• 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!

Question for the 'denier' cult

vegas giants said:
This science

Effects | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Click to expand...

Exactly. However, I did not read that Vegas Giant is the cause temperatures rising and that Vegas Giant can stop evolution and time itself - if ONLY he gives all his money and gives up everything. After all, earth's entire existence across time has been solely about YOU.

Humans are the cause of less than 1/3rd of 1% of all greenhouse gases. Sorry to burst your bubble, but in relation to earth's "health" in the past, present and future you are 100% irrelevant to anything.
 
joko104 said:
Exactly. However, I did not read that Vegas Giant is the cause temperatures rising and that Vegas Giant can stop evolution and time itself - if ONLY he gives all his money and gives up everything. After all, earth's entire existence across time has been solely about YOU.

Humans are the cause of less than 1/3rd of 1% of all greenhouse gases. Sorry to burst your bubble, but in relation to earth's "health" in the past, present and future you are 100% irrelevant to anything.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear.....nasa disagrees

Hete are some of the solutions they suggest

Government Resources | Solutions – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
 
Bullseye said:
Sorry, the mindless "settled science" bull**** is being destroyed every day.
Click to expand...
It really isn't.


Manipulated data, questionable models, cherry-picked timeframes - all to keep government and private grants flowing to shady "experts".
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's the kind of bull**** I'm referring to.

No one is "manipulating data." All the raw data is available. Every adjustment is explained and made available for public use. Of course, the deniers will blast the data either way -- if the data isn't adjusted then they find some flaw with it, and when it is adjusted then the very concept of adjustments are wrong. It's the deniers, not the scientists who regularly cherry-pick data. And of course, it's the fossil fuel industry that is throwing millions at lobbyists and some of the tiny handful of scientists that they can buy (e.g. Willie Soon).


If the "science" really IS settled, why are there so many "scientists" still sucking up our money to do more studies?
Click to expand...
lol

I did not say that "every single last detail about climate science is known." What I said is that there is no reasonable scientific doubt that human activity is causing most of the climate change we've seen over the past ~200 years.

There is plenty of work to be done, ranging from studying past climates both to better understand those natural sources of change (which are overwhelmed in recent times by the human activity); to get a better idea of what the climate was like in past eras; to collect and analyze new data; to improve methods of data collection and analysis; to better predict the likely effects, so we can figure out how to prioritize efforts to deal with climate change; to figure out how to reduce emissions and other harms to the environment; to better develop sustainable energy supplies....

Oh, and guess what? Even if AGW was false, those climate scientists would still have a job. In fact, they'd be doing pretty much the exact same types of work as they're doing now, they would just publish papers with different conclusions.

To put it another way: There is no reasonable doubt that "cancer is a number of diseases that share a common element of abnormal cell growth, which can spread to other parts of the body." We don't know everything there is to know about cancer, and it's a complex family of diseases that kills millions of people, thus it makes sense that research continues. And yet, despite the gaps in knowledge which justify further research, there is no reasonable doubt that "tobacco is a carcinogen."

By the way, why don't you ever ask who is funding the deniers? It seems awfully convenient that you're willing to ignore how Exxon and Koch throw millions at lobbyists and think tanks. It's not like those companies have billions of dollars, and are willing to spend to avoid taking responsibility for the damage they're doing to the environment, or prevent governments from -- shudder gasp! -- regulating them....
 
haymarket said:
Often called experts or professionals.......... you know, the folks with more education and training and experience and actually know of what they are talking about. Those evil, bad, no good people that make the deplorable look bad in comparison.
Click to expand...

And yet a large number of those experts and professionals DON'T buy the "settled science" nor that man is primarily responsible.
 
Fletch said:
LOL. Its the democrats who will enact the global despotism in pursuit of their climate fantasies.
Click to expand...

Democrats will enact the global despotism.
Democratic Party exists only in America.
:lamo Who is having fantasies? :lamo
 
Jack Hays said:
Just more of your cowardice. I'm not the one doing the establishing. Professor Nir Shaviv has that role.
Click to expand...

And here come your juvenile insults. Not going to try to spam a pseudoscientific article at me, Jack? :lol:
 
Bullseye said:
And yet a large number of those experts and professionals DON'T buy the "settled science" nor that man is primarily responsible.
Click to expand...

Then let us see that evidence from these experts.
 
haymarket said:
Then let us see that evidence from these experts.
Click to expand...
One of the few actual surveys of people working in the climate sciences, leaves more questions that answers.
https://www.hzg.de/imperia/md/conte...ungen/bibliothek/journals/2009/bray_27111.pdf
In conclusion, this brief analysis indicates that many respondents
express some confusion concerning the terminology, with approximately
29% of the respondents associating probable with projections and
approximately 20% of the respondents associating possible with prediction.
Furthermore, about 15% of the people working in climate science who
accept and recognize the definitions according to the IPCC understand
models to produce predictions.
Click to expand...
this does not sound like the lock solid consensus portrayed when people throw out the 97% statement.
 
KLATTU said:
Ok, you were all told . Anybody who questions anything about the catastrophic AGW theory is no longer a skeptic. That didn't fit the Orwellian narrative.

You were to refer to them as deniers.

So what # exactly# is being denied????
Click to expand...

I have read through NINE pages of evasive replies, not a singe time have any warmists actually answered your question in detail.

The question:

"So what # exactly# is being denied????"


One says Science, another just spew out links, another uses fallacies as his answer, another says vote democrat and so on.

:lamo

So after 9 pages, not a single answer to what is being denied, no examples provided either, no details at all.

This is truly hilarious.
 
Sunsettommy said:
I have read through NINE pages of evasive replies, not a singe time have any warmists actually answered your question in detail.

The question:

"So what # exactly# is being denied????"


One says Science, another just spew out links, another uses fallacies as his answer, another says vote democrat and so on.

:lamo

So after 9 pages, not a single answer to what is being denied, no examples provided either, no details at all.

This is truly hilarious.
Click to expand...

I've already documented how the groupthink cult was told to use the word denier instead od skeptic.

Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment | Environment | The Guardian
 
Sunsettommy said:
I have read through NINE pages of evasive replies, not a singe time have any warmists actually answered your question in detail.

The question:

"So what # exactly# is being denied????"


One says Science, another just spew out links, another uses fallacies as his answer, another says vote democrat and so on.

:lamo

So after 9 pages, not a single answer to what is being denied, no examples provided either, no details at all.

This is truly hilarious.
Click to expand...

The science is here. Do you deny this science is accurate?

Effects | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
 
KLATTU said:
Yeah well at first glance - the consensus data are debatable . Anybody who accepts it without question is truly a denier. A denier of basic logic a, statistics and common sense.
Click to expand...

You don't have to believe the science. In fact you are free to believe the world is flat if you want
 
KLATTU said:
on second glance. Anybody who doesn't understand that these ' Academies" are stacked with not objective liberals is really not a denier. Clueless is a better word. ( Stupid is a better word , but I'm being kind ;) )
Click to expand...

Feel free to get your science from blogs run by high school dropouts. Lol
 
vegas giants said:
You don't have to believe the science. In fact you are free to believe the world is flat if you want
Click to expand...
Oh really ? What is the *THE* Science* ?
That it is known *for sure * based on proxies what global temperatures were 1000 years ago ? 2000 y ears ago? 5000 years ago? So we can benchmark?
Is it 'denierism ' to even question how to compare 21st century technology to tree rings and sediments to make definitive conclusion about anything?

That we know where temperatures are going even 50 years from now based on the changes in technology and the ever-changing political landscape?
 
KLATTU said:
Oh really ? What is the *THE* Science* ?
That it is known *for sure * based on proxies what global temperatures were 1000 years ago ? 2000 y ears ago? 5000 years ago? So we can benchmark?
Is it 'denierism ' to even question how to compare 21st century technology to tree rings and sediments to make definitive conclusion about anything?

That we know where temperatures are going even 50 years from now based on the changes in technology and the ever-changing political landscape?
Click to expand...

You can question anything you like. If you have counter evidence provide it.


But the evidence here is overwhelming

Effects | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
 
vegas giants said:
This


Effects | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Click to expand...

That article is nothing more than the usual talking points liberally sprinkled with the usual modifiers. And this:

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.
Based on past actual causes, I'm going with Small variations in Earth's orbit.

And site doesn't even offer any explanation for the 6 more major shifts prior to man's emergence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom