• 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!

Journal Prints Bogus Solar Warming Study

calamity said:
:lol:



Yes, it is rather absurd. Imagine it like someone telling you it gets hotter as you get to the top of a high mountain because you are closer to the sun. That gives you a rough idea of the absurdity behind the argument that earth moving closer to the sun is the reason for global warming.

After all, if being close to the sun was the deciding factor for global temperature, Mercury would not be cooler than Venus. Duh!

Oh, and there would be swimming pools at the top of Mount Everest. :lamo
Click to expand...
IF altitude were the only determiner of temperature your analogy would be correct; however that's not the case - local weather conditions are more influential. In the summertime, for instance Las Vegas at around 2000 ft. is frequently 10-20 degrees higher than my home at 200 ft. As I understand the paper in question the author is talking hundreds of thousands, or million of millions not a few thousand feet.
 
Bullseye said:
I wonder if it was reviewed by other peers, and, if so, what were there comments.
Click to expand...

You can wonder, or you can actually read that it was not peer reviewed at all- it’s a paper posted to an open access forum.

And the open access forum did its job- it got experts in the field to trash it like the garbage it is.
 
flogger said:
I suspect you never even read my posts nor the links associated with them. Thats your loss :(
Click to expand...

I suspect that if that’s the case...he’s smarter than you think.

I swear- you guys think any idiot with their own website is an ‘expert’.
 
Threegoofs said:
I suspect that if that’s the case...he’s smarter than you think.

I swear- you guys think any idiot with their own website is an ‘expert’.
Click to expand...

Stick with your cartoonist buddy John Cook for your 'expert' info then as I know you will :wink:
 
calamity said:
Yes, watching him trash your posts was funny.
Click to expand...

This poster has a record here of being barely able to walk and chew gum at the same time. He is here for comic relief so for your own credibility cuddling up to him is perhaps not best advised :roll:
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
LOL So you think the fossil fuel industry which have 4 of the 5 highest annual profits of any corporation are broke? There is far more free money in the denier business.Who do you think is funding all those wacky websites you love to link to?
Click to expand...

So prove what it says is wrong then ...... simple ? :waiting:
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL. What a whackadoodle website!



“IceAgeNow regularly publishes articles skeptical of climate change by its author, and sole employee, Robert Felix — a former architect. George Monbiot at The Guardian describes IceAgeNow as primarily serving to promote Felix's book about the “coming ice age.” Monbiot says that Felix selectively picks evidence in his attempt to disprove man-made global warming.

“Is Felix a climatologist, a volcanologist or an oceanographer?” Monbiot asks. “Er, none of the above. His biography describes him as a 'former architect'. His website is so bonkers that I thought at first it was a spoof. Sadly, he appears to believe what he says.”
Click to expand...

This article is about money. A topic many are more than qualified to talk about if they can count

You'd already know that if you'd bothered to look

So far nobody has said a single thing about that
 
flogger said:
I couldn't care less how rich the fossil fuel industries are. They at least provide a vital utility . For all its taxpayer billions what does the climate change community provide .... nothing .... except for itself of course :roll:
Click to expand...

So, saving our habitat and surviving as a species are not as important as profits? The fossil fuel indistry is beginning a slow death spiral, being gradually replaced by renewable sources, but the problem is that it isn't happening fast enough. A lot of people are going to become climate refugees due to rising sea levels, heat indexes too high to grow their usual food crops, storms too violent to shelter from, heat-induced water shortages etc. Where will they go?
 
flogger said:
This article is about money. A topic many are more than qualified to talk about if they can count

You'd already know that if you'd bothered to look

So far nobody has said a single thing about that
Click to expand...

The ‘article’ is a blog post written by a certified nut.

The funny thing is that you somehow give it credibility.
 
Darth BB said:
So, saving our habitat and surviving as a species are not as important as profits? The fossil fuel indistry is beginning a slow death spiral, being gradually replaced by renewable sources, but the problem is that it isn't happening fast enough. A lot of people are going to become climate refugees due to rising sea levels, heat indexes too high to grow their usual food crops, storms too violent to shelter from, heat-induced water shortages etc. Where will they go?
Click to expand...
There is nothing in AGW that would actually destroy our habitat or prevent our species from surviving.
Without any technology advances, we might be able to get to the first doubling of CO2, but a second doubling
would be almost impossible.
The sea level rise is on the same track it has been on since before we increased hydrocarbon usage.
Consider that many food crops do quite well in the tropics, and in the heat, North Africa and Egypt were called
the bread basket of Rome for a reason!
Humanity has some very real problems, but CO2 levels are not high on the list.
To me, energy and fresh water, are the two big problems moving forward,
and if we address and solve our energy problem, fresh water and any issue with CO2 will be solved as a side effect.
Our real problem is that we are wasting time and money, on the wrong problem!
 
longview said:
There is nothing in AGW that would actually destroy our habitat or prevent our species from surviving.
Without any technology advances, we might be able to get to the first doubling of CO2, but a second doubling
would be almost impossible.
The sea level rise is on the same track it has been on since before we increased hydrocarbon usage.
Consider that many food crops do quite well in the tropics, and in the heat, North Africa and Egypt were called
the bread basket of Rome for a reason!
Humanity has some very real problems, but CO2 levels are not high on the list.
To me, energy and fresh water, are the two big problems moving forward,
and if we address and solve our energy problem, fresh water and any issue with CO2 will be solved as a side effect.
Our real problem is that we are wasting time and money, on the wrong problem!
Click to expand...

What's wasting time are stupid arguments denying that AGW is a problem.
 
Bullseye said:
I wonder if it was reviewed by other peers, and, if so, what were there comments.
Click to expand...
It is reviewed, but I do not know if the public can see the results of the review.
Reviewing would cover if there were technical errors in the paper,
in this case did the cloud cover and temperature change as they stated it in the paper?
If in fact the author can show how the type of cloud cover can regulate temperature with some empirical data,
that alone would diminish the value of the claimed effects of CO2.
 
longview said:
It is reviewed, but I do not know if the public can see the results of the review.
Reviewing would cover if there were technical errors in the paper,
in this case did the cloud cover and temperature change as they stated it in the paper?
If in fact the author can show how the type of cloud cover can regulate temperature with some empirical data,
that alone would diminish the value of the claimed effects of CO2.
Click to expand...

"Open source" means it is being reviewed right now. And, guess what?

THe reviews are not good. :lamo
 
calamity said:
:lol:



Yes, it is rather absurd. Imagine it like someone telling you it gets hotter as you get to the top of a high mountain because you are closer to the sun. That gives you a rough idea of the absurdity behind the argument that earth moving closer to the sun is the reason for global warming.

After all, if being close to the sun was the deciding factor for global temperature, Mercury would not be cooler than Venus. Duh!

Oh, and there would be swimming pools at the top of Mount Everest. :lamo
Click to expand...

Interesting.

So you're bringing attention to the fact well respected scientific journals can't publish bull****.

Many people already know this.....
 
ocean515 said:
Interesting.

So you're bringing attention to the fact well respected scientific journals can't publish bull****.

Many people already know this.....
Click to expand...

But, the smart ones know how to sniff out the bull**** while others lap it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom