• 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!

Foundation of a New Climate Paradigm

Visbek said:
It isn't new at all. Shaviv has been hawking this garbage for years, mostly on his own blog page (which is where this link is from). Meanwhile, actual climate scientists know that anthropogenic causes vastly outweigh any and all natural sources of climate change.

Jack has simply convinced himself that he can keep spewing this nonsense as long as he keeps saying "paradigm shift!"
Click to expand...

Jack has been shown the overwhelming evidence about this many, many times. But this is how the cult of ignorance works....no fact will ever be considered much less admitted.
 
digitusmedius said:
It's a greenhouse gas. After all these years you still know nothing (deliberately, of course) about this subject.
Click to expand...

They're both greenhouse gasses. Are they both pollutants?
 
bubbabgone said:
The IPCC selects the studies it wants to include and very often the WG lead authors use their own studies.
You appear to know very little about problems with the IPCC and I bet you discount anything you should have learned from ClimateGate, amiright?
Click to expand...

Says a science denier whose sources simply manufacture bull**** by the tanker load daily.
 
digitusmedius said:
Jack has been shown the overwhelming evidence about this many, many times. But this is how the cult of ignorance works....no fact will ever be considered much less admitted.
Click to expand...

Nope. What I have been shown is that you will always run from this argument.
 
digitusmedius said:
Says a science denier whose sources simply manufacture bull**** by the tanker load daily.
Click to expand...

I can see you're in no position to offer anything of substance on this thread. But why should this one be any different. I'll pass on you until you do.
 
bubbabgone said:
They're both greenhouse gasses. Are they both pollutants?
Click to expand...

Both are greenhouses gases. Whether they're pollutants depends on what's producing them. Since they're both products of burning of carbon based fuels* so when that the source then, yes, they are pollutants. There are, of course, natural biologic and physical sources for them.

Here's the chemical reaction for gasoline:

C8H18 + 12.5 O2 → 8 CO2 + 9 H2O
 
Jack Hays said:
I suppose you wish that were so. Otherwise you would not so obviously fear to engage the substance of the argument.
Click to expand...

Your memory is failing you, Jack (or it could be just your usual dodging). You and I have been down this road many times. You serve up solar BS and I knock it down, rinse, repeat.
 
bubbabgone said:
I can see you're in no position to offer anything of substance on this thread. But why should this one be any different. I'll pass on you until you do.
Click to expand...

Since all you and Jack and every other science ignorant or denier (take you pick) offer up is this same old reheated BS all you deserve is another swift kick in the pants.
 
Irredentist said:
So, the "new climate paradigm" is that the sun affects climate? How is this new? Isn't the entire basis behind the greenhouse effect that the sun is warming the earth? Hardly a revelation. Even if solar variations are the primary factor behind climate change, the greenhouse effect would still compound the overall impact of planetary warming.
Click to expand...

Other than normal cyclical cycles, there's been no change in the baseline of the solar effect on climate therefore no net contributor to CAGW. Jack, et al. have been shown the overwhelming evidence for that but the cult of science denial must not let go of this one and thoroughly debunked fraud's "work."
 
digitusmedius said:
Your memory is failing you, Jack (or it could be just your usual dodging). You and I have been down this road many times. You serve up solar BS and I knock it down, rinse, repeat.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you've fallen into full reality-denying delusion. None of your post is true.
 
digitusmedius said:
Since all you and Jack and every other science ignorant or denier (take you pick) offer up is this same old reheated BS all you deserve is another swift kick in the pants.
Click to expand...

digitusmedius said:
Other than normal cyclical cycles, there's been no change in the baseline of the solar effect on climate therefore no net contributor to CAGW. Jack, et al. have been shown the overwhelming evidence for that but the cult of science denial must not let go of this one and thoroughly debunked fraud's "work."
Click to expand...

You remain afraid to address the topic.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm afraid you've fallen into full reality-denying delusion. None of your post is true.
Click to expand...

Ahh, there's that massive projection that we've come to expect when science denier lying isn't working.
 
digitusmedius said:
Ahh, there's that massive projection that we've come to expect when science denier lying isn't working.
Click to expand...

I have posted a substantive argument. You reply by calling names and inventing fictional history. I'm happy to let that contrast stand.
 
If there were any honesty from the science-denying claque in this country the title of this load of BS should be: Foundation of a Tired Old Stinking Pile of Science Denying Bull****
 
Jack Hays said:
I have posted a substantive argument. You reply by calling names and inventing fictional history. I'm happy to let that contrast stand.
Click to expand...

Of course you didn't. You did what you always do: repeatedly slap up thoroughly debunked science-denying (or ignorant) BS and somehow still expect it to work. I haven't actually checked the dates of all your previous iterations of this but it seems like it's on a calendar of regularly scheduled BS dumping.
 
Jack Hays said:
You run and hide, usually calling names over your shoulder as you scuttle off to a dark corner.
Click to expand...

In fact, there's been a net diminution of solar (gamma ray) activity over the last five years as global temperatures establish new records.

sunspotcycle_strip_1.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom