• 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!

Decades ago, the UN promised climate disaster; so why hasn't it arrived?

flogger said:
It was created then run by John Cook a freelance cartoonist with a degree in sociology ! :lol:

PS He didnt even have that irrelevant degree when he first set it up !
Click to expand...

Where did you get this information? According to the Skeptical Science wikipedia page, his degree is in cognitive science with training as a solar physicist. And at this point, a degree in cognitive science seems to be relevant when dealing with people who cling to conspiracy theories.

flogger said:
Please show us unenlightened heretics the empirical evidence that an extra 0.01% of a benign beneficial naturally occurring gas in our atmospheric envelope can do all the horrors being claimed for it ?
Click to expand...

It is 3% now and it is cumulative. The carbon cycle was more or less in balance before humans came along. Whenever atmospheric C02 concentrations increased in the past, temperatures went up because the production outpaced the intake. Even a 3% increase ends up accumulating so that each year the levels rise higher and higher. This contributes to global warming by a process called positive relative forcing, increasing the amount of solar radiation that becomes trapped in the atmosphere. Plus, the natural carbon sinks then become sources for carbon dioxide emissions themselves, leading to an exponential rise in CO2 levels. In the past, other naturally occurring factors increased and decreased the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. In the present, humans are increasing them. And the Earth is warming as a result. This is called Anthropogenic Global Warming.

keelingcurve.jpg
 
[QUAccorOTE=lwf;1070325013]
Where did you get this information?
Click to expand...

From their own past website information and I quote

I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade. I did a Physics degree at the University of Queensland and while I achieved First Class Honours and could've continued onto a PhD, I instead quit academia and became a professional scrawler. Too much doodling in lectures, I think. Nevertheless, I've pursued a keen interest in science and if anything, found my curiosity about how the world works increased once I wasn't forced to study for impending exams.

Popular Technology.net: The Truth about Skeptical Science

Its 3% and it is cumulative
Click to expand...
How does the difference between 300 PPM and 400PPM (i.e. 100PPM) get to become 3% and not 0.01% . You guys can't even do basic math ! :shock:
 
Last edited:
flogger said:
[QUAccorOTE=lwf;1070325013]

From their own past website information and I quote

I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade. I did a Physics degree at the University of Queensland and while I achieved First Class Honours and could've continued onto a PhD, I instead quit academia and became a professional scrawler. Too much doodling in lectures, I think. Nevertheless, I've pursued a keen interest in science and if anything, found my curiosity about how the world works increased once I wasn't forced to study for impending exams.

Popular Technology.net: The Truth about Skeptical Science


How does the difference between 300 PPM and 400PPM (i.e. 100PPM) get to become 3% and not 0.01% . You guys can't even do basic math ! :shock:
Click to expand...

LOL.
Poptech.

That idiot used to post here.

But flogger thinks it’s reliable because it’s on the internet.

Complete and total clownage.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.
Poptech.

That idiot used to post here.

But flogger thinks it’s reliable because it’s on the internet.

Complete and total clownage.
Click to expand...
Poptart! That little weasel. I remember him from other forums where he usually ended up being banned.

As for Cook, a science degree in Physics with 1st class Honours (summa cum laude) in Solar Physics, followed by a PhD in Cognitive Science is far more than any of the science deniers on this forum (or Poptart) have ever achieved.
 
Quaestio said:
Poptart! That little weasel. I remember him from other forums where he usually ended up being banned.

As for Cook, a science degree in Physics with 1st class Honours (summa cum laude) in Solar Physics, followed by a PhD in Cognitive Science is far more than any of the science deniers on this forum (or Poptart) have ever achieved.
Click to expand...

Thats odd I remember him wiping the floor with every alarmist that he encountered here.

As for John Cook he is not now nor ever has been a climate scientist. He is an alarmist political activist nothing more
 
So poor flogger, (who is probably still waiting with "baited" breath), used to run around wiping Poptech's angry spit and drool off the floor? It's almost worth a forum search. Nah. I know what Poptech was like on other forums. Can't imagine he was any different here.

Edited to add: Oh wait! I do remember an 'encounter' with Poptech once on this forum. He called me "Queerstio" instead of responding to a question. Wow, he really "wiped the floor" with me with that super-intelligent thoughtful well-reasoned answer!
 
Last edited:
Because we didn't just sit on our ass and do nothing about climate change lmfao. We've made some pretty big changes, just not nearly enough.
 
also, since it was brought up several times by people who deny science and reality - overpopulation is a myth.
 
Quaestio said:
So poor flogger, (who is probably still waiting with "baited" breath), used to run around wiping Poptech's angry spit and drool off the floor? It's almost worth a forum search. Nah. I know what Poptech was like on other forums. Can't imagine he was any different here.

Edited to add: Oh wait! I do remember an 'encounter' with Poptech once on this forum. He called me "Queerstio" instead of responding to a question. Wow, he really "wiped the floor" with me with that super-intelligent thoughtful well-reasoned answer!
Click to expand...

I do remember him comprehensively destroying every wild alarmist assertion made here so I do understand your anger and petty name calling . ;)
 
Last edited:
flogger said:
I do remember him comprehensively destroying every wild alarmist assertion made here so I do understand your anger and petty name calling . ;)
Click to expand...

If only you could do something about your delusional confusion.
 
Last edited:
flogger said:
Prove its wrong then ? :waiting:
Click to expand...

I could spend my entire day proving you wrong with the volume of crap you shovel.

Now you want to pretend some poster who also posts to his own crappy webpage is some sort of ‘reference’.

Give me a break.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.
Poptech.

That idiot used to post here.

But flogger thinks it’s reliable because it’s on the internet.

Complete and total clownage.
Click to expand...

Pop Tech is every bit as qualified, if not better, to make accurate posts as Real Climate or Skeptical Science.

Do you pride yourself for your hypocrisy?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Pop Tech is every bit as qualified, if not better, to make accurate posts as Real Climate or Skeptical Science.

Do you pride yourself for your hypocrisy?
Click to expand...

LOL.

Sure.

That guy definitely has qualifications.

[emoji849]
 
flogger said:
[QUAccorOTE=lwf;1070325013]

From their own past website information and I quote

I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade. I did a Physics degree at the University of Queensland and while I achieved First Class Honours and could've continued onto a PhD, I instead quit academia and became a professional scrawler. Too much doodling in lectures, I think. Nevertheless, I've pursued a keen interest in science and if anything, found my curiosity about how the world works increased once I wasn't forced to study for impending exams.

Popular Technology.net: The Truth about Skeptical Science


How does the difference between 300 PPM and 400PPM (i.e. 100PPM) get to become 3% and not 0.01% . You guys can't even do basic math ! :shock:
Click to expand...

climate change | Causes, Effects, & Facts | Britannica.com
 
Threegoofs said:
I could spend my entire day proving you wrong with the volume of crap you shovel.

Now you want to pretend some poster who also posts to his own crappy webpage is some sort of ‘reference’.

Give me a break.
Click to expand...

Just say 'no I can't prove you wrong' ... That would have been easier :lamo
 
LosAngelesAngel said:
:lasucks: ~ Let us remember the old saying: "If at first you don't succeed - try, try again."
The UN must maintain relevance. What better way than to create urgency ?
Many of us have gone from being skeptical to becoming suspicious about all of this.
Click to expand...

So the fact that 9 of the 10 warmest years ever recorded came after 2000 and 6 of them came in this decade makes you suspicious? You also think there no collusion or obstruction by Trump too I bet.

2019GlobalTemps_Bars_F_en_title_lg_900_506_s_c1_c_c.jpg
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
2019GlobalTemps_Bars_F_en_title_lg_900_506_s_c1_c_c.jpg
Click to expand...

Why is a 20 year snapshot of any consequence whatsoever in the great scheme of things . Its utterly meaningless. Its like looking out the window one day in a given year and saying the weather is always like that as holds for the duration of the entire recorded temperature record ! :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom