• 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!

The psychology of climate change denial

vegas giants said:
You are free to respect the views of people who believe in something that has no evidence to support it.


It's called religion
Click to expand...

Yeah right . That must explain why there are 20 times more people doing climate science than there were 30 years ago. Turkeys don,t vote for christmas :wink:
 
flogger said:
Yeah right . That must explain why there are 20 times more people doing climate science than there were 30 years ago. Turkeys don,t vote for christmas :wink:
Click to expand...

No idea what you are on about
 
Tim the plumber said:
I wish you would actually discuss the science. I want you to stop acting/thinking in your religious ways. I want you to think for yourself.
Click to expand...

I want you to abandon the tin foil hat crowd. Lol
 
Clive James, Legendary Author, Poet, Humorist & Climate Sceptic Has Died



  • Date: 27/11/19
  • Global Warming Policy Foundation
Our good friend and fellow climate sceptic, the Australian author, poet journalist and humorist Clive James has died, aged 80. We republish his GWPF Essay Mass Death Dies Hard in his memory.

Imminent Catastrophe

The imminent catastrophe goes on
Not showing many signs of happening.
The ice at the North Pole that should be gone
By now, is awkwardly still lingering,
And though sometimes the weather is extreme
It seems no more so than when we were young
Who soon will hear no more of this grim theme
Reiterated in the special tongue
Of manufactured fright. Sea Level Rise
Will be here soon and could do such-and-such,
Say tenured pundits with unblinking eyes.
Continuing to not go up by much,
The sea supports the sceptics, but they, too,
Lapse into oratory when they predict
The sure collapse of the alarmist view
Like a house of cards, for they could not have picked
A metaphor less suited to their wish.
A house of cards subsides with just a sigh
And all the cards are still there.
Feverish Talk of apocalypse might, by and by,
Die down, but the deep anguish will persist.
His death, and not the Earth’s, is the true fear
That motivates the doomsday fantasist:
There can be no world if he is not here.
— Clive James, March 2016

Clive James: Mass Death Dies Hard

Global Warming Policy Foundation, July 2017
When you tell people once too often that the missing extra heat is hiding in the ocean, they will switch over to watch Game of Thrones, where the dialogue is less ridiculous and all the threats come true. . . .
 
calamity said:
One degree down two to go.

Global warming reaches 1°C above preindustrial, warmest in more than 11,000 years

It'll go quick now.
Click to expand...
Why would you think that the rate of warming will accelerate?
If it is all fed by CO2 emissions, we likely cannot produce enough CO2 to keep the warming even linear.
A doubling curve is a tough thing to keep up with.
Here is an example of what I am talking about.
CO2 levels have increased from 280 ppm to 410 ppm, 130 ppm, but according to the concept of AGW, the first half of that 130 ppm, for 280 to 345,
would have produced more warming than the second half, but let's run the numbers to check!
(5.35 X ln (345/280) X .3)= .33 C
(5.35 X ln(410/345) X .3)= .27C
Each subsequent unit of CO2 will have less effect than earlier units, to actually make warming accelerate, CO2 emissions would have to rise even quicker.
NOTE: The formulas are from the American Chemical Society,
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society
 
How AGW advocates misrepresent the temperature record:

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Three Graphs[/h][FONT=&quot]News Brief by Kip Hansen — 30 November 2019 A recent study in Oceanography, the Official Magazine of The Oceanography Society, titled “Atlantic warming since the Little Ice Age” [.pdf here], is interesting in its entirety, with an Abstract as follows: “Radiocarbon observations suggest that the deep Atlantic Ocean takes up to several…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
longview said:
Why would you think that the rate of warming will accelerate?
If it is all fed by CO2 emissions, we likely cannot produce enough CO2 to keep the warming even linear.
A doubling curve is a tough thing to keep up with.
Here is an example of what I am talking about.
CO2 levels have increased from 280 ppm to 410 ppm, 130 ppm, but according to the concept of AGW, the first half of that 130 ppm, for 280 to 345,
would have produced more warming than the second half, but let's run the numbers to check!
(5.35 X ln (345/280) X .3)= .33 C
(5.35 X ln(410/345) X .3)= .27C
Each subsequent unit of CO2 will have less effect than earlier units, to actually make warming accelerate, CO2 emissions would have to rise even quicker.
NOTE: The formulas are from the American Chemical Society,
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society
Click to expand...

How many freaking times have you seen warming projections here from the IPCC with accelerating curves?

It’s like Groundhog Day here with you every single day.
 
Threegoofs said:
How many freaking times have you seen warming projections here from the IPCC with accelerating curves?

It’s like Groundhog Day here with you every single day.
Click to expand...
The projections are tied to unrealistic RPC scenarios, RCP8.5 projects CO2 levels will be 1370 ppm by year 2100, that is not realistic, and may not even be possible.
Consider the 130 ppm increase in the last 139 years, vs the necessary 960 ppm in the next 81 years?
 
longview said:
The projections are tied to unrealistic RPC scenarios, RCP8.5 projects CO2 levels will be 1370 ppm by year 2100, that is not realistic, and may not even be possible.
Consider the 130 ppm increase in the last 139 years, vs the necessary 960 ppm in the next 81 years?
Click to expand...

All projections show acceleration, including the moderate ones.

How the **** can you not know this??
 
Threegoofs said:
All projections show acceleration, including the moderate ones.

How the **** can you not know this??
Click to expand...

You really don't do numbers at all do you?

The rate of increase of CO2 required to get the 960ppm increase by 2100 would need to be many many times our current out put. From the 2.5 ish ppm/yr today to 12ppm/yr. 5 times the rate of increase.

The rate of take-up of CO2 out of the air would also have to not increase. This is also not possible. Lots more CO2 would be taken up by the oceans and plant growth. The oceans would take it in through plant growth, shell growth and dissolved CO2 being sewpt down to the deep ocean where warm and cold seas meet, at 4 degrees c.
 
vegas giants said:
I cant find any that do not show temps rising by 2100
Click to expand...

Try to work out the difference between acceleration and rise. Just show off your scientific abilities and explain to those here who don't. I know there are some here who have not got that far with understanding the world.
 
Tim the plumber said:

Try to work out the difference between acceleration and rise. Just show off your scientific abilities and explain to those here who don't. I know there are some here who have not got that far with understanding the world.
Click to expand...

Show me one where it says temps are not accelerating
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom