• 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!

Meet the money behind the climate denial movement

longview said:
It was never a question of proving AGW false, but how much warming would added CO2 cause.
Adding CO2 will almost certainty cause some level of energy imbalance, but how much warming will result?
If we look at the stated warming from the long term energy imbalance,
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect
the +150 Wm-2 of imbalance, creates 33°C of warming .
Then each Watt per meter square of imbalance forces 33/150=.22°C.
If doubling the CO2 level will cause an imbalance of 3.71 Wm-2, then
each doubling would cause a total warming of 3.71X .22= .8162°C.
Click to expand...

The question was not supplied to you. Please do not answer it for him with your denialist spam. :)
 
Phys251 said:
The question was not supplied to you. Please do not answer it for him with your denialist spam. :)
Click to expand...
No spam, simply the data from NASA.
Do you deny that Earth is roughly 33°C warmer than a rock with a transparent atmosphere would be ?
 
Phys251 said:
There it is. There's the denialism! :lamo

He got caught in his lie and refuses to admit it. :lol:

Since he cannot answer honestly, he will have the answer supplied to him: He misspoke both when he claimed that I took him out of context AND when he denied this claim.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you don't get to lead both sides of the discussion. I'm happy to let this exchange stand as an example for others to see. You have repeatedly made my point. Thanks.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but you don't get to lead both sides of the discussion. I'm happy to let this exchange stand as an example for others to see. You have repeatedly made my point. Thanks.
Click to expand...

And now comes the projection. Hey it's not like you had any credibility in the first place. :shrug:
 
longview said:
No spam, simply the data from NASA.
Do you deny that Earth is roughly 33°C warmer than a rock with a transparent atmosphere would be ?
Click to expand...

Do you deny the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming? If you do, you must supply the research that you have personally conducted. Regurgitating cherry-picked articles does not count. :)
 
Jack Hays said:
As I said, I'm happy to let this sit as is.
Click to expand...

Then why don't you? You have deflected, denied, and lied throughout this discussion, but just like deniers constantly do you have denied all of it.
No wonder you aren't worried about your credibility. There's no way for you to make it worse! :lamo
 
Phys251 said:
Then why don't you? You have deflected, denied, and lied throughout this discussion, but just like deniers constantly do you have denied all of it.
No wonder you aren't worried about your credibility. There's no way for you to make it worse! :lamo
Click to expand...

I have explained your error. You responded with lies and personal attacks. I'm pleased by the contrast.
 
Mr Person said:
Unfortunately, many have seem to have watched too many lowbrow sci-fi movies in which a lone clever genius outcast by the rest of his field for being a complete ****ing moron actually has the answer that saves humanity from itself....




A mundane explanation stands no chance, especially when "they" have already claimed AGW is a hoax perpetrated by tens of thousands (is it more?) scientists around the world who devoted their careers to studying parts of systems that contribute to the total global climate - nevermind that people doing research on grants (usually government) tend not to make much of anything - to perpetrate this hoax on the rest of the world so that the rest of the world will switch to energy production, which in turn will cost those very same scientists real money in terms of taxes.

Great evil plan! Makes perfect sense!

They're trying to impugn all the scientists with the worst possible motive a politician could have.
Click to expand...

you give to much credit to scientists. Im a scientist.
 
Jack Hays said:
I have explained your error.
Click to expand...
:lamo
Whatever. You said, you deliberately said that your credibility does not matter. Then you accused me of taking you out of context, and then you denied that accusation, AND THEN you denied that denial! :lamo

Maybe it's reading comprehension you are struggling with?
 
Phys251 said:
Then why don't you? You have deflected, denied, and lied throughout this discussion, but just like deniers constantly do you have denied all of it.
No wonder you aren't worried about your credibility. There's no way for you to make it worse! :lamo
Click to expand...

You slandered TurtleDude. Now be gone with you.
 
Phys251 said:
:lamo
Whatever. You said, you deliberately said that your credibility does not matter. Then you accused me of taking you out of context, and then you denied that accusation, AND THEN you denied that denial! :lamo

Maybe it's reading comprehension you are struggling with?
Click to expand...

I never accused you of taking my words out of context. Your claim that I did is a lie.
I said you did not understand my words. You have repeatedly demonstrated that is the case.
 
Phys251 said:
Meet the Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement
|
Smart News
| Smithsonian



Old article but the problem has not gone anywhere; it's just gotten worse. Big Oil and Big Coal are pumping billions of dollars worth of disinformation to confuse the conversation over climate change, and many conservatives are lapping it up. The question is why they choose to listen to these corporatist hacks instead of scientists, and why we allow these corporatists to poison the discussion.
Click to expand...

Ill say the same thing I say in all these threads.

While it is an issue (money behind misinformation) it doesnt matter much. Nobody honest, educated and objective takes these morons seriously or thinks climate change isnt real and is a hoax.
If you want do discuss how big the problem is, what can or cant be done, how much man does or doesnt impact it thats fine but never that its a hoax. It takes special type of moron to claim that,.

Climate deniers rank right down there with birthers, flat earthers, anti vaxxers, holocaust deniers and truthers that think bush planned it . . pure retardation of monumental proportions.
 
Last edited:
coco said:
You slandered TurtleDude. Now be gone with you.
Click to expand...

Huh? This is the Environment forum. TD hasn't even posted in this thread.
 
Jack Hays said:
I never accused you of taking my words out of context. Your claim that I did is a lie.
I said you did not understand my words. You have repeatedly demonstrated that is the case.
Click to expand...
Whatever. :lamo
 
you guys go on and on like your lincoln
 
Phys251 said:
Do you deny the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming? If you do, you must supply the research that you have personally conducted. Regurgitating cherry-picked articles does not count. :)
Click to expand...
The consensus is simply that temperatures have warmed over the last century, and that Human activity is likely involved,
why would I deny ether of those statements?
Since you will not believe my words, How about the words of NASA?
Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
Click to expand...
What does the consensus agree to, well the same thing as I said, it has warmed over the last century, and Human activity is likely involved.
Beyond the consensus nonsense, we have some scientific data.
Yes CO2 levels have increased, and yes, average temperatures have also increased.
Some of that warming very likely is from us releasing naturally stored solar energy (hydrocarbons),
resulting in CO2 emissions. None of this speaks to if the catastrophic predictions of the IPCC are accurate.
Can a doubling of the CO2 level produce the mid range prediction of 3C of warming?
If the science is to be believed, NO! As I stated above, if 150 Wm-2 of old imbalance, causes Earth to be 33°C warmer,
than any future energy imbalances will have the same effect.
 
longview said:
The consensus is simply that temperatures have warmed over the last century, and that Human activity is likely involved,
why would I deny ether of those statements?
Click to expand...

Haven't we been down this road before? Does this mean you accept the scientific consensus of AGW or not? Cause last time you got mired down in that question.
 
Phys251 said:
Haven't we been down this road before? Does this mean you accept the scientific consensus of AGW or not? Cause last time you got mired down in that question.
Click to expand...
I accept NASA's consensus statement,
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
Click to expand...
but it does not mean much!
You can attempt to hide from the data with symantecs,
but the data still will show a low climate sensitivity.
 
Phys251 said:
Obviously you missed an important part of my question so let me emphasize it so that you can clearly see it. What specific scientific research have you personally done to prove that AGW is false?
Click to expand...

Like a huge majority of people debating AGW, I depend on reports from experts. I do not do field research on my own. It might take tens of millions of data collecting points to gather information over decades before any reasonably accurate interpretations of predictable trends could be made. I'm not doing that research myself.
 
Phys251 said:
Meet the Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement
|
Smart News
| Smithsonian



Old article but the problem has not gone anywhere; it's just gotten worse. Big Oil and Big Coal are pumping billions of dollars worth of disinformation to confuse the conversation over climate change, and many conservatives are lapping it up. The question is why they choose to listen to these corporatist hacks instead of scientists, and why we allow these corporatists to poison the discussion.
Click to expand...

Climate change happens regardless of Man's input to our environment; our changing seasons, prove that.

Junk bonds not junk laws!

We should be upgrading coastal infrastructure, and "help green our environment while upgrading port facilities and surrounding infrastructure."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom