• 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!

Yes, Virginia- Thousands of Scientists Are Skeptical of Climate Change

PoS said:
Right, so you cherry pick- which is dishonest.
Click to expand...

That's not cherry picking. Cherry picking is taking atypical examples and representing them as typical. It would be cherry picking if I had said that I was attacking both lists using examples from only one, but I never said that I was attacking both lists. I was always clear about which list I was attacking. I'll work through your first list as I have time, but so far, it's not looking promising either.

PoS said:
You said "a great many," and then went on to claim that since you cant access them, they were therefore made up. On my last reply I linked to more than 500+ studies, so that proves youre wrong.
Click to expand...

Again with the lack of reading.

I never said they were made up. I said they don't exist in some cases, and were apparently withdrawn from publication in others. A 404 error means that the link doesn't exist--it's what a server for a particular domain returns when the web address is to the domain, but specifies a web page on the domain that does not exist. When a named study's link leads to the front page of a journal warehouse, it typically means that the study was withdrawn.

I can quote myself once again and parse out all these claims so you (and crucially, everyone else) can see them.
 
ashurbanipal said:
That's not cherry picking. Cherry picking is taking atypical examples and representing them as typical. It would be cherry picking if I had said that I was attacking both lists using examples from only one, but I never said that I was attacking both lists. I was always clear about which list I was attacking. I'll work through your first list as I have time, but so far, it's not looking promising either.



Again with the lack of reading.

I never said they were made up. I said they don't exist in some cases, and were apparently withdrawn from publication in others. A 404 error means that the link doesn't exist--it's what a server for a particular domain returns when the web address is to the domain, but specifies a web page on the domain that does not exist. When a named study's link leads to the front page of a journal warehouse, it typically means that the study was withdrawn.

I can quote myself once again and parse out all these claims so you (and crucially, everyone else) can see them.
Click to expand...

Oh so now you're claiming they were withdrawn from publication? Yeah, right. Prove that. The links to view some of them in the older site freely may have expired but to proclaim they were somehow taken back as some sort of proof is just more of your wild speculations, no different than claiming AGW is mandmade.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Two points:

1. You're begging the question--you may not simply help yourself to the claim that climate change is not a real problem. I say it is, and doing nothing will kill many, possibly billions (especially as areas of the planet become so hot as to be uninhabitable, and those billions start moving toward the poles. That's a recipe for WWIII).

2. If what you have in mind is something like zero emissions tomorrow, then sure. Vast numbers of people will die (and, incidentally, that would probably accelerate climate change since their decomposing bodies would produce methane). I don't think that's a viable goal, though--even leaving aside the number of deaths that would result. We are in for some climate change in the future, no matter what we do. Simply curbing emissions by continuing to switch to renewable energy sources and shifting agricultural activity, starting sequestration on a large scale, etc. would not condemn anyone to continuing poverty. It would actually create jobs and produce more food. That would not be a recipe for disaster, and is really the only path forward. The only question is how much pain we want to see before we take that path.
Click to expand...

So tell me how will that happen?

Choose one place a single local council, a city or something, and explain how a single bad aspect of a slightly warmer world will cause massive problems.
 
PoS said:
The usual refrain from climate cultists is this: "tens of thousands of scientists cant be wrong!" or "science is with us!"

They claim that so many scientists believe in AGW and that something must be done about it. But this is all a propagandic lie.

First off, there are literally thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers that have been published that calls into question this very notion that the world is somehow in danger, or that AGW is manmade and something can be done about it.

Consensus? 500+ Scientific Papers Published In 2018 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm

Popular Technology.net: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

Check the links to these papers and find out.

Also, a petition was started in 1997, and has been updated over the years, and these have been signed by no less than tens of thousands of scientists who are experts in their respective fields, and they doubt the current AGW agenda that's sweeping the UN.

Global Warming Petition Project

Over 31 thousand scientists have signed this petition, and it proves that there is no consensus on AGW. Game over, chicken littles.
Click to expand...

The hydrocarbon cartel has been inventing this **** for years relying on climate-science deniers to distribute it.
 
digitusmedius said:
To a veteran science, truth and fact denier like you? No one can prove anything to that sort.
Click to expand...

True.

You see what you want to with your confirmation bias, instead of being open to real facts.

That's your problem. Not mine.
 
A denier asked me to prove this thread is bogus. Of course, it's futile to try to argue facts and science with people who are impervious to discussions when those are the parameters. But here's why the OP is bogus:

The 30,000 scientists and science graduates listed on the OISM petition represent a tiny fraction (0.3%) of all science graduates. More importantly, the OISM list only contains 39 scientists who specialise in climate science.
Click to expand...

IOW, it's an astroturf organization.

How the OISM Petition Project casts doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change

Excerpts, you ask? Gladly:
The WG1 report was authored and reviewed by approximately 2000 scientists with varying expertise in climate and related fields, and so having a list of over 30,000 scientists that rejected the WG1’s conclusions was a powerful meme that AGW skeptics and deniers could use to cast doubt on the IPCC’s conclusions and, indirectly, on the entire theory of climate disruption. And in fact, this meme has become widespread in both legacy and new media today.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, the OISM allows no way to actually document any of these so-called "members" IOW a secret organization of "experts."

I'm happy to provide more excerpts on request.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
True.

You see what you want to with your confirmation bias, instead of being open to real facts.

That's your problem. Not mine.
Click to expand...

Nice projection. Always a good way to avoid facing the truth. But did you just confirm that you are a science, fact and truth denier? Why, yes, I believe you did exactly that.
 
digitusmedius said:
The hydrocarbon cartel has been inventing this **** for years relying on climate-science deniers to distribute it.
Click to expand...

LOL more tin-foil hattery from the loony left.
 
PoS said:
You said it right here...
Click to expand...

Here's the full passage:

I never said they were made up. I said they don't exist in some cases, and were apparently withdrawn from publication in others. A 404 error means that the link doesn't exist--it's what a server for a particular domain returns when the web address is to the domain, but specifies a web page on the domain that does not exist. When a named study's link leads to the front page of a journal warehouse, it typically means that the study was withdrawn.
Click to expand...

Here's what I know: several of the links (I gave multiple examples) don't go to a study or a paper; they go to the front page of a journal warehouse. Typically (usually, often, more often than not, etc) that means the study or paper was withdrawn. That doesn't mean I think they were withdrawn from publication. Only that it's a good bet they were. Those are different claims.

Not that you're known around here for your exceedingly subtle mind...
 
Last edited:
Tim the plumber said:
So tell me how will that happen?

Choose one place a single local council, a city or something, and explain how a single bad aspect of a slightly warmer world will cause massive problems.
Click to expand...

I cannot do that, because I don't know that it will happen. I am confident it will if we do nothing. Fortunately, we are doing something (well, we as in the entire United States isn't, but lots of countries are taking action).

If we do nothing, eventually large areas of the world will just become too hot for human habitation. That's already happened in parts of India, for example, but so far the people living in those parts have either just died quietly or moved to another part of the country. But (again, if we do nothing) that'll get worse, and the entire subcontinent's population will migrate north, presumably through Pakistan, through the FSU 'stans, and into Russia. What do you think will happen if a billion people move up into a land that can barely feed its 144 million? Especially if the people from Southern China move to the North, as do the peoples of Equatorial Africa?

What will we do if the entire population of Central America and Mexico come into the U.S. all at once?

Sounds like a recipe for widespread famine, or more likely, war.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I cannot do that, because I don't know that it will happen. I am confident it will if we do nothing. Fortunately, we are doing something (well, we as in the entire United States isn't, but lots of countries are taking action).

If we do nothing, eventually large areas of the world will just become too hot for human habitation. That's already happened in parts of India, for example, but so far the people living in those parts have either just died quietly or moved to another part of the country. But (again, if we do nothing) that'll get worse, and the entire subcontinent's population will migrate north, presumably through Pakistan, through the FSU 'stans, and into Russia. What do you think will happen if a billion people move up into a land that can barely feed its 144 million? Especially if the people from Southern China move to the North, as do the peoples of Equatorial Africa?

What will we do if the entire population of Central America and Mexico come into the U.S. all at once?

Sounds like a recipe for widespread famine, or more likely, war.
Click to expand...

That sounds like the anti-American leftists ideal wet dream come true. Just think of all the illegal voters they could recruit!

The real reason leftists, and it is only the left, are pushing this anthropomorphic climate change scam is to massively increase the size and scope of government. Which has always been their stated purpose. Leftists couldn't impose their fascism on the rest of the planet through wars, so now they choose to use anthropomorphic climate change as their vehicle to push their Marxist agenda.

The only reason we are able to feed 7.8 billion people is specifically because of a warming planet. You leftists would have us return to the Dark Ages and the Little Ice-Age that was filled with plagues and famines. Only during a warming climate has humanity ever thrived technologically, socially, and culturally. That was true during the Minoan Warming Period, the Roman Warming Period, the Medieval Warming Period, and now the Modern Warming Period. There has been no other period in human history where humans have achieved so much and advanced so quickly than during the last 170 years, all thanks to a warming climate.
 
Glitch said:
That sounds like the anti-American leftists ideal wet dream come true. Just think of all the illegal voters they could recruit!
Click to expand...

That'd be about 200 million people coming north. We have 40 million people here that we cannot feed adequately right now. There wouldn't be voting, and probably not much semblance of government, if it ever comes to this.

Glitch said:
The real reason leftists, and it is only the left, are pushing this anthropomorphic climate change scam is to massively increase the size and scope of government.
Click to expand...

Man...you are seriously afraid of everything. That's how it must be to be this paranoid. You must see a dandelion and pee in your pants just a little since there's probably a damn pinko commie bastard hiding behind it.

Glitch said:
Which has always been their stated purpose.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to think of a single leftist politician who has stated that they're pushing anthropogenic climate change in order to massively increase the size and scope of government, and cannot think of a single one.

Glitch said:
Leftists couldn't impose their fascism on the rest of the planet through wars, so now they choose to use anthropomorphic climate change as their vehicle to push their Marxist agenda.
Click to expand...

I guess I am just unable to imagine what it must be like to have so much fear in my soul that I would view history this way.

Glitch said:
The only reason we are able to feed 7.8 billion people is specifically because of a warming planet. You leftists would have us return to the Dark Ages and the Little Ice-Age that was filled with plagues and famines. Only during a warming climate has humanity ever thrived technologically, socially, and culturally. That was true during the Minoan Warming Period, the Roman Warming Period, the Medieval Warming Period, and now the Modern Warming Period. There has been no other period in human history where humans have achieved so much and advanced so quickly than during the last 170 years, all thanks to a warming climate.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...and if two Tylenol are good, a hundred must be, like, 12 times better, amirite?
 
ashurbanipal said:
I'm trying to think of a single leftist politician who has stated that they're pushing anthropogenic climate change in order to massively increase the size and scope of government, and cannot think of a single one.
Click to expand...
That is because you choose not to, like a good little leftist. Everyone else, however, is very much aware of the Carbon Tax that leftist freaks have been pushing in a wide number of countries for the last three decades. Your leftist scam was exposed long ago and feigning ignorance won't change anything.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Here's the full passage:



Here's what I know: several of the links (I gave multiple examples) don't go to a study or a paper; they go to the front page of a journal warehouse. Typically (usually, often, more often than not, etc) that means the study or paper was withdrawn. That doesn't mean I think they were withdrawn from publication. Only that it's a good bet they were. Those are different claims.

Not that you're known around here for your exceedingly subtle mind...
Click to expand...

You claimed with certainty they were withdrawn from publication. So please post proof of that.
 
Glitch said:
That is because you choose not to, like a good little leftist. Everyone else, however, is very much aware of the Carbon Tax that leftist freaks have been pushing in a wide number of countries for the last three decades. Your leftist scam was exposed long ago and feigning ignorance won't change anything.
Click to expand...

Imposing a carbon tax is not the same as saying: "I'm pushing the anthropogenic global warming theory in order to massively increase the size and scope of government." Kindly provide a quote from some leftist politician that says either exactly that, or something logically equivalent--without having to make paranoid fraidy-cat assumptions about someone's motives or the state of the world.
 
Last edited:
PoS said:
You claimed with certainty they were withdrawn from publication. So please post proof of that.
Click to expand...

No I did not. You simply don't know how to read. "Typically X" does not mean "Certainly X."

I am certain that many of the links (of which, again, I provided examples) in your second list just go to the front pages of journal warehouses, not to the paper's abstract. And typically that means the paper was withdrawn.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Imposing a carbon tax is not the same as saying: "I'm pushing the anthropogenic global warming theory in order to massively increase the size and scope of government."
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. The only solution leftist freaks have is to increase taxes for the purpose of increasing the size and scope of government. The AGW scam is nothing more than another leftist power grab.
 
ashurbanipal said:
No I did not. You simply don't know how to read. "Typically X" does not mean "Certainly X."

I am certain that many of the links (of which, again, I provided examples) in your second list just go to the front pages of journal warehouses, not to the paper's abstract. And typically that means the paper was withdrawn.
Click to expand...

If he read, or even looked at, any of the papers, he should know if they are available.

It’s painfully obvious that he just posted a denier link and doesn’t have the capacity or ability to actually check all the references... and is apparently so lazy he checked NONE of them.
 
ashurbanipal said:
No I did not. You simply don't know how to read. "Typically X" does not mean "Certainly X."

I am certain that many of the links (of which, again, I provided examples) in your second list just go to the front pages of journal warehouses, not to the paper's abstract. And typically that means the paper was withdrawn.
Click to expand...

So in the end, youre really not certain about anything, its just speculation on your part. I can accept that.


Threegoofs said:
If he read, or even looked at, any of the papers, he should know if they are available.

It’s painfully obvious that he just posted a denier link and doesn’t have the capacity or ability to actually check all the references... and is apparently so lazy he checked NONE of them.
Click to expand...

LOL troll and lie harder.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I cannot do that, because I don't know that it will happen. I am confident it will if we do nothing. Fortunately, we are doing something (well, we as in the entire United States isn't, but lots of countries are taking action).

If we do nothing, eventually large areas of the world will just become too hot for human habitation. That's already happened in parts of India, for example, but so far the people living in those parts have either just died quietly or moved to another part of the country. But (again, if we do nothing) that'll get worse, and the entire subcontinent's population will migrate north, presumably through Pakistan, through the FSU 'stans, and into Russia. What do you think will happen if a billion people move up into a land that can barely feed its 144 million? Especially if the people from Southern China move to the North, as do the peoples of Equatorial Africa?

What will we do if the entire population of Central America and Mexico come into the U.S. all at once?

Sounds like a recipe for widespread famine, or more likely, war.
Click to expand...

Really????

Do you have any evidence at all that any of that is happening or is likely to happen?

Any science to support it?

Given that it was significantly warmer during the Holocene Optimal, when Budda was alive, I don't think you are thinking clearly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom