• 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!

climate crisis disrupting life for millions

code1211 said:
Do you suffer from a learning disability? You asked for the requirement. I provided it.

If you lack the ability to understand it, which I understand given your posts, you have my sympathy.
Click to expand...

No you did not. I gave you the definition of a scientific theory.


You lost this one bud. Sorry
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Climate Alarmists Celebrate Tyranny[/h][FONT="]Posted on [URL="https://realclimatescience.com/2020/03/climate-alarmists-celebrate-tyranny/"]March 26, 2020[/URL] by tonyheller[/FONT]
Climate alarmism has always been about tyranny, and taking away your freedom and money. Now they’re being quite open about it. They want people under house arrest permanently.
Click to expand...

A blog post about two people sharing an opinion.


What? No more rejected studies? Lol
 
vegas giants said:
And remember....fake names allowed on denier studies . Lol
Click to expand...

"The names have been changed to protect the innocent."

Are you going to deny that when a scientists speaks out against the "settled science," that their isn't someone trying to ruin them?

 
Lord of Planar said:
"The names have been changed to protect the innocent."

Are you going to deny that when a scientists speaks out against the "settled science," that their isn't someone trying to ruin them?

Click to expand...


I see. So you want them to lie.


Got it
 
vegas giants said:
No you did not. I gave you the definition of a scientific theory.


You lost this one bud. Sorry
Click to expand...

I had to go back to try to figure out what you were hallucinating about in this post.

This is (perhaps) the most ridiculous piece of fantasy you have imagined to date.

What you posted was your own description of a thought that invaded your your then prevailing lack of understanding.

No source except your imagination. No link in any way. No connection to any part of reality. You are beyond rationality and, as such, must now be considered an expert in the grassy field of CAGW Science.

Congratulations! You've earned your Doctorate.
 
code1211 said:
I had to go back to try to figure out what you were hallucinating about in this post.

This is (perhaps) the most ridiculous piece of fantasy you have imagined to date.

What you posted was your own description of a thought that invaded your your then prevailing lack of understanding.

No source except your imagination. No link in any way. No connection to any part of reality. You are beyond rationality and, as such, must now be considered an expert in the grassy field of CAGW Science.

Congratulations! You've earned your Doctorate.
Click to expand...

You seem upset. Stop taking this personally. It is very unscientific. I have ten more references if you need them

Scientific theory | Definition of Scientific theory at Dictionary.com
 
vegas giants said:
You seem upset. Stop taking this personally. It is very unscientific. I have ten more references if you need them

Scientific theory | Definition of Scientific theory at Dictionary.com
Click to expand...

Dr. Vegas weighs in again with a link to a source. The source is not qualified to use, but at least it's a source.

Astonishingly, and I didn't think this was possible, you prove without question that you know less about science than I know.

Really quite amazing and the basis of your lack of understanding.

The "science" of CAGW "Science" is ridiculous because it can only be supported by extrapolation and semantics and is useless because regardless of the outcome, the findings are also consistent with other models.

A hypothesis can’t be right unless it can be proven wrong

<snip>

There are basically three types of experiments proposed by scientists.

Type 1 experiments are the most powerful. Type 1 experimental outcomes include a possible negative outcome that would falsify, or refute, the working hypothesis. It is one or the other.

Type 2 experiments are very common, but lack punch. A positive result in a type 2 experiment is consistent with the working hypothesis, but the negative or null result does not address the validity of the hypothesis because there are many explanations for the negative result. These call for extrapolation and semantics.

3 experiments are those experiments whose results may be consistent with the hypothesis, but are useless because regardless of the outcome, the findings are also consistent with other models. In other words, every result isn’t informative.
<snip>
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
"The names have been changed to protect the innocent."

Are you going to deny that when a scientists speaks out against the "settled science," that their isn't someone trying to ruin them?

Click to expand...


You will not be taken serious then you make claims like that. Take for example that the president of the United States denies the urgent need for action. So any scientists with credible evidence against the urgent need for action could be hired by federal agencies.

Also the revenues of the just the world's four biggest fossil fuel companies are 1.5 trillion, there those companies also have a strong motivation to disprove the urgent need for action. So of course those companies could hire any credible scientists that was against the scientific consensus.

List of largest companies by revenue - Wikipedia

Also the Senate is controlled by Republicans. So those Republicans could have of course called hearings if as you claim scientists are being ruined for speaking out against the scientific consensus.

There the result is instead that both federal agencies under Donald Trump and fossil fuel companies have to publicly support the urgent need for action because the evidence is so overwhelming.

Fourth National Climate Assessment

Statements on Paris climate agreement | ExxonMobil
 
Last edited:
Climate change contributed to the devastating wild fires in Australia and things risk getting a lot worse.

"Global warming boosted the risk of the hot, dry weather that's likely to cause bushfires by at least 30%, they say.
But the study suggests the figure is likely to be much greater.

It says that if global temperatures rise by 2C, as seems likely, such conditions would occur at least four times more often.

The analysis has been carried out by the World Weather Attribution consortium."

Climate change boosted Australia bushfire risk by at least 30% - BBC News
 
Tim the plumber said:

LOL!!!

That is not the definition of the theory of science it is a definition of a theory within science.

Just hopless.
Click to expand...

Now that is freaking hilarious.



My god you are priceless
 
code1211 said:
Dr. Vegas weighs in again with a link to a source. The source is not qualified to use, but at least it's a source.

Astonishingly, and I didn't think this was possible, you prove without question that you know less about science than I know.

Really quite amazing and the basis of your lack of understanding.

The "science" of CAGW "Science" is ridiculous because it can only be supported by extrapolation and semantics and is useless because regardless of the outcome, the findings are also consistent with other models.

A hypothesis can’t be right unless it can be proven wrong

<snip>

There are basically three types of experiments proposed by scientists.

Type 1 experiments are the most powerful. Type 1 experimental outcomes include a possible negative outcome that would falsify, or refute, the working hypothesis. It is one or the other.

Type 2 experiments are very common, but lack punch. A positive result in a type 2 experiment is consistent with the working hypothesis, but the negative or null result does not address the validity of the hypothesis because there are many explanations for the negative result. These call for extrapolation and semantics.

3 experiments are those experiments whose results may be consistent with the hypothesis, but are useless because regardless of the outcome, the findings are also consistent with other models. In other words, every result isn’t informative.
<snip>
Click to expand...

The theory for AGW is well established and has been around a very long time. No one disputes this except a few bloggers on conspiracy websites. You have read them so long you find them credible. But real scientists continue to produce studies about AGW theory all the time.


Its ok.

Be upset.


Get it all out.


I can take it.


But you lost this one. Lol
 
vegas giants said:
The theory for AGW is well established and has been around a very long time. No one disputes this except a few bloggers on conspiracy websites. You have read them so long you find them credible. But real scientists continue to produce studies about AGW theory all the time.


Its ok.

Be upset.


Get it all out.


I can take it.


But you lost this one. Lol
Click to expand...

Scientifically speaking, it is still a hypothesis. Please get the facts right.
 
HIP56948 said:
It's a hard run, trying to convince certain types of people that Global Warming is happening and will get much worse. We have the typical deniers that seem to believe it's some kind of left-wing conspiracy to disrupt their lives. Then there are the types that just-won't-believe it..sort of like the "I can't hear youuuuuu"
The worst ones, to this poster, are the ones that know it's probably true but (being sociopaths..or close to it), have the disgusting thought that: "What the F*** do I care?..I'll be dead long before the proverbial crap hits the fan"
They're the worst of the bunch.
Click to expand...

Or there are the skeptics who are intelligent enough to look at the claimed "evidence" and realize the "evidence" is often poorly done science. Back in the day you could get away with spinning the numbers, but in today's Information Age people have the ability to check for themselves. And when you realize the numbers don't add up, you become a skeptic.
 
Waddy said:
Or there are the skeptics who are intelligent enough to look at the claimed "evidence" and realize the "evidence" is often poorly done science. Back in the day you could get away with spinning the numbers, but in today's Information Age people have the ability to check for themselves. And when you realize the numbers don't add up, you become a skeptic.
Click to expand...

And yet some of the greatest scientific minds this world has ever known, thousands of them, disagree with you
 
calamity said:
Extreme heat and rain here, drought there, swarms of locusts...you name it. **** is hitting the fan. And, there's even a new report out exploring it.
Click to expand...

Humans have been fearful of the weather for as long as people can remember, at least as far back as to the times of rain dancers.
 
vegas giants said:
The theory for AGW is well established and has been around a very long time. No one disputes this except a few bloggers on conspiracy websites. You have read them so long you find them credible. But real scientists continue to produce studies about AGW theory all the time.


Its ok.

Be upset.


Get it all out.


I can take it.


But you lost this one. Lol
Click to expand...

Ah, Dr. Vegas is still musing with no information, sourcing, knowledge or facts.

Good for you!
 
code1211 said:
Ah, Dr. Vegas is still musing with no information, sourcing, knowledge or facts.

Good for you!
Click to expand...

If you have nothing further...I accept your concession
 
vegas giants said:
And yet some of the greatest scientific minds this world has ever known, thousands of them, disagree with you
Click to expand...

An even greater number who haven't given an opinion on such a political topic.
 
vegas giants said:
Well I dont really care about the opinions of podiatrists on this subject. Lol
Click to expand...

How much bliss does your ignorance give? We hace been over this time and again referring the the 97% which is only 97% of those willing to give their view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom