• 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!

All Authors Working on Flagship U.S. Climate Report Are Dismissed

Gimmesometruth said:
Click to expand...
That is the full spectrum, longwave and shortwave, CO2 as a greenhouse gas can only alter the longwave spectrum, and the longwave spectrum is loosing energy.
Why did you not cite the link to the graph?
 
There is no evidence that trump is a foreign agent.
But he sure seems like one.
 
You do not understand the difference of CO2 in a bottle, compared to a small percentage and a small change in the whole of the atmosphere.

Even those experiments are all rigged to show a result. I have not seen a single one I cannot contest. Now I agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it just isn't as strong as the dogma wishes us to believe.
 
ModernDiogenes said:
The Earth is an organic entity. Just like any other organic entity. Just like single cell creatures, bugs, fish, people. It has a defensive system too. There is a big picture at work here
Click to expand...
They never speak of the heat exchange and sequestration of photosynthesis.
Yep.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Click to expand...
And what if some of that is the drift in the calibrations? What is much more instead is being sequestered by photosynthesis? Now some of it will be the energy exchange in the melting of ice. But as long as this planet has life, there will always be an energy imbalance as the heat keeps the biological processes of the earth functioning.

If the energy balance ever dropped to zero, the planet would be cooling.
 
No the Earth is an inorganic entity, entirely composed of minerals. It is not alive, it makes no decisions. It does not resemble in any way bugs or any other form of life.

Homo Sapiens will of course become extinct. Mammalian species tend not to last long. But it will not be the inert Earth that causes this.
 
And you base this conclusion on what?
 
It’s true that we will all die someday. But I still would not recommend standing in the middle of a busy highway.
 
Lord of Planar said:
OK, bring us one of those videos, and I will explain how it is not a correct experiment.
Click to expand...
You're the one claiming that all the science on this subject, for the last century and a half, is wrong. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Surely there is something out there, more than a handful of articles from maybe 30 years ago, that has led you to such shocking conclusions about a massive conspiracy theory about the entire scientific community, colluding from all around the world, and across so much time.
 
Actually you are the one claiming that experimental evidence exists, LOP is saying that the experiments all have fatal flaws.
Cite an experiment that you think supports your claim?
 
longview said:
Actually you are the one claiming that experimental evidence exists, LOP is saying that the experiments all have fatal flaws.
Cite an experiment that you think supports your claim?
Click to expand...
The overwhelming majority of all experiments and observations from the last century and a half.

It's like looking at the ocean and asking to see evidence that the ocean exists. If you are looking at the ocean and saying it doesn't exist, it's up to you to find the evidence that supports your claim. Good luck.

So far, with any evidence you have tried to show, and these so called "fatal flaws"- it has been explained to you why they have been based on a "misunderstanding" of the science on your part (personally, I don't think it's a misunderstanding, but just poor attempts at gaslighting- but I guess that's irrelevant).
 
So pick one, any one, that shows experimental evidence that added CO2 causes atmospheric warming?
 
longview said:
So pick one, any one, that shows experimental evidence that added CO2 causes atmospheric warming?
Click to expand...

I have, multiple times. But that's not even my job. You're the one making the extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So far, every time you have tried, you have been shown why your evidence was based on a poor or improper understanding of the articles. But keep trying.
 
ataraxia said:
The overwhelming majority of all experiments and observations from the last century and a half.
Click to expand...
Experiments that you do not understand, do not read papers on, and allow the lying pundits to deceive you on.
ataraxia said:
It's like looking at the ocean and asking to see evidence that the ocean exists. If you are looking at the ocean and saying it doesn't exist, it's up to you to find the evidence that supports your claim. Good luck.
Click to expand...
LOL... Are you admitting how foreign this topic is to you?
Explained? How?
 
Actually you are the one making the extraordinary claim, because no empirical evidence exists that shows added CO2 causes warming!
Again support your claim?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Experiments that you do not understand, do not read papers on, and allow the lying pundits to deceive you on.
Click to expand...
Nope. The misunderstanding is all yours. Your only avenue is to tell us how there are things in the bodies of papers that only you have access to which directly contradicts what their abstract plainly says. And the only reason they are allowed to contradict themselves that way is that both the authors AND the reviewers are all engaged in some giant conspiracy theory.

Yeah OK.
Lord of Planar said:
Explained? How?
Click to expand...

In all our previous discussion. Give me some more quotes from all your secret articles and we can talk about them some more if you like. But you never do. I'll wait.
 
longview said:
Actually you are the one making the extraordinary claim, because no empirical evidence exists that shows added CO2 causes warming!
Again support your claim?
Click to expand...
Haha, OK. And there is no empirical evidence of the moon landing either!

 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
I have, multiple times. But that's not even my job. You're the one making the extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Click to expand...
No you haven't. CO2 in a bottle does not represent the complexity of the atmosphere.
ataraxia said:
So far, every time you have tried, you have been shown why your evidence was based on a poor or improper understanding of the articles. But keep trying.
Click to expand...
You are in no position to judge me. If you were, you would explain scientifically why I am wrong.
 

“The Earth”, in its totality, is the rock you make mention of and everything that lives upon or within it. In its totality it very much is an organic entity. Most of its components, including the soil, fossil fuels, and other components are derived from living, or formerly living, material.

It its totality it reacts to the forces placed upon it. It’s changing eco-system its environment. Whether water ran in certain places, in particular ways, in particular quantities as an example.
 
ataraxia said:
Yes, because that's all climate change science in the last century and a half.
Click to expand...
No but they also do not have any empirical evidence supporting the assumption that added CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere!
 
Lord of Planar said:
You are in no position to judge me. If you were, you would explain scientifically why I am wrong.
Click to expand...
Other than claiming that there are secret things in the bodies of all scientific papers that directly contradict their abstracts, you have provided no scientific evidence to dispute. Provide it, and we can talk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.