• 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

I figure you will eventually admit when something bad happens. ;)

LOL!!!

Read that aloud to yourself.

Then have a think about all those claims that the world is ending due to drastic bad things currently happening.
 
[h=2]Study Recalculates New Greenhouse Effect Values And Sharply Minimizes CO2’s Contribution And Climate Sensitivity[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 27. January 2020
[h=4]Another study finds CO2’s greenhouse effect contribution and climate sensitivity are much smaller than claimed by the IPCC and proponents of anthropogenic global warming.[/h]Ollila (2019) reconfigures the “consensus”-derived greenhouse effect radiation values and finds (a) LW absorption only adds 45% to Earth’s present atmospheric greenhouse effect, (b) water vapor dominates (76.4%) the total greenhouse effect whereas CO2’s contribution is minimal (7.3%), and (c) CO2 climate sensitivity is just 0.6°C upon doubling.
Low-Climate-Sensitivity-GHE-Specification-Challenged-Ollila-2019.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Ollila (2019)[/h]The reconfiguration eliminates the “physical contradiction” of having a 155.6 W/m² create an energy flux of 345.6 W/m² by rejecting the claim that the entire longwave energy flux is from greenhouse gases.
Further, CO2’s total temperature contribution to the greenhouse effect is reduced from 7.2°C to 2.4°C, which better aligns with the climate sensitivity (doubled CO2) estimate of 0.6°C.
Challenging-the-Greenhouse-Effect-Specification-and-Climate-Sensitivity-Ollila-2019.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Ollila (2019)[/h]
 
The definition of a pollutant is anything that is present or is introduced into environment, and which has harmful or poisonous effects. CO2 can absolutely have both harmful and poisonous effects when introduced into the environment in sufficient quantities. Therefore, it is a pollutant, regardless of whether you want to classify it as one.

Every element in the world would meet that criteria.
 
LOL!!!

Read that aloud to yourself.

Then have a think about all those claims that the world is ending due to drastic bad things currently happening.

"World is ending".

BWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The only idiots who think the world will end are those Fundies.
 
OK, so how bad do you think it will be if we don't change our economy?

I keep hearing about economy and Capitalism. What do they have to do with the concern about global warming? Are those the right-wing talking points? Elaborate please.
 
I keep hearing about economy and Capitalism. What do they have to do with the concern about global warming? Are those the right-wing talking points? Elaborate please.

Like pulling teeth.......

How bad do you, that is YOU, think it will be if we don't reduce the reliance we have upon fossil fuels?

Is that clear enough for you to answer?
 
Like pulling teeth.......

How bad do you, that is YOU, think it will be if we don't reduce the reliance we have upon fossil fuels?

Is that clear enough for you to answer?

So now it's about fossil fuels, not the economy? You're confusing yourself.

I'll turn the table around on you and ask you a similar question.

How bad do you, that is YOU, think it will be if we try to seek a cleaner and alternative source of energy?

Is that clear enough for you to answer?
 
So now it's about fossil fuels, not the economy? You're confusing yourself.

I'll turn the table around on you and ask you a similar question.

How bad do you, that is YOU, think it will be if we try to seek a cleaner and alternative source of energy?

Is that clear enough for you to answer?

I'll show you how an answer looks;

The current level of unnecessary deaths due to the anti-CO2 hype of around 20 million people per year will pale into insignificance. The over all death levels of not using fossil fuels will be in the order of a large, above 20%, of population. That is before the massive wars start. That will make it a lot worse. Or has the potential to especially with all the nuclear power plants around the world which can easily be converted intoo massively destructive catastrophies with radio-active poision spread all around the planet.

A future war is also likely to use bio-war. This can be easily the cause of 99% wipe out.

The power we have via science should be respected and feared. Don't rock the boat when there is no need.

Now can you actually say what it is you are afraid of?
 
I'll show you how an answer looks;

The current level of unnecessary deaths due to the anti-CO2 hype of around 20 million people per year will pale into insignificance. The over all death levels of not using fossil fuels will be in the order of a large, above 20%, of population. That is before the massive wars start. That will make it a lot worse. Or has the potential to especially with all the nuclear power plants around the world which can easily be converted intoo massively destructive catastrophies with radio-active poision spread all around the planet.

A future war is also likely to use bio-war. This can be easily the cause of 99% wipe out.

The power we have via science should be respected and feared. Don't rock the boat when there is no need.

Now can you actually say what it is you are afraid of?

Hilarious made up nonsense
 
I'll show you how an answer looks;

The current level of unnecessary deaths due to the anti-CO2 hype of around 20 million people per year will pale into insignificance. The over all death levels of not using fossil fuels will be in the order of a large, above 20%, of population. That is before the massive wars start. That will make it a lot worse. Or has the potential to especially with all the nuclear power plants around the world which can easily be converted intoo massively destructive catastrophies with radio-active poision spread all around the planet.

A future war is also likely to use bio-war. This can be easily the cause of 99% wipe out.

The power we have via science should be respected and feared. Don't rock the boat when there is no need.

Now can you actually say what it is you are afraid of?

Still not about economy as you claimed. So I guess you're still confused.

BTW what you farted into a little semblance of what they call a post sounds like a right-wing or a conspiracy theory tripe. Care to post a link?
 
Still not about economy as you claimed. So I guess you're still confused.

BTW what you farted into a little semblance of what they call a post sounds like a right-wing or a conspiracy theory tripe. Care to post a link?

You asked a question I answered what my views are.

Waht are your views?

What do you think will happen that is bad as a result of our use of fossil fuels?
 

You asked a question I answered what my views are.

Waht are your views?

What do you think will happen that is bad as a result of our use of fossil fuels?

I have never made my view clear about the fossil fuels. It's your imagination.
 
True, you are not one to debate in good faith.

Will you state your position or run away from that?

The answer has already been provided.

Now answer my question (you're ignoring it for some reason).

What do you think will happen that is bad as we rely less on the fossil fuels and more on alternative source?
 
The answer has already been provided.

Now answer my question (you're ignoring it for some reason).

What do you think will happen that is bad as we rely less on the fossil fuels and more on alternative source?

1, Evaision has been provided. You really don't do this memory thing do you?

2, I refer you to the very clear answer I gave and that you commented on. (millions of deaths, war more millions of deaths, making the world considerably toxic etc.)
 

1, Evaision has been provided. You really don't do this memory thing do you?

2, I refer you to the very clear answer I gave and that you commented on. (millions of deaths, war more millions of deaths, making the world considerably toxic etc.)

The answer has been provided by vegas. Why should I provide it to you when he already provided it right there up there?
 
The answer has been provided by vegas. Why should I provide it to you when he already provided it right there up there?

I gave him a long list of climate change effects
 
The answer has been provided by vegas. Why should I provide it to you when he already provided it right there up there?

I am asking you. YOU have not answered. I am also not interested in evaisions in any form. Posting a link to something he has not read is another evaision.
 
I am asking you. YOU have not answered. I am also not interested in evaisions in any form. Posting a link to something he has not read is another evaision.

Read every word of it. Have you?
 
Read every word of it. Have you?

Yes. I find none of iit at all frightening. I see no description of the extent of any bad thing with the exception of sea level rise which they quote as 1 to 4 feet.

So what do you think is the most bad aspect of a warmer world?
 
Back
Top Bottom