• 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!

What is so hard about climate change?

Lord of Planar said:
More images brought to you by tapatape, probably altered because their is no link attached.

I really would like to know who the activist blogger is who altered them.
Click to expand...

What’s altered?

Oh, right. You dont know because the underlying data is a mystery to you, despite it being noted on both figures.
 
Threegoofs said:
What’s altered?

Oh, right. You dont know because the underlying data is a mystery to you, despite it being noted on both figures.
Click to expand...

It only claims who the image is by. There are thousands and thousands of pages on those site. I shouldn't need to waste my time. Such images should be linked, else treated as fake.

But then, I'll bet you love fake news also.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It only claims who the image is by. There are thousands and thousands of pages on those site. I shouldn't need to waste my time. Such images should be linked, else treated as fake.

But then, I'll bet you love fake news also.
Click to expand...
If someone wanted to show the graph for Berkeley Earth's warming,
it is on their site, but for some reason Goofs did not like the one that came from the actual site!
Berkeley Earth
land-and-ocean-summary-large.png
 
longview said:
If someone wanted to show the graph for Berkeley Earth's warming,
it is on their site, but for some reason Goofs did not like the one that came from the actual site!
Berkeley Earth
land-and-ocean-summary-large.png
Click to expand...

Odd. I clearly explained the reason.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It only claims who the image is by. There are thousands and thousands of pages on those site. I shouldn't need to waste my time. Such images should be linked, else treated as fake.

But then, I'll bet you love fake news also.
Click to expand...

Yes, I see you always complain about JH bad graphs from denier blogs.

Oh, wait.
 
longview said:
If someone wanted to show the graph for Berkeley Earth's warming,
it is on their site, but for some reason Goofs did not like the one that came from the actual site!
Berkeley Earth
land-and-ocean-summary-large.png
Click to expand...

It looks like he has a graph that was scaled in Fahrenheit, then remarked Celsius.
 
Threegoofs said:
Odd. I clearly explained the reason.
Click to expand...
You said why you did not like the graph, but your liking the graph, does not change the fact that it is sourced
directly from the group who maintains that data set.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It looks like he has a graph that was scaled in Fahrenheit, then remarked Celsius.
Click to expand...
Not sure, I did not find a link on the site to the numerical data.
Hadcrut4's numbers show a .288°C increase between the pre 1900 average, and the average of the decade ending in 1950,
so subjectively eyeing a .4°C increase for that period in Berkeley Earth's graph, is not totally unreasonable.
 
All of you climate chaos folks need to do some reading instead of just listening to the extremist. The climate change extremist is preventing any real work from getting done. You can't cry wolf while using exaggerated or completely false evidence and then expect the more skeptical folks to jump on board when there is credible evidence that says the problem has credit but not to the extent being claimed. So, if you are going to lie, people are going to ignore you.

Beware of prophets making profits, as in Al Gore.

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong
Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer: The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' - WSJ
Global Climate Intelligence Group founded | Watts Up With That?
 
longview said:
Not sure, I did not find a link on the site to the numerical data.
Hadcrut4's numbers show a .288°C increase between the pre 1900 average, and the average of the decade ending in 1950,
so subjectively eyeing a .4°C increase for that period in Berkeley Earth's graph, is not totally unreasonable.
Click to expand...

That is why I claim he lifted it from a lying blogger that altered it, or that he altered it. Where the Berkly graph tips past 0.5C, his graph is about 1C. the ratio between F:C is 9:5.

It is a lie.

He is a chronic offender of not linking his material.
 
longview said:
Not sure, I did not find a link on the site to the numerical data.
Hadcrut4's numbers show a .288°C increase between the pre 1900 average, and the average of the decade ending in 1950,
so subjectively eyeing a .4°C increase for that period in Berkeley Earth's graph, is not totally unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Your graph looks very similar to the one produced by NASA GISS Survey:

NASA GISS.jpg

They show two 35-year cooling periods (1880-1915, 1945-1980) where the mean temperature dropped by a total of 0.34°C over that 70 year period, and two 30-year warming periods (1915-1945, 1980-2010) where the mean temperature increased by a total of 0.85°C over that 60 year period, resulting in a net temperature increase of 0.51°C between 1880 and 2010.

If that trend is consistent, then we are a decade into the next 35-year cooling period which should last until 2045.
 
Integrityrespec said:
All of you climate chaos folks need to do some reading instead of just listening to the extremist. The climate change extremist is preventing any real work from getting done. You can't cry wolf while using exaggerated or completely false evidence and then expect the more skeptical folks to jump on board when there is credible evidence that says the problem has credit but not to the extent being claimed. So, if you are going to lie, people are going to ignore you.

Beware of prophets making profits, as in Al Gore.

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong
Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer: The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' - WSJ
Global Climate Intelligence Group founded | Watts Up With That?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links to a guy who literally will whore his organization out for money (Bast) and a creationist (Spencer).

I think we can see how your superior judgement and discerning reading affects your thinking on the issue.
 
Lord of Planar said:
That is why I claim he lifted it from a lying blogger that altered it, or that he altered it. Where the Berkly graph tips past 0.5C, his graph is about 1C. the ratio between F:C is 9:5.

It is a lie.

He is a chronic offender of not linking his material.
Click to expand...

When you don’t have the tools to address the argument, attack the source!
 
I don't understand how or why anyone is confused or angry about either side's stance on climate change. Who cares what other people believe about it?

Climate change is NOT the issue. The use of force to implement a perceived solution is.

When has force ever worked for anything as a solution? You can't even point to war as an example.

If we really believe "X" is a problem in our lives, we make the appropriate personal changes in our own lives. That's it. We don't force change on anyone else, and none of us has the authority, knowledge, or wisdom to decide for anyone else what constitutes a problem in their lives.

If force is required as a part of a solution, the solution has failed before its implementation.
 
Idontbelonghere said:
I don't understand how or why anyone is confused or angry about either side's stance on climate change. Who cares what other people believe about it?

Climate change is NOT the issue. The use of force to implement a perceived solution is.

When has force ever worked for anything as a solution? You can't even point to war as an example.

If we really believe "X" is a problem in our lives, we make the appropriate personal changes in our own lives. That's it. We don't force change on anyone else, and none of us has the authority, knowledge, or wisdom to decide for anyone else what constitutes a problem in their lives.

If force is required as a part of a solution, the solution has failed before its implementation.
Click to expand...

Force was required to stop the Nazis conquering Europe.

Force is what stops otyher people taking your property. If the state does not stop others taking your stuff you will have no stuff.
 
Craig234 said:
For billions of years, the planet didn't have a lot of human actions.

For thousands of years, humans had little impact.

For the last century, after technology created the massive use of fossil fuels and the human population exploded, huge amounts of gasses from fossil fuel burning have been released into the atmosphere, having a huge effect. At the same time, trees that helped the atmosphere have been largely destroyed.

Science says that these continued activities will cause great harm. Corrupt companies who make money from fossil fuels lie and deny the science.

That's all there is to it. What's so damned hard? We either make changes to reduce the fossil fuel harm, or we get the harm. What's the problem understanding that?
Click to expand...
If you believe that then explain why you are wasting fossil fuel doing something as inane as posting on an internent forum. Do you have any idea how much energy it takes to power just one server room?
 
Idontbelonghere said:
I don't understand how or why anyone is confused or angry about either side's stance on climate change. Who cares what other people believe about it?

Climate change is NOT the issue. The use of force to implement a perceived solution is.

When has force ever worked for anything as a solution? You can't even point to war as an example.

If we really believe "X" is a problem in our lives, we make the appropriate personal changes in our own lives. That's it. We don't force change on anyone else, and none of us has the authority, knowledge, or wisdom to decide for anyone else what constitutes a problem in their lives.

If force is required as a part of a solution, the solution has failed before its implementation.
Click to expand...

That is a bizarre view to the point of insane. So if someone is destroying the environment, the solution is not to use laws to limit their harm, but to just not destroy it also.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Force was required to stop the Nazis conquering Europe.

Force is what stops otyher people taking your property. If the state does not stop others taking your stuff you will have no stuff.
Click to expand...

Given the current state of affairs with terms like "Nazi" and "Fascist" being thrown about (presumably because there is some element of truth to it), the ongoing antisemitism around the world, and the national socialist tendencies (walls and tariffs) of the Republican Party - I call bs on the "success" of that force.

I would suggest that you're confusing defense with force.
 
Craig234 said:
That is a bizarre view to the point of insane. So if someone is destroying the environment, the solution is not to use laws to limit their harm, but to just not destroy it also.
Click to expand...

Climate science does not accuse "someone" of destroying the environment. It accuses everyone. If you honestly believe that humanity is destroying the planet, using force to address the problem will only worsen it. To make my point, how many decades have we been addressing the problem with force? At least three. And how's that working out? You'd think that after 30 years of forcing "solutions" down the throats of Americans, every environmental indicator would show at least some improvement, right? Unfortunately, all reports indicate that the planet continues to march toward disaster. Force isn't working. It can't work. It's really all about basic economics. I'd encourage you to do some reading about the Broken Window Fallacy.
 
Idontbelonghere said:
Climate science does not accuse "someone" of destroying the environment. It accuses everyone.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. The CEO of a refining company who thwarts the reduction of using those fuels is not equally to blame as a native living off the land. I didn't read your post further because your comments are so off base there's no point wasting more time.
 
Idontbelonghere said:
Given the current state of affairs with terms like "Nazi" and "Fascist" being thrown about (presumably because there is some element of truth to it), the ongoing antisemitism around the world, and the national socialist tendencies (walls and tariffs) of the Republican Party - I call bs on the "success" of that force.

I would suggest that you're confusing defense with force.
Click to expand...

No I was talking about historical fact. That you don't seem to think clearly is not my problem.

The Carthaginian Empire was not a thing because of force. The Roman Empire was a thing because of force. The slave trade was a thing because of force. It was ended by the British Empire as a result of argumentation withing Britian and the use of force around the world. The slaver of Southern American states was ended by force.

Building a wall or enforcing stronger immigration rules is not the same as Nazism. It is an example of force.
 
Tim the plumber said:
No I was talking about historical fact. That you don't seem to think clearly is not my problem.

The Carthaginian Empire was not a thing because of force. The Roman Empire was a thing because of force. The slave trade was a thing because of force. It was ended by the British Empire as a result of argumentation withing Britian and the use of force around the world. The slaver of Southern American states was ended by force.

Building a wall or enforcing stronger immigration rules is not the same as Nazism. It is an example of force.
Click to expand...

So, you're not familiar with the creation of the Carthaginian Empire? Pygmalion seemed to think force was necessary. How did that work out for the individual residing in Carthage?

If force ended slavery, why hasn't it? There is plenty of slavery around the world today. In fact, if you have a mind open enough to consider what the definition of the word slavery means, it doesn't take long to recognize that it is alive and well all over the world today. Individual owners have been replaced with governments. Ironically, the same governments some people think needs to be more forceful - in spite of it's 100% failure rate.

Building walls and enforcing stronger immigration rules is absolutely force, and it's absolutely being driven by all the same factors that led to the rise of Nazism. Nationalism, the protection of the welfare/warfare state, and irrational and unfounded fears are driving all of it.

It will all fail - because it always does.

Which brings us back to my original point - force is not the solution to Climate Change. Oppression never leads to freedom, and the process of implementing force only serves to make the problem worse - as evidenced by the increased alarmism and 30 years of failed forced government policies.
 
Craig234 said:
No, it doesn't. The CEO of a refining company who thwarts the reduction of using those fuels is not equally to blame as a native living off the land. I didn't read your post further because your comments are so off base there's no point wasting more time.
Click to expand...

Ah! The ol' "evil CEO" gambit... I love it. If that CEO is wrong, the market will tell him (as well as the board and shareholders) and he'll change his policies or he'll be out on his butt. That CEO's decision doesn't force the hand of the individual (assuming government hasn't killed his competition) and is no more of a contributing factor to Climate Change than the individuals who choose to continue to buy his product.

Have you ever bothered to consider why alternative energy solutions can't compete in a free market? I think we'd all love to use clean energy, right? By using government force, the environmental movement has undermined its own objectives by artificially raising costs on traditional forms of energy. When the consumer is left to choose between proven and reliable solutions costing slightly less than new alternative solutions, they'll choose what they know and trust every time. Force always fails.

I would like to see man's negative impacts on the environment drastically reduced. I would like to go to my grave knowing the world I left to my children and grandchildren is moving in the right direction. I think we all would, wouldn't we? Forcing change will never, ever, create that. Simple economics...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom