• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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-time record heat scorches Middle East as temperatures hit 129 degrees

Denying climate science? It's true that the average world temp rose by 1 degrees and it took almost a century to happen, and I agree with that, because that's the only thing that's proven to be true.

You made the claim that heat spikes in the desert are manmade AGW, so you have to prove it.

Wrong. :) All I have to do is accept the scientific opinion on climate change. You, on the other hand, as someone who denies it, must prove that they are all wrong. ;)

Now can you? Will you? I am not holding my breath.
 
Wrong. :) All I have to do is accept the scientific opinion on climate change. You, on the other hand, as someone who denies it, must prove that they are all wrong. ;)

Now can you? Will you? I am not holding my breath.

You can believe all the opinions you want- but they are just that- opinions. No facts- which is typical of a doomsayer. I believe in facts.
 
Wrong. :) All I have to do is accept the scientific opinion on climate change. You, on the other hand, as someone who denies it, must prove that they are all wrong. ;)

Now can you? Will you? I am not holding my breath.

The argument of sheep.
 
Neither childish nor insulting. Merely accurate.

"All I have to do is accept the scientific opinion . . . "

I know, I know, accepting the judgment of people whose expertise far surpasses yours is not something you are ready for. :)
 
I know, I know, accepting the judgment of people whose expertise far surpasses yours is not something you are ready for. :)

On the contrary, the expertise of Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv, among others, is an inspiration.
 
On the contrary, the expertise of Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv, among others, is an inspiration.

At least 97% of climate scientists accept the scientific consensus on climate change. :) But that still leaves plenty of others to cherry-pick from, doesn't it?
 
Because it has not been proven that these heat spikes are a result of manmade AGW, thats why. If you have the facts, then state it, otherwise stop tyring to censor the truth!

It's history. Things got hot, stayed hot and governments asked scientists to find out why. The answer was simple, we added CO2 in ways that added sulfates and reduced adding the sulfates with emission controls, because the rain was becoming too acidic and destroying our world. There are records of us adding the CO2, so there is no mystery where the CO2 came from. There is no mystery how the sulfates were added, it wasn't a volcano. We have enough paleoclimatic data to show the Earth doesn't add that much CO2 to the atmosphere without man doing it.

Matter doesn't disappear, if we add something to the atmosphere, it has to exist somewhere.
 
At least 97% of climate scientists accept the scientific consensus on climate change. :) But that still leaves plenty of others to cherry-pick from, doesn't it?

th


LOOKA WHUT DIS GUY BE REPEATIN'.
HE DON'T KNOW DAT BE ANCIENT BS.
 
At least 97% of climate scientists accept the scientific consensus on climate change. :) But that still leaves plenty of others to cherry-pick from, doesn't it?

I "cherry-pick" for honesty.

[h=2]Climate scientists’ motivated reasoning[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on June 19, 2019 by curryja | 124 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
Insights into the motivated reasoning of climate scientists, including my own efforts to sort out my own biases and motivated reasoning following publication of the Webster et al. (2005) paper
Continue reading
 
It's history. Things got hot, stayed hot and governments asked scientists to find out why. The answer was simple, we added CO2 in ways that added sulfates and reduced adding the sulfates with emission controls, because the rain was becoming too acidic and destroying our world. There are records of us adding the CO2, so there is no mystery where the CO2 came from. There is no mystery how the sulfates were added, it wasn't a volcano. We have enough paleoclimatic data to show the Earth doesn't add that much CO2 to the atmosphere without man doing it.

Matter doesn't disappear, if we add something to the atmosphere, it has to exist somewhere.

Except they haven't.
Are you under the impression that temps have continually risen right along with CO2 levels and it's always been that way?
 
Last edited:

Uh huh ... did you see the footnote that goes with that?
" Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; Verheggen, Bart; Maibach, Ed W.; Carlton, J. Stuart; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Skuce, Andrew G.; Green, Sarah A.; Nuccitelli, Dana; Jacobs, Peter; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Bärbel; Painting, Rob; Rice, Ken (2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C."

Cook and Oreskes did a couple of the more famous surveys that came up with that 97% nonsense.

Since you're in research mode please report here the methodology used by those surveys and why you think it should be considered reliable.
 
Read the link. "Motivated reasoning" has corrupted climate science.

After being called out on your latest episode of dishonesty, you want me to read your latest spammed article instead of your learning what scientific consensus really is. :mrgreen:

Keep digging, Jack. You're going to set another record low yet! ;)
 
Uh huh ... did you see the footnote that goes with that?
" Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; Verheggen, Bart; Maibach, Ed W.; Carlton, J. Stuart; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Skuce, Andrew G.; Green, Sarah A.; Nuccitelli, Dana; Jacobs, Peter; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Bärbel; Painting, Rob; Rice, Ken (2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C."

Cook and Oreskes did a couple of the more famous surveys that came up with that 97% nonsense.

Since you're in research mode please report here the methodology used by those surveys and why you think it should be considered reliable.

Sounds like you might actually have done some climate science research! Care to share some of it, or are you just going spew more denialism?
 
After being called out on your latest episode of dishonesty, you want me to read your latest spammed article instead of your learning what scientific consensus really is. :mrgreen:

Keep digging, Jack. You're going to set another record low yet! ;)

I recall no "episode of dishonesty." Are you disseminating another falsehood?
 
It's history. Things got hot, stayed hot and governments asked scientists to find out why. The answer was simple, we added CO2 in ways that added sulfates and reduced adding the sulfates with emission controls, because the rain was becoming too acidic and destroying our world. There are records of us adding the CO2, so there is no mystery where the CO2 came from. There is no mystery how the sulfates were added, it wasn't a volcano. We have enough paleoclimatic data to show the Earth doesn't add that much CO2 to the atmosphere without man doing it.

Matter doesn't disappear, if we add something to the atmosphere, it has to exist somewhere.

The theory that man is behind AGW is just that... a theory. It has not been proven. So far this is all just correlation/causation fallacy.
 
Sorry, but now you're just embarrassing yourself.

Says the person who has claims to have already forgotten about his dishonesty. :lol:
 
The theory that man is behind AGW is just that... a theory. It has not been proven. So far this is all just correlation/causation fallacy.

Just like the theories of evolution and gravity. ;)

And you do know what AGW stands for, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom