• 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!

Another Professor fired for telling the truth

Tim the plumber said:

Ok, well try to go with sea level rise.

How much sea level rise doo you think will happen by 2100?
Click to expand...

1 to 4 feet


Now my turn. What do you think will be the worst effect of agw?
 
Tim the plumber said:
OK, which place do you think will suffer the most due to this? That would ideally be the most suffering in terms of impact on humanity.
Click to expand...

You have a question on the table
 
vegas giants said:
You have a question on the table
Click to expand...

You edited it in after I had posed mine!

How disengenious can you be?????????

But still..........

I see no significant bad thing about a slightly warmer world.

Back to you;

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
OK, which place do you think will suffer the most due to this? That would ideally be the most suffering in terms of impact on humanity.
Click to expand...

[2]
 
Last edited:
Tim the plumber said:
You edited it in after I had posed mine.

How disengenious can you be?????????

But still..........

I se no significant bad thing about a slightly warmer world.

Back to you;



[2]
Click to expand...

The worst? I have no idea.

Now you


So what do you think is the reason that every science agency on the planet supports AGW?
 
vegas giants said:
The worst? I have no idea.

Now you


So what do you think is the reason that every science agency on the planet supports AGW?
Click to expand...
Why don't you attempt to define what all those agencies support about AGW?
 
vegas giants said:
The worst? I have no idea.

Now you


So what do you think is the reason that every science agency on the planet supports AGW?
Click to expand...

Because in a scientific community where there are no checks on lying and take overs by a subversive group it is very easy for such things to happen. The people who are sacked and otherwise forced out testify to this.

So you are unable to point out any place that will suffer any significant bad as a result of a warmer world. You would do if you could.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Because in a scientific community where there are no checks on lying and take overs by a subversive group it is very easy for such things to happen. The people who are sacked and otherwise forced out testify to this.

So you are unable to point out any place that will suffer any significant bad as a result of a warmer world. You would do if you could.
Click to expand...

So you believe every science agency on the planet is engaged in a conspiracy to convince the world AGW is real even though it is not?

Dude come on....that is pretty funny

Your second paragraph is a lie
 
vegas giants said:
So you believe every science agency on the planet is engaged in a conspiracy to convince the world AGW is real even though it is not?

Dude come on....that is pretty funny
Click to expand...

That nobody can cite any place that will have any significant bad thing happen due to a warmer world is very obvious here on this forum.

That there are many very well respected scientists shouting that it is a con is also obvious.

That, with a single exception, the only people here on this forum, and else where in the rest of the world, who support the dooom hype and the least scientifically litterate, most disengenious, evaisive types also says to me that there is a lack of any substance in it all.

The only exception is evaisive about saying what bad thing will happen........... ummm why would that be?

Same sort of reason I'm an atheist.
 
Tim the plumber said:

That nobody can cite any place that will have any significant bad thing happen due to a warmer world is very obvious here on this forum.

That there are many very well respected scientists shouting that it is a con is also obvious.

That, with a single exception, the only people here on this forum, and else where in the rest of the world, who support the dooom hype and the least scientifically litterate, most disengenious, evaisive types also says to me that there is a lack of any substance in it all.

The only exception is evaisive about saying what bad thing will happen........... ummm why would that be?

Same sort of reason I'm an atheist.
Click to expand...

Your first paragraph is a lie. I already cited places where there would be specific negative effects of AGW



You can lie....but I will call you on it
 
vegas giants said:
Your first paragraph is a lie. I already cited places where there would be specific negative effects of AGW



You can lie....but I will call you on it
Click to expand...

N.E. USA is hardly a specific locality.

If you want to try again and cite a specific city or some such do so. Try not to be insulting as you do it.
 
Tim the plumber said:

N.E. USA is hardly a specific locality.

If you want to try again and cite a specific city or some such do so. Try not to be insulting as you do it.
Click to expand...

Why? You will just lie again. You asked for the worst place....not any place. So you lied.


You have lost all credibility
 
vegas giants said:
Why? You will just lie again. You asked for the worst place....not any place. So you lied.


You have lost all credibility
Click to expand...

Just because you are upset because you have lost the debate does not allow, under the forum rules, for you to express your frustration by twisting words out of their plain meanings. You are showing your self weak in mental maturity.
 
vegas giants said:
But one can as a way to limit water damage
Click to expand...

It may be a way but since climate change is of crisis proportions, it's proper to attack the 'water erosion' problem where it will do the most good? By limiting the greenhouse gas water vapor?
 
vegas giants said:
Why don't you?
Click to expand...
You are the one making the claim "So what do you think is the reason that every science agency on the planet supports AGW?"
Since I am not a mind reader, I have no way of knowing what you think those agencies mean by stating they support AGW.
Tell us in your own words, what you think they mean?
 
Moot said:
Dr. Susan Crockford is a crock. She's not even an expert on polar bears or climate change, has no peer reviewed articles on the subject and is a climate change denier. Worse yet, she is the only source that the deniers use about polar bears. But don't dare challenge her work or you'll end up getting harassed by online deniers. Well, these scientists have simply had enough of Dr. Crock and the denier bloggers and trolls.

Climate Change Denialists Say Polar Bears Are Fine. Scientists Are Pushing Back. - The New York Times

She's a fraud. She wasn't even fired from her job because it wasn't a paying position to begin with...and she admits it in that video. The university simply didn't renew her position...and rightly so.
Click to expand...

I suppose it makes you proud to speak up on behalf of repression and opposition to free speech. The problem the old boys network of polar bear specialists have with Crockford is that she has been proved right about polar bear populations and their survivability, and the old boys have been proved wrong. They can't shut her up with data or research results -- those support her -- so they are going the political route. There will be plenty of shame to go around; be sure to get in line for yours.

Crockford, S.J. 2017. Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus). PeerJ Preprints 2 March 2017. Doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v3 Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) [PeerJ Preprints]
 
Last edited:
longview said:
You are the one making the claim "So what do you think is the reason that every science agency on the planet supports AGW?"
Since I am not a mind reader, I have no way of knowing what you think those agencies mean by stating they support AGW.
Tell us in your own words, what you think they mean?
Click to expand...

They support the evidence behind AGW and that Agw will cause problems for the planet
 
cabse5 said:
It may be a way but since climate change is of crisis proportions, it's proper to attack the 'water erosion' problem where it will do the most good? By limiting the greenhouse gas water vapor?
Click to expand...

I think a multi pronged approach is the only answer
 
Tim the plumber said:
Just because you are upset because you have lost the debate does not allow, under the forum rules, for you to express your frustration by twisting words out of their plain meanings. You are showing your self weak in mental maturity.
Click to expand...

I am happy to engage in honest debate.


And when you lie I am happy to.point it out
 
[h=2]Delingpole interview on the success of polar bear conservation & failed survival models[/h]Posted on October 28, 2019 | Comments Offon Delingpole interview on the success of polar bear conservation & failed survival models
Tomorrow I will be giving a public lecture in Paris on polar bear conservation success and the spectacular failure of the polar bear survival models used to scare children senseless.
However, while I was in London a few days ago I spoke with James Delingpole, author and columnist at Breitbart who has recently taken to producing podcast and video interviews.
chukchi-sea-polar-bear-arctic_early-august-2018_a-khan-nsidc-small.jpg

Yesterday, he posted a column summarizing our discussion, with a link to the entire podcast: “WATCH: Canadian Professor Lost Her Job for Telling the Truth About ‘Endangered’ Polar Bears.” Read it here.
Continue reading
 
vegas giants said:
I am happy to engage in honest debate.


And when you lie I am happy to.point it out
Click to expand...

I answer questions as frankley as possible. I ask questions as plainly as possible.

I don't see any big difference between asking for the place worst effected by a warmer world and then clarifying it with asking for a specific place, some local council type area say.

That you react as emotionally, and irrationally, as you have been is exactly the same reation that the religious have when their ideas are challenged shows why you are unable to answer my challenges. It is not something you rationally believe it is your identity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom