• 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!

New White House Climate Report

is man made climate change is real.

  • more sensationalism by the global warming alarmists

    Votes: 7 41.2%

  • is it real

    Votes: 10 58.8%
  • Total voters
    17
  • Poll closed .
Irwin Corey said:
Which is the point I’m trying to make. We need to take care of this world because its the right thing to do. Getting bogged down in a fight over specific issues seems to be obsfuscating that fact that we only have one word and we need to take care of it.
Click to expand...

Isn't it quant to write that we are able to take care of a planet that neither cares, or considers us? We are on a rocky planet that will do what it will. Once every Human devised measure of what we call a year, we revolve around one star in an small uncountable part of the sum of the same thing. Drive your gas guzzling vehicle as far as you want. Be secure in the sure knowledge, you couldn't change the Earth, even if you had to. Stop the crazy idea that humanity is just so very important, and more personally, the ridiculous taxes that, can you believe it, are going to save THE planet?
Regards,
CP
 
rickc said:
has anyone read it. Seems to say man made climate change is real. What do you think?

is this just more sensationalism by the global warming alarmists

or

the reality of our future
Click to expand...

Well what I do know to be True is "THAT THERE IS A LOT MORE HOT AIR COMING OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE THESE DAYS"
 
Irwin Corey said:
Which is the point I’m trying to make. We need to take care of this world because its the right thing to do. Getting bogged down in a fight over specific issues seems to be obsfuscating that fact that we only have one word and we need to take care of it.
Click to expand...

The specific issues are what all of it is about.

Unlucky, to have a voice you will need to take time to understand it.

Today vast amounts of agricultural production are diverted into biofuel. This has doubled the price of food. If this stopped today I guess that 20 million less deaths would happen by this date next year. The effect on the growth rate of the wealth of the poorest 3 billion people who live on less than $2.50 a day would be much greater still.

This doubling of food prices has also caused the land to be over worked and is resulting in degridation of the farmlands of the world.

The massive loss of rain forrest to plant date palm is another aspect of the artificially created hunger.

Simply taking the hype at face value and not questioning it allows useful idiots to be used to make the rich richer at enormous cost to the whole world.
 
Mr Person said:
But not a huge question since even the lower estimates are bad.
Click to expand...

OK, the lower estimates, about +0.7c by 2100.

What is bad about that?

Whilst you are at it what is bad about a +3c rise? I need your own words and you to explain how this bad thing happens from the warming (the mechanism).
 
Tim the plumber said:
OK, the lower estimates, about +0.7c by 2100.

What is bad about that?

Whilst you are at it what is bad about a +3c rise? I need your own words and you to explain how this bad thing happens from the warming (the mechanism).
Click to expand...

Again... the OP report outlines what’s bad.

Why the incessant whine to get spoon fed?
 
Tim the plumber said:
your own words!!!!!
Click to expand...

Why?

Are the words I linked to too complicated for you?

It’s actually completely irrelevant as to what *I* say. That’s how science works. It’s what the evidence shows, and that evidence needs to be interpreted by experts, not random anonymous DP posters.

You’re going to now go to your absurd posture that ‘you need to know that I understand it’, or when I post a single point, you’ll isolate it and reject it and say that since you rejected the one argument, obviously it’s all wrong. That’s your M.O., as we’ve seen with your absurd position on Greenland ice.

It’s clear you don’t know the facts, don’t care about the facts, and are prepared to reject any and all facts to support your uninformed position.
 
Tim the plumber said:
OK, the lower estimates, about +0.7c by 2100.

What is bad about that?

Whilst you are at it what is bad about a +3c rise? I need your own words and you to explain how this bad thing happens from the warming (the mechanism).
Click to expand...

The other night on TV I saw some flake screaming about the incredible danger in a 1°C change.
And she followed it with that 97% nonsense claim.
I wish she had said that first.

As for the climate report in question, we've learned enough about that to be able to put it in the same category as that screaming woman on TV that I mentioned.
 
bubbabgone said:
The other night on TV I saw some flake screaming about the incredible danger in a 1°C change.
And she followed it with that 97% nonsense claim.
I wish she had said that first.

As for the climate report in question, we've learned enough about that to be able to put it in the same category as that screaming woman on TV that I mentioned.
Click to expand...

Still awaiting your PNAS paper describing what the ‘real percentage’ of consensus is.

Because virtually - no, scratch that, *all* of the studies pretty clearly show an overwhelming consensus.
 
Threegoofs said:
Still awaiting your PNAS paper describing what the ‘real percentage’ of consensus is.

Because virtually - no, scratch that, *all* of the studies pretty clearly show an overwhelming consensus.
Click to expand...

Not true.
 
bubbabgone said:
The other night on TV I saw some flake screaming about the incredible danger in a 1°C change.
And she followed it with that 97% nonsense claim.
I wish she had said that first.

As for the climate report in question, we've learned enough about that to be able to put it in the same category as that screaming woman on TV that I mentioned.
Click to expand...

I just posted this in the beliefs sectoin;

Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
No one has shown any of the evidence I posted to be drivel. You don't want to read and you don't want to think. No one can help you with that.
Click to expand...
I am not going to look through 530 posts to find something that is not there.

If there was evidence against evolution you would shout about it. That you don't shows that you have none.
Click to expand...

The same applies just as clearly.
 
concernedpuma said:
Isn't it quant to write that we are able to take care of a planet that neither cares, or considers us? We are on a rocky planet that will do what it will. Once every Human devised measure of what we call a year, we revolve around one star in an small uncountable part of the sum of the same thing. Drive your gas guzzling vehicle as far as you want. Be secure in the sure knowledge, you couldn't change the Earth, even if you had to. Stop the crazy idea that humanity is just so very important, and more personally, the ridiculous taxes that, can you believe it, are going to save THE planet?
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...
Every one understands plate tectonics and the earths ability to remake itself. However quaint and ultimately fruitless you find conservation humans AbsaByGodLutely have demonstrated our capacity to impact our environment for both good and bad. Being environmentally responsible isn’t futile anymore than keeping a tidy home is, cleanliness is it’s own reward. Standing by and allowing our environmental well being to be sold so a few can profit is the ultimate in stupidity.

Your posts demonstrate repeatedly that you find yourself “clever with regards” but I don’t find naive smugness clever. Yes in the long run this old earth will keep on spinning with or without us. The debate is what quality of life are we creating for ourselves.

regards, yourself!
 
Last edited:
Tim the plumber said:
You have no clue.

You need to do it on a per second basis for all the power going in and out.
Click to expand...

You need to do it in an understandable reference for all readers. Degrees per decade computes easily for laymen. Seconds is an abstraction to obfuscate your ignorance.
/
 
DaveFagan said:
You need to do it in an understandable reference for all readers. Degrees per decade computes easily for laymen. Seconds is an abstraction to obfuscate your ignorance.
/
Click to expand...

If you wish to calculate the energy budget of the earth and work out how much humanity directly contributes to that you should do it per second.

You will find that the proportion is very very low. That the whole earth s not being significantly warmed by such things.
 
Tim the plumber said:
If you wish to calculate the energy budget of the earth and work out how much humanity directly contributes to that you should do it per second.

You will find that the proportion is very very low. That the whole earth s not being significantly warmed by such things.
Click to expand...

"You need to do it in an understandable reference for all readers. Degrees per decade computes easily for laymen. Seconds is an abstraction to obfuscate your ignorance."

My statement is precisely and surgically accurate.
/.
 
MSgt said:
Oh that's not how this happened at all.

Most people, who weren't in the science, chose to believe the growing amount of scientists until all the world's scientists agreed that it was real and that man's industrialization is exacerbating it to the point that it very much stands out in history.

- It was American conservatives who defaulted into disbelieving Global Warming because Gore was a liberal.

- They then defaulted to Global Warming being a "liberal hoax" when the Obama Administration officially agreed with the growing consensus of the world's scientists.

- And to attach on to this theme of irrationality among the conservative faithful, Trump actually tried to push the idea that Global Warming was Chinese hoax!

- And now the Trump Administration continues to play the political game, in which his constituents have prove to want, by declaring that the report is simply "inaccurate."

**** you in the butt hole science!

So, as far as an actual debate, I think that conservatives, generally, have chosen for years to sit it out. These are yesteryear's people who refused to believe that the sun did not revolve around the earth as God apparently said. They now look for ways within their political partisan game to oppose "the left" in order to find ways where they can maybe be correct about at least something along the way.
Click to expand...

As noted, I think it is far simpler than that. If human business and other activities affect the enviornment in negative ways, that argues for rules to modify businesses' behavior one way or another. Conservatives oppose rules to modify businesses' behavior. Therefore they tend to be skeptical about the science. I don't think it is much more complicated than that. If I have a financial interest in cigarettes not being exposed as causing cancer or in auto exhaust not linked to smog, I will be skeptical about the evidence in those areas as well. Why else would a scientific issue become a partisan one? Follow the money.
 
DaveFagan said:
"You need to do it in an understandable reference for all readers. Degrees per decade computes easily for laymen. Seconds is an abstraction to obfuscate your ignorance."

My statement is precisely and surgically accurate.
/.
Click to expand...

And irrelevant.

You must understand the fraction that human produced heat energy is compared to the natural amount that the earth gets.
 
Tim the plumber said:
And irrelevant.

You must understand the fraction that human produced heat energy is compared to the natural amount that the earth gets.
Click to expand...

I see. Then just write that fraction. A fraction is a specific number that you clain to know. Flaunt it, don't ya' know?
/
 
Nickyjo said:
As noted, I think it is far simpler than that. If human business and other activities affect the enviornment in negative ways, that argues for rules to modify businesses' behavior one way or another. Conservatives oppose rules to modify businesses' behavior. Therefore they tend to be skeptical about the science. I don't think it is much more complicated than that. If I have a financial interest in cigarettes not being exposed as causing cancer or in auto exhaust not linked to smog, I will be skeptical about the evidence in those areas as well. Why else would a scientific issue become a partisan one? Follow the money.
Click to expand...

I will counter that with saying liberals love to be authoritarian, therefore they like the idea of punishing people with large carbon footprints.

I agree. Follow the money. Just go and find out how much money the AGW crowd gets vs. the non-AGW guys in the climate science.

Yes... Follow the money.

The fact that you don't know the AGW side gets more than 99% of the finding, is real telling of the ignorance of the warmers.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I will counter that with saying liberals love to be authoritarian, therefore they like the idea of punishing people with large carbon footprints.

I agree. Follow the money. Just go and find out how much money the AGW crowd gets vs. the non-AGW guys in the climate science.

Yes... Follow the money.

The fact that you don't know the AGW side gets more than 99% of the finding, is real telling of the ignorance of the warmers.
Click to expand...

Back to that conspiracy - that thousands and thousands of Climatologists around the world are living a lie. There's a flat-earth conspiracy group. Maybe you'd be interested in that.
 
Irwin Corey said:
Every one understands plate tectonics and the earths ability to remake itself. However quaint and ultimately fruitless you find conservation humans AbsaByGodLutely have demonstrated our capacity to impact our environment for both good and bad. Being environmentally responsible isn’t futile anymore than keeping a tidy home is, cleanliness is it’s own reward. Standing by and allowing our environmental well being to be sold so a few can profit is the ultimate in stupidity.

Your posts demonstrate repeatedly that you find yourself “clever with regards” but I don’t find naive smugness clever. Yes in the long run this old earth will keep on spinning with or without us. The debate is what quality of life are we creating for ourselves.

regards, yourself!
Click to expand...

I write Regards as a sign off, because I genuinely do have regard for you and everyone else on the board. Please don't, by any stretch, twist that into an insult.
It is true we can in a confined area, affect the environment. Stand behind a City bus for proof of that. My argument is that as a species our affect on this planet is minimal. You write of those who make money from pollution, but follow blindly, it seems, the idea that only by carbon tax and start up companies that line other pockets can we save the planet. I don't believe that. I believe in a clean house, and planet with attention to careless tossing of wrappers and other unconfined waste. I do not accept that we as a species can significantly alter a planets biosphere, anymore than we can change plate tectonics.
Regards,
CP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom