• 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!

All-time record heat scorches Middle East as temperatures hit 129 degrees

Jack Hays said:
Still off point.
Click to expand...

Make some tea by trying to boil water, while constantly adding ice cubes and see how that works out. You can call it ice tea.
 
Jack Hays said:
Nope. The Oceania study is one of a series documenting the global MWP. If you knew the literature you would know that.
Click to expand...

Do you have a clue how many thousands of studies there are about those periods? The fact that they can't even agree on the dates is telling.
 
Jack Hays said:
I have not claimed any victory because there has been no contest. You have avoided the debate.
Click to expand...

In other words, you keep saying vague comments without saying anything of substance. I get it, you don't know jack.
 
Gary said:
In other words, you keep saying vague comments without saying anything of substance. I get it, you don't know jack.
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts, and your claim is false. I have posted data and research. You have deflected and dodged.
 
Jack Hays said:
You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts, and your claim is false. I have posted data and research. You have deflected and dodged.
Click to expand...

Do you ever stop with your nonsense?

Here is an interesting subject, but not one examined by climate scientists. It's possible if ice age cycles continued, the amount of CO2 would be lowered enough to stamp out life. Another interesting subject is scientist believe we have already added enough CO2 to stop the next ice age. If that is the case, we are in uncharted waters and if it isn't the case, there is no reason it won't be, soon enough. There is no record of Earth evolving from an ice age cycle, not just one ice age, but many. It's hard to say how much carbon can be released from areas covered by glaciers for so many periods. Glaciers can plow the Earth and bury things.
 
Gary said:
I don't waste my time with denier studies. Deny your head isn't up your ass, I don't care. If you want to prove it with a proctologist, go ahead, it isn't my dime.
Click to expand...

Here is that study YOU never read but disparaged anyway :lol:

AGU

Two Millennia of South Atlantic Convergence Zone Variability Reconstructed From Isotopic Proxies

LINK

=================================================

Your hostility to science research is boring and illogical.
 
Jack Hays said:
I have not claimed any victory because there has been no contest. You have avoided the debate.
Click to expand...

He is so ignorant on this particular topic that he doesn't realize the existence of MANY published papers exist for GLOBAL extent of the MWP, it is easy to find, but only when they put down the bong and start reading the literature.
 
Gary said:
Do you ever stop with your nonsense?

Here is an interesting subject, but not one examined by climate scientists. It's possible if ice age cycles continued, the amount of CO2 would be lowered enough to stamp out life. Another interesting subject is scientist believe we have already added enough CO2 to stop the next ice age. If that is the case, we are in uncharted waters and if it isn't the case, there is no reason it won't be, soon enough. There is no record of Earth evolving from an ice age cycle, not just one ice age, but many. It's hard to say how much carbon can be released from areas covered by glaciers for so many periods. Glaciers can plow the Earth and bury things.
Click to expand...

Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla.

You talk a lot but say so little it is putting me to sleep out of boredom.
 
Gary said:
Like I wouldn't know a right-wing AGW denier site I have posted on when I see it? They won't even let a person say the word denier on that site. It's pseudo-science.
Click to expand...

What site are you referring to?
 
Gary said:
Do you have comprehensive data on MWP and the little ice age?



Source: Little Ice Age - Wikipedia



Source: Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia

And, the deniers say: "Curses! Foiled again!"

What is the primary source of information that originally clued a scientist to observe that these periods in the past existed? Observation is the first part of the scientific method and the answer is written accounts in a very small geographic area, mostly from clergy who knew how to write. Those weren't best seller days. Since the days an observation was named, tests haven't verified the events were global enough to warrant the name given to them and any exaggeration to make these annual global periods like the names suggest isn't supported by evidence.
Click to expand...

Well ... yeah. And you don't even realize that your own clips from Wikipedia (not always the wisest source given that's who used the Cook and Oreskes surveys as sources for the 97% lie) are telling you that something other than CO2 were climate drivers.
"Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth's orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population (for example from the Black Death and the colonization of the Americas)"
"Possible causes of the Medieval Warm Period include increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity, and changes to ocean circulation.[5] "

You mean you're now a denier of the MWP and LIA? I guess you kinda have to be in order to try to keep the AGW dream alive.
Because what do those suggested causes for the MWP and LIA have in common? I mean besides no CO2 component. C'mon, you can do it. It's one word.

Related unanswered question: How has the IPCC addressed the various climate forcings in their models? They're important, aren't they?
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
I have not claimed any victory because there has been no contest. You have avoided the debate.
Click to expand...

Sunsettommy said:
He is so ignorant on this particular topic that he doesn't realize the existence of MANY published papers exist for GLOBAL extent of the MWP, it is easy to find, but only when they put down the bong and start reading the literature.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you run across people without a lick of common sense but who remain unshakably impressed by themselves.
 
Gary said:
Do you ever stop with your nonsense?

Here is an interesting subject, but not one examined by climate scientists. It's possible if ice age cycles continued, the amount of CO2 would be lowered enough to stamp out life. Another interesting subject is scientist believe we have already added enough CO2 to stop the next ice age. If that is the case, we are in uncharted waters and if it isn't the case, there is no reason it won't be, soon enough. There is no record of Earth evolving from an ice age cycle, not just one ice age, but many. It's hard to say how much carbon can be released from areas covered by glaciers for so many periods. Glaciers can plow the Earth and bury things.
Click to expand...

So what?
 
Gary said:
Climate Skeptics, many years ago.
Click to expand...

There's no such site as "Climate Skeptics". You mean "Climate Skeptic"?
I just looked and there were 14 hits on the word "denier" on the main page.
Are you making stuff up again?
But quibbling about not using the word denier is strange coming from a MWP and LIA denier.
 
Gary said:
Take the mirror from your face.
Click to expand...

Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla.

You talk a lot but say so little it is putting me to sleep out of boredom.

Your empty reply didn't change anything.

Snicker...…………..
 
bubbabgone said:
Well ... yeah. And you don't even realize that your own clips from Wikipedia (not always the wisest source given that's who used the Cook and Oreskes surveys as sources for the 97% lie) are telling you that something other than CO2 were climate drivers.
"Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth's orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population (for example from the Black Death and the colonization of the Americas)"
"Possible causes of the Medieval Warm Period include increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity, and changes to ocean circulation.[5] "

You mean you're now a denier of the MWP and LIA? I guess you kinda have to be in order to try to keep the AGW dream alive.
Because what do those suggested causes for the MWP and LIA have in common? I mean besides no CO2 component. C'mon, you can do it. It's one word.

Related unanswered question: How has the IPCC addressed the various climate forcings in their models? They're important, aren't they?
Click to expand...

Wiki has a few things wrong, but that happens and it has footnotes. It's usually general knowledge and easily available. The things I've found wrong are minor mistakes, like a wrong picture of an aircraft being described. Deniers don't like wiki because even general knowledge shoots done their nonsense.

There is a wiki article on the IPCC findings for LIA and MWP. I remember the first report having the Lamb drawing.

http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Description_of_the_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_in_IPCC_reports

It's been the same old things for years with those past climate periods and the debate has always been the same, with deniers pulling the same cherry picking tactics to try to prove climate variability. In fact, every method to muddy the waters and prevent a scientific approach to examining climate change has been done. There exists and has existed a cottage industry of pseudo-science propaganda since the days when scientists reported why it became hot and remained hot in the Reagan administration.

Do you bother reading the IPCC reports? They aren't hard to get and they tell you how they address forcing in detail? The concepts aren't new, they've been in college textbooks for well over 50 years, well beyond the time of climate warming concerns. People have been studying every aspect you can think of involving why is this thing on Earth for longer than the present population has been alive.
 
Sunsettommy said:
Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla.

You talk a lot but say so little it is putting me to sleep out of boredom.

Your empty reply didn't change anything.

Snicker...…………..
Click to expand...

Keep up the dumb**** and I'll put you on ignore. I don't play with trolls.
 
bubbabgone said:
Sometimes you run across people without a lick of common sense but who remain unshakably impressed by themselves.
Click to expand...

They're legends in their own minds...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom