• 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? What Climate Change?

Where did he imply that? He didn't. You are just making stuff up again. You denialists seem to do that a lot.
Its in the title and the youtube vid he posted. Nuance escapes you, we know that already. :ROFLMAO:
 










Us...


And the hottest year Evah in 4.5 billion years!!!!
 
It said what you already quoted,

i.e. it did not single out an AGW as the cause of the recent drought, but showed a re occurring patter,
that could be triggered by AGW.
Yes, could be triggered by AGW. And that is far different than the stupid shit others around here were insinuating when they pointed out that there were no SUVs or coal-fired power plants back hundreds of years ago. Just because there were no SUVs or coal-fired power plants back then doesn't mean that SUVs and coal-fired power plants can't be helping to cause droughts now. And that is what the quoted part of the study I cited is basically saying.
 
IF..... Plausible....

You still don't understand words. Dammit. How many times must I remind you "words have meaning?" You seem to be taking that statement as fact, that we are wrong.

When is the last time you opened up a dictionary?
And here we go again with the typical LoP double standard. Those words are only bad when scientists use them. But if you use them... then no problem.

You are going to have to do better than that.
 
It's that the "poisoning of the well" fallacy?

You love your logical fallacies, don't you?
Nope!! You are wrong yet again LoP. "Poisoning of the well" is done in advance of what you might say. And I have not said anything about what you might say or anything about the sources you might use in this thread.

The fact of the matter is that The Heartland Institute is a well know disseminator of climate change denialism.

And you got suckered into citing their denialist garbage here!!

:LOL:
 
Thats exactly what is being implied by the OP, so too bad for you.
Whatever dude. I am done with your completely idiotic remarks that prove that you don't even understand the facts and what is being argued.
 
Just so we’re clear on what we’re supposed to be talking about in this thread - we’re talking about man-made reservoirs that were built so people could plant non-deciduous faunas that are gluttons for water in the middle of a natural desert. And the expectation is what? That we shed tears and run around with our hair on fire over the disappearance of something that never would have existed naturally in the first place?

Zooming in on the wasting away of artificial environments as though it’s reflective of the severity of what climate change would do to natural environments isn’t a very honest way of looking at the issue.
First one. The great salt lake. Not man made.

But the point is, man made or not. The west is in record drought, and climate change is part of it.
 
First one. The great salt lake. Not man made.

But the point is, man made or not. The west is in record drought, and climate change is part of it.
Yes the climate changes always have, now the 1001 question how much does man contribute and how much is it natural variation?
 
I watched all the Senate hearings when Judith Curry made mincemeat out of your reply.

Again the thousand dollar question how much is it man made and how much is it natural variance?

No one knows
Lol.

But you didn't bother with the PROOF in the link.

Dismissed.
 
And here we go again with the typical LoP double standard. Those words are only bad when scientists use them. But if you use them... then no problem.

You are going to have to do better than that.
No double standard at my end. I'm only pointing out that such statements are not saying it will become true. It is statements like this in papers that pundits turn around and spin, saying it will happen. Not could, but will. Then people like you, believe their lies.
 
Nope!! You are wrong yet again LoP. "Poisoning of the well" is done in advance of what you might say. And I have not said anything about what you might say or anything about the sources you might use in this thread.

The fact of the matter is that The Heartland Institute is a well know disseminator of climate change denialism.

And you got suckered into citing their denialist garbage here!!

:LOL:
So you admit because you disdain the Heartland Institute, you treat their material as lies.

To then use that claiming they are lying is a logical fallacy.
 
Whatever dude. I am done with your completely idiotic remarks that prove that you don't even understand the facts and what is being argued.
LOL youre just mad because you cant figure out the obvious. Oh well, thats you. :LOL::ROFLMAO:
 
No double standard at my end.
BS! I can cite numerous examples of you doing exactly the same thing. But you only complain about it when others do it.
I'm only pointing out that such statements are not saying it will become true.
So?? That doesn't mean that it will not.
It is statements like this in papers that pundits turn around and spin, saying it will happen. Not could, but will. Then people like you, believe their lies.
Oh... since pundits might misstate what a paper says then we should disregard the paper? That is just dumb. And I don't just take the words of pundits.
So you admit because you disdain the Heartland Institute, you treat their material as lies.
I disdain the Heartland Institute because they are a well-known and proven shill for the fossil fuel industry that pushes denialist lies and misinformation. I have personally debunked their BS many times on this forum. And I have never once seen them publish anything legitimate... ever!!
To then use that claiming they are lying is a logical fallacy.
It is not a logical fallacy to blow them off when they are well known for pushing denialist BS.

The fact of the matter is that you should be ashamed of yourself for citing that garbage. Only denialists cite the Heartland Institute.
 
Lol.

But you didn't bother with the PROOF in the link.

Dismissed.
Common political knowledge you lack, why are you even posting here?
 
Here is the proof again.

That's not proof.

I asked you tell us how much man is contributing, is it

10%

25%

75%

100%


Again no one knows how much man contributes and how much it's natural variation, it's impossible to figure out. The climate has always changed and changed fast when the great Sahara dessert went from tropical to green in only a few hundred years.
 
That's not proof.

I asked you tell us how much man is contributing, is it

10%

25%

75%

100%


Again no one knows how much man contributes and how much it's natural variation, it's impossible to figure out. The climate has always changed and changed fast when the great Sahara dessert went from tropical to green in only a few hundred years.
Yes, the proof is in the link. Read it.. look at The chart.

Here is more.

 
Last edited:
BS! I can cite numerous examples of you doing exactly the same thing. But you only complain about it when others do it.
Every time you cite said examples, you are wrong.
So?? That doesn't mean that it will not.
Agreed, but you portray them as being correct. I'm only saying they are not affirmative statements.
Oh... since pundits might misstate what a paper says then we should disregard the paper? That is just dumb. And I don't just take the words of pundits.
I never, ever disregard the papers. I point out the pundits lie about them.
I disdain the Heartland Institute because they are a well-known and proven shill for the fossil fuel industry that pushes denialist lies and misinformation. I have personally debunked their BS many times on this forum. And I have never once seen them publish anything legitimate... ever!!
Just because they support the sides you are at war with, doesn't make them wrong. I have never seen you provide evidence showing that.
It is not a logical fallacy to blow them off when they are well known for pushing denialist BS.
They are not "known" for fallacies except for the lies the leftist pundits claim. One simple example is the leftist claim they had a study saying smoking wasn't harmful. That statement is a flat out lie. They never made that claim. Their claim was "second hand smoking" was only harmful to people with respiratory illnesses, and infants to young children. You are listening to lying pundits, without verifying if they are accurate or not.

The fact of the matter is that you should be ashamed of yourself for citing that garbage. Only denialists cite the Heartland Institute.
There you go, being a bully again.
 
Again no one knows how much man contributes and how much it's natural variation, it's impossible to figure out. The climate has always changed and changed fast when the great Sahara dessert went from tropical to green in only a few hundred years.
We have a pretty good idea how much CO2 in the atmosphere we are responsible for. Nature was in balance before we started producing CO2 in the quantities we do. Though our emissions are only a small fraction of what nature sources and sinks, nature is not equipped to sink the extra CO2 we produce as fast as we emit it. Therefore we are responsible for the rising CO2 content!
 
First one. The great salt lake. Not man made.

But the point is, man made or not. The west is in record drought, and climate change is part of it.
Baloney. Take Lake Mead for example. It’s a man made resovoir created by the Hoover Dam and supplemented with water from the Colorado snowpack for the last several decades because of unsustainable water usage. This is not the the worst drought on record.

The answer isn’t, oh my GOD CLIMATE CHANGE?! The answer is that what’s happening is a predictable and inevitable consequence of idiots who want to grow produce in the desert and build oasis cities in an environment that can’t naturally sustain them.
 
Baloney. Take Lake Mead for example. It’s a man made resovoir created by the Hoover Dam and supplemented with water from the Colorado snowpack for the last several decades because of unsustainable water usage. This is not the the worst drought on record.

The answer isn’t, oh my GOD CLIMATE CHANGE?! The answer is that what’s happening is a predictable and inevitable consequence of idiots who want to grow produce in the desert and build oasis cities in an environment that can’t naturally sustain them.
Climate change is a fact.

The effects are undeniable.
 
We have a pretty good idea how much CO2 in the atmosphere we are responsible for. Nature was in balance before we started producing CO2 in the quantities we do. Though our emissions are only a small fraction of what nature sources and sinks, nature is not equipped to sink the extra CO2 we produce as fast as we emit it. Therefore we are responsible for the rising CO2 content!
Nature was in balanced?

Holy shit , so humans got lucky by evolving at just the right time before ice ages and you call it balanced?
 
Yes, the proof is in the link. Read it.. look at The chart.

Here is more.

So if you read your link you could of gave me a simple answer of say:

Man contributes 65% and natural variation of say 35%.


 
Back
Top Bottom