• 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 Weak Foundation of Calls for Climate Action

vegas giants said:
Yeah....its all from sunscreen.



Freaking hilarious
Click to expand...

My point is that it isn't all from what you blame it to be. Without quantifying each factor, its just agenda driven propaganda. Not science.
 
Lord of Planar said:
My point is that it isn't all from what you blame it to be. Without quantifying each factor, its just agenda driven propaganda. Not science.
Click to expand...

Then tell me how much is from sunscreen
 
vegas giants said:
Then tell me how much is from sunscreen
Click to expand...

[h=3]Skincare Chemicals and Coral Reefs - NOAA's National ...[/h]oceanservice.noaa.gov › news › sunscreen-corals
VwgtQ4Oc 9gexvR10CaFQZ30CNrEh9AlB4vnXoUTL9ugBv8BOTLtVOu8pYQAAAAASUVORK5CYII=






Jan 23, 2020 - ... found in sunscreen and other personal health products also threaten the health of coral reefs. Two of those studies, led by NOAA researchers ...
 
vegas giants said:
Then tell me how much is from sunscreen
Click to expand...

Hard to say, and impossible as well for AGW. However, the agenda driven antics of the AGW scare has nullified any integrity of your position.

Please notice that the only areas having coral health problems are near tourist spots. Coral elsewhere is on par with the normal cyclical history.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Hard to say, and impossible as well for AGW. However, the agenda driven antics of the AGW scare has nullified any integrity of your position.

Please notice that the only areas having coral health problems are near tourist spots. Coral elsewhere is on par with the normal cyclical history.
Click to expand...

Ok you get back to.me when you have something. Lol
 
Lord of Planar said:
Your concession was the Guardian article. No paper links.

LOL...

You love your tabloid quality BS.
Click to expand...

Yet you have nothing at all.

Still all talk and no proof.
 
Critical Review Confirms IPCC Assessment On Extreme Weather


  • Date: 04/06/20
  • Press Release, Global Warming Policy Foundation
“No sign that extreme weather events are getting worse”

Screen-Shot-2020-06-04-at-10.34.13-1024x508.png
London, 4 June: A new review of the scientific literature on extreme weather events published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) confirms what IPCC assessment reports have concluded: There is little evidence of any significant changes in most indices.
The paper, by physicist Dr Ralph Alexander, looks at trends in hot and cold weather extremes, floods and droughts, hurricanes and wildfires and finds only a minor increase in cold weather extremes.
According to Dr Alexander, weather extremes is one area where the IPCC has been reasonably empirical and scientific in recent years.
As he explains:
“The IPCC stands out, among those who believe that global warming is primarily due to human activity, as a voice of restraint on the issue of extreme weather. My review is in broad agreement with their position: there is little sign things are getting worse.”
In particular, Dr Alexander points to the underreported global reductions in floods, wildfires and hurricanes, but he cautions that many of the changes are likely to be cyclical.
“The key driver for many weather extremes is natural ocean cycles like El Nino and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Eventually these cycles will turn, and we should be ready. But we shouldn’t be under any illusion that we can prevent extreme weather by changing our lifestyles”.
 
Buzz said:
Yet you have nothing at all.

Still all talk and no proof.
Click to expand...

That's the problem. Your side has no proof, so all I have to do is show alternative possibilities.

I don't need proof. The fact that there are other conceivable possibilities keeps the climate predictions as a mere unproven hypothesis.

Don't you know anything about the scientific process?
 
Lord of Planar said:
That's the problem. Your side has no proof, so all I have to do is show alternative possibilities.

I don't need proof. The fact that there are other conceivable possibilities keeps the climate predictions as a mere unproven hypothesis.

Don't you know anything about the scientific process?
Click to expand...

Nothing but BS!!

Why do you even bother Lord?
 
[h=2]Natural Climate Forces Dominate: New Paper Shows CO2 Doesn’t Lead To More Weather Blocking: “Quite Some Nonsense”[/h]By P Gosselin on 9. June 2020
Share this...



Image cropped from Met Office here. ​
By Die kalte Sonne
(German text edited by P. Gosselin)
On June 3, 2020, npj Climate and Atmospheric Science published a study by Athanasiadis et al. 2020, in which the authors investigated the question of whether changes in the frequency of blocked weather situations in the North Atlantic and Central European region are predictable.
“Quite some nonsense”
Previously, scientists inclined towards climate alarmism had told us that CO2 would lead to more and more blocked weather situations. Quite some nonsense as it now turns out, because the blockings are more likely to be due to the 60-year AMO ocean cycle, which in turn affects the NAO. These are exciting results.
Here’s the abstract:
Decadal predictability of North Atlantic blocking and the NAO
Can multi-annual variations in the frequency of North Atlantic atmospheric blocking and mid-latitude circulation regimes be skilfully predicted? Recent advances in seasonal forecasting have shown that mid-latitude climate variability does exhibit significant predictability. However, atmospheric predictability has generally been found to be quite limited on multi-annual timescales. New decadal prediction experiments from NCAR are found to exhibit remarkable skill in reproducing the observed multi-annual variations of wintertime blocking frequency over the North Atlantic and of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) itself. This is partly due to the large ensemble size that allows the predictable component of the atmospheric variability to emerge from the background chaotic component. The predictable atmospheric anomalies represent a forced response to oceanic low-frequency variability that strongly resembles the Atlantic Multi-decadal Variability (AMV), correctly reproduced in the decadal hindcasts thanks to realistic ocean initialization and ocean dynamics. The occurrence of blocking in certain areas of the Euro-Atlantic domain determines the concurrent circulation regime and the phase of known teleconnections, such as the NAO, consequently affecting the stormtrack and the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Therefore, skilfully predicting the decadal fluctuations of blocking frequency and the NAO may be used in statistical predictions of near-term climate anomalies, and it provides a strong indication that impactful climate anomalies may also be predictable with improved dynamical models.”
​
 
[h=2]MIT’s Dr. Lindzen Pokes Fun At The ‘Naïve’, Well-Funded ‘Scientific Reasoning’ That 1 Factor – CO2 – Controls Climate[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 15. June 2020
Share this...


[h=4]In a new paper, atmospheric physicist Dr. Richard Lindzen summarizes the “implausible” claims today’s proponents of dangerous anthropogenic global warming espouse.[/h]Dr. Richard Lindzen retired several years ago, and yet his immense contribution to the atmospheric sciences lives on. His research is still cited about 600 times per year.
Lindzen recently published another scientific paper (Lindzen, 2020) in The European Physical Journal criticizing the current alarmism in climate science. Here are a few of the highlights.
1. Doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to 560 ppm results in just a 1-2% perturbation to the Earth’s 240 W/m² energy budget. This doubled-CO2 effect has less than 1/5th of the impact that the net cloud effect has. And yet we are asked to accept the “implausible” claim that change in one variable, CO2, is predominatly responsible for altering global temperatures.
2. A causal role for CO2 “cannot be claimed” for the glacial-to-interglacial warming events because CO2 variations follow rather than lead the temperature changes in paleoclimate records and the 100 ppm total increase over thousands of years produce “about 1 W/m²” of total radiative impact.
3. Climate science didn’t used to be alarmist prior to the late 1980s. Scientists were instead sufficiently skeptical about claims of climatically-induced planetary doom. That changed during the years 1988-1994, when climate research centered on CO2 and global warming received a 15-fold increase in funding in the US alone. Suddenly there was a great financial incentive to propel alarming global warming scenarios.
4. Concepts like “polar amplification” are “imaginary”. . . .
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Climate Statistics 101: see the Slide Show AOC Tried, and Failed, to Censor[/h][FONT=&quot]News 16 Jun, 2020 Climate Statistics 101: See the Slide Show AOC Tried, and Failed, to Censor This is an embedded Microsoft Office presentation, powered by Office. This is the slide show and 20-minute talk that Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Chellie Pingree tried to censor at the LibertyCon 2020 conference in Washington, D.C. After Dr.…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs ... - Amazon.com

www.amazon.com › False-Alarm-Climate-Change-Trillions
P9nAi9R EWZjHPB6pvOM7tKN08CWpijpWEES7PnuHH8b1cBUnCgyoMcbuN ARY1HCONCCtBgpwU4HQUa7YBJafH5DCb1cgrst4lgba56d3DQLiAsgwEiymoRsCKV1WIpepiIyn0MyHUB0PrKV9PcKCANovyxZenxAk5GAOrriUX yjnQF1PcqvgfwgVP9uDMTLDsPA2Iv5GQnb9B9bABAGTQTUBFSFIgAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC



"Bjorn Lomborg is that rare thing: a clear-sighted realist about climate change. In False Alarm, he argues that it would be foolish to do nothing to prepare for a warmer planet, but it would be more foolish to pretend that we are doing things that will significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions when we are not.

The New York Times-bestselling "skeptical environmentalist" argues that panic over climate change is causing more harm than good


Hurricanes batter our coasts. Wildfires rage across the American West. Glaciers collapse in the Artic. Politicians, activists, and the media espouse a common message: climate change is destroying the planet, and we must take drastic action immediately to stop it. Children panic about their future, and adults wonder if it is even ethical to bring new life into the world.


Enough, argues bestselling author Bjorn Lomborg. Climate change is real, but it's not the apocalyptic threat that we've been told it is. Projections of Earth's imminent demise are based on bad science and even worse economics. In panic, world leaders have committed to wildly expensive but largely ineffective policies that hamper growth and crowd out more pressing investments in human capital, from immunization to education.


False Alarm will convince you that everything you think about climate change is wrong -- and points the way toward making the world a vastly better, if slightly warmer, place for us all.


 
[h=2]‘Die Zeit’ Slams Science Dogmatism, The ‘Delusion Of Total Controllability’…’Relapse Into Pre-Enlightenment’[/h]By P Gosselin on 4. July 2020
Share this...


A German weekly “Die Zeit” commentary criticizes the hostility directed at skeptical climatologists and epidemiologists.
“Where do we end up if a scientist’s degree of alarm becomes a litmus test for his scientific respectability?” Science activism represents “relapse into pre-enlightened thinking”.

Dogmatists refusing to look through Galileo’s telescope. Image cropped here.​
The false prophets
Over the recent years, we’ve seen a number of alarmist climate scientists demanding we believe that they are the beholders of the truth, and so policymakers need to heed their advice without question.
Science hubris
That hubris has gotten so dreadful that journalist Thea Dorn has since felt compelled to pen a commentary appearing in the centre-left Die Zeit: “Don’t preach, do research instead!”
Rather than arrogantly declaring that the science is settled, scientists shine through by remaining doubtful, Dorn writes.
She warns of climate scientists having become “ideologists” in the climate debate, and that this is threatening to happen in epidemiology/virology as well.
Not acceptable to defame doubters

“There is a world of difference between an irrational dogmatist and a reasonable skeptic, Thea Dorn writes. “It is not acceptable to immediately defame anyone who expresses doubts about the reliability of epidemiological or climate models as a ‘climate’ or ‘corona denier'”.
In Germany there have been a number of renowned virologists who have recently come under fire for dissenting against the alarmist claims made by other virologists.
Dorn writes: “In contrast to religion, modern science owes its success to its openness to doubt, criticism and self-correction.”
Rahmstorf suggestion “absurd”
Thea Dorn particularly fires harsh criticism at Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf, alarmist scientist at the Potsdam Institute, for suggesting in an essay in Spiegel in 2019 that mankind somehow had control over the “earth system” but was losing that control, an assumption that Dorn called “absurd and highly questionable”.
Dorn slams Rahmstorf and Prof. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber for mischaracterizing the earth’s complexity as a mere set a dominoes on the verge of toppling, and claiming they have the models to predict the future, and they and the alarmist virologists and immunologists should be heeded.
Be thankful for skeptics
On the role of skeptics, Dorn writes: “On the contrary: we can be thankful that – still? – there are enough scientists who reject the magic of the crystal ball and the delusion of total controllability.”
Science crusaders
Dorn also sharply criticizes the concept of the “activist scientist”, which Hans Joachim Schellnhuber calls himself. She comments: “It represents a relapse into pre-enlightened thinking. With a slogan like “Unite behind the Science!” one might swear crusaders to a holy mission.”
Dorn summarizes:
One of the most tragic acts that a democracy can commit is self-submission to the rigid rules of a clerical natural science for fear of submission to the power of nature.”
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom