• 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!

It's Time to Confront Climate Extremism

jpn said:
Oh good, a really important article about a complex scientific theory written by an...economist...published in a climate denier website run by a guy whose highest academic achievement is a High School diploma.

Should be fascinating...:roll:
Click to expand...

jpn said:
Yeah, it's really extreme to believe what your research tells you.
Click to expand...

Ross McKitrick's credentials are impressive. And the point is the extremists go well beyond what the research is telling anyone.
 
ecofarm said:
If I wanted to debate WUWT, I'd write to the conspiracy theory blog. Shilling for that blog is not debating.
Click to expand...

Your fear is palpable, real men would try to make cogent arguments, you don't.
 
Grand Mal said:
Your reliance on worn-out, inappropriate cliches is noted. You didn't state anything but an opinion. Opinions are like assholes- everyone has one. Over the centuries? Am I to guess that you equate global warming with flat-earth or geocentrism or some other fallacy based solely on limited information?
Click to expand...

I wrote:

Consensus claims are useless and boring. They have been wrong too many time over the centuries.

When you think this way, you tell us you have nothing but alarmism to offer.
Click to expand...

Ha ha,

you have no idea how silly you are, since what he posted is excellent example of a consensus and Authority fallacy. It doesn't support the AGW conjecture, only The Scientific Method could do that, but that idea is continually stomped on by science illiterates like you and him.

There have been many examples of consensus being wrong over the centuries, yet science illiterates like you continue to hang onto long dead idea that popular beliefs (group think) are the same as Reproducible research.

:lol:
 
Jack Hays said:
Professor Ross McKitrick is sounding the alarm. Climate extremism ascended to new influence in 2019. Adherents of sound science will have to take up the fight in earnest if rationality is to prevail in 2020.

[FONT=&][/FONT]
We must fight climate extremists before they upend society

[FONT=&]Start learning the deep details of the science and economics instead of letting extremists dictate what you’re allowed to think or say. Guest opinion by Ross Mckitrick Last year was the year the climate issue took a sharp turn towards extremism. Let’s hope 2020 is the year sanity makes a comeback. There have long been three…
[/FONT]
Continue reading →

[FONT=&]Last year was the year the climate issue took a sharp turn towards extremism. Let’s hope 2020 is the year sanity makes a comeback.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]There have long been three groups occupying the climate issue. To avoid pejoratives, I will call them A, B and C.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The A group are the doubters. They don’t believe greenhouse gases (GHGs) do much harm and they don’t support expensive climate-policy interventions. If we must choose between climate policy and the continued use of inexpensive fossil energy, they readily choose the latter.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The C group think the opposite; they fear a climate catastrophe, they foresee a crisis and they want urgent action, regardless of cost, to stop it.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The B group are in the middle. They believe, or say they believe, that GHG emissions are a problem and must be reduced. They are vague on the question of how much and when, but in general they try to balance environmental goals with the provision of inexpensive energy and robust economic growth.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The leaders in business, government and the bureaucracy tend to be in this group. They have spent the last 20 years verbally acknowledging the concerns of group C and even borrowing their slogans, while quietly letting the A agenda mostly win out, which the underlying economics pretty much necessitates.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]This uneasy compromise fell apart last year. . . .

[/FONT][FONT=&]Climate and energy policy has fallen into the hands of a worldwide movement that openly declares its extremism. The would-be moderates on this issue have pretended for 20 years they could keep the status quo without having to fight for it. Those days are over.[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Yes, the denial is at an extreme. It's also really, really ignorant.
 
jpn said:
What's boring are people who are too close-minded to accept what the experts agree on because that would upset their preexisting biases.

It's way more interesting to challenge oneself. Like, for example, "why don't I accept the scientific consensus on this issue? Is it because my own expert analysis differs, and the most likely reason for that difference is because they are all wrong and I'm right? Or is it because I actually have no expertise on this issue at all, and I just don't want to believe in something that would make me cry at night?"
Click to expand...

Experts who for a few centuries believed stress or spicy foods caused ulcers, but a SINGLE man slayed that consensus error easily in empirical research, but was still resisted for a while anyway...…, now Ulcer problems are routinely cured these days because a SINGLE man bucked the "consensus"......

There are many more examples of consensus being wrong you have never learned about.

Consensus positions doesn't advance science, only reproducible research can do that.

:2wave:
 
ataraxia said:
So how come this disagreement has not made its way to ANY textbooks on the subject, or ANY public statements, from ANY scientific organizations, anywhere on the planet?
Click to expand...


This is the imfamous Oregon Petition, which is a total fraud. It’s a fake petition dreamed up be climate denier in the late 1990’s.

Like Vince Foster, Comet Pizza, and Benghazi, it is an enduring right wing myth that the bobble heads will keep recycling to one another no matter how many times they’re told it’s false.
 
longview said:
Lastly they quote the IPCC from 19 years ago saying that , It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to Human activity!
Click to expand...

By all means, let's update the source. Here's the latest IPCC report. Browse through that for a while and then try to claim they aren't primarily talking about human-produced greenhouse gases.
 
jpn said:
Agreed. And on the climate change side is a ton of reproducible research and evidence. On the denial side, pretty much fossil fuel-funded web sites run by high school graduates.
Click to expand...

The IPCC strongly rely on far into the future emission and temperature scenarios.

That means they are NOT reproducible, unfalsifiable.

Your ignorantly hilarious attacks on those who insist on The Scientific Method way to develop credible science research wonders why science illiterates like you are so prone to personal attacks and lies, in place of mature rational debate.....

:mrgreen:
 
jpn said:
By all means, let's update the source. Here's the latest IPCC report. Browse through that for a while and then try to claim they aren't primarily talking about human-produced greenhouse gases.
Click to expand...
I am quite familiar with the IPCC, and based on untested assumptions, it is very easy to say that increases in CO2
are responsible for a majority of the warming, but that assumes all the increases in CO2 are Human, which has not been proven,
AND (Boolean) it also assumes that CO2 forcing is what they think it is (2XCO2 =3.71W/m2 of imbalance).
Even if correct, does not make added CO2 an issue.
 
Sunsettommy said:
I wrote:



Ha ha,

you have no idea how silly you are, since what he posted is excellent example of a consensus and Authority fallacy. It doesn't support the AGW conjecture, only The Scientific Method could do that, but that idea is continually stomped on by science illiterates like you and him.

There have been many examples of consensus being wrong over the centuries, yet science illiterates like you continue to hang onto long dead idea that popular beliefs (group think) are the same as Reproducible research.

:lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah, blah blah, we know already what your opinion is. What you need to do is show us the value of it.
You want results of the Scientific Method? Before I waste time beating my head against another wall of determined ignorance, tell me what sources you wouldn't snear at because they disagree with your opinion. I favour NASA and NOAA, and sometimes look at the British Antarctic Survey. You got any problems with their data?
 
Grand Mal said:
Yeah yeah, blah blah, we know already what your opinion is. What you need to do is show us the value of it.
You want results of the Scientific Method? Before I waste time beating my head against another wall of determined ignorance, tell me what sources you wouldn't snear at because they disagree with your opinion. I favour NASA and NOAA, and sometimes look at the British Antarctic Survey. You got any problems with their data?
Click to expand...
With the exception of NASA GISS(whose data looks overcooked) the data is fine.
The problem is the very subjective interpretation of that data to support a concept that has minimal empirical support.
The low hanging fruit in this concept is the enormous positive feedbacks predicted, there is almost not empirical evidence
that the feedbacks exists at anywhere near the required levels to make the predictions accurate.
Take an 2XCO2 ECS of 3°C for example, this requires a feedback factor 2.72 be applied to the
assumed 2XCO2 forced warming of 1.1°C. (Hansen says the feedback should be 60% complete after 37.5 years.)
Applying this to the data we have, almost takes the 3°C off the table.
We have pre1950 warming of .288°C (Hadcrut4), and We have post 1950 CO2 instantaneous forcing warming
of .44°C. and we have total observed warming of .89°C.
.288°C X the feedback factor of 2.72, should have yielded .47°C by 1988, and close to .77°C by 2025.
Just the 1988 feedback factor (.47°C) plus the CO2 instantaneous forcing warming,(.44°C.) is greater
than the observed temperature, adding in the second 37.5 year cycle, means that the feedback factor necessary
for a 3 °C ECS cannot be supported with the empirical data.
 
Grand Mal said:
Yeah yeah, blah blah, we know already what your opinion is. What you need to do is show us the value of it.
You want results of the Scientific Method? Before I waste time beating my head against another wall of determined ignorance, tell me what sources you wouldn't snear at because they disagree with your opinion. I favour NASA and NOAA, and sometimes look at the British Antarctic Survey. You got any problems with their data?
Click to expand...

Translation:

I have no argument to offer, just make empty consensus statements that I hope you swallow, leave me alone to my modeling delusions.
 
Sunsettommy said:
Translation:

I have no argument to offer, just make empty consensus statements that I hope you swallow, leave me alone to my modeling delusions.
Click to expand...

All science is about the consensus of the experts working in that field.

If you know of anything considered science that does not have the support of the consensus of the specialists currently working in that field, please feel free to give us examples.
 
Sunsettommy said:
Translation:

I have no argument to offer, just make empty consensus statements that I hope you swallow, leave me alone to my modeling delusions.
Click to expand...

No translation needed. I speak clearly and directly.
The question, Tommy, was would you accept data and conclusions from NASA and NOAA.
 
longview said:
With the exception of NASA GISS(whose data looks overcooked) the data is fine.
The problem is the very subjective interpretation of that data to support a concept that has minimal empirical support.
The low hanging fruit in this concept is the enormous positive feedbacks predicted, there is almost not empirical evidence
that the feedbacks exists at anywhere near the required levels to make the predictions accurate.
Take an 2XCO2 ECS of 3°C for example, this requires a feedback factor 2.72 be applied to the
assumed 2XCO2 forced warming of 1.1°C. (Hansen says the feedback should be 60% complete after 37.5 years.)
Applying this to the data we have, almost takes the 3°C off the table.
We have pre1950 warming of .288°C (Hadcrut4), and We have post 1950 CO2 instantaneous forcing warming
of .44°C. and we have total observed warming of .89°C.
.288°C X the feedback factor of 2.72, should have yielded .47°C by 1988, and close to .77°C by 2025.
Just the 1988 feedback factor (.47°C) plus the CO2 instantaneous forcing warming,(.44°C.) is greater
than the observed temperature, adding in the second 37.5 year cycle, means that the feedback factor necessary
for a 3 °C ECS cannot be supported with the empirical data.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you just said to me.
I do know, however, that if you can't explain something so a person of reasonable intelligence understands it, you don't understand it yourself.
 
Sunsettommy said:
Your fear is palpable, real men would try to make cogent arguments, you don't.
Click to expand...

You got me. I'm a fake man. Good job and keep on Truthin'.
 
longview said:
I am quite familiar with the IPCC, and based on untested assumptions, it is very easy to say that increases in CO2
are responsible for a majority of the warming, but that assumes all the increases in CO2 are Human, which has not been proven,
AND (Boolean) it also assumes that CO2 forcing is what they think it is (2XCO2 =3.71W/m2 of imbalance).
Even if correct, does not make added CO2 an issue.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and tobacco companies said that medical warnings were based on "untested assumptions" and nicotine harm wasn't proven and it assumed deleterious effects that weren't proven and so on.

Boring.
 
Grand Mal said:
I don't know what you just said to me.
I do know, however, that if you can't explain something so a person of reasonable intelligence understands it, you don't understand it yourself.
Click to expand...
The numbers for the higher levels of warming are not supported by the data!
 
jpn said:
Yeah, and tobacco companies said that medical warnings were based on "untested assumptions" and nicotine harm wasn't proven and it assumed deleterious effects that weren't proven and so on.

Boring.
Click to expand...
So please enlighten us with the the data that shows that I am wrong?
 
longview said:
So please enlighten us with the the data that shows that I am wrong?
Click to expand...

Earn a PhD in climate science and then you'll be qualified to opine on the data.

Until then you're just a hack wasting everyone's time.
 
jpn said:
Earn a PhD in climate science and then you'll be qualified to opine on the data.

Until then you're just a hack wasting everyone's time.
Click to expand...

In your opinion. Do you hold a doctorate in climate science? Just curious. And if so, do all of your peers agree with all of your opinions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom