• 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!

Global Warming is Worse than we Thought

Media_Truth said:
Watts, the High Schooler:lamo But it gets even worse - Breitbart :lamo:lamo:lamo
Click to expand...

Quaestio said:
Sheesh, Jack actually started a thread with this old recycled false claim.

I remember a thread a few years ago where someone posted a blog post (probably from WUWT) referring to the NoTrickZone climate truther whack-job blog about this same list of supposed papers that 'predicted cooling'. Upon actually reading the papers to check if the claim was true (something climate truthers rarely do), most of them didn't actually 'predict cooling' at at. Just the NoTricksZone truther blog up to it's usual dishonest tricks. And WUWT climate truther whack-job blog parroting the same "*********" (thanks for the word Surface Detail) as usual.
Click to expand...

Two fine examples of dodging the substance.
 
Jack Hays said:
Two fine examples of dodging the substance.
Click to expand...

No, you're just dodging the fact that there IS no substance to that rehashed lie. Just more evidence once again that you just copy and paste crap claims from conspiracy pseudoscience blogs without ever bothering to check the facts.
 
Quaestio said:
No, you're just dodging the fact that there IS no substance to that rehashed lie. Just more evidence once again that you just copy and paste crap claims from conspiracy pseudoscience blogs without ever bothering to check the facts.
Click to expand...

I suggest you read the link instead of parading your ignorance.
 
Jack Hays said:
I suggest you read the link instead of parading your ignorance.
Click to expand...

I suggest you actually read that list of papers on the NoTrickZone blog instead of parading your gullibility for believing everything on a pseudoscience conspiracy blog. I know that will never happen though. Checking facts is not your style.

Here's the Conspiracy Theory subforum.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/

Most of your copied and pasted blog posts belong there.
 
Last edited:
Quaestio said:
I suggest you actually read that list of papers on the NoTrickZone blog instead of parading your gullibility for believing everything on a pseudoscience conspiracy blog. I know that will never happen though. Checking facts is not your style.

Here's the Conspiracy Theory subforum.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/

Most of your copied and pasted blog posts belong there.
Click to expand...

From the link in #519:

[FONT=&quot]. . . In this review, I use an identical methodology to PCF-08, i.e., I examine peer-reviewed scientific journals. Non-peer-reviewed newspaper and magazine articles are not used. A significantly larger number of papers are presented in the current review than were used in PCF-08. . . . [/FONT]
 
Here's Jack's thread from 2 years ago with the same dishonest claims. Check out where real sceptics (not fake "skeptics" who never check facts) actually started reading the NoTrickzone list and found surprise surprise- almost none of the papers 'predicted future cooling'. Some just discussed past or current cooling. There was no "consensus" on future cooling in the 1970s/ Just a small number of scientists who were concerned that aerosols/pollution/nuclear winter could cause cooling.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...al-cooling-science-1970s.html?highlight=1970s

Here's my post where I started reading the papers starting at the end of the list:

Quaestio said:
You read a claim on a climate truther conspiracy blog: "What follows is a list of over 285 papers published during the 1960s, 70s and 80s showing there was a near consensus of an imminent global cooling", 'opened a couple' and are totally convinced the 'number is real!'.

Try actually reading ALL those papers - especially starting with the papers at the end of the list and working backwards. I'm up to the 20th 'paper' working from the other end of the list (there are now 307 on the list) and so far NONE of them are saying that there will be "imminent global cooling"

Your unscientific approach, extreme confirmation bias, and laziness leads you to being fooled very easily into un-sceptically believing whatever claims you read on climate truther conspiracy blogs.

This is typical of how myths, conspiracies, and pseudoscience claims by climate truthers get spread around the internet.
Click to expand...
There are also plenty of posts from other people who started reading random papers on the list and found they weren't about predictions of future cooling at all.

Just more rehashed blog post dishonesty copied and pasted by Jack from his favorite pseudoscience conspiracy blogs.
 
Last edited:
Quaestio said:
Here's Jack's thread from 2 years ago with the same dishonest claims. Check out where real sceptics (not fake "skeptics" who never check facts) actually started reading the NoTrickzone list and found surprise surprise- almost none of the papers 'predicted future cooling'. Some just discussed past or current cooling. There was no "consensus" on future cooling in the 1970s/ Just a small number of scientists who were concerned that aerosols/pollution/nuclear winter could cause cooling.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...al-cooling-science-1970s.html?highlight=1970s

Here's my post where I started reading the papers starting at the end of the list:


There are also plenty of posts from other people who started reading random papers on the list and found they weren't about predictions of future cooling at all.

Just more rehashed blog post dishonesty copied and pasted by Jack from his favorite pseudoscience conspiracy blogs.
Click to expand...

From the link in #519:

[FONT=&quot]It should be noted that KR-16 states that there were over 285 cooling papers. However, many of these papers were deleted from the current review as not being relevant. For example, several papers were either outside the 1965-1979 reference period or they emphasise the minor role of CO2 but do not consider climate trends.[/FONT]
 
Actually most of that list of papers on the NoTrickZone blog post were not 'relevant' because they did NOT support the dishonest blog claim that there was a "consensus" in the 1970's about "imminent global cooling"
 
Quaestio said:
Actually most of that list of papers on the NoTrickZone blog post were not 'relevant' because they did NOT support the dishonest blog claim that there was a "consensus" in the 1970's about "imminent global cooling"
Click to expand...

Like Donald Trump, you make claims without evidence.
 
Jack Hays said:
In any case, the topic is the current review, not a past one.
Click to expand...

It's pretty much the same rehashed **** based on the same dishonest claims from the NoTrickZone blog. Did you think people had forgotten your last hilarious and disastrous thread on this? Or do you pay so little attention to the blog post crap you copy and paste that you didn't remember your previous copied and pasted thread and how badly it bombed?
 
Quaestio said:
It's pretty much the same rehashed ****. Did you think people had forgotten your last hilarious and disastrous thread on this? Or do you pay so little attention to the blog post crap you copy and paste that you didn't remember your previous copied and pasted thread and how badly it bombed?
Click to expand...

You have a rich fantasy life. That was quite a successful thread, and this new one incorporates improved source material. I anticipate success this time too.
 
Jack Hays said:
You have a rich fantasy life. That was quite a successful thread, and this new one incorporates improved source material. I anticipate success this time too.
Click to expand...

^^^ Sad delusional thinking.
 
Quaestio said:
Sheesh, Jack actually started a thread with this old recycled false claim.

I remember a thread a few years ago where someone posted a blog post (probably from WUWT) referring to the NoTrickZone climate truther whack-job blog about this same list of supposed papers that 'predicted cooling'. Upon actually reading the papers to check if the claim was true (something climate truthers rarely do), most of them didn't actually 'predict cooling' at at. Just the NoTricksZone truther blog up to it's usual dishonest tricks. And WUWT climate truther whack-job blog parroting the same "fückwittery" (thanks for the word Surface Detail) as usual.
Click to expand...

We've been down this path many times. If I recall there was one year, in the early '70s when there were a few more scientific articles about cooling than warming. This was before the the trends of warming became so obvious. It was quickly debunked, and the upward temperature trends have continued for almost 50 years. But Denial is not about science and logic.
 
Suburban Jedi said:
OH really? So you understand the topic? WONDERFUL

So tell me, what is an isotope? How does say C12 differ from C13? (This is a VERY BASIC grade school level question, dear)

My guess is that you have no clue. :lamo
Click to expand...

C13 has 7 neutrons. C12 has 6.

Whoop t do...

Very basic stuff.
 
Suburban Jedi said:
OH really? So you understand the topic? WONDERFUL

So tell me, what is an isotope? How does say C12 differ from C13? (This is a VERY BASIC grade school level question, dear)

My guess is that you have no clue. :lamo
Click to expand...

Maybe you can tell us if the earth receives more solar energy in July, or in January?
 
calamity said:
Worse than we thought is actually an understatement.

Startling new research finds large buildup of heat in the oceans, suggesting a faster rate of global warming






The study
Click to expand...

Just to note, Real Climate has a nice overview of the issue and clarified the place that Resplandy et al’s paper fits in.

Looks like the oceans sure are sequestering a lot of heat. And Resplandys paper showed we could be underestimating how much by a lot. Future work should help narrow down just how much.

The long story of constraining ocean heat content « RealClimate

ded1365de1709506bd5a04c0ed482a39.jpg
 
Lord of Planar said:
Maybe you can tell us if the earth receives more solar energy in July, or in January?
Click to expand...

Jedi...

You have made almost 20 posts since I posted this question, I see you surrender...

And it's such a simple question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom