• 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 Scientist Rejects ‘Climate Change’ As ‘A Quasi-Religious Movement Predicated on An Absurd ‘Scientific’ Narrative’

soylentgreen said:
You're not giving any facts in this particular conversation just telling me how good you are. Which I neither believe or care about.
Click to expand...
Give me something to work with instead of agenda driven hot air.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Threegoofs said:
You mean like random guys who tell everyone that they know more than the National Academy of Science?
Click to expand...
This us a hoot coming from a science denier like you. Maybe you should tell us what you think they mean.
 
PoS said:
More like a death cult that hates humanity.
Click to expand...
If we talk about Europe it's a sticky cult imbeciles that like to glue themselves to things.

I think it's the police have to chisel a body part of yours off of something you've glued it to you should be subject to mandatory sterilization.
 
CLAX1911 said:
If we talk about Europe it's a sticky cult imbeciles that like to glue themselves to things.

I think it's the police have to chisel a body part of yours off of something you've glued it to you should be subject to mandatory sterilization.
Click to expand...
Mandatory sterilization never crossed my mind before. But it is looking more appealing. Sterilize the Woke...
 
flogger said:
Well you certainly dont thats for sure. 96.5% of all the CO2 emissions are naturally produced from decomposition of life and oceanic outgassing meaning that a mere 16PPM of the 400PPM produced is from human activity. This tiny fraction represents a mere 0.00155% of our atmosphere yet we are being told that by varying this minute fraction at enormous economic cost we can somehow control planetary temperature ? I call BS on that

truefactchecks.weebly.com/climate--environment/only-3-of-co2-emissions-into-the-atmosphere-are-due-to-human-activity-97-of-co2-emissions-are-natural-fact-check-true-confirmed-by-multiple-sources-of-the-man-made-climate-change-propaganda-machine
Click to expand...
Take a look at the Club of Rome and it's history if you want to see where this push for wind/solar came from. It's about control, it's about making large sums of money.
Nice article you linked here.
Our President is determined to leave a legacy of EV's, windmill and solar panels. All at the country's taxpayer's expense. We have a huge supply of fossil fuels to provide our energy and he wants to get off it? Not good energy policy.
 
Threegoofs said:
The NAS is a religion?
Click to expand...
It might be interesting to explore the demarcation between science and religion within the concept of AGW!
There are many things within the idea of catastrophic AGW that are not science based, but are articles of faith.
The biggest example is the idea that a doubling of the CO2 level will cause 3C or higher warming,
the actual scientific evidence for this are a pair of assumptions based how cold the last glacial maximum was, combined
with how high the assumed CO2 level was, and that no other changes happened.
ACS climate sensitivity
The figure shows Antarctic ice core data that span the time from the end of the last glacial period to the beginning
of the present era. For our purposes, we need the initial and final concentrations of CO2 and CH4, and the average
global temperature change. For this test, we assume, that radiative forcing by these gases is the only external forcing
on the climate system.
Click to expand...
One can easily see that such an assumption could be ripe with possible errors, and if any other forcing happened,
it would have to be subtracted from the total assumed to be caused by greenhouse gas forcing.
I am sure there are other areas, where the beliefs espoused, are not science based, but rather speculation
based on loose assumptions.
 
Threegoofs said:
Again, only one side here doesn’t agree with the National Academy of Science because they ‘understand the sciences’, and simultaneously seem to not know what the NAS even is.

That’s DK
Click to expand...
Please show me what I don't agree with on these NAS statements.

You have totally failed at doing that.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Bullshit. Stop lying. Links are not expressing your viewpoint unless you are a robot.

You keep making unfounded claims against me. I ask you to clarify, and you refuse to.
Click to expand...
You have to actually read the thing. I can summarize it in a sentence, but you’ll whine that they never actually wrote that sentence.
 
Threegoofs said:
You have to actually read the thing. I can summarize it in a sentence, but you’ll whine that they never actually wrote that sentence.
Click to expand...
I want it in your words to see if you can articulate such a thing. I don't think you can. You are claiming I disagree with what the NAS says, yet you have not shown anything that I disagree with.

Put up or stop harassing me.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I want it in your words to see if you can articulate such a thing. I don't think you can. You are claiming I disagree with what the NAS says, yet you have not shown anything that I disagree with.

Put up or stop harassing me.
Click to expand...
The NAS are clearly saying that climate change is real, man made, primarily driven by CO2, and needs to be addressed rapidly by getting to a zero carbon state. That AGW is also causing climate disasters regularly.

It’s about as clear as it gets.

It’s about as
 
Threegoofs said:
The NAS are clearly saying that climate change is real, man made, primarily driven by CO2, and needs to be addressed rapidly by getting to a zero carbon state. That AGW is also causing climate disasters regularly.

It’s about as clear as it gets.

It’s about as
Click to expand...
In that link, they didn't make any claims about them using the term as "man made."

I do not disagree with their statement the way they worded it. You keep making false allegations against me.

Please stop slandering me.
 
Lord of Planar said:
In that link, they didn't make any claims about them using the term as "man made."

I do not disagree with their statement the way they worded it. You keep making false allegations against me.

Please stop slandering me.
Click to expand...
Yes. They want to completely decarbonize the US economy for reasons other than preventing ‘man-made’ climate change. They just never actually say why- so who knows, right?

Like I said. You will rationalize your way out of anything to preserve your denial.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes. They want to completely decarbonize the US economy for reasons other than preventing ‘man-made’ climate change. They just never actually say why- so who knows, right?

Like I said. You will rationalize your way out of anything to preserve your denial.
Click to expand...
They put together multiple statements. So what? I didn't disagree with those statements. Why do you keep slandering me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom