• 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!

Socialists turn to weather gods to create world communism

Fenton said:
Those who point to this years Hurricane season as proof of AGW are ignoring all historical context and ignoring the last 12 years without a strom

Andrew back in the early 90s was a Cat 5 that nailed South Florida and Charlie was a Cat 4 that hit Florida in 2004. Florida was also hit with huge storms in 1935 and 1949

Rita was a Cat 5 that hit the Texas Coast and Alicia was a Cat 4 that hit Houston in the 80s

The 1900 Hurricane that hit Galveston was a Cat 4 that killed everyone on the Island

The Gulf and Atlantic waters have been warm enough to produce Cat 5s before so yea, Socialist who attribute this years Hurricane season to AGW aren' t that bright.
Click to expand...

You are ignoring certain aspects of the size of the hurricanes. One is the wind speed of course. The other is the size (diameter) of the hurricanes.
 
woodsman said:
No, science is never “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties. It’s actually astounding that this so called science would even remotely come close to being settled, because it’s not and never will be in our lifetimes.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct. But AGW is about as settled as any other science we base decisions on today: like cancer treatments, vaccination recommendations, rocket trajectories, etc... At some point the science is clear enough that you can make decisions on it. AGW is already there.

This statement is a joint statement from the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, perhaps two of the most elite and prestigious scientific organizations on the planet, to help clear up confusion among the public on this issue. If you think there is some lack of clarity on the issue, it has a nice Q&A section which I think you might like:
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-QA.pdf
 
RAMOSS said:
Do you?? Let's see actually make a point, and then explain why your point is supported by those sources.
Click to expand...




As I stated, It was a foundation for debate, something lacking in your replies, but not unexpected.

Now that we have your fail behind us, would you now like to try an easier subject? Maybe crayons/shapes and simple puzzles?


Hey,,,Al gore is a shoe in for Zeus, maybe Hillary could be Athena?

PS: You always play the punctuation and spelling cop, take a look at yourself.
 
RAMOSS said:
You are ignoring certain aspects of the size of the hurricanes. One is the wind speed of course. The other is the size (diameter) of the hurricanes.
Click to expand...

Wind speed and wind speed only determines Hurricane strength, always has always will, " diamater " is a arbitrary measure to try to tie this Hurricane season to AGW.

You may want to google a satelite image of Hurricane Andrew.

Its diameter extended from the tip of the Florida pensinsula into the pan handle and it was a Cat 5.

The Gulf waters and the Atlantic waters have been warm enough to create Cat 5 storms long before we relied on fossil fuels to power our homes and cars and factories.
 
woodsman said:
As I stated, It was a foundation for debate, something lacking in your replies, but not unexpected.

Now that we have your fail behind us, would you now like to try an easier subject? Maybe crayons/shapes and simple puzzles?


Hey,,,Al gore is a shoe in for Zeus, maybe Hillary could be Athena?

PS: You always play the punctuation and spelling cop, take a look at yourself.
Click to expand...

AH.. stream of consciousness,, or in this case, unconsciousness. and no point except sarcasm. Thought so.
 
Fenton said:
Wind speed and wind speed only determines Hurricane strength, always has always will, " diamater " is a arbitrary measure to try to tie this Hurricane season to AGW.

You may want to google a satelite image of Hurricane Andrew.

Its diameter extended from the tip of the Florida pensinsula into the pan handle and it was a Cat 5.

The Gulf waters and the Atlantic waters have been warm enough to create Cat 5 storms long before we relied on fossil fuels to power our homes and cars and factories.
Click to expand...

Let's look at a size comparison.


 
RAMOSS said:
You are ignoring certain aspects of the size of the hurricanes. One is the wind speed of course. The other is the size (diameter) of the hurricanes.
Click to expand...

And he's ignoring the facts that 3 monster storms have formed in one year AND the Gulf is 4-5 degrees warmer than usual.

But facts never mattered to Fenton..... So... I don't waste my time anymore
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
And he's ignoring the facts that 3 monster storms have formed in one year AND the Gulf is 4-5 degrees warmer than usual.

But facts never mattered to Fenton..... So... I don't waste my time anymore
Click to expand...

When it comes to facts and climate, to see who facts don't matter, look at the people denying there is global warming. Notice, they all are 'conservative' or 'libertarian'?
That shows it is a politcal stance. The fact woodsman brought up al gore proves that... and other than that, he is being pretty incoherent.
 
The previous three cat 5's were thirty years apart from each other This latest series all arrived in a little over a week, Maria is on her way, and Lee is still out there waiting his turn... Nothing to see here....
 
Manc Skipper said:
The previous three cat 5's were thirty years apart from each other This latest series all arrived in a little over a week, Maria is on her way, and Lee is still out there waiting his turn... Nothing to see here....
Click to expand...

There might be plenty to see. Only fools assert otherwise.

But ....why didn't that happen last year,or the year before, or the year before or the year before or the year before or the year before or the year before or the year before ?

Is it possible there might be more more to it?
 
Rob Larrikin said:
Though the anthropogenic (man-made) global warming myth has been disproved and debunked by thousands of climate scientists around the world, Socialists have kept it alive with their token pseudo-science, misinformation and Fake News, to take money from wealthy capitalist nations and give it to communists, under the guise of “Policing Emissions”.
.
Click to expand...

Er uh rob, you need to check in with your conservative masters. “global warming is a hoax” is Lying Conservative Narrative Rev 0. They’re on Rev 2, “its real and man made and wont be as bad as predicted. Not that you need to know but Rev 1 was “its real but not man made”. try to keep up.
 
RAMOSS said:
When it comes to facts and climate, to see who facts don't matter, look at the people denying there is global warming. Notice, they all are 'conservative' or 'libertarian'?
That shows it is a politcal stance. The fact woodsman brought up al gore proves that... and other than that, he is being pretty incoherent.
Click to expand...

Interesting, you brought my name into this, please dazzle us with why you think these last hurricanes are attributed to (AGW) you failed miserably in a direct debate but now feel the need for underhanded references. Funny, isn’t that the way with this whole topic and those involved.
 
Fenton said:
Lol...So no Hurricane Andrew ??

Again, the size of hurricanes are classified by wind speed, not " diameter ".
Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale

You see diameter anywhere in that NOAA link ?
Click to expand...

Yes, andrew is in there. Do watch it .. and actually read what the hurricanes are.

And, like I said, size does matter.. the wind speed is STRENGTH.. that is what makes it the various categories, but the size shows up in how much area is affected, and how much water is dumped.
 
Redress said:
See, in the grownup world, it is the responsibility of people to do their own research,
Click to expand...

I’ve done my research. The problem is, you obviously haven’t done yours. If you don’t know the arguments from both sides, and can’t even be bothered doing a ten second search to find them, why are you pretending to ‘debate’ the issue?

not make claims and then tell people to look it up.
Click to expand...

I assumed you knew the anti-AGW scientists and their position. It’s easy to see, and millions can be found with the press of a button. Yet you didn’t know about them. If you need me to do the ten second search for you, sure, I can do that, but hell lady, that’s so lazy of you. It’s like some dame telling me there is no such thing as an ocean, when all she has to do is turn her head to her window and see the Atlantic. Imagine how stupid that would be:

Scene: A house by the Atlantic ocean. Larrikin and a Dame stand beside floor to ceiling windows, with a stunning view of the Atlantic behind them.

Larrikin: The Atlantic Ocean looks great today.
Dame: What ocean? There is no ocean! And if you are going to make such idiotic claims you should provide evidence!
Larrikin: Turn your head to the right.
Dame: [Turns head]
Larrikin: There’s your proof.
Dame: Derp….

You moved the goalpost there...
Click to expand...

Learn to use the quote function. Otherwise I have no idea what you’re rambling about.

first it is man made climate change is proven false, now you are at a few scientists disagree with the theory, plus an editorial.
Click to expand...

Nope. Still don’t know what you’re rambling about. Quote function dear. Quote me. You say you’re 40 something – try acting like it.

Maybe you should spend less time insulting people, more time learning to debate...
Click to expand...

I provided opinions here, you have spent your time insulting. If you have an argument, put up or shut up.
 
ataraxia said:
Every single scientific organization, academy, and society on the planet, including the scientists who work at Exxon, now agree that AGW is real and man-made.
Click to expand...

That's a lie. Go find out about the scientists who disagree. Google and Bing are free.
 
woodsman said:
As soon as I kept hearing the repeated mantra of the “science is settled” it gave me cause for concern.
Click to expand...

Good.

I have no doubt that the climate is changing
Click to expand...

Climate always changes, and always will.

and humans have some impact on that.
Click to expand...

There is no proof they have any impact on it at all. It is just another weather god myth.

What is definitely in play is the gravy train of greed, It’s a sure bet when the UN jumps aboard for a piece of the pie red flags should immediately go up. The same can be said for the EU schemes, the Paris agreement and what now has become a global industry.

The hard left in the US, EU and UK have sort of adopted AGW as a religion and are as blinded by their faith as the staunchest of fundamentalist in any religious sect., so much so, any decent or questioning brings hell fire from this newly adopted religion, after all ,” The science is settled" even if that statement goes against everything science stands for.

If we then add in the greed gravy train of globalists which is basically a stale potpourri of socialists/communists and want to be anarchists you have the perfect storm.
Click to expand...

Well summarized and true.

I’m curious, If this is a Gods thing, will Al Gore insist on playing Zeus?
Click to expand...

He probably will. :D
 
ataraxia said:
The science is settled for lots of things.
Click to expand...

The mating call of Leftist extremists: “The science is settled.”

The only thing that has settled is a pall of ignorance and religious myopia on the ignorant masses, thanks to socialist ‘scientists’ and Fake News.
 
bait.jpg
 
Vern said:
Er uh rob, you need to check in with your conservative masters. “global warming is a hoax” is Lying Conservative Narrative Rev 0. They’re on Rev 2, “its real and man made and wont be as bad as predicted. Not that you need to know but Rev 1 was “its real but not man made”. try to keep up.
Click to expand...

Unlike you I think for myself, and use my own brain, not a Political Party's. Politicians will say what they need to get voted in, and if that means humoring the tribal people who believe in weather gods, so be it. Why do you think Trump praises God during his speeches? You don't actually believe he's silly enough to believe in a Santa Claus in the sky do you? When it comes to religion, politicians will always humor the public. If they don't, they lose.
 
Rob Larrikin said:
That's a lie. Go find out about the scientists who disagree. Google and Bing are free.
Click to expand...

He didn't say there werent any scientists. Read more carefully.
 
Deuce said:
He didn't say there werent any scientists. Read more carefully.
Click to expand...

True. The reason he can't find any organizations is because they mostly receive government funding. If they oppose AGW they don't get that funding. What the individual scientists really think is an entirely different matter. Thus, to see what scientists really believe you can really only go to non-government funded individual scientists, and many of them think AGW is a load of cobblers.
 
Rob Larrikin said:
I’ve done my research. The problem is, you obviously haven’t done yours. If you don’t know the arguments from both sides, and can’t even be bothered doing a ten second search to find them, why are you pretending to ‘debate’ the issue?
Click to expand...

Well, aren't you special. Good news tho! When you get to high school, they have an actual class on debate. It should help you. One of the first things you will learn is it is up to you to make your case. You have yet to make any case. You have yet to even offer any evidence to support your claims.

Rob Larrikin said:
I assumed you knew the anti-AGW scientists and their position. It’s easy to see, and millions can be found with the press of a button. Yet you didn’t know about them. If you need me to do the ten second search for you, sure, I can do that, but hell lady, that’s so lazy of you. It’s like some dame telling me there is no such thing as an ocean, when all she has to do is turn her head to her window and see the Atlantic. Imagine how stupid that would be:

Scene: A house by the Atlantic ocean. Larrikin and a Dame stand beside floor to ceiling windows, with a stunning view of the Atlantic behind them.

Larrikin: The Atlantic Ocean looks great today.
Dame: What ocean? There is no ocean! And if you are going to make such idiotic claims you should provide evidence!
Larrikin: Turn your head to the right.
Dame: [Turns head]
Larrikin: There’s your proof.
Dame: Derp….
Click to expand...

Random scenarios that have nothing to do with the topic do not in fact make your point. Do try and do better. Hint: maybe mention which anti-AGW hypothesis you believe in(hint: there is more than one). A link to what you believe, or at least an explanation would be helpful, and leave you looking less silly.

Rob Larrikin said:
Learn to use the quote function. Otherwise I have no idea what you’re rambling about.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I assumed you could read the thread. I will hold your hand and walk you through the rest since you seemingly cannot.

Oh, and it is really silly to complain people have not looked up what you believe, and then whine that you cannot read the thread to figure out what you said.

Rob Larrikin said:
Nope. Still don’t know what you’re rambling about. Quote function dear. Quote me. You say you’re 40 something – try acting like it.
Click to expand...

OK, let's walk through this. First, you say:

Rob Larrikin said:
Though the anthropogenic (man-made) global warming myth has been disproved and debunked by thousands of climate scientists around the world...
Click to expand...

When asked to show what the **** you are talking about, you go with this:

Rob Larrikin said:
Bing is your friend. You can type ‘Scientists oppose AGW’ can’t you? No? Okay, then here:

Scientists oppose AGW - Bing
Click to expand...

See, you go from "AGW has been disproven and debunked", to "some scientists disagree with AGW". Those are two significantly different things. But wait, you even manage to link to one of the bing returns, and quote it.:

Rob Larrikin said:
25.5 million results. Happy reading. I’ll start you off on the fifth link down:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...ptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#b4b1ce74c7c2

Quote:

“People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.”
Click to expand...

See, that does not hint, suggest state, or come even close to saying AGW has been disproven nor debunked. What it shows is that not all scientists(only a plurality) and engineers who are not climatologists(did you miss that fact? It is right there in your source) agree with the Kyoto Accord. Now, if you followed the link within your source, you would have seen this, which is kinda going to leave a mark...(SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research": "Indeed, while there is a broad consensus among climate scientists..."

Rob Larrikin said:
I provided opinions here, you have spent your time insulting. If you have an argument, put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

Really? You did not go with this as soon as some one questioned you:

Rob Larrikin said:
Are there any adults on this board, or is it only for teenagers?
Click to expand...
 
Thorgasm said:
Those hurricanes were fake news. In reality, they were a slight breeze and a half inch of rain.

Praise Exxon-Mobil!
Click to expand...


Blame New York Latinos and white Wisconsin farmers for those hurricanes.








He's right... the story line was taken from religion. Except, I disagree with him about the purpose the human sins narrative was created in creating storms and hurricanes that hit towns and peoples. I say it was created for a longer term vision to create an excuse by capitalist developed nations of the West to invade developing countries and seize control of their natural resources. The "humanitarian" excuse is always given now it was by Obama (Syria) and it is by Trump (North Korea). And it will eventually be used for Climate Change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom