every single right wing comment on this subject

You lot are pathetic.
 
Obscurity said:
Wrong. Its settled science. There is no challenge. And yes. The right wing is in bed with this conspiracy. This proliferation of ignorance. This affluophilia. The fake science saying the climate isn't impacted by fossil fuels is surprisingly all paid for by the fossil fuel industry.

You dont get a choice. It's happening. And it's happening because we continuously upset a stable chemical system with greenhouse gasses.

What's complete nonsense is your embrace of fringe idiocy and opinion as "science".

Same thing as evolution and every other scientific advance. It's truly pathetic.

Remember. When the oceans rise and claim your home it doesnt gaf if you're liberal or conservative.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's an ignorant post. To the extent their politics are known, both Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv seem to be Euro-style social democrats. The important point is that their politics don't matter. Their objection is scientific.

Here's Svensmark:

Henrik Svensmark: Force Majeure – The Sun’s Role In Climate Change (PDF)

Here's Shaviv:

[h=2]My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion[/h]Have a look if you dare.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but that's an ignorant post. To the extent their politics are known, both Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv seem to be Euro-style social democrats. The important point is that their politics don't matter. Their objection is scientific.

Here's Svensmark:

Henrik Svensmark: Force Majeure – The Sun’s Role In Climate Change (PDF)

Here's Shaviv:

[h=2]My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion[/h]Have a look if you dare.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah. And if I post articles from the overwhelming number of scientists that specifically state the evidence conclusively proves human activity is fuelling climate change you'll just ignore it, like ever other denier.

I have no real interest in fringe conspiracy, like antivac, antievolution, or antiagw.

You lot are all the same. It's dangerous nonsense.
 
Obscurity said:
Yeah yeah. And if I post articles from the overwhelming number of scientists that specifically state the evidence conclusively proves human activity is fuelling climate change you'll just ignore it, like ever other denier.

I have no real interest in fringe conspiracy, like antivac, antievolution, or antiagw.

You lot are all the same. It's dangerous nonsense.
Click to expand...

It was the glaring weaknesses in that evidence that led me to Svensmark and Shaviv. Look at them or don't, but you can't say you weren't told.
 
Jack Hays said:
It was the glaring weaknesses in that evidence that led me to Svensmark and Shaviv. Look at them or don't, but you can't say you weren't told.
Click to expand...

Are you a scientist? I find it suspect, frankly. The only ones saying there are holes are the woke clowns who insist climate change is either a hoax or not related to human activity.

Can the sun impact climate? No one is saying it can't. No one is saying it has no effect.

No one but you lot, who are doubling and tripling down on fringe science as the only answer.

Truly pathetic.
 
Obscurity said:
Are you a scientist? I find it suspect, frankly. The only ones saying there are holes are the woke clowns who insist climate change is either a hoax or not related to human activity.

Can the sun impact climate? No one is saying it can't. No one is saying it has no effect.

No one but you lot, who are doubling and tripling down on fringe science as the only answer.

Truly pathetic.
Click to expand...

I decided some time ago that the lack of interest in a real discussion among AGW advocates would preclude any actual exchange. 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.

And that collapse is near. There are three topic areas where the AGW narrative has been (and will continue to be) undermined.
1. There is mounting evidence for low ECS and TCR, incompatible with AGW.
2. It's clear now that solar climate influence is significantly greater than has been admitted to date by the IPCC.
3. Cooling began in 2016 and will continue indefinitely, with an occasional El Nino pause.
 
Jack Hays said:
I decided some time ago that the lack of interest in a real discussion among AGW advocates would preclude any actual exchange. 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.

And that collapse is near. There are three topic areas where the AGW narrative has been (and will continue to be) undermined.
1. There is mounting evidence for low ECS and TCR, incompatible with AGW.
2. It's clear now that solar climate influence is significantly greater than has been admitted to date by the IPCC.
3. Cooling began in 2016 and will continue indefinitely, with an occasional El Nino pause.
Click to expand...

I won't be forced to own anything. We also know you lot never own anything so its irrelevant.

The agw narrative will not collapse because of fringe hack scientists that make you feel better about greasing the dick of Exxon mobile executives.

Greenhouse gas effects are real. You dont get to ignore it. They are the primary vector driving temperatures. Conservatives are so ****ing daft when it comes to this. They insist some el Nino will result in cooling. Maybe here. Not in other areas.

Contrary to your paltry ideologies attempts at undermining science, science knows no bounds. It's not stuck in just america. Climate here may dip and cool for a while but will increase on a global scale.

2018 Was 4th Hottest Year on Record, NASA Finds

Yes we know. NASA is full of deep state actors paid by the agw limousine liberals and the cartel of MSM educator contractor trial lawyer conglomerate.

Yawn.
 
Obscurity said:
I won't be forced to own anything. We also know you lot never own anything so its irrelevant.

The agw narrative will not collapse because of fringe hack scientists that make you feel better about greasing the dick of Exxon mobile executives.

Greenhouse gas effects are real. You dont get to ignore it. They are the primary vector driving temperatures. Conservatives are so ****ing daft when it comes to this. They insist some el Nino will result in cooling. Maybe here. Not in other areas.

Contrary to your paltry ideologies attempts at undermining science, science knows no bounds. It's not stuck in just america. Climate here may dip and cool for a while but will increase on a global scale.

2018 Was 4th Hottest Year on Record, NASA Finds

Yes we know. NASA is full of deep state actors paid by the agw limousine liberals and the cartel of MSM educator contractor trial lawyer conglomerate.

Yawn.
Click to expand...

Exactly none of your rant is relevant to anything I have posted. Your desperation is showing. If you ever decide you want a substantive discussion, let me know.
 
Jack Hays said:
Exactly none of your rant is relevant to anything I have posted. Your desperation is showing. If you ever decide you want a substantive discussion, let me know.
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in having a discussion with someone who thinks the sun is solely responsible for climate change.

Your stance is pathetic, misinformed nonsense.
 
Obscurity said:
I'm not interested in having a discussion with someone who thinks the sun is solely responsible for climate change.

Your stance is pathetic, misinformed nonsense.
Click to expand...

Svensmark and Shaviv suggest the sun was responsible for about half of 20th century warming. They do not exclude GHG's from a role. Were you ignorant of that?
The consequences of their insight are profound.
 
Jack Hays said:
Svensmark and Shaviv suggest the sun was responsible for about half of 20th century warming. They do not exclude GHG's from a role. Were you ignorant of that?
The consequences of their insight are profound.
Click to expand...

The consequences pale in comparison the amount of greenhouse gasses expelled into the atmosphere by human beings since the industrial revolution.

2 scientists making a postulation that is not accepted by the overwhelming majority of their peers a proven fact does not make.

Accepted science says the primary driver is greenhouse gasses.

I agree with the overwhelming majority over the fringe.
 
Obscurity said:
The consequences pale in comparison the amount of greenhouse gasses expelled into the atmosphere by human beings since the industrial revolution.

2 scientists making a postulation that is not accepted by the overwhelming majority of their peers a proven fact does not make.

Accepted science says the primary driver is greenhouse gasses.

I agree with the overwhelming majority over the fringe.
Click to expand...

Fine. As I said earlier, my only goal is prevent you saying later that you weren't told.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom