• 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!

Climate Science Is Not Settled

The rebuttal didn't work for you because faith is immune to reason.
 
WCH said:
I'd suggest seeing an optometrist.

My assessment was from years of studying the weather. From actually being outside.

And yes Democrats have shown, throughout my life, the propensity to run with a hoax if they can gain politically from it.
Click to expand...

You study the weather when you're outside? What does that even mean?

You're speaking about Democrat politicians who you think are corrupted, I'm sure some of them are. However that is not where the science comes from, it comes from actual scientists. AGW is an environmental issue which is a liberal issue which is of course picked up by Democrats as its their base. Not liking Democrat politicians does not invalidate science. If you want to pick a bone with environmental Democrat policy that is another issue altogether.
 
Verax said:
You study the weather when you're outside? What does that even mean?

You're speaking about Democrat politicians who you think are corrupted, I'm sure some of them are. However that is not where the science comes from, it comes from actual scientists. AGW is an environmental issue which is a liberal issue which is of course picked up by Democrats as its their base. Not liking Democrat politicians does not invalidate science. If you want to pick a bone with environmental Democrat policy that is another issue altogether.
Click to expand...

Being an avid outdoorsman, gardener, grew up around farmers and ranchers and who for the last 35+ years, actually works outside, I have constantly studied the weather. (especially since I got on-line)

I'm not getting paid by some political action comm. to adjust my finding to suit some agenda. I actually need to know what the weather is going to do.

IMO, there may be some correlation between man-made pollution and weather anomalies but, most of this climate change business is nothing but a hoax.

Any 'changes' are cause by natural forces, many of which we have yet to fathom.
 
WCH said:
Being an avid outdoorsman, gardener, grew up around farmers and ranchers and who for the last 35+ years, actually works outside, I have constantly studied the weather. (especially since I got on-line)

I'm not getting paid by some political action comm. to adjust my finding to suit some agenda. I actually need to know what the weather is going to do.

IMO, there may be some correlation between man-made pollution and weather anomalies but, most of this climate change business is nothing but a hoax.

Any 'changes' are cause by natural forces, many of which we have yet to fathom.
Click to expand...

You do realize there is a difference between climate and weather right? AGW is not something you can determine looking at local weather patterns.
 
Verax said:
You do realize there is a difference between climate and weather right? AGW is not something you can determine looking at local weather patterns.
Click to expand...

Didn't I just tell you that is a hoax. Geezzz. All the usual players too.
 
WCH said:
Didn't I just tell you that is a hoax. Geezzz. All the usual players too.
Click to expand...

It's a hoax? Whew! Thanks for 411 I'll tell all my friends too.
 
Verax said:
I dunno, maybe we should read what the scientists have said about it?
Click to expand...
I'm a scientist and I say the global warming alarmism is a bunch of BS.
 
Verax said:
You study the weather when you're outside? What does that even mean?

You're speaking about Democrat politicians who you think are corrupted, I'm sure some of them are. However that is not where the science comes from, it comes from actual scientists. AGW is an environmental issue which is a liberal issue which is of course picked up by Democrats as its their base. Not liking Democrat politicians does not invalidate science. If you want to pick a bone with environmental Democrat policy that is another issue altogether.
Click to expand...
Google "climategate". You will find corruption.
 
lifeisshort said:
A very well written article that everyone on the fence should read. In fact if you are not a complete hard core global warming nut but believe in AGW this may make you take pause

"The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades. We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth's global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

"Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.

Rather, the crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, "How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?" Answers to that question at the global and regional levels, as well as to equally complex questions of how ecosystems and human activities will be affected, should inform our choices about energy and infrastructure.

But—here's the catch—those questions are the hardest ones to answer. They challenge, in a fundamental way, what science can tell us about future climates.

Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.


Climate Science Is Not Settled - WSJ
Click to expand...

I do not agree with the article's conclusion that man's C02 pollution has an actual effect on the climate. I do not believe that it does. Man's contribution to the level of C02 in the atmosphere is comparable to a gnat's flatulence in a category 5 hurricane compared to nature's contribution. Man can pollute his environment to the point where it is less safe for him to live in it...the smog in Los Angeles for instance, however man does not have anywhere close to enough power to change the climate.
 
Muhammed said:
:roll:

I'm not a wikidiot, therefore I'm not interested in your wikipedia link.
Click to expand...

Did you know that Wikipedia links to the actual sources that you can then scrutinize them yourself. Surely a scientist would know these basic research skills.
 
Muhammed said:
Such as whom?
Click to expand...

Climate scientists, you said you were one. Do you not know any other climate scientists or where they can be found? There's this thing called the IPCC that is involved with many of them. Probably a target rich environment. There's also a few thousand papers written by climate scientists, you could look at those.
 
Verax said:
Climate scientists, you said you were one. Do you not know any other climate scientists or where they can be found? There's this thing called the IPCC that is involved with many of them. Probably a target rich environment. There's also a few thousand papers written by climate scientists, you could look at those.
Click to expand...
As it's name indicates, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political body. Not a scientific body. It has nothing to do with actual climate science.
 
Verax said:
You said you were a climatologist, just curious where you work is all.
Click to expand...
Why would you be curious where I work? Perhaps you are confused regarding what a scientist actually is.
 
Muhammed said:
As it's name indicates, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political body. Not a scientific body. It has nothing to do with actual climate science.
Click to expand...

Muhammed said:
Why would you be curious where I work?
Click to expand...

You're obviously not all there and I see where this is headed, goodbye.
 
Muhammed said:
As it's name indicates, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political body. Not a scientific body. It has nothing to do with actual climate science.
Click to expand...

Unsurprisingly, you are totally wrong.

The first working groups, groups I and II, are composed exclusively of scientists and the scientists choose who are the writers and contributors.

WG III, of course, is on mitigation, so it is necessarily composed of economists, psychologists, other 'soft science' types, and policy makers.

The IPCC has so much to do with 'actual' climate science that virtually every major scientific organization in the world has had a statement supporting its conclusions.

But these are mere facts, and you clearly are determined not to be swayed by such things.
 
Threegoofs said:
Unsurprisingly, you are totally wrong.

The first working groups, groups I and II, are composed exclusively of scientists and the scientists choose who are the writers and contributors.
Click to expand...
That is a lie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom