• 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!

All-time record heat scorches Middle East as temperatures hit 129 degrees

Strange fellow.
Either he thinks he knows more than anyone else or he thinks he can bull**** his way through these things and no one will notice.
I'm leaning toward the latter.

I suspect he knows just enough to think he knows more than he does. Regardless, I wished him goodbye and good luck.
 
I suspect he knows just enough to think he knows more than he does. Regardless, I wished him goodbye and good luck.

Yeah. I saw that.
I think he was setting me up for a dismissal of my own.
I should never ask serious questions.
That was my mistake.
 
More ramblings from mindless denier trolls.

If someone posting information about an extreme weather event bothers you, why don't you prove it insignificant with statistics? Math is available to everyone, whether they believe adding greenhouse gases will warm a planet or not. Why can't you go to your denier sites of choice and find that statistical analysis proving warming doesn't exist? How many tens of years do they have to get paid off by special interests, until they can find someone to do the math? What prevents them from having their findings peer reviewed?
 
I suspect he knows just enough to think he knows more than he does. Regardless, I wished him goodbye and good luck.

LOL I dont think he knows anything.
 
More ramblings from mindless denier trolls.

If someone posting information about an extreme weather event bothers you, why don't you prove it insignificant with statistics? Math is available to everyone, whether they believe adding greenhouse gases will warm a planet or not. Why can't you go to your denier sites of choice and find that statistical analysis proving warming doesn't exist? How many tens of years do they have to get paid off by special interests, until they can find someone to do the math? What prevents them from having their findings peer reviewed?
Why don't you mathematically show us how 1.1 C of forcing warming from doubling the CO2 level,
could become a ECS of 3C, and then you can show us how that agrees with the empirical data?
 
Why don't you mathematically show us how 1.1 C of forcing warming from doubling the CO2 level,
could become a ECS of 3C, and then you can show us how that agrees with the empirical data?

You continue to act like you know what you're talking about. You shouldn't request that others share in your armchair-novice-scientist garbage. When you get your degree in Climatology, and you understand the feedbacks, and the different ECS level possibilities; and when you admit that you don't understand this as well as the scientists who have studied it for their entire lifetime, maybe we'll start listening to you.
 
You continue to act like you know what you're talking about. You shouldn't request that others share in your armchair-novice-scientist garbage. When you get your degree in Climatology, and you understand the feedbacks, and the different ECS level possibilities; and when you admit that you don't understand this as well as the scientists who have studied it for their entire lifetime, maybe we'll start listening to you.
Have you read many of the papers from these scientist?
They are kind of all over the place.
Here is a good example
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/Hansen-04-29-05.pdf
The lag could be as short as a decade, if climate sensitivity is as small as ¼°C per W/m2 of forcing,
but it is a century or longer if climate sensitivity is 1°C per W/m2 or larger (1, 3).
Evidence from Earth’s history (3–6) and climate models (7) suggests that climate sensitivity is ¾ ± ¼ °C per W/m2,
implying that 25-50 years are needed for Earth’s surface temperature to reach 60 percent of its equilibrium response (1).
So the latency between forcing and ECS could be anywhere from 1 decade to over a century, that is definite!
 
You continue to act like you know what you're talking about. You shouldn't request that others share in your armchair-novice-scientist garbage. When you get your degree in Climatology, and you understand the feedbacks, and the different ECS level possibilities; and when you admit that you don't understand this as well as the scientists who have studied it for their entire lifetime, maybe we'll start listening to you.

Hey look who came back just to confirm that Authority Bias dictates their beliefs.
 
Have you read many of the papers from these scientist?
They are kind of all over the place.
Here is a good example
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/Hansen-04-29-05.pdf

Yes, the models have different ranges. Wisely, the IPCC doesn't pretend to know what changes will be in place. Example - how will governments and their citizens respond to the challenge? In addition, they admittedly publish different degrees of uncertainty, regarding future impacts. For example, they are less certain about cloud cover. Scientifically, they know that higher atmospheric temperatures lead to an ability for the air to hold more water. However, that can also increase cloud cover in certain geographic areas, which could then cool that region. They present the different scenarios. In your arrogance, you pretend to know more than the scientific community. They study these issues all their lives, and you POO-POO on them. It's quite pathetic.
 
Hey look who came back just to confirm that Authority Bias dictates their beliefs.

You represent the perfect example of why Reddit banned most of the Climate Change deniers from their scientific forum. Bottom line - it was difficult to have informed scientific debate because of the uneducated gibberish.

Why Reddit’s Science Forum Banned Climate Deniers – ThinkProgress

But for a long time, that type of discussion — at least surrounding climate change — has been hindered by trolling of the most “rude and uninformed” kind, according to Nathan Allen, a a PhD chemist and /r/science moderator. Which is why the subreddit has since prohibited posts and comments by people who deny the realities of man-made climate change.
...
The answer, Allen said, is that the conversation surrounding global warming constantly tends to wade off into a non-scientific, personal debate that is inappropriate for a science discussion forum. “Statements on /r/science must be supported by meaningfully peer-reviewed science,” Allen said.
...
“As moderators responsible for what millions of people see, we felt that to allow a handful of commenters to so purposefully mislead our audience was simply immoral,”
 
You represent the perfect example of why Reddit banned most of the Climate Change deniers from their scientific forum. Bottom line - it was difficult to have informed scientific debate because of the uneducated gibberish.

Why Reddit’s Science Forum Banned Climate Deniers – ThinkProgress

But for a long time, that type of discussion — at least surrounding climate change — has been hindered by trolling of the most “rude and uninformed” kind, according to Nathan Allen, a a PhD chemist and /r/science moderator. Which is why the subreddit has since prohibited posts and comments by people who deny the realities of man-made climate change.
...
The answer, Allen said, is that the conversation surrounding global warming constantly tends to wade off into a non-scientific, personal debate that is inappropriate for a science discussion forum. “Statements on /r/science must be supported by meaningfully peer-reviewed science,” Allen said.
...
“As moderators responsible for what millions of people see, we felt that to allow a handful of commenters to so purposefully mislead our audience was simply immoral,”

In order words, their higher purpose required them to enforce thought control. As Orwell foresaw.
 
In order words, their higher purpose required them to enforce thought control. As Orwell foresaw.

Are you so sure Orwell didn't foresee your kind? I'm not into lockstep.
 
More ramblings from mindless denier trolls.

If someone posting information about an extreme weather event bothers you, why don't you prove it insignificant with statistics? Math is available to everyone, whether they believe adding greenhouse gases will warm a planet or not. Why can't you go to your denier sites of choice and find that statistical analysis proving warming doesn't exist? How many tens of years do they have to get paid off by special interests, until they can find someone to do the math? What prevents them from having their findings peer reviewed?

OK.

[h=3]Global Tropical Cyclone Activity | Ryan Maue[/h]
[url]https://policlimate.com/tropical/

[/URL]



by RN Maue - ‎Related articles
Figure: Global Hurricane Frequency (all & major) -- 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached at least ...



Figure: Global Hurricane Frequency (all & major) -- 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached at least hurricane-force (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 64-knots). The bottom time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached major hurricane strength (96-knots+). Adapted from Maue (2011) GRL.

 
The hurricane chart is hyped.

It doesn't include 1980 data and includes 2019 data, which it can't honestly include.

It's liar, liar, pants on fire.
 
In order words, their higher purpose required them to enforce thought control. As Orwell foresaw.

Who can blame Reddit? They are a scientific forum. When paid shills start disrupting Scientific discussions, with "non-peer-reviewed" gibberish, they had react. Chances are that they were losing many of the visiting credible scientists who were disillusioned with the Crapola Denierola.

Reddit never publicly made the claim that they were infiltrated by paid shills, but the implication is clear.
 
Who can blame Reddit? They are a scientific forum. When paid shills start disrupting Scientific discussions, with "non-peer-reviewed" gibberish, they had react. Chances are that they were losing many of the visiting credible scientists who were disillusioned with the Crapola Denierola.

Reddit never publicly made the claim that they were infiltrated by paid shills, but the implication is clear.

The claim there, as it is here, is merely a sign of cowardice and intellectual bankruptcy.
 
Yes, the models have different ranges. Wisely, the IPCC doesn't pretend to know what changes will be in place. Example - how will governments and their citizens respond to the challenge? In addition, they admittedly publish different degrees of uncertainty, regarding future impacts. For example, they are less certain about cloud cover. Scientifically, they know that higher atmospheric temperatures lead to an ability for the air to hold more water. However, that can also increase cloud cover in certain geographic areas, which could then cool that region. They present the different scenarios. In your arrogance, you pretend to know more than the scientific community. They study these issues all their lives, and you POO-POO on them. It's quite pathetic.
The Sensitivities Hansen is speaking of have almost nothing to do with how people will respond,
but rather how the climate responds to a warming perturbation.
 
The claim there, as it is here, is merely a sign of cowardice and intellectual bankruptcy.

I was banned from Reddit, despite that I didn't violate any forum rules, it was because I was so popular with people after I kept making fools of ignorant warmists in thread after thread. Had a large + rating. I have a similar one in another forum right now as well. A Moderator whined from a warmist forum section about me, which is what caused the banning, despite that I had no forum rule violations on my record.

I was banned from Democrat Underground in just two days, despite that I was in support of a liberal Senator Dennis Kuchinich right to a debate, just after three comments! :lol:

I agree with you Jack, in their, cowardice and intellectual bankruptcy is what have left.
 
I was banned from Reddit, despite that I didn't violate any forum rules, it was because I was so popular with people after I kept making fools of ignorant warmists in thread after thread. Had a large + rating. I have a similar one in another forum right now as well. A Moderator whined from a warmist forum section about me, which is what caused the banning, despite that I had no forum rule violations on my record.

I was banned from Democrat Underground in just two days, despite that I was in support of a liberal Senator Dennis Kuchinich right to a debate, just after three comments! :lol:

I agree with you Jack, in their, cowardice and intellectual bankruptcy is what have left.

Reddit is a Scientific Forum. From your posts on this forum, it's obvious that you have ZERO scientific credibility. What a wise moderator!
 
The Sensitivities Hansen is speaking of have almost nothing to do with how people will respond,
but rather how the climate responds to a warming perturbation.

Just like certain Working Groups of the IPCC. They study the Climate Science, and publish the scenarios. At issue here, is your claim to a superior knowledge over their work.
 
Back
Top Bottom