• 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!

More alarmist stories,

Jack Hays said:
What hypocrisy! The AGW literature is replete with regional paleoclimate research. Stop dodging and hiding.
Click to expand...

Uhh... the paleoclimate literature is replete with regional studies.

I don’t know the AGW literature. It’s not a science.
 
Threegoofs said:
No...that’s what would be triggering the sea level rise.

I guess you understanding of this concept is poorer than I assumed.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of the claimed cause and effect. Nonetheless the timeline was Hansen's. You're only digging his hole deeper.
 
Threegoofs said:
Uhh... the paleoclimate literature is replete with regional studies.

I don’t know the AGW literature. It’s not a science.
Click to expand...


Interesting how how you abandon "consensus" when you get in trouble. In any case, the meaning was clear and you continue to dodge.
 
Jack Hays said:
Interesting how how you abandon "consensus" when you get in trouble. In any case, the meaning was clear and you continue to dodge.
Click to expand...

Abandon consensus? Please expl... oh never mind. I’m sure it’s some ridiculous point anyway.

The fact remains, I can pick up a paleoclimate journal, but I can’t pick up an AGW journal. I realize for some it’s hard to discern scientific fields from scientific facts.
 
Threegoofs said:
Abandon consensus? Please expl... oh never mind. I’m sure it’s some ridiculous point anyway.

The fact remains, I can pick up a paleoclimate journal, but I can’t pick up an AGW journal. I realize for some it’s hard to discern scientific fields from scientific facts.
Click to expand...

Regardless, regional paleoclimate research has been common in literature considered to support the AGW "consensus."
 
Jack Hays said:
Regardless, regional paleoclimate research has been common in literature considered to support the AGW "consensus."
Click to expand...

You mean it reflects reality?

Regardless, some paper describing climate conditions in some Chinese region in 1200 is, by itself, hardly a paper displaying a contrary view to the general scientific consensus of AGW.

Unless, of course, you are desperate.
 
Threegoofs said:
You mean it reflects reality?

Regardless, some paper describing climate conditions in some Chinese region in 1200 is, by itself, hardly a paper displaying a contrary view to the general scientific consensus of AGW.

Unless, of course, you are desperate.
Click to expand...

Data are data, and judging by your efforts to denigrate them, I don't think I'm the desperate one.
 
Jack Hays said:
Data are data, and judging by your efforts to denigrate them, I don't think I'm the desperate one.
Click to expand...

Yes, that seems the ploy for Denialists, other than most probably most use the correct verb form. "Data is data". It can come from a High Schooler or a Tobacco Denier. You don't seem to care, as long as it fits your narrative. One thing is for certain, it doesn't come from the accredited scientific organizations that I mentioned.
 
Nickyjo said:
I have solar panels and the lights work all the time and my utility bill is minuscule compared to before. But I got a significant tax credit for doing so. I assume that if we give more subsidies and incentives to alternatives, spend something like we do protecting oil, do our best with natural gas, try to find a solution to waste from nuclear, etc., we can stall things til better solutions come along. But I presume that the US puts itself at a disadvantage by our go-it-alone attitude. Then again, that has been our mostly sad pattern with respect to international issues for quite a while. When you are the biggest and baddest, you can do that. We are a strange combination: one strain in our politics sets up international rules to create peace and prosperity; the other has no use for such sissy stuff. Baffles my European friends.
Click to expand...

The reason your lights work all the time, is that the utility who provides your base load electricity,
is running a power plant for all the times you panels do not supply as much as you demand.
This happens every night, as well as on cloudy days, and when a large appliance turns on.
Without the grids assistance, your solar panel system and battery system would be much more costly,
to provide the same level of living standard.
Without some for of grid level storage, grid assist solar will always require power plants backing it up.
 
Media_Truth said:
Yes, that seems the ploy for Denialists, other than most probably most use the correct verb form. "Data is data". It can come from a High Schooler or a Tobacco Denier. You don't seem to care, as long as it fits your narrative. One thing is for certain, it doesn't come from the accredited scientific organizations that I mentioned.
Click to expand...

The word "data" is a plural. It is the plural of "datum." I take it you never studied Latin.
The referenced papers were all produced at accredited institutions and published in the scientific literature via the peer review process. I think you know that, but your emotions are clouding your thoughts.
 
Threegoofs said:
Me either.

You’re just spamming analyses that misrepresent scientific research and publications.

A little less deplorable, but still....
Click to expand...

No, again. Your claim of false equivalence fails. An increasing stream of research is producing results tending to falsify the AGW hypothesis.
 
Jack Hays said:
The word "data" is a plural. It is the plural of "datum." I take it you never studied Latin.
The referenced papers were all produced at accredited institutions and published in the scientific literature via the peer review process. I think you know that, but your emotions are clouding your thoughts.
Click to expand...

Your unscientific agendum is showing.
 
Climate News
[h=1]Can open and honest scientists win public trust?[/h]From MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING, Mich. — With the increased politicization of science, more and more people continue to be skeptical of research, especially when it comes to hot-button topics such as climate change and vaccines. Michigan State University researchers wondered whether it would be better for scientists to acknowledge some of their personal…
 
Media_Truth said:
Your unscientific agendum is showing.
Click to expand...
"Agenda" is always correct.

[COLOR=#878787 !important]Origin[/COLOR]
ABblaAGsgNwDAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC

early 17th century (in the sense ‘things to be done’): from Latin, neuter plural of agendum, gerund of agere ‘do.’
 
Last edited:
Media_Truth said:
Based on the actions of our Commander-in-Chief, he wants to escape from the friendship of the Europeans and other allies. He bad-mouths Mexico, and even sickly joked about sending American troops there. He doesn't seem to realize that Australia, Great Britain, and Germany are our allies, as he has taken pot-shots at leaders in those countries. But worst of all, and more relevant to this thread, is that he bent to the whims of the fossil fuel industry, and against the majority of Americans, by snuffing the rest of the world, and backing out of the Paris Accord.
Click to expand...

But he likes the dictators in the Philippines, Turkey, Russia, etc.
 
Jack Hays said:
Americans should baffle Europeans. Our country was founded by people who wanted to escape from theirs.
Click to expand...

Check your history. We got over it. WWII, NATO, and all that.
 
Jack Hays said:
No, again. Your claim of false equivalence fails. An increasing stream of research is producing results tending to falsify the AGW hypothesis.
Click to expand...

As evidenced by a list of regional paleoclimate studies that say literally NOTHING about AGW?

Nice fantasy world you live in.
 
Jack Hays said:
There are 400 referenced papers. Please stick to the facts.
Click to expand...

I doubt you looked at all 400.

The fact is, the first half dozen papers I saw basically were focused regional paleoclimate studies that only falsify AGW in the minds of delusional bloggers and their gullible respammers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom