• 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!

An expert explains why we are where we are with AGW alarmism today

bluesmoke said:
I'm not going to argue over molehills nor what you pretend is a mountain that you can't show has any specific effect of any significance on the AGW estimates as accepted by the science community. You're ankle-biting. All you can do is pester. You are unable to field a substantive argument to begin with. See you on another thread.
Click to expand...
I am sorry you think the climate feedbacks of greenhouse gasses are a molehill in the discussion of AGW!
It means that you do not understand the discussion at all!
 
Lord of Planar said:
I used what the IPCC says they are. Do you or do you not agree that the 16% referenced is "equivalent?"
Click to expand...
Look, I agree with bluesmoke. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.
 
Buzz said:
You gave the pages for two graphs of data and then proceeded to use that data to make a series of calculations and statements based mostly on your denialist opinions and not anything the IPCC was saying. You didn't prove anything.
Click to expand...
Yes, I did. I'm sorry if you cannot follow along. I'm not a good teacher, so I suggest you pull out a few books and learn something for a change.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, I did. I'm sorry if you cannot follow along. I'm not a good teacher, so I suggest you pull out a few books and learn something for a change
Click to expand...
The thing I’ve noticed the most throughout my career is that if you can’t teach something well, you really don’t understand it yourself.
 
Threegoofs said:
The thing I’ve noticed the most throughout my career is that if you can’t teach something well, you really don’t understand it yourself.
Click to expand...
No, I just have a hard time making explanations simple enough.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Maybe you know I'm right, and will not admit you were wrong again.
Click to expand...
Look... if I knew you were right, I wouldn't keep debating the subject. I would admit I was wrong or at least shut up about it. To be honest I am not 100% certain and could well be wrong. But to find out would probably take some time to research the subject enough to know for sure. And it wouldn't be the first time I have done something like that. Like the time you came up with that ridiculous forcing you calculated for the city of Portland's capped off ground and loss of evapotranspiration. It took me a few days to research the facts and verify your math and prove you wrong. And it didn't help that you were feeding me false information. I'm sorry I just don't have the time to do that again right now.

But the thing that makes me pretty sure you are wrong is the fact that you can't cite any real scientists who back what you say up.

And I wish you would quit lying about me being wrong "again". You keep making this claim yet you are unable to cite even one instance of you proving me wrong. Hell... I doubt if you could even find one instance of anyone proving me wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom