• 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

 
PoS said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Phys251 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Phys251 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The argument of sheep.
 
Jack Hays said:
Neither childish nor insulting. Merely accurate.

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

I know, I know, accepting the judgment of people whose expertise far surpasses yours is not something you are ready for. :)
 
Phys251 said:
I know, I know, accepting the judgment of people whose expertise far surpasses yours is not something you are ready for. :)
Click to expand...

On the contrary, the expertise of Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv, among others, is an inspiration.
 
Jack Hays said:
On the contrary, the expertise of Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv, among others, is an inspiration.
Click to expand...

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?
 
PoS said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Phys251 said:
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?
Click to expand...

th


LOOKA WHUT DIS GUY BE REPEATIN'.
HE DON'T KNOW DAT BE ANCIENT BS.
 
Phys251 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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 →
 
Gary said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Phys251 said:
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jack Hays said:
Read the link. "Motivated reasoning" has corrupted climate science.
Click to expand...

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! ;)
 
bubbabgone said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Phys251 said:
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! ;)
Click to expand...

I recall no "episode of dishonesty." Are you disseminating another falsehood?
 
Gary said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but now you're just embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...

Says the person who has claims to have already forgotten about his dishonesty. :lol:
 
PoS said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just like the theories of evolution and gravity. ;)

And you do know what AGW stands for, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom