• 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:
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 what?
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Deceptive rhetoric at Davos could bring disaster[/h][FONT=&quot]There is nothing ‘cohesive’ or ‘sustainable’ about ‘solutions’ demanded by WEF ‘stakeholders’ Paul Driessen The World Economic Forum conference in Davos, Switzerland is billed as the globe’s most prestigious annual gathering of movers and shakers. Its mission is to “improve the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic and other leaders of society…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
nota bene said:
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?
Click to expand...

Do the people you are just-barely-indirectly defending by attacking the person criticizing them for denying AGW without the necessary training and experience in the field?

See, you don't need training and experience to accept a body of experts at their word. The human race wouldn't have gotten anywhere near as far as it has without specialization and without deference to specialists. But you do have to have the right training and experience to credibly announce that they've all got it terribly wrong. And not one of the deniers you are running for interference does.
 
Mr Person said:
Do the people you are just-barely-indirectly defending by attacking the person criticizing them for denying AGW without the necessary training and experience in the field?

See, you don't need training and experience to accept a body of experts at their word. The human race wouldn't have gotten anywhere near as far as it has without specialization and without deference to specialists. But you do have to have the right training and experience to credibly announce that they've all got it terribly wrong. And not one of the deniers you are running for interference does.
Click to expand...

I'm actually not defending anyone, only the notion that we're all entitled to opinions whether we hold advanced degrees or not. And just as a matter of fact, not all experts on climate science agree, so no matter what your opinion happens to be, there is an expert to back you up.
 
nota bene said:
I'm actually not defending anyone, only the notion that we're all entitled to opinions whether we hold advanced degrees or not.
Click to expand...

We can have opinions about what to do with scientific facts. But unless you’re an experienced scientist working in the field, the average lay person really is in no position to have an opinion on the scientific facts themselves. This seems to be a popular misconception here in the US by the lay public about their own qualifications to make judgments on highly complex technical matters.

“ The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
-Isaac Asimov

And just as a matter of fact, not all experts on climate science agree, so no matter what your opinion happens to be, there is an expert to back you up.
Click to expand...

Not at all. There is unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet on this issue. As far as individual scientists, there are always a few kooks and charlatans around. You can find individual “scientists” who hold eccentric positions on everything from a flat earth to creationism/intelligent design. That doesn’t make it science.
 
Again, I have no idea why the flat earth crowd keeps peddling this garbage.

It served it’s intended purpose for a long time. It effectively delayed investment in renewable energy, and even generated significant political support for policies that would take the US backwards.

But Wall Street has made the decision.

Renewable energy and battery technology are the future. Exxon, and the big oil companies are on the sell list.

You guys can parade your pay to bray junk science at the top of your lungs.

But the money is on Elon Musk, not Exxon Mobil.
 
nota bene said:
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?
Click to expand...

Oh no. I'm not the one questioning the experts and making a bunch of criticisms of something I have no expertise in. You are.

So, what are your qualifications to critique the experts?
 
jpn said:
Oh no. I'm not the one questioning the experts and making a bunch of criticisms of something I have no expertise in. You are.

So, what are your qualifications to critique the experts?
Click to expand...

Which experts--the ones who agree with you or the ones who don't? ;)
 
ataraxia said:
We can have opinions about what to do with scientific facts. But unless you’re an experienced scientist working in the field, the average lay person really is in no position to have an opinion on the scientific facts themselves. This seems to be a popular misconception here in the US by the lay public about their own qualifications to make judgments on highly complex technical matters.

“ The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
-Isaac Asimov



Not at all. There is unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet on this issue. As far as individual scientists, there are always a few kooks and charlatans around. You can find individual “scientists” who hold eccentric positions on everything from a flat earth to creationism/intelligent design. That doesn’t make it science.
Click to expand...

"Experts" isn't the same as "organizations."

Interesting how scientists you disagree with are referred to as "scientists." ;)
 
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...
You are the one claiming I am wrong, so you must know what is correct, so enlighten us?
 
jpn said:
Oh, a denier website. If only the deniers spent more time in the lab and less time proselytizing, then...um...well, actually I reckon the result would be the same.
Click to expand...

Oh shoot the messenger fallacy. Its funny that nutty alarmists always engage in poor logic and deflect away the fact that their lies are exposed.

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...

Duh, because these corrupt institutions want their grant money, so they have to keep up the hyperbole.

TomFitz said:
I’m amazed at how dishonest you are!!!!!

Citing a well known hoax as evidence (by bumping a thread you started in which you were called out for flogging the same long discredited hoax), is about as bad as it gets.

Especially so when you keep doing it after having been told you’re full of it!
Click to expand...

Wrong, youre the one who's lying. You have utterly failed to refute whats on those websites, so all you can do is deflect.

Mr Person said:
Do the people you are just-barely-indirectly defending by attacking the person criticizing them for denying AGW without the necessary training and experience in the field?
Click to expand...

LOL youre full of it. Show me the list of scientists who advocate AGW and their credentials. You keep claiming there are tens and thousands of them yet you have failed to name even one.

TomFitz said:
Again, I have no idea why the flat earth crowd keeps peddling this garbage.

It served it’s intended purpose for a long time. It effectively delayed investment in renewable energy, and even generated significant political support for policies that would take the US backwards.

But Wall Street has made the decision.

Renewable energy and battery technology are the future. Exxon, and the big oil companies are on the sell list.

You guys can parade your pay to bray junk science at the top of your lungs.

But the money is on Elon Musk, not Exxon Mobil.
Click to expand...

LOL more lies and foolishness. People arent investing in Tesla because theyre selling a lot of EVs, in fact their sales are less than 10% of that what Ford sells. People brought up the Tesla stock price because they like Elon, thats it.
 
nota bene said:
"Experts" isn't the same as "organizations."
Click to expand...

Why not? Who makes up the organizations, and how come these contrarian experts can’t seem to have a voice in them?

Interesting how scientists you disagree with are referred to as "scientists." ;)
Click to expand...

Interesting how these “scientists” can’t even get their position into any standard textbook on the subject.
 
Last edited:
PoS said:
LOL youre full of it. Show me the list of scientists who advocate AGW and their credentials. You keep claiming there are tens and thousands of them yet you have failed to name even one.
Click to expand...

I wonder who all the folks are who are writing all the textbooks, teaching the classes, writing letters to Congress and the White House, and putting out all those formal public statements from all the scientific organizations on the subject?
 
ataraxia said:
I wonder who all the folks are who are writing all the textbooks, teaching the classes, writing letters to Congress and the White House, and putting out all those formal public statements from all the scientific organizations on the subject?
Click to expand...

Name them and show their credentials.

We all know that there's plenty of editors and bureaucrats who end up putting lots of BS in school textbooks, and climate nuts are a huge example of that.
 
ataraxia said:
We can have opinions about what to do with scientific facts. But unless you’re an experienced scientist working in the field, the average lay person really is in no position to have an opinion on the scientific facts themselves. This seems to be a popular misconception here in the US by the lay public about their own qualifications to make judgments on highly complex technical matters.

“ The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
-Isaac Asimov



Not at all. There is unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet on this issue. As far as individual scientists, there are always a few kooks and charlatans around. You can find individual “scientists” who hold eccentric positions on everything from a flat earth to creationism/intelligent design. That doesn’t make it science.
Click to expand...
The person with a science background can look at the predictions and see if they have come to pass.
They can also evaluate the criteria upon which the predictions are based.
In the case of AGW, the only thing that really matters, is the climates sensitivity to added CO2.
For over a century, Science has been working on the issue, not just CO2 but the entire greenhouse effect.
It was noted in the nineteenth century that Earth was warmer than it should be.
Later the number was refined down to 33°C, the temperature of Earth would be -18°C if the atmosphere
were completely transparent, but is at +15°C.
Some like the GISS say this is really just a thought experiment, but let's go through the exercise.
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect
The size of the greenhouse effect is often estimated as being the difference between the actual global surface temperature
and the temperature the planet would be without any atmospheric absorption, but with exactly the same planetary albedo,
around 33°C. This is more of a "thought experiment" than an observable state, but it is a useful baseline.
Click to expand...
In actuality the surface emits about 150 Watts per square meter (W/m2) more than goes out to space.
Click to expand...
We find that water vapor is the dominant substance — responsible for about 50% of the absorption, with clouds responsible for about 25%
— and CO2 responsible for 20% of the effect.
Click to expand...

So CO2 is responsible for 20% of the 150 W/m2 of imbalance that keeps our planet livable.
CO2's forcing is measured in doubling s or halving the levels.
Past studies have used a CO2 level of 1.5 ppm as a near zero measurement.
Error - Cookies Turned Off
Figure 5(a)presents TOA spectra with current atmospheric conditions but using five different CO2 concentrations: 0, 1.5, 389, 2 × 389 and 32 × 389 ppmv.
Click to expand...
This works out to ~8 halving steps to get to near 1 ppm from the historic level of 280 ppm.
So ancient CO2 has added 8 fully equalized doubling steps equal to 20% of 33°C.
Now we can try out their thought experiment.
33°C X .2=6.6°C, 6.6°C/8=.825°C per doubling step.
Now comes the question, of why modern climate scientist expect the next doubling step of CO2
to have a fully equalized value of ~ 3°C, when all earlier doubling steps only had a .825°C doubling value?
 
ataraxia said:
I wonder who all the folks are who are writing all the textbooks, teaching the classes, writing letters to Congress and the White House, and putting out all those formal public statements from all the scientific organizations on the subject?
Click to expand...

Creating the illusion that all those things come from the same people is the propaganda objective of the extremists. Extremist claims routinely go well beyond research results. Please consult the OP link.
 
[FONT=&quot]Politics[/FONT]
[h=1]US Chamber of Commerce: What if we banned frac’ing?[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest “fracking A, Bubba!” by David Middleton Note: This is a politically charged post. If you don’t like such posts, don’t bother reading it. What would happen if frac’ing was banned? The short answer: We all freeze in the dark. For the long answer, read the US Chamber of Commerce paper. The 2016 report was…
[/FONT]
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Climate Change is not a problem: Unless we make it one.[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest Post by Martin Capages Jr. PhD PE INTRODUCTION As long as humans have been on Earth, they have been adapting to changes in regional climates. A regional climate is the average of the weather for a relatively long period of time, usually 30+ years, at a particular location on the planet. The natural periodicity…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
PoS said:
Name them and show their credentials.

We all know that there's plenty of editors and bureaucrats who end up putting lots of BS in school textbooks, and climate nuts are a huge example of that.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But if ALL the textbooks are saying the same thing, it's hard to dismiss it all as just "editors and bureaucrats".

The authors' credentials are usually in the books. Look them up. Have you ever cracked any textbooks on the subject, or is all your information coming from Sean Hannity or something?
 
Jack Hays said:
Creating the illusion that all those things come from the same people is the propaganda objective of the extremists. Extremist claims routinely go well beyond research results. Please consult the OP link.
Click to expand...

Why are science textbooks and formal public statements from scientific organizations all around the world some kind of illusion?
 
ataraxia said:
Why are science textbooks and formal public statements from scientific organizations all around the world some kind of illusion?
Click to expand...

Who pays such Scientists? Their major source of their incomes comes from the public.

Perhaps their only source of income comes from this farce stating that only 3 degrees temperature is actually dangerous. The educated class that lives off taxes, naturally promotes higher taxes.

Personally though 81 years old, threatened with disaster after disaster in the name of climate, I see nothing to fear but fear itself.
 
ataraxia said:
Why are science textbooks and formal public statements from scientific organizations all around the world some kind of illusion?
Click to expand...

They are not. The illusion is the impression that extremist pronouncements are derived from or aligned with those textbooks and/or formal public statements.
 
longview said:
The person with a science background can look at the predictions and see if they have come to pass.
They can also evaluate the criteria upon which the predictions are based.
Click to expand...

Not really. If you have a "science background", you will know that scientists realize how technically complex each field is, and tend to respect what their colleagues in other fields say about their own field. A cardiologist will defer to Having a "science background" does not qualify you to question the unanimous consensus of physicists, chemists, biologists, physicians, and public health specialists specializing in climate change from all around the world. Get a degree and several years of work experience in the field, you may be taken more seriously.
 
Jack Hays said:
They are not. The illusion is the impression that extremist pronouncements are derived from or aligned with those textbooks and/or formal public statements.
Click to expand...

So give me some quotes from any textbook or scientific organization which are not "extremist".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom