• 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 scientist explains people are not appreciating how big the problem is

Lord of Planar said:
If they write material that nobody wants, who will give them grant money?
Click to expand...
LOL

You dont understand how granting works, who gives the grants, what the goal is for funders, yet you think you understand this giant conspiracy theory.

Its hilarious, although its kinda pathetic that you cant recognize how absurd it is.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL

You dont understand how granting works, who gives the grants, what the goal is for funders, yet you think you understand this giant conspiracy theory.

Its hilarious, although its kinda pathetic that you cant recognize how absurd it is.
Click to expand...
Your invalid opinion is noted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Opossum said:
How many eco-vangelists have prophesied that X location would be underwater by a particular date?
Click to expand...

You made the accusation, so give us some examples. I doubt that you can. You were just blowing smoke with a typical denier talking point.


Did you get upset because I questioned your religion?

It’s not a religion. It’s science. Please pay better attention.
 
watsup said:
You made the accusation, so give us some examples. I doubt that you can. You were just blowing smoke with a typical denier talking point.


Did you get upset because I questioned your religion?

It’s not a religion. It’s science. Please pay better attention.
Click to expand...
It definitely a religion.

Doomsday Addiction: Celebrating 50 years of Failed Climate Predictions

Politicians, scientists, and celebs assure us the apocalypse is tomorrow, and if not, the day after will do. Buckle up for a look at 50 years of cataclysmic predictions.
www.agweb.com www.agweb.com
 
watsup said:
Yes, that is a standard denier talking point, but it doesn’t make it an actuality.
Click to expand...
That climate alarmists have a decades long record of failed predictions? That reality?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Opossum said:
That climate alarmists have a decades long record of failed predictions? That reality?
Click to expand...

The reality remains that there is global warming and associated climate change due to the contribution of excess CO2 to the atmosphere due to the output of the machines of humans, and that long-term consequences can be quite severe.
 
watsup said:
The reality remains that there is global warming and associated climate change due to the contribution of excess CO2 to the atmosphere due to the output of the machines of humans, and that long-term consequences can be quite severe.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is your mantra.
 
Opossum said:
It definitely a religion.

Doomsday Addiction: Celebrating 50 years of Failed Climate Predictions

Politicians, scientists, and celebs assure us the apocalypse is tomorrow, and if not, the day after will do. Buckle up for a look at 50 years of cataclysmic predictions.
www.agweb.com www.agweb.com
Click to expand...
The Irony and tragedy, is that the very real observations of global cooling in the 1970, were followed by
legislation around the world to limit aerosol pollution. These limits really helped, but perhaps too much.
Since 1985 what was global dimming, was reversed to become global brightening.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth's Surface
Since 2002, the CERES satellites have been looking for an energy imbalance in the longwave radiation spectrum,
but are only seeing an increase in Absorbed Solar Radiation (ASR), like what we would expect from aerosol clearing.
So the Global warming since 1978 could indeed be from Human activity, just not the activity they are blaming.
 
watsup said:
That is the science of the matter, as opposed to the denier talking points that you so love.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. Your predictions are all wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Opossum said:
No, it isn't. Your predictions are all wrong.
Click to expand...

Get back to me when you want a serious discussion instead of your just posting denier talking points. I suspect that will be never.
 
watsup said:
Get back to me when you want a serious discussion instead of your just posting denier talking points. I suspect that will be never.
Click to expand...
It's not a talking point. Climate alarmists have a decades long shit track record on their predictions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
"If the fracturing of our once stable climate doesn’t terrify you"

that's as far as I got

we've never had a stable climate - its always changed, always will
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Volunteer said:
For instance, melting glaciers?
Click to expand...
What does the term interglacial period mean to you?
To me it means the time between Glacial periods, when glaciers recede.
The Ice core records, indicate that has happened roughly 10 times int he last 800,000 years,
with at least four of those interglacial periods being warmer than we are currently.
Thankfully the VAST majority of the glaciers melted between 18,000 and 8,000 years ago.
 
stealthycat said:
"If the fracturing of our once stable climate doesn’t terrify you"

that's as far as I got

we've never had a stable climate - its always changed, always will
Click to expand...

Standard denier talking point. *YAWN*
 
watsup said:
Standard denier talking point. *YAWN*
Click to expand...

its true

did you know we once has ice ages ? what happened ? CLIMATE CHANGE happened - amazing, i know !
 
Opossum said:
Yes, that is your mantra.
Click to expand...
That mantra is also a deliberate lie. Atmospheric CO2 has absolutely no effect on surface temperatures. According to 420,000 years of empirical evidence surface temperatures influences atmospheric CO2, not the other way around. When surface temperatures increase, so does atmospheric CO2. When surface temperatures decrease, so does atmospheric CO2. Furthermore, there is a delay of several centuries between changes in surface temperature and changes in atmospheric CO2. Depending on the study you reference, it could be anywhere from a delay of 400 years to 1,400 years.

The above is the consensus among scientists. They may differ as to the amount of delay before atmospheric CO2 is effected, but there is no disagreement that atmospheric CO2 is subject to changes in surface temperatures and not the other way around like the religious AGW leftists want you to believe. They cannot provide a single piece of evidence to demonstrate that atmospheric CO2 has any effect on surface temperatures. All they have are climate models, which have proven to be wrong in absolutely every case since the 1970s.
 
eohrnberger said:
A quick scan of the OP's citation it seems that it is indeed opinion, and it's focus is more on the concern of people who are already inculcated in the climate change religion feeling helpless (probably by design from the get go), and the climate change religion heretics who are reasonably and legitimately questioning that 'science', which is legitimately part of the scientific method (8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists) ).
Click to expand...
LOL You guys are a broken record. You think climate change is like election denial. If you say it is not real enough that will make it so . No matter how many times you make false claims they remain false. You have no more evidence that AGW is not a real than the 2020 election being fraudulent. The scientific method requires evidence you know.
 
Glitch said:
That mantra is also a deliberate lie. Atmospheric CO2 has absolutely no effect on surface temperatures. According to 420,000 years of empirical evidence surface temperatures influences atmospheric CO2, not the other way around. When surface temperatures increase, so does atmospheric CO2. When surface temperatures decrease, so does atmospheric CO2. Furthermore, there is a delay of several centuries between changes in surface temperature and changes in atmospheric CO2. Depending on the study you reference, it could be anywhere from a delay of 400 years to 1,400 years.

The above is the consensus among scientists. They may differ as to the amount of delay before atmospheric CO2 is effected, but there is no disagreement that atmospheric CO2 is subject to changes in surface temperatures and not the other way around like the religious AGW leftists want you to believe. They cannot provide a single piece of evidence to demonstrate that atmospheric CO2 has any effect on surface temperatures. All they have are climate models, which have proven to be wrong in absolutely every case since the 1970s.
Click to expand...
LOL You are still stuck in the which comes first the chicken or the egg loop. Atmospheric CO2 is the Earth's thermostat and always has been.

Because carbon dioxide accounts for 80% of the non-condensing GHG forcing in the current climate atmosphere, atmospheric carbon dioxide therefore qualifies as the principal control knob that governs the temperature of Earth.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/...accounts for,governs the temperature of Earth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom