• 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!

'Climate change crisis' narrative is taking a beating

Feel better?? Do you have a point?? A question??
Yeah the question is where do you hear that stuff? Nobody sits down and thinks "hmmmm, it makes sense to me that scientists would control the population by forcing us to reduce the use of coal." So who is saying this? With what evidence? What's the logic? All REAL questions, the point is moot because I would want to debate those people, not somebody repeating these "points."
 
Yeah the question is where do you hear that stuff? Nobody sits down and thinks "hmmmm, it makes sense to me that scientists would control the population by forcing us to reduce the use of coal." So who is saying this? With what evidence? What's the logic? All REAL questions, the point is moot because I would want to debate those people, not somebody repeating these "points."
Who said anything about scientists controlling anyone?? They're getting paid to produce a specific narrative.

The frauds like Michael Mann and Phil Jones are simply in it for the money and chest puffing.

The people who are using the junk science to drive a political agenda of control and excessive regulation are the ones who want the science to say a certain thing.

Didn't Climategate teach you anything??
 
And renewables you put in quotes because there’s a conspiracy to hide the fact that the “energy” supply will be extinct within a decade? Where do you hear this stuff I thought I listen to the most outrageous things available for consumption but it’s not anywhere near as obviously baseless as anything you said. Did you just read that scientists are saying we can’t do anything to prevent the mass flooding of many of the worlds most populous cities in the next 30 years? Because if they were trying to control us why would they say we can’t do anything? Do you think that there is maybe a job called scientist where people try to do science or would you put scientists in quotations as well?
Um, Almost no scientist are saying that the coastal cities will see mass flooding in 30 years, other than a special combination of unlikely events, and even if the proper combination occurs, there is very little certainty in the predictions!
Dig into to the articles that say such things, and follow the sources to see what the actual scientist said, not what the article writer thought they said!
 
Um, Almost no scientist are saying that the coastal cities will see mass flooding in 30 years, other than a special combination of unlikely events, and even if the proper combination occurs, there is very little certainty in the predictions!
Dig into to the articles that say such things, and follow the sources to see what the actual scientist said, not what the article writer thought they said!

According to the sixth IPCC report which does indeed predict mass flooding, precisely 107 experts from 52 countries examined, reviewed, and approved of the methodology, data, and conclusions. I would encourage everybody to follow the sources. But the question is what do you mean "the article?" I can give you one article.


But that's yahoo. So it's about the science, like here: Monitoring global carbon emissions in 2021

Following record-level declines in 2020, near-real-time data indicate that global CO2 emissions rebounded by 4.8% in 2021, reaching 34.9 GtCO2. These 2021 emissions consumed 8.7% of the remaining carbon budget for limiting anthropogenic warming to 1.5 °C, which if current trajectories continue, might be used up in 9.5 years at 67% likelihood.

So you disagree with this for what reason? Did you review the study (sorry the 10 studies that found this, it's a global scientific consensus) and publish data that suggested your study was superior? And the consensus for the loss of land from temperature increase, here's 4 studies:
  1. Crippa, M. et al. Fossil CO2 Emissions of All World Countries - 2020 Report (Publications Office of the European Union, 2020).
  2. IPCC Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).
  3. Liu, Z. et al. Challenges and opportunities for carbon neutrality in China. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 3, 141–155 (2022).
    Article Google Scholar
  4. Nationally Determined Contributions Under the Paris Agreement FCCC/PA/CMA/2021/8 (UNFCCC, 2021).
  5. Deng, Z. et al. Comparing national greenhouse gas budgets reported in UNFCCC inventories against atmospheric inversions. Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-235 (2021).
    Article Google Scholar
  6. Huppmann, D. et al. IAMC 1.5°C Scenario Explorer and Data hosted by IIASA (Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium & International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 2018).
 
Who said anything about scientists controlling anyone?? They're getting paid to produce a specific narrative.

The frauds like Michael Mann and Phil Jones are simply in it for the money and chest puffing.

The people who are using the junk science to drive a political agenda of control and excessive regulation are the ones who want the science to say a certain thing.

Didn't Climategate teach you anything??

"Climategate" isn't a study, so no, it taught me nothing about global warming.

I just prefer things that have a little more meat. Here:

Countdown of the dwindling carbon budget​

Carbon budgets estimate the maximum amount of cumulative net global anthropogenic CO2 emissions that would limit warming to a given level with a given probability from a specified date, taking into account other anthropogenic climate forcers. Starting from 2020, the IPCC estimates that the global carbon budget for 1.5 °C and 2 °C warming is 400 GtCO2 and 1,150 GtCO2 with 67% likelihood, respectively, or 300 GtCO2 and 900 GtCO2 with 83% likelihood6. The observed variability in CO2 emissions have clear implications for this budget, and thus achievement of the Paris Agreement.

Can you show me how these people are being controlled? Here you go: Crippa, M., Guizzardi, D., Muntean, M., Schaaf, E., Solazzo, E., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Olivier, J. and Vignati, E.
 
"Climategate" isn't a study, so no, it taught me nothing about global warming.

I just prefer things that have a little more meat. Here:

Countdown of the dwindling carbon budget​

Carbon budgets estimate the maximum amount of cumulative net global anthropogenic CO2 emissions that would limit warming to a given level with a given probability from a specified date, taking into account other anthropogenic climate forcers. Starting from 2020, the IPCC estimates that the global carbon budget for 1.5 °C and 2 °C warming is 400 GtCO2 and 1,150 GtCO2 with 67% likelihood, respectively, or 300 GtCO2 and 900 GtCO2 with 83% likelihood6. The observed variability in CO2 emissions have clear implications for this budget, and thus achievement of the Paris Agreement.

Can you show me how these people are being controlled? Here you go: Crippa, M., Guizzardi, D., Muntean, M., Schaaf, E., Solazzo, E., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Olivier, J. and Vignati, E.
Either the observations match that rhetoric, or they don't - and, the answer is no, the observations do not match the rhetoric.

90-climate-temperature-models-v-observatons-628x353.jpg


 
"Climategate" isn't a study, so no, it taught me nothing about global warming.
Whate Climategate should have taught you is that human beings are fallible and easily corrupted.

It showed beyond any doubt that they were not only rigging the data, but were also rigging the peer review process to ensure that only pro-warming studies, and pro- warming scientists were published.

They should have gone to jail IMO. Instead, they received only a minor public rebuke, which was quickly swept under the carpet, and carried on their merry way with no change in behavior.

If anything, the orthodoxy is more rigid today than it was back then.
 
If humans are fallible and easily corrupted have you ever considered that you yourself may be wrong Wist43?
 
Feel better?? Do you have a point?? A question??
Perhaps the point is what he said:
... the fact that the “energy” supply will be extinct within a decade... ...scientists are saying we can’t do anything to prevent the mass flooding of many of the worlds most populous cities in the next 30 years...
Of course, this goes to the next question being that after 10 years no more CO2 will be produced because the energy will have been used up, yet for the next 20 years after that the oceans will continue to rise.
 
If humans are fallible and easily corrupted have you ever considered that you yourself may be wrong Wist43?
Of course I have, I'm a scientist.

Science is about finding truth; and, to that end - testing theories and data to failure.

Those pushing AGW and catastrophic climate change don't do that.

Instead, they say - "we're right, the debate is over, now shut up and go away".

That's not science, that's orthodoxy and scientific fraud.

Here are the facts - a cogent rebuttal, using IPCC data. The problem is, "believers" have been thoroughly conditioned to avoid any challenge to the orthodoxy they believe in. That's not science, that's cult like indoctrination.

 
Perhaps the point is what he said:

Of course, this goes to the next question being that after 10 years no more CO2 will be produced because the energy will have been used up, yet for the next 20 years after that the oceans will continue to rise.
Sea rise level gas nothing to do with CO2.

You've bought into propaganda.
 
Whate Climategate should have taught you is that human beings are fallible and easily corrupted.

It showed beyond any doubt that they were not only rigging the data, but were also rigging the peer review process to ensure that only pro-warming studies, and pro- warming scientists were published.

They should have gone to jail IMO. Instead, they received only a minor public rebuke, which was quickly swept under the carpet, and carried on their merry way with no change in behavior.

If anything, the orthodoxy is more rigid today than it was back then.
If you can give me an example of a scientist whose work is being ignored, and has no conflict of interest and published work I’ll take a look but if I give you 10 studies and say “what’s one thing they got wrong” and your reply is “look at this picture that makes a totally different point” it’s quite hard to take you seriously
 
If you can give me an example of a scientist whose work is being ignored, and has no conflict of interest and published work I’ll take a look but if I give you 10 studies and say “what’s one thing they got wrong” and your reply is “look at this picture that makes a totally different point” it’s quite hard to take you seriously
The spaghetti graph I posted is from Dr. John Christie, UAH. Nobody denies that graph is not accurate.

If the observations don't match the theory, then the theory is invalid. Honesty is not complicated.

That's the way it works in science - of course that is not how it works in climate science though, is it??

Watch Lindzen's presentation, which you would probably consider heretical, but facts are facts.

And BTW, there are many scientists who don't buy the scary scenario. You just have to look - which means getting past search engine algorithms designed specifically to prevent you from seeing them.

Here's one - I put exactly zero effort into vetting this...

 
Sea rise level gas nothing to do with CO2.

You've bought into propaganda.
you may be ascribing beliefs to me that don't make any sense. What I'm talking about is the AGW mantra, that CO2 is the main greenhouse gas and it's raising temperatures which are melting the ice caps raising the sea levels. Agree or disagree, this is the mantra.
 
you may be ascribing beliefs to me that don't make any sense. What I'm talking about is the AGW mantra, that CO2 is the main greenhouse gas and it's raising temperatures which are melting the ice caps raising the sea levels. Agree or disagree, this is the mantra.
CO2 has very little effective change for melting the ice or heating the oceans. Soot had a greater effect on ice, and the sun has a greater effect with lag on the oceans. The spectra from CO2 is almost fully absorbed in the same thin layer that evaporates, so for the most part, CO2 increases H2O into the atmosphere.
 
you may be ascribing beliefs to me that don't make any sense. What I'm talking about is the AGW mantra, that CO2 is the main greenhouse gas and it's raising temperatures which are melting the ice caps raising the sea levels. Agree or disagree, this is the mantra.
Sadly, the simple minded are easy prey for slogans and mantras.

Throw some sciencey terms in there and they are completely flummoxed.

:)
 
According to the sixth IPCC report which does indeed predict mass flooding, precisely 107 experts from 52 countries examined, reviewed, and approved of the methodology, data, and conclusions. I would encourage everybody to follow the sources. But the question is what do you mean "the article?" I can give you one article.
Let's just fact check your first statement.
IPCC AR6 SPM
It is virtually certain that global mean sea level will continue to rise over the 21st century. Relative to 1995–2014, the likely
global mean sea level rise by 2100 is 0.28–0.55 m under the very low GHG emissions scenario (SSP1-1.9); 0.32–0.62 m
under the low GHG emissions scenario (SSP1-2.6); 0.44–0.76 m under the intermediate GHG emissions scenario (SSP2-4.5);
and 0.63–1.01 m under the very high GHG emissions scenario (SSP5-8.5);
This is not a prediction of mass flooding of coastal cities.
It is a prediction that sea levels which have been raising for at least 200 years, will likely continue to rise.
Keep in mind that the high emission scenario is almost impossible, as it would call for CO2 increases of over 12 ppm per year,
while the average of the last 20 years has been 2.74 ppm per year.
 
Back
Top Bottom