• 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!

2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

LOL!

I never tire of the "Chicken Little" ruse…

"It's HOTTER NOW THAN IT WAS THIS MORNING! AT THIS RATE, WE'LL ALL BE INCINERATED BY TOMORROW AT 4:00!"

Hysterical…

Naturally, every cycle provides for ebbs and flows… therefore, where on finds themselves in a system designed around the cyclical, one should not panic on the news that one's system is ebbing or flowing.

So, you may stop the populist panic and return to your homes… everything is fine until the sun's natural demise engulfs the planet, incinerating everything you've every known.

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.


Oh lord… WHAT HAVE I DONE?
 



Yes…

And for 40 years I've lived along the shore, listening to all the harbingers of rising sea-levels… and to date, 40 years later, the sea remains right where it was…

Now not too terribly long ago, I saw a map of Florida's coastline… which has ranged from many hundreds of miles east to west greater than it is today, to the area known today as Ocala, being a series of islands…

So, NO… Higher taxes and redistributive fiscal policy will not stop the planet's atmosphere from changing… and the seas are not rising, so stow it. It's all good.
 

And how do you know the sun will incinerate the earth one day as its 'natural demise'

Oh. What's that you say? Scientists?

Why are you so selective as to which science you believe?
 

Thank God science doesn't work by anecdote.

Again, that map you saw was drawn by scientists. You're being selective because you don't like the truth they are telling you.

And why would you? You'll die before it gets bad. Stay true to the libertarian/Randian creed: "**** you , I got mine."
 

LOL!

Now isn't that precious?

'Scientists drew a map, which showed the natural cycle of the earth's seas… (which occurred largely in the absence of humanity and wholly in the absence of human industry) and THAT requires that "SCIENCE!" (The politicalization, thus the delegitimization of the study of the physical universe, OKA: Science…) has it right, despite the evidence which proves otherwise.'

Here's a clue… The seas aren't rising AT THE RATE WHICH THE CHICKEN LITTLE CULT CLAIMS THEY ARE.

Ya see Scamp… we don't care if the seas rise or fall, as there's not a thing we can do to change or otherwise alter those cycles.

What we care about, are the deceptions, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant. Because that is destructive to the viability of a sound culture.
 
And how do you know the sun will incinerate the earth one day as its 'natural demise'

Oh. What's that you say? Scientists?

Why are you so selective as to which science you believe?


I know it, because it serves reason…

What does NOT serve reason, is DECADES of Leftists braying on that in 10 years BRITAIN, FLORIDA, THe BAHAMAs, Portugal, will be under water…

Those were lies… just as here, today, YOU are lying. Now you may not 'feel' that what you're saying is false, but you're old enough to know better, which works out the same.
 

And you know this because the ocean outside your window looks the same as you remember it.

And you know this is a natural cycle of...something...and man hasnt and cant effect it because you feel it in your gut.
 

I'm not lying. I'm merely reinforcing what scientists have been saying for years and have largely nailed.

And no scientists were saying those places would be underwater in 10 years. I'd call that a lie, but I'm not classless enough to say that outright.
 

Oh! Well with reinforcement like THAT… who needs to trust their own eyes, right?

I mean with DECADES of one refutation after ANOTHER… you people still 'feel' compelled to warn us of that which we can readily see, is no threat.

Tell me, is there a point at which you will set aside the ruse? How many decades must pass without a discernible rise in sea levels before we can safely rid ourselves of the hue and cry demanding that such is RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER and ALL OUR LIVES ARE AT RISK?

It's been 4 decades… must we go another 4? How about 8? 16? 32? Where's it stop?
 
And you know this because the ocean outside your window looks the same as you remember it.

And you know this is a natural cycle of...something...and man hasnt and cant effect it because you feel it in your gut.

I know it because the ocean outside my window IS the same.
 

Yet another page of nonsense, and still no one has even attempted to name someone who said that the sun doesn't matter.

I'm proven right once again.

I'll be watching this thread for another opportunity to show the arguments of the Church of Perpetual Denial to be false, ever shifting, and dependent on fallacious reasoning.

You don't know when and where I might strike next.
 

LOL!

So no 'scientists' has claimed that sea levels are rising?

"Misleading claims about sea level rise
The IPCC claims a faster rate in sea level rise in the period 1993-2003 (3.1 mm/year) compared with 1961-2003 (1.8 mm/yr), see WG1 SPM p 5,7, table SPM1. To make this claim, the IPCC have employed two of their familiar misleading tricks simultaneously - (a) compare a short period with a longer period, (b) change the measurement technique.

Prior to 1993 IPCC uses the tide gauge record of sea level, which records measurements at several shorelines; in 1993 this was changed to satellite altimetry, which measures the entire ocean. The change in method coincides with an apparent acceleration of sea level rise over previous periods, which IPCC attributes to AGW, throwing out the tide gauge record, which shows significant fluctuations but no such acceleration.

To compare one set of results using one method over one time period (prior to 1993) with another set of results using a different method over another time period (after 1993) and then using this cobbled-together record to claim an accelerating trend between the two time periods is bad science, at best, especially if the record for the latter time period which uses the same method for both periods shows no acceleration is ignored.

These false claims are repeated in the main body of AR4 WG1, in section 5.5. On page 409 it is stated that "global sea level gradually rose in the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate" and "This decade-long satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993, sea level has been rising at a rate of around 3 mm yr–1, significantly higher than the average during the previous half century. Coastal tide gauge measurements confirm this observation...", with no supporting evidence. This last statement is contradicted by the papers by Holgate and Woodworth and by Douglas below."


"S. J. Holgate, On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century, Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L01602 (2007).

Abstract:

Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr."

And so on and so forth…
 

Please. Show us a 'refutation'.

Remember- not a link from Rush Limbaugh. We want a reviewed scientific article, preferably a primary source.

But by all means, keep railing on about 'ruses' and 'lies'. It's entertaining.
 


LOL!

Are you asking for evidence that the Left; the irrational ideology which rejects the natural principles governing human behavior, has claimed that the sun doesn't matter in terms of the earth's atmosphere?

Seriously?

The ENTIRE SCAM RESTS UPON THE PREMISE THAT THE SUN DOES NOT EXIST.

Where one adds the effects of the sun upon the earth's atmosphere, the entire AGW premise becomes something well beyond absurd.

I mean COME ON! You people have declared CARBON DIOXIDE A THREAT TO THE PLANET!

And FTR: It was at that point that you crossed the line from "Joke" to just sad…
 
LOL!

So no 'scientists' has claimed that sea levels are rising?



And so on and so forth…

I never said this.

This is what is known as 'moving the goalposts' in logical fallacy circles.

I said no one said Florida would be underwater in ten years.
But I have a feeling you might have been confused because they used the measurement in millimeters.

And as we all know, mm are that commie invention that is inferior to measuring in inches like real 'Mericans' do.
 
Please. Show us a 'refutation'.

Remember- not a link from Rush Limbaugh. We want a reviewed scientific article, preferably a primary source.

But by all means, keep railing on about 'ruses' and 'lies'. It's entertaining.

Sure… happy to do so… but it would b VERY HELPFUL if ya just read the thread… from my 5:56 post above:

""Misleading claims about sea level rise
The IPCC claims a faster rate in sea level rise in the period 1993-2003 (3.1 mm/year) compared with 1961-2003 (1.8 mm/yr), see WG1 SPM p 5,7, table SPM1. To make this claim, the IPCC have employed two of their familiar misleading tricks simultaneously - (a) compare a short period with a longer period, (b) change the measurement technique.

Prior to 1993 IPCC uses the tide gauge record of sea level, which records measurements at several shorelines; in 1993 this was changed to satellite altimetry, which measures the entire ocean. The change in method coincides with an apparent acceleration of sea level rise over previous periods, which IPCC attributes to AGW, throwing out the tide gauge record, which shows significant fluctuations but no such acceleration.

To compare one set of results using one method over one time period (prior to 1993) with another set of results using a different method over another time period (after 1993) and then using this cobbled-together record to claim an accelerating trend between the two time periods is bad science, at best, especially if the record for the latter time period which uses the same method for both periods shows no acceleration is ignored.

These false claims are repeated in the main body of AR4 WG1, in section 5.5. On page 409 it is stated that "global sea level gradually rose in the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate" and "This decade-long satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993, sea level has been rising at a rate of around 3 mm yr–1, significantly higher than the average during the previous half century. Coastal tide gauge measurements confirm this observation...", with no supporting evidence. This last statement is contradicted by the papers by Holgate and Woodworth and by Douglas below."


"S. J. Holgate, On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century, Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L01602 (2007).

Abstract:

Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr."

And so on and so forth…"

I hope that helps…
 
LOL!

Are you asking for evidence that the Left; the irrational ideology which rejects the natural principles governing human behavior, has claimed that the sun doesn't matter in terms of the earth's atmosphere?

Seriously?

Of course. That was the claim that was made near the beginning of the thread. Either it can be backed up, or it can't. I'm guessing that it can't, and that any attempt to call it a strawman will be met with a changing of the subject.

as for example:



The ENTIRE SCAM RESTS UPON THE PREMISE THAT THE SUN DOES NOT EXIST.

OK, then, if you'd rather, show us where anyone has claimed that the sun does not exist.

Until you can back up the claims made, straw men and change of subject, are all you have.
 

No?

So this wasn't you?

"Originally Posted by Threegoofs
I'm not lying. I'm merely reinforcing what scientists have been saying for years and have largely nailed.

And no scientists were saying those places would be underwater in 10 years. …"
 


What I claim is that the AGW lobby is a sad little cult, who's hopes and dreams rest upon irrational beliefs… not the least of which is that the SUN is more or less irrelevant where the earth's atmosphere is concerned. This resting upon the INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT: That the sun is the predominate factor in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere, with there being no close second.

Meaning that if ya take the sun out of the equation… the earth quickly becomes a ball of ice covered rock, shortly before it takes leave of the ice and spends eternity as just another rock, where NO AMOUNT of capitalism will EVER be able to warm it….
 

Right. 3mm per year does not mean Florida is underwater in a decade.

I'm suspecting that you're not just an American by choice, but you're also a Tennessee Mash drinker by choice too...
 
With a cursory search, I managed to find this:


"England Under Water: Scientists Confirm Global Warming Link

By Michael McCarthy

24 July, 2007
The Independent"

I am still looking for my favorite notable Chickenlittle quote… This laptop doesn't have it booked, but it was a British Global Warming clown, of some would-be significance back in the 80s DEMANDING that "MY COUNTRY WILL BE UNDER WATER! WE DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK!".

LOL! It was truly hysterical… in every sense of the word.

But nothing is more sad than a British socialist. They're the absolute BEST, in terms of clowns. I simply adore them… they're an endless supply of quality entertainment.
 
Right. 3mm per year does not mean Florida is underwater in a decade.

I'm suspecting that you're not just an American by choice, but you're also a Tennessee Mash drinker by choice too...

True… 3mm per year does not mean that Florida will be under water in a decade… nor a century… nor during any period which on any level would be of a concern to any…one.

Who remembers the Island that sank into the Indian ocean a few years back?

Oh we had a wonderful debate on that one… The Chicken littles were dancing about proudly proclaiming that the Island's demise was PROOF CERTAIN that the sea had risen to swallow the little island and that doom was upon us all.

Then someone… hard to recall who at this point mentioned that the sea level over on the Indian coast, a few miles away from the missing island hadn't risen… and OH! The wailing and gnashing of teeth that ensued… was NOT to be believed.

But it was HYSTERICAL!
 
I see no link, just a reference to a newspaper article.

Remember. Underwater. Ten years. That's what you're looking for.

Happy hunting.


Oh! Delish… Argumentun ad ignorantum; OKA: The appeal to ignorance… Folks this particular fallacy is among my faves… it says, in modern terms: "If you can't provide a link, it can't be true." When in truth, there is no actual correlation between the existence of a link and whether or not the claim is true.

You need only use your own experience in the terms of the daily dose from the Chicken little herd… and where you heard some advocate of AGW making such a claim, then you know it to be true. Those of you who have not, need only stand by… as we're never too far from one.
 
Last edited:
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…