• 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!

How Did Climate Predictions of 10-40 Years Ago Pan Out? Spectacularly Wrong.

George50 said:
So first we have the Lord of P with his Deflection. When one of his misconceptions is pointed out he can't defend it so he tries to change the subject.

Now we have you using False Equivalency as an argument. The idea that there is a conspiracy within NASA JPL where 4 web master and graphic arts types are somehow taking the ideas of the 8 PHD scientists and twisting them around to support their own agenda or simply misinterpreting them is just absurd. One would have to believe that the scientists were not smart enough to know how to look at the website for themselves. The scientists names and bios are right at the top of the about page and you can be damn sure they are aware of the content and that they value their reputations enough to make sure they are comfortable with it.

Yes, people get attacked on Twitter all the time as in your response, but the LOP's claim that there is a conspiracy within NASA is just something he made up with no evidence. It's not something that happens all the time.

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It's not that they don't know. It's that they don't mind their work being sensationalized to further the cause they advocate.
 
Stuartbirdman said:
Pierre Gosselin
Gosselin is the author of the climate skeptic blog NoTrickZone.com. He said he thinks humans have a "modest" role in impacting the planet's climate, but ultimately he believes "the forces of nature overwhelm anything man puts out." Gosselin owns a small business involving communication work for various industries. He has an associate degree in civil engineering from Vermont Technical College and a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Arizona, according to his website
Click to expand...

Yes. History will be kind to him for his honesty and clear thinking.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I don't think that's the whole of the numbers.
Click to expand...
So where did your 20b under Obama come from? Based on your non answer for a source, people would think you made it up.

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk
 

CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY

CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng., June 2019 ABSTRACT Global warming alarmism, which falsely assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, is disproved – essentially, it assumes that the future is causing the past. In reality, atmospheric CO2 changes lag global temperature changes at all measured…
Continue reading →

[FONT=&quot]ABSTRACT[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Global warming alarmism, which falsely assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, is disproved – essentially, it assumes that the future is causing the past. In reality, atmospheric CO2 changes lag global temperature changes at all measured time scales.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Nino34 Area Sea Surface Temperature changes, then tropical humidity changes, then atmospheric temperature changes, then CO2 changes.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The velocity dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with global temperature changes and CO2 changes occur ~9 months later (MacRae 2008).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The process that causes the ~9-month average lag of CO2 changes after temperature changes is hypothesized and supported by observations.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The ~9-month lag, +/- several months, averages 1/4 of the full-period duration of the variable global temperature cycle, which averages ~3 years.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Based on the above observations, global temperatures drive atmospheric CO2 concentrations much more than CO2 drives temperature.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 must be very low, less than ~1C/(2*CO2) and probably much less.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There will be no catastrophic warming and no significant increase in chaotic weather due to increasing CO2 concentrations.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Increasing atmospheric CO2 clearly causes significantly improved crop yields, and may cause minor, beneficial global warming.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high, it is too low for optimal plant growth and alarmingly low for the survival of carbon-based terrestrial life.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc may also increase atmospheric CO2. The increase of CO2 is clearly beneficial. . . . [/FONT]



 
George50 said:
So all this is about the first graph on this page:

Sea Level | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

What's wrong with having this on the website?

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I take no position on any graphic. My point was in response to your claim the scientists would have to be unaware their research was being misrepresented. My counter is that they are quite well aware, but they don't mind so long as the misrepresentation supports the noble cause of AGW advocacy.
 
Jack Hays said:
I take no position on any graphic. My point was in response to your claim the scientists would have to be unaware their research was being misrepresented. My counter is that they are quite well aware, but they don't mind so long as the misrepresentation supports the noble cause of AGW advocacy.
Click to expand...
What is it that you see as being misrepresented?

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk
 
George50 said:
So you really don't have a source for your 20b then.

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I would have to look it up again, but the number was around $24 billion for 2016.

I'm not going to worry about it. People will believe as they wish. I suggest you look at multiple sources before forming an opinion that fits your confirmation bias.
 
Jack Hays said:
So what?
Click to expand...

Pierre Gosselin
Gosselin is the author of the climate skeptic blog NoTrickZone.com. He said he thinks humans have a "modest" role in impacting the planet's climate, but ultimately he believes "the forces of nature overwhelm anything man puts out." Gosselin owns a small business involving communication work for various industries. He has an associate degree in civil engineering from Vermont Technical College and a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Arizona, according to his website
 
Jack Hays said:
So what?
Click to expand...

Many of those copied on the email thread, such as Singer and communications specialist Steven Milloy, have financial ties to the tobacco, chemical, and oil and gas industries and have worked to defend them since the 1990s. Others seem relatively new to the denialist camp, such as climate scientist Judith Curry. All, however, have been vocal before Congress, on broadcast news or on the Internet in arguing that human activity is not the primarily driver of climate change.
 
ataraxia said:
You want to drag MY environment to pot because of YOUR irresponsibility? Sorry you’re not that free.
Click to expand...

So you own the environment now? If you want to stop taking airline flights or have a gas powered car and become a vegetarian that's up to you, but leave me out of it.
 
PoS said:
So you own the environment now? If you want to stop taking airline flights or have a gas powered car and become a vegetarian that's up to you, but leave me out of it.
Click to expand...

We, the people, own the environment.



Side note: milk and eggs undergo the same trophic level conversion of 10 grams of plant protein to 1 gram of animal protein, 10:1. Also, water use is the same as for meat (100 times the water consumption for the same amount of plant protein, 100:1). Converting protein at 10:1 and water at 100:1 for convenience is unethical.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
We, the people, own the environment.



Side note: milk and eggs undergo the same trophic level conversion of 10 grams of plant protein to 1 gram of animal protein, 10:1. Also, water use is the same as for meat (100 times the water consumption for the same amount of plant protein, 100:1). Converting protein at 10:1 and water at 100:1 for convenience is unethical.
Click to expand...

As co-owner of the environment, I reserve the rights to live my life as I see fit, and not to be forced to participate in a mass delusion that somehow believes the climate can be artificially changed by adopting a Neo-luddite lifestyle.
 
PoS said:
As co-owner of the environment, I reserve the rights to live my life as I see fit, and not to be forced to participate in a mass delusion that somehow believes the climate can be artificially changed by adopting a Neo-luddite lifestyle.
Click to expand...

There's a whole movement like that. The Sovereign Citizens. They don't gotta follow no law and they get to do whatever they want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom