• 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!

Climate Resistance Getting Organized

So . . . would you call "The Conversation" crap? Would you say WUWT's invitation to Mann is "crap?" Fact is that WUWT seeks to broaden the discussion, while the "consensus" sites seek to exclude dissident views.

My post was quite clear.
 
I'm with Professor Nir Shaviv, the Chairman of the Raccah Center for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study.



Shaviv has been debunked many times. Here's just one:

Nir Shaviv Debunked

Nir Shaviv Debunked - Globing Warming

To do with climate change, you keep presenting the same debunked material. No sense in continuing debate. Also, as is on record, you have no credibility for your disingenuous and dishonest debate presentation. Not even an "Ooops" from you.
 
Not really.

They include a 1750 to 2011 number in the AR5 that is only the direct radiance change, and from the lowest of the studies instead of averaging all valid studies. Then they don't include the fact that all solar changes affect the other forcing numbers in a near linear response.

They trust that people miss the fact that they specify "direct" solar changes, and leave it as only the one input value.



So...You don't think anything is happening that requires we do anything about. Just to be clear.
 
So...You don't think anything is happening that requires we do anything about. Just to be clear.

I am not concerned about CO2. I am concerned about pollution.
 
Shaviv has been debunked many times. Here's just one:

Nir Shaviv Debunked

Nir Shaviv Debunked - Globing Warming

To do with climate change, you keep presenting the same debunked material. No sense in continuing debate. Also, as is on record, you have no credibility for your disingenuous and dishonest debate presentation. Not even an "Ooops" from you.

Sadly consistent with your AGW advocacy allies. When you lose the debate you start calling names.

[h=2]Solar Debunking Arguments are Defunct[/h]
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Angry English Commuters Attack Extinction Rebellion Climate Protestors[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t Grant Griffiths; It looks like commuter patience with Extinction Rebellion’s disruptive tactics has finally snapped. Furious commuters drag Extinction Rebellion protesters from top of Tube Climate change activists carry out London-wide protests in defiance of a police ban as leaders try to get the ban lifted. Alix CulbertsonNews reporter @alixculbertson…
[/FONT]

1 day ago October 17, 2019 in Climate ugliness.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Furious Farmers Defy Army Roadblocks in Dutch Anti-Green Protest[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest essay by Eric Worrall Farmers in the Netherlands have reacted with fury to government demands they cull their herds to help Holland meet their nitrogen emission targets. Incredible Pictures: Thousands of Tractors Shut Down Highways in Farmer’s Anti-Green Madness Protest Thousands of farmers shut down highways in a go-slow protest converging on the Dutch…
[/FONT]

23 hours ago October 17, 2019 in Government idiocy.
 
Sadly consistent with your AGW advocacy allies. When you lose the debate you start calling names.

[h=2]Solar Debunking Arguments are Defunct[/h]



No. I described your actions and did not call you names. Calling you names is against DP rules. I am on record as to what you posted that constituted those descriptions. If you'd like, I will restate them, citing what you posted of such.
 
Sure, over around 3% in the atmosphere.



Maybe you forgot the decimal point. Currently, there is .039% CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. It was .028% pre-industrialization levels. At .5% level of CO2 over an 8 hr period, people experience headaches, lethargy, mental slowness, emotional irritation, and sleep disruption. Or, maybe you're thinking of Carbon Monoxide, CO, which makes up 3% of the earths atmosphere. Or, maybe you weren't thinking at all.
 
No. I described your actions and did not call you names. Calling you names is against DP rules. I am on record as to what you posted that constituted those descriptions. If you'd like, I will restate them, citing what you posted of such.

Please proceed. Your characterizations are false.
 
Maybe you forgot the decimal point. Currently, there is .039% CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. It was .028% pre-industrialization levels. At .5% level of CO2 over an 8 hr period, people experience headaches, lethargy, mental slowness, emotional irritation, and sleep disruption. Or, maybe you're thinking of Carbon Monoxide, CO, which makes up 3% of the earths atmosphere. Or, maybe you weren't thinking at all.

LOL..

Damn, you are ignorant. We don't have 3% CO in the atmosphere. From 0.0412% CO2, 0.5% is a very long ways away.

LOL...

Pollutant.

LOL...
 
Please proceed. Your characterizations are false.



"Please proceed. Your characterizations are false."

Sure. From my post #180:

“…Deceptive piece of work there on that overlay on the graph bar for "Changes in solar irradiance" of the "Natural" section of the IPCC graph. You also completely eliminated the "Total Anthropogenic" section of the actual IPCC graph that was at the very bottom that put in perspective the minute contribution of what you pretend is significant. Quite dishonest.”

I also said:

‘To do with climate change, you keep presenting the same debunked material. No sense in continuing debate. Also, as is on record, you have no credibility for your disingenuous and dishonest debate presentation. Not even an "Ooops" from you.’

Citations of which:

From the Thread The Amazon And Global Warming Post #41

‘You provided an “abstract” as though it represented the position of a co-author of the article, Doerr, as though he held a position against AGW. I gave you a direct quote of Doerr, and a link the source of the quote, that was in direct contradiction too your false giving a link to the source of your “abstract” to even verify its true author.’

‘You said Royal Society’s article against AGW was peer-reviewed. By who? The Royal Society? I gave you source information as to the lack of credibility regarding the society’s “peer” review process. I refuted what you said and you can’t counter by refute with anything that proves your claim of independent peer review as you implied.’

From the Thread What, me worry? Post #136

Gee, I don’t get the same figures as you. I’m looking at a frequency list that covers your same period that says something different. In terms of severity, I used Cat5 hurricanes, the most severe. Your graph line barely increases, mine would go up twice as much from 10 for 1980-1999 to 20 for 2000-2019. Your frequency graph line goes down, mine, again, nearly doubles from 74 for 1980-1999 to 146 for 200-2019. Your numbers don’t add up. In fact, you don’t have numbers. Just a graph. Just about anything can be done with a graph to make it appear slight or radical.

And Post #149

You said:

“The numbers were easily identifiable in the graph linked at #133.”

Then I said:

“No, they weren’t. And you can’t say what those numbers are. An example of your being disingenuous and evasive. You are a slippery one.”

With both of those threads, I withdrew from the debate due to your disingenuousness and prevarication, as I now do with this thread.



"No one was ever injured by the truth; but he who persists in self-deception and ignorance is injured."

Marcus Aurelius
 
LOL..

Damn, you are ignorant. We don't have 3% CO in the atmosphere. From 0.0412% CO2, 0.5% is a very long ways away.

LOL...

Pollutant.

LOL...



I said “Excess CO2 is pollution.” to which you replied “Sure, over around 3% in the atmosphere.” I then pointed out how ludicrous your standard for when CO2 becomes a pollutant at 3% when just 1/6th of that, .5%, would have everyone in an encumbered state. Yes, .5% is a very long way away. I’m making the point because it makes your 3% CO2 figure all the more ridiculous. And, yes, we do have 3% CO, not CO2, in the atmosphere.

You sure do LOL a lot. I think you’re hilarious. Maybe you've been tank snorting N2O and CO2. That would make you laugh a lot and make you dumber than you already are.
 
I said “Excess CO2 is pollution.” to which you replied “Sure, over around 3% in the atmosphere.” I then pointed out how ludicrous your standard for when CO2 becomes a pollutant at 3% when just 1/6th of that, .5%, would have everyone in an encumbered state. Yes, .5% is a very long way away. I’m making the point because it makes your 3% CO2 figure all the more ridiculous. And, yes, we do have 3% CO, not CO2, in the atmosphere.

You sure do LOL a lot. I think you’re hilarious. Maybe you've been tank snorting N2O and CO2. That would make you laugh a lot and make you dumber than you already are.

You said: "Or, maybe you're thinking of Carbon Monoxide, CO, which makes up 3% of the earths atmosphere."

LOL...
 
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/17/angry-commuters-attack-extinction-rebellion-climate-protestors/"]
Extinction-Rebellion-Protestor-Attacked-by-Commuters.jpg
[/URL][/FONT]

[h=1]Angry English Commuters Attack Extinction Rebellion Climate Protestors[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t Grant Griffiths; It looks like commuter patience with Extinction Rebellion’s disruptive tactics has finally snapped. Furious commuters drag Extinction Rebellion protesters from top of Tube Climate change activists carry out London-wide protests in defiance of a police ban as leaders try to get the ban lifted. Alix CulbertsonNews reporter @alixculbertson…[/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/17/angry-commuters-attack-extinction-rebellion-climate-protestors/"]1 day ago October 17, 2019[/URL] in Climate ugliness.


I have a feeling that group will end up becoming a terrorist organization in the near future.
 
You can't resist the climate can you? I mean it's gonna change on you no matter what you do. Those who adapt are the winners or am I mistaken?
 
"Please proceed. Your characterizations are false."

Sure. From my post #180:

“…Deceptive piece of work there on that overlay on the graph bar for "Changes in solar irradiance" of the "Natural" section of the IPCC graph. You also completely eliminated the "Total Anthropogenic" section of the actual IPCC graph that was at the very bottom that put in perspective the minute contribution of what you pretend is significant. Quite dishonest.”

I also said:

‘To do with climate change, you keep presenting the same debunked material. No sense in continuing debate. Also, as is on record, you have no credibility for your disingenuous and dishonest debate presentation. Not even an "Ooops" from you.’

Citations of which:

From the Thread The Amazon And Global Warming Post #41

‘You provided an “abstract” as though it represented the position of a co-author of the article, Doerr, as though he held a position against AGW. I gave you a direct quote of Doerr, and a link the source of the quote, that was in direct contradiction too your false giving a link to the source of your “abstract” to even verify its true author.’

‘You said Royal Society’s article against AGW was peer-reviewed. By who? The Royal Society? I gave you source information as to the lack of credibility regarding the society’s “peer” review process. I refuted what you said and you can’t counter by refute with anything that proves your claim of independent peer review as you implied.’

From the Thread What, me worry? Post #136

Gee, I don’t get the same figures as you. I’m looking at a frequency list that covers your same period that says something different. In terms of severity, I used Cat5 hurricanes, the most severe. Your graph line barely increases, mine would go up twice as much from 10 for 1980-1999 to 20 for 2000-2019. Your frequency graph line goes down, mine, again, nearly doubles from 74 for 1980-1999 to 146 for 200-2019. Your numbers don’t add up. In fact, you don’t have numbers. Just a graph. Just about anything can be done with a graph to make it appear slight or radical.

And Post #149

You said:

“The numbers were easily identifiable in the graph linked at #133.”

Then I said:

“No, they weren’t. And you can’t say what those numbers are. An example of your being disingenuous and evasive. You are a slippery one.”

With both of those threads, I withdrew from the debate due to your disingenuousness and prevarication, as I now do with this thread.



"No one was ever injured by the truth; but he who persists in self-deception and ignorance is injured."

Marcus Aurelius

Each and every one of your claims is false. To take your first claim, it is actually the graph presented in #168, to which I replied, that had been doctored. Shaviv was quite clear that he added the solar component in his version.
 
Last edited:
"Please proceed. Your characterizations are false."

Sure. From my post #180:

“…Deceptive piece of work there on that overlay on the graph bar for "Changes in solar irradiance" of the "Natural" section of the IPCC graph. You also completely eliminated the "Total Anthropogenic" section of the actual IPCC graph that was at the very bottom that put in perspective the minute contribution of what you pretend is significant. Quite dishonest.”

I also said:

‘To do with climate change, you keep presenting the same debunked material. No sense in continuing debate. Also, as is on record, you have no credibility for your disingenuous and dishonest debate presentation. Not even an "Ooops" from you.’

Citations of which:

From the Thread The Amazon And Global Warming Post #41

‘You provided an “abstract” as though it represented the position of a co-author of the article, Doerr, as though he held a position against AGW. I gave you a direct quote of Doerr, and a link the source of the quote, that was in direct contradiction too your false giving a link to the source of your “abstract” to even verify its true author.’

‘You said Royal Society’s article against AGW was peer-reviewed. By who? The Royal Society? I gave you source information as to the lack of credibility regarding the society’s “peer” review process. I refuted what you said and you can’t counter by refute with anything that proves your claim of independent peer review as you implied.’

From the Thread What, me worry? Post #136

Gee, I don’t get the same figures as you. I’m looking at a frequency list that covers your same period that says something different. In terms of severity, I used Cat5 hurricanes, the most severe. Your graph line barely increases, mine would go up twice as much from 10 for 1980-1999 to 20 for 2000-2019. Your frequency graph line goes down, mine, again, nearly doubles from 74 for 1980-1999 to 146 for 200-2019. Your numbers don’t add up. In fact, you don’t have numbers. Just a graph. Just about anything can be done with a graph to make it appear slight or radical.

And Post #149

You said:

“The numbers were easily identifiable in the graph linked at #133.”

Then I said:

“No, they weren’t. And you can’t say what those numbers are. An example of your being disingenuous and evasive. You are a slippery one.”

With both of those threads, I withdrew from the debate due to your disingenuousness and prevarication, as I now do with this thread.



"No one was ever injured by the truth; but he who persists in self-deception and ignorance is injured."

Marcus Aurelius

For your second claim, the author's position on AGW is irrelevant to the findings of his research. As for the Royal Society, it is merely one of the most respected scientific organizations in the world.
 
"Please proceed. Your characterizations are false."

Sure. From my post #180:

“…Deceptive piece of work there on that overlay on the graph bar for "Changes in solar irradiance" of the "Natural" section of the IPCC graph. You also completely eliminated the "Total Anthropogenic" section of the actual IPCC graph that was at the very bottom that put in perspective the minute contribution of what you pretend is significant. Quite dishonest.”

I also said:

‘To do with climate change, you keep presenting the same debunked material. No sense in continuing debate. Also, as is on record, you have no credibility for your disingenuous and dishonest debate presentation. Not even an "Ooops" from you.’

Citations of which:

From the Thread The Amazon And Global Warming Post #41

‘You provided an “abstract” as though it represented the position of a co-author of the article, Doerr, as though he held a position against AGW. I gave you a direct quote of Doerr, and a link the source of the quote, that was in direct contradiction too your false giving a link to the source of your “abstract” to even verify its true author.’

‘You said Royal Society’s article against AGW was peer-reviewed. By who? The Royal Society? I gave you source information as to the lack of credibility regarding the society’s “peer” review process. I refuted what you said and you can’t counter by refute with anything that proves your claim of independent peer review as you implied.’

From the Thread What, me worry? Post #136

Gee, I don’t get the same figures as you. I’m looking at a frequency list that covers your same period that says something different. In terms of severity, I used Cat5 hurricanes, the most severe. Your graph line barely increases, mine would go up twice as much from 10 for 1980-1999 to 20 for 2000-2019. Your frequency graph line goes down, mine, again, nearly doubles from 74 for 1980-1999 to 146 for 200-2019. Your numbers don’t add up. In fact, you don’t have numbers. Just a graph. Just about anything can be done with a graph to make it appear slight or radical.

And Post #149

You said:

“The numbers were easily identifiable in the graph linked at #133.”

Then I said:

“No, they weren’t. And you can’t say what those numbers are. An example of your being disingenuous and evasive. You are a slippery one.”

With both of those threads, I withdrew from the debate due to your disingenuousness and prevarication, as I now do with this thread.



"No one was ever injured by the truth; but he who persists in self-deception and ignorance is injured."

Marcus Aurelius

Here's the link to my hurricane data re your third claim.

[h=3]Global Tropical Cyclone Activity | Ryan Maue[/h]
by RN Maue - ‎Related articles
Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity: Geophys. ... 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).
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Some Heroes Wear Smocks[/h][FONT=&quot]As we saw in the Canning protests earlier this week, people are getting fed up with sanctimonious, virtue signaling, climate change, “protesters”. Here are a couple of recent examples. Warning: profanity. Not work safe. Smock Man you have officially left the safe space pic.twitter.com/KKg4ZwO1BP — TyIer (@tyIerzilla) October 18, 2019 Here’s another. In N Out…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Back
Top Bottom