• 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!

We find no convincing evidence ....

BrainNebula said:
I don't deny global warming is happening. The question is what to do about it. That's where Climate Scientists go wrong.

And also, their modeling, which isn't science, has led to wrong prediction after wrong prediction. But in terms of what to do about it, we should not be panicking and wasting hundreds of trillions of dollars radically changing our economy and scrubbing the atmosphere. Scientists have no proof that this is necessary. And again, this is outside of the realm of science, so it's no surprise that scientists go way wrong when they get outside of their field. And that's what the NOAA report concluded as well:
Click to expand...
rotflmao.gif

​

You've clearly not bothered to read NOAA's report, most notably chapters 1-5, 14 and 15, or even less rigorously and comprehensively presented analysis.


 
Lord of Planar said:
I really hate that.

Almost all assesments by other organizations have a majority of footnotes, endnotes, etc. that are from the IPCC, which is agenda driven.

I cannot trust any of them when they refer to the IPCC, instead of the sources the IPCC traws their lies from.
Click to expand...

Okay, so you don't trust the IPCC reports....
  • What sound/cogent analysis, not abduction, of the IPCC's research methodology used in the specific publications it issued gives you firm foundation for your dubitability about their findings?
    • I am willing to consider the quantitative analysis methodological flaws in the IPCC's research and you have to cite, so "bring it on," just don't waste my time with layman's BS..."come with portfolio or stay home."
I don't care about what you believe (or don't)...I care about what's existential and preponderantly likely to be verisimilitudinous.
 
Last edited:
Xelor said:
Okay, so you don't trust the IPCC reports....
  • What sound/cogent analysis, not abduction, of the IPCC's research methodology used in the specific publications it issued gives you firm foundation for your dubitability about their findings?
    • I am willing to consider the quantitative analysis methodological flaws in the IPCC's research and you have to cite, so "bring it on," just don't waste my time with layman's BS..."come with portfolio or stay home."
I don't care about what you believe (or don't)...I care about what's existential and preponderantly likely to be verisimilitudinous.
Click to expand...

The IPCC does no more research than to cherry pick what they want out of peer reviewed papers. I have no answer you will understand if you deny that fact.
 
 
Lord of Planar said:
I really hate that.


Almost all assesments by other organizations have a majority of footnotes, endnotes, etc. that are from the IPCC, which is agenda driven.


I cannot trust any of them when they refer to the IPCC, instead of the sources the IPCC traws their lies from.


Xelor said:
Okay, so you don't trust the IPCC reports....

  • What sound/cogent analysis, not abduction, of the IPCC's research methodology used in the specific publications it issued gives you firm foundation for your dubitability about their findings?
    • I am willing to consider the quantitative analysis methodological flaws in the IPCC's research and you have to cite, so "bring it on," just don't waste my time with layman's BS..."come with portfolio or stay home."

I don't care about what you believe (or don't)...I care about what's existential and preponderantly likely to be verisimilitudinous.
Lord of Planar said:
The IPCC does no more research than to cherry pick what they want out of peer reviewed papers. I have no answer you will understand if you deny that fact.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Red:
No true Scotsman


As I said, "come with portfolio or stay home." Pick some of their referenced papers and detail the methodological flaws in them and that thus extant give rise to the reason the IPCC's statements based on those papers do not merit one's concurrence with said IPCC statements.
 
Xelor said:
You just keep thinking that....
Click to expand...

So you do recognize the difference between science and models? If so, then I was originally correct when I said models aren't science. So why did you complain?
 
BrainNebula said:
So you do recognize the difference between science and models? If so, then I was originally correct when I said models aren't science. So why did you complain?
Click to expand...

Why did I complain about what, specifically?
 
BrainNebula said:
Why did you complain about me recognizing the difference between science and modeling?
Click to expand...
Let's get one thing straight:
  • I wasn't complaining about your remarks about the difference between science and modelling. I was laughing your banal parenthetical remark's pedantically equivocal nature. I wasn't of a mind to complain about it because it is so easily parried. I merely thought it droll.

I found your remark droll and, in turn, laughed at it specifically because:
  • The distinction, though technically accurate in one dimension -- modeling is a tool of science -- in others, such as the development of scientific models, modeling is science in all instances save those wherein the distinction between mathematics and science is germane. As goes the development and testing of climate science models, that distinction is irrelevant; moreover, it's is more often scientists, not pure mathematicians, who develop them...And for good reason: the behaviors modeled aren't usually well understood by math folks, though mathematicians are quite capable of "getting up to speed" on the observed behavior if/when they need to. (To be sure, mathy men do sometimes contribute to model development.)
  • The models climate scientists have used have been somewhat "off;" however, the nature of their errancy is understatement of the nature and extent of climate change impacts and the overstatement of the timing of their materialization. (One of the links I provided illustrates those measurement/modeling phenomena.)
 
well for those without a scientific background open your eyes. you don't really need climate remodelling or some pundit to realize the changes we have made to America in 200 years. This is not even mentioning changes around the world. To believe our actions don't have consequences is foolish. only reasons anyone would have for not believing in Man Made Climate Change is financial gain or political.
 
Xelor said:
Let's get one thing straight:
  • I wasn't complaining about your remarks about the difference between science and modelling. I was laughing your banal parenthetical remark's pedantically equivocal nature. I wasn't of a mind to complain about it because it is so easily parried. I merely thought it droll.

I found your remark droll and, in turn, laughed at it specifically because:
  • The distinction, though technically accurate in one dimension -- modeling is a tool of science -- in others, such as the development of scientific models, modeling is science in all instances save those wherein the distinction between mathematics and science is germane. As goes the development and testing of climate science models, that distinction is irrelevant; moreover, it's is more often scientists, not pure mathematicians, who develop them...And for good reason: the behaviors modeled aren't usually well understood by math folks, though mathematicians are quite capable of "getting up to speed" on the observed behavior if/when they need to. (To be sure, mathy men do sometimes contribute to model development.)
  • The models climate scientists have used have been somewhat "off;" however, the nature of their errancy is understatement of the nature and extent of climate change impacts and the overstatement of the timing of their materialization. (One of the links I provided illustrates those measurement/modeling phenomena.)
Click to expand...

That turned into word salad really quickly. So in the end, you made fun of a comment I made that you agree with. That's the bottom line.
 
BrainNebula said:
That turned into word salad really quickly. So in the end, you made fun of a comment I made that you agree with. That's the bottom line.
Click to expand...

That's your bottom line, not an existential one....that it is your bottom line is fine by me....
 
Xelor said:
That's your bottom line, not an existential one....that it is your bottom line is fine by me....
Click to expand...

It was bottom line enough for you to feel the need to respond yet again with no substance. You can give all the word salad you want, but models are not science, and disagreeing models is not disagreeing with science. Not that you care about the distinction even though you want to attack those who object to the models as science deniers.
 
BrainNebula said:
It was bottom line enough for you to feel the need to respond yet again with no substance. You can give all the word salad you want, but models are not science, and disagreeing models is not disagreeing with science. Not that you care about the distinction even though you want to attack those who object to the models as science deniers.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
BrainNebula said:
It was bottom line enough for you to feel the need to respond yet again with no substance. You can give all the word salad you want, but models are not science, and disagreeing models is not disagreeing with science. Not that you care about the distinction even though you want to attack those who object to the models as science deniers.
Click to expand...

Frankly we are deep enough into Observation to be compelled to act on Human Impact if you don't like the modeling. Myself I don't put much stock in the Modeling. Honestly, the Modeling is only a means of predicting the future. The observable consequences of Human Impact on Climate Change to this point are scary enough on their own merits.

When it gets to the point when insurance companies are modifying their actuarial tables to account for the effects of Climate Change on Property and Flood Insurance arguing about the fallibility of modeling is a waste of time just as an example. Insurance companies live and die by their actuarial tables and they are as close to infallible as it gets and they ARE modifying their actuarial tables to account for Climate Change. You have about as much chance of beating them as you have at beating the house at a Casino. Should we risk it all on the chance of beating the house at a Casino?

More absurd than arguing about modeling, Green Energy and Green Business provides jobs. Sliding out of fossil fuels to Green makes economic sense on top of every other kind of sense. Its only the fossil fuel revenue that will suffer. The jobs component of the Energy business won't suffer while we are saving our miserable butt ends in the process. Then of course there is the added benefit that Green Energy jobs don't choke its employees lungs with garbage killing them off in the process. Oh and then there is another benefit. Maybe we won't have to hear stupid idiotic Trump arguments about how we nee Saudi more than Saudi needs us.
 
jnug said:
Frankly we are deep enough into Observation to be compelled to act on Human Impact if you don't like the modeling. Myself I don't put much stock in the Modeling. Honestly, the Modeling is only a means of predicting the future. The observable consequences of Human Impact on Climate Change to this point are scary enough on their own merits.

When it gets to the point when insurance companies are modifying their actuarial tables to account for the effects of Climate Change on Property and Flood Insurance arguing about the fallibility of modeling is a waste of time just as an example. Insurance companies live and die by their actuarial tables and they are as close to infallible as it gets and they ARE modifying their actuarial tables to account for Climate Change. You have about as much chance of beating them as you have at beating the house at a Casino. Should we risk it all on the chance of beating the house at a Casino?

More absurd than arguing about modeling, Green Energy and Green Business provides jobs. Sliding out of fossil fuels to Green makes economic sense on top of every other kind of sense. Its only the fossil fuel revenue that will suffer. The jobs component of the Energy business won't suffer while we are saving our miserable butt ends in the process. Then of course there is the added benefit that Green Energy jobs don't choke its employees lungs with garbage killing them off in the process. Oh and then there is another benefit. Maybe we won't have to hear stupid idiotic Trump arguments about how we nee Saudi more than Saudi needs us.
Click to expand...

1) Discussing the issues with modeling is not pointless.

2) Just because we know that the globe is warming does not mean we know what the best course of action is going forward. An immense amount of harm can be done by destroying our economy in a panic to solve global warming quicker and more extremely than is necessary.

3) Sure, green energy can create jobs, but that can happen anyways. Nothing is preventing wind or solar energy from exceeding in the free market. When you get into the government mandating that solar or wind energy is the energy we have to use, that creates inefficiency. Solar and wind energy are not even close to efficient as fossil fuels, either. I'm not anti-green energy and neither is Trump. In fact, Trump is as pro-energy as you can get. But we must allow the free market to do choose as much as possible, and then try and create innovation through some government funding. But doing things like purposefully driving coal out of business as an industry is not smart, and that can lead to an extreme amount of pain, especially for the poor.
 
BrainNebula said:
1) Discussing the issues with modeling is not pointless.

2) Just because we know that the globe is warming does not mean we know what the best course of action is going forward. An immense amount of harm can be done by destroying our economy in a panic to solve global warming quicker and more extremely than is necessary.

3) Sure, green energy can create jobs, but that can happen anyways. Nothing is preventing wind or solar energy from exceeding in the free market. When you get into the government mandating that solar or wind energy is the energy we have to use, that creates inefficiency. Solar and wind energy are not even close to efficient as fossil fuels, either. I'm not anti-green energy and neither is Trump. In fact, Trump is as pro-energy as you can get. But we must allow the free market to do choose as much as possible, and then try and create innovation through some government funding. But doing things like purposefully driving coal out of business as an industry is not smart, and that can lead to an extreme amount of pain, especially for the poor.
Click to expand...

You mean helping the poor into their graves...is that what you mean by helping them?
 
BrainNebula said:
I said harm the poor, not help them.
Click to expand...

Harm the poor....encouraging renewables is going to harm the poor. Thats a good one. I guess I found that such an impossible statement that my eyes simply refused to read it and my brain refused to register it.
 
jnug said:
Harm the poor....encouraging renewables is going to harm the poor. Thats a good one. I guess I found that such an impossible statement that my eyes simply refused to read it and my brain refused to register it.
Click to expand...

When you force expensive energy and ban cheap energy, that harms the poor more than anybody else.
 
BrainNebula said:
When you force expensive energy and ban cheap energy, that harms the poor more than anybody else.
Click to expand...

Oh stop..the poor are the most oppressed people in the country with regard to environmental despoilment. They get the worst air, the worst water, die sooner than anybody else. It is so bad, so pervasive that chemical companies end up spewing their garbage into the drinking water of coal communities because nobody really cares about those people. The "logic" being that if they are dumb enough to go down into those mines and ruin their lungs they clearly won't mind drinking and bathing in despoiled water.

Your argument is absurd on the face of it. It flies in the face of what actually happens to the poor in this country.
 
jnug said:
Harm the poor....encouraging renewables is going to harm the poor. Thats a good one. I guess I found that such an impossible statement that my eyes simply refused to read it and my brain refused to register it.

BrainNebula said:
When you force expensive energy and ban cheap energy, that harms the poor more than anybody else.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Red:
What forms of energy strike you as cheap?

And, no, Brian, I don't really want you to respond because I already know you'll gripe about the models the DoEn. used and you won't identify any of the specific quantitative analysis shortcomings associated with them and the methodology of which they're a part.
 
jnug said:
Oh stop..the poor are the most oppressed people in the country with regard to environmental despoilment. They get the worst air, the worst water, die sooner than anybody else. It is so bad, so pervasive that chemical companies end up spewing their garbage into the drinking water of coal communities because nobody really cares about those people. The "logic" being that if they are dumb enough to go down into those mines and ruin their lungs they clearly won't mind drinking and bathing in despoiled water.

Your argument is absurd on the face of it. It flies in the face of what actually happens to the poor in this country.
Click to expand...

You pretend like most poor people don't have clean water. That is simply not the case. Some don't, but the vast majority do. Furthermore, you pretend as if because we don't absolutely destroy our economy by forcing expensive forms of energy and banning cheap forms of energy that we can't solve the problem of global warming. You are wrong. We don't need to destroy our economy. We can solve global warming and grow our economy fairly optimally at the same time. When did you get the idea that I wasn't planning on us solving global warming?
 
Xelor said:
Red:
What forms of energy strike you as cheap?

And, no, Brian, I don't really want you to respond because I already know you'll gripe about the models the DoEn. used and you won't identify any of the specific quantitative analysis shortcomings associated with them and the methodology of which they're a part.
Click to expand...

Nuclear is cheap, for instance. So is oil, gas, and coal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom