• 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 scientists - there are plenty of them out there being ignored or disregarded by mainstream media

Lord of Planar said:
From a political office? I went to several links. It only links to the main page. Not what they say. Too much meaningless, political information.

How about some science please? Politics does not belong in science.
Click to expand...

Lame excuse.
 
neil said:
first_they_ignore_you.jpg
Click to expand...

Meaningless.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I haven't found this yet. Too bad you rarely ever verify the material you link.

This I found in the WG1 Full Report, reference 15. In full context:

Understanding of the fundamental features of the climate system is robust and well established.​
Scientists in the 19th-century identified the major natural factors influencing the climate system. They also​
hypothesized the potential for anthropogenic climate change due to carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by fossil​
fuel combustion. The principal natural drivers of climate change, including changes in incoming solar​
radiation, volcanic activity, orbital cycles, and changes in global biogeochemical cycles, have been studied​
systematically since the early 20th century. Other major anthropogenic drivers, such as atmospheric aerosols​
(fine solid particles or liquid droplets), land-use change and non-CO2 greenhouse gases, were identified by​
the 1970s. Since systematic scientific assessments began in the 1970s, the influence of human activity on the​
warming of the climate system has evolved from theory to established fact. Past projections of global surface​
temperature and the pattern of warming are broadly consistent with subsequent observations (limited​
evidence, high agreement), especially when accounting for the difference in radiative forcing scenarios used​
for making projections and the radiative forcings that actually occurred.​

All this does is correctly acknowledge we have an effect. Please note. It says it isn't ready. Have you seen a fully released final version yet? I haven't looked yet to see if its available, but they also caution people not to quote it.

Final Government Distribution Chapter 1 IPCC AR6 WGI
Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute

You really should verify any information you link when it comes from bloggers. They often misconstrue or flat out lie.

I will post again when I do or do not find the first sentence, but so far it appears to be made up by the bloggers. maybe you care to find it?
Click to expand...
Oh good you found the references. I knew you could do it
 
vegas giants said:
Those are scientific organizations
Click to expand...
Yes, but that is meaningless to claim the agree, when there is no link to their agreement statement. Especially when the list is put out by a government body.
 
Lord of Planar said:
At least what has been posted by Neil are scientists speaking out against what other scientists are said to say, who do not speak on the topic, but just write papers that are misconstrued by the public.
Click to expand...

Lame excuse.
 
watsup said:
Lame excuse.
Click to expand...
vegas giants said:
It's a conspiracy!!!!!!!! Lol
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you guys believe that is good debating techniques. Seems like bantering rather than debate. Have anything of value to add, instead of personal attacks?

I am now downloading the WGII full report. Dam their site is slow. I still have 15 minutes to go.


I suggest you guys add this to your computer as well for reference. That way, you can verify if one of your favorite bloggers is lying or not before you repeat what they say.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm sorry you guys believe that is good debating techniques. Seems like bantering rather than debate. Have anything of value to add, instead of personal attacks?

I am now downloading the WGII full report. Dam their site is slow. I still have 15 minutes to go.


I suggest you guys add this to your computer as well for reference. That way, you can verify if one of your favorite bloggers is lying or not before you repeat what they say.
Click to expand...
Okay dokey pokey
 
LOL. The report failed to download. I started over, and its back to 18 minutes at the slow rate I'm getting it. You would think with all the money the IPCC has to spend, they could use better servers.
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL. The report failed to download. I started over, and its back to 18 minutes at the slow rate I'm getting it. You would think with all the money the IPCC has to spend, they could use better servers.
Click to expand...
Keep at it!!!!!
 
vegas giants said:
Keep at it!!!!!
Click to expand...
I did and gave up. The failure is at their end. I checked my system, cleared my download file, rebooted, and other things.

Have you downloaded it?

I have over $4k into my system. I had over 200 GB free space on my 1 TB SSD before I started. This is however, the first time I deleted my download folder in years.

My downloads have always been slow from the IPCC.

Please download it yourself. It's only 3,068 pages and 388 MB.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I did and gave up. The failure is at their end. I checked my system, cleared my download file, rebooted, and other things.

Have you downloaded it?

I have over $4k into my system. I had over 200 GB free space on my 1 TB SSD before I started. This is however, the first time I deleted my download folder in years.

My downloads have always been slow from the IPCC.

Please download it yourself. It's only 3,068 pages and 388 MB.
Click to expand...
OK buddy. Lol
 
vegas giants said:
OK buddy. Lol
Click to expand...
It's not funny. You thinking it is, shows you don't really care.

I cannot verify your post, and it seems you refuse to.

I suggest you find the reference and prove your point is valid, since it came from a blog that often lies and misdirects.

You can concede your point if you wish not to provide the original source material. Your choice.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It's not funny. You thinking it is, shows you don't really care.

I cannot verify your post, and it seems you refuse to.

I suggest you find the reference and prove your point is valid, since it came from a blog that often lies and misdirects.

You can concede your point if you wish not to provide the original source material. Your choice.
Click to expand...
I think it's hilarious
 
Well, the summary for policy makers and technical summary downloaded just fine, and they do not contain the first sentence.

I suggest you find the original source instead of trusting blogs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom