• 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 scientists give clear warning

snakestretcher said:
See post #125
Click to expand...

Wow, you are completely dishonest. You made the claim that there is proof of manmade AGW and now you backtrack, saying its a theory and must be disproven? Youve gone from appeal to authority fallacy to the proving a negative fallacy. Congratulations on showing your complete untrustworthiness in debate. Well done.
 
PoS said:
Wow, you are completely dishonest. You made the claim that there is proof of manmade AGW and now you backtrack, saying its a theory and must be disproven? Youve gone from appeal to authority fallacy to the proving a negative fallacy. Congratulations on showing your complete untrustworthiness in debate. Well done.
Click to expand...

No, I did not. I said there is evidence. That's something entirely different. Perhaps you should check your definitions and learn how science works. There is evidence that gravity exists. There is no proof that it does; it remains a theory (relativity).

How Do We 'Prove' A Well-Established Theory Like Gravity?

Learn how science works and then we can have a discussion. Science doesn't deal in absolutes, and never has. If it did we wouldn't get anywhere and science would stagnate. If this is too hard for you to understand go back to school.
 
Last edited:
snakestretcher said:
No, I did not. I said there is evidence. That's something entirely different. Perhaps you should check your definitions and learn how science works. There is evidence that gravity exists. There is no proof that it does; it remains a theory (relativity).

How Do We 'Prove' A Well-Established Theory Like Gravity?

Learn how science works and then we can have a discussion. Science doesn't deal in absolutes, and never has. If it did we wouldn't get anywhere and science would stagnate.
Click to expand...

When asked for proof of manmade AGW you chicken out. Noted.

I suppose you believe God exists because he cannot be disproven either? How predictable.
 
PoS said:
When asked for proof of manmade AGW you chicken out. Noted.

I suppose you believe God exists because he cannot be disproven either? How predictable.
Click to expand...

Are you not able to read and understand basic English? There is no such concept as 'proof' in science. This is like debating with my dog, and no more productive. No, I don't believe in 'gods', because there is no scientific method of disproving an idea. You really are clueless. Have a great day.
 
Last edited:
snakestretcher said:
Are you not able to read and understand basic English? There is no such concept as 'proof' in science. This is like debating with my dog, and no more productive. No, I don't believe in 'gods', because there is no scientific method of disproving an idea. You really are clueless. Have a great day.
Click to expand...

If you think that the hypothesis of manmade AGW is equal to that of the laws of gravity then you have the scientific understanding of a 5 year old.
 
PoS said:
If you think that the hypothesis of manmade AGW is equal to that of the laws of gravity then you have the scientific understanding of a 5 year old.
Click to expand...

You have none whatsoever, that much is clear. I provided several links to help you understand which you clearly ignored. I don't know why I bothered.
 
snakestretcher said:
You have none whatsoever, that much is clear. I provided several links to help you understand which you clearly ignored. I don't know why I bothered.
Click to expand...

If you have no proof of manmade AGW then its clear you have nothing to back your argument up. And its also clear you do have a "side," which is plainly obvious.
 
PoS said:
If you have no proof of manmade AGW then its clear you have nothing to back your argument up. And its also clear you do have a "side," which is plainly obvious.
Click to expand...

I'll type this very slowly so even you can understand. In science 'proof' does not exist. Instead there are theories and hypotheses which remain in place until a better theory or hypothesis is put forward. I can't believe anyone can be so dense as not to understand something so basic. That's it, you're done:2wave:
 
snakestretcher said:
How many times did the Wright brothers get it wrong, until they got it right? How many times did Babbage get it wrong until his first 'Difference Engine' computer worked? Every scientific process goes through trial and error. It's how science works-unlike 'god did it, case closed'.
Click to expand...

It didn't take Babbage and the Wright brothers 60 years to make a determination now, did it. They had failures that they overcame within a very short specific amount of time. These experts continue to make the very same claim like its handed down from God, then when it doesn't happen, they rinse and repeat over and over and over and over.

This isn't science, its uneducated speculation that dates back to the late 1800s. These are not climate experts, they are climate activist. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change shows climate tipping points have a long history of repetition, moved deadlines and utter failure. The book documents that the earliest climate “tipping point” was issued in 1864 by MIT professor who warned of “climatic excess” unless humans changed their ways.

The United Nations alone has spent more than a quarter of a century announcing a series of ever-shifting deadlines by which the world must act or face disaster from anthropogenic climate change.
 
snakestretcher said:
I'll type this very slowly so even you can understand. In science 'proof' does not exist. Instead there are theories and hypotheses which remain in place until a better theory or hypothesis is put forward. I can't believe anyone can be so dense as not to understand something so basic. That's it, you're done:2wave:
Click to expand...
So you agree that there is no proof of AGW, so it is merely an opinion- good.
 
PoS said:
So you agree that there is no proof of AGW, so it is merely an opinion- good.
Click to expand...

No, a theory is not an opinion. You should have spent more time studying so you wouldn't be posting such ignorance. I swear my dog is brighter than some humans on this forum.
 
Condor060 said:
It didn't take Babbage and the Wright brothers 60 years to make a determination now, did it. They had failures that they overcame within a very short specific amount of time. These experts continue to make the very same claim like its handed down from God, then when it doesn't happen, they rinse and repeat over and over and over and over.

This isn't science, its uneducated speculation that dates back to the late 1800s. These are not climate experts, they are climate activist. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change shows climate tipping points have a long history of repetition, moved deadlines and utter failure. The book documents that the earliest climate “tipping point” was issued in 1864 by MIT professor who warned of “climatic excess” unless humans changed their ways.

The United Nations alone has spent more than a quarter of a century announcing a series of ever-shifting deadlines by which the world must act or face disaster from anthropogenic climate change.
Click to expand...

Another clueless post. Great, keep 'em coming.
 
snakestretcher said:
No, let me guess. You don't have a clue about climatology and claim everything that you think is going to cost you money is a global conspiracy. Am I close?
Click to expand...

My post proves I know what the scam is all about.

There's not one single proposed solution to so-called climate change that doesn't include giving climate "scientists" billions of dollars and giving the government more control over the private sector.
 
snakestretcher said:
Are you a climate scientist? Do you have any relevant qualifications in the sciences? My guess is 'no'. But of course every scientist who has studied AGW is a paid-for stooge of some nefarious left-wing scam, designed to separate you from your cash. Right?
Click to expand...
Most of the scientists who claim man made warming are merely taking advantage of government research grants, knowing that going against the man made claims will not gain them many grant's. No, I am not a climate scientist. However I am only convinced by honestly peer reviewed science. That leaves out the politicised junk science claiming man made warming.


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
ObamacareFail said:
Most of the scientists who claim man made warming are merely taking advantage of government research grants, knowing that going against the man made claims will not gain them many grant's. No, I am not a climate scientist. However I am only convinced by honestly peer reviewed science. That leaves out the politicised junk science claiming man made warming.


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So, how many peer reviewed publications have you bothered to read? Can you name one? I'm sure you are also aware that the vast majority of scientists are already gainfully employed by scientific institutions, universities etc. They aren't sitting around waiting for the next grant cheque to drop onto the door mat.
 
So called climate scientist and other political nit wits said 20 years ago we would all be dead by now if we didnt do what they said. Its all political BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
snakestretcher said:
So, how many peer reviewed publications have you bothered to read? Can you name one? I'm sure you are also aware that the vast majority of scientists are already gainfully employed by scientific institutions, universities etc. They aren't sitting around waiting for the next grant cheque to drop onto the door mat.
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of how many peer reviewed publications you or I have read. It's a matter of what is or is not peer reviewed to begin with. In the medical field for instance researchers actually seek opposing views for the sake of peer review. They prefer that newly developed medical advances are thoroughly checked out, both by those who agree or disagree with their conclusions. Those claiming man made climate change shun peer review. They simply label anyone disagreeing with their conclusions as flat earthers.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
Crovax said:
Here is the problem. They have been saying that my entire life and despite the us increasing in population by 30% roughly 100 million people we are producing the same amount of carbon. So we clearly have made strides and by doing very little. Also every prediction about rising temperatures based on carbon in the atmosphere has been way too high. We clearly don’t understand exactly how carbon and warming work together.

So anyone making a doomsday prediction I simply don’t find credible
Click to expand...

LOL It is your contention that science does not understand the greenhouse effect? :lamo Which keeps you warmer two blankets or one? You are also clueless about fossil fuel use.

25-years-of-fossil-fuel-consumption.png
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
LOL It is your contention that science does not understand the greenhouse effect? :lamo Which keeps you warmer two blankets or one? You are also clueless about fossil fuel use.

25-years-of-fossil-fuel-consumption.png
Click to expand...

I was talking about US carbon production and you posted a graph of world production. It’s very clear that you are clueless
 
Crovax said:
I was talking about US carbon production and you posted a graph of world production. It’s very clear that you are clueless
Click to expand...

But if any significant warming has stopped, which it has, why do we need to get all squirrely about it?????????????????
 
Logical1 said:
But if any significant warming has stopped, which it has, why do we need to get all squirrely about it?????????????????
Click to expand...

LOL Warming has not stopped and it will not stop as long as the Earth absorbs more heat than it reflects. 90% of the excess heat is going into the oceans so even it the air temperatures don't rise ocean temps do.
 
Crovax said:
I was talking about US carbon production and you posted a graph of world production. It’s very clear that you are clueless
Click to expand...

LOL The U.S. is on the same Earth as the rest of the world. Did you not know that either? Global carbon output is all that matters.
 
ObamacareFail said:
I am going to assume one, that you are not a climate scientist and you jumped on the man-made warming side motivated purely by modern political correctness and two that you lack the maturity to accept that there are opposing views on a very controversial subject. To put it bluntly, referring to those who do not accept your view as flat earthers makes you appear as a flat earther, yourself. There have been more warming and cooling cycles on this planet in it's long history then we can accurately count. To claim with alleged 100% certainly that the most recent warming cycle is man made without considering all natural causes that caused all the previous cycles is worse then what you consider flat earther. You are basically sticking your head in the sand.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



Your use of the term “political correctness” does not apply here. I recommend you look up the definition.

“you lack the maturity to accept that there are opposing views”

It is self-evident that I accept the existence of opposing view by taking up this subject with you. I just reject the validity of your opinion for its lack of factual support in the face of a preponderance of scientific study that validates the fact of man’s contribution to global warming.

“To put it bluntly, referring to those who do not accept your view as flat earthers makes you appear as a flat earther, yourself.”

Of course, I don’t mean “flat-earther” to be taken literally. In fact, even back then there was hardly anyone who so believed. A round earth was the accepted theory back in Greek times. I mean “flat-earther” as meant nowadays: “a person who holds outdated or disproven beliefs.” That definition would not apply to me, but would to you, with the caveat that a belief can be held with being based on fact. Such as a belief in a supreme being where it cannot be proven that a god does not exist as science is not about proving what does not exist.

“There have been more warming and cooling cycles on this planet in it's long history then we can accurately count.”

To the best of accepted science, earth has roughly 100,000-year cycles of warming and cooling. If you accept science’ age of the planet, you can figure to that accuracy the number of cycles.

“To claim with alleged 100% certainly that the most recent warming cycle is man made without considering all natural causes that caused all the previous cycles is worse then what you consider flat earther.”

I made no claim of “100% certainty”. Climate science puts that figure at 95% (the same certainty that cigarette smoking causes cancer) based on a model of categories ranging from 95 to 99% certainty.
 
bluesmoke said:
Your use of the term “political correctness” does not apply here. I recommend you look up the definition.

“you lack the maturity to accept that there are opposing views”

It is self-evident that I accept the existence of opposing view by taking up this subject with you. I just reject the validity of your opinion for its lack of factual support in the face of a preponderance of scientific study that validates the fact of man’s contribution to global warming.

“To put it bluntly, referring to those who do not accept your view as flat earthers makes you appear as a flat earther, yourself.”

Of course, I don’t mean “flat-earther” to be taken literally. In fact, even back then there was hardly anyone who so believed. A round earth was the accepted theory back in Greek times. I mean “flat-earther” as meant nowadays: “a person who holds outdated or disproven beliefs.” That definition would not apply to me, but would to you, with the caveat that a belief can be held with being based on fact. Such as a belief in a supreme being where it cannot be proven that a god does not exist as science is not about proving what does not exist.

“There have been more warming and cooling cycles on this planet in it's long history then we can accurately count.”

To the best of accepted science, earth has roughly 100,000-year cycles of warming and cooling. If you accept science’ age of the planet, you can figure to that accuracy the number of cycles.

“To claim with alleged 100% certainly that the most recent warming cycle is man made without considering all natural causes that caused all the previous cycles is worse then what you consider flat earther.”

I made no claim of “100% certainty”. Climate science puts that figure at 95% (the same certainty that cigarette smoking causes cancer) based on a model of categories ranging from 95 to 99% certainty.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but when you toss the term "flat earthers" at people who disagree with you, whether you mean it literally or not, you lose any real qualification to debate the issue at any level. If you want your point of view respected, you must show at least a modicum of respect for opposing views.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom