• 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!

Frontline: 'Climate of Doubt' - (how the Right has turned Science into Politics)

1) go to the library.
2) open the important multidisciplinary journals in science .
3) read

There you go.

For confirmation, just check out the websites of virtually any standard scientific resource (Scientific American, NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, etc). They rely on the primary literature found in #2, above, to create their information.

As ever ,the dodging troll ho hum :roll:
 
As ever ,the dodging troll ho hum :roll:
Uh.. who's dodging trolls.
I note you don't even quote me or my posts.
You don't even take issue, aside for Cheap/empty asides, with the OP.
 
Uh.. who's dodging trolls.
I note you don't even quote me or my posts.
You don't even take issue, aside for Cheap/empty asides, with the OP.

I wasnt refering to you or your posts so I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. I should have cited Three Goofs :(
 

Nobody has ever tried to deny warming has taken place until recently. Its human culpability for it thats at issue so do keep up

Please feel free to cite the peer reviewed study showing emprical (important word) evidence that 0.012% rise in CO 2 (as per atmospheric volume) has caused the temperature increase of the last 150 years as claimed ?
 
Last edited:
There is little "right" about the "right". They are "right" just for the sake of saying they are "right" when they know they are wrong. They turn every issue into liquid manure.
You conflate your rightist politics with science.
 
Nobody has ever tried to deny warming has taken place until recently. Its human culpability for it thats at issue so do keep up

Please feel free to cite the peer reviewed study showing emprical (important word) evidence that 0.012% rise in CO 2 (as per atmospheric volume) has caused the temperature increase of the last 150 years as claimed ?

The evidence comes from multiple studies. Refer to above.
 
The evidence comes from multiple studies. Refer to above.

Nonsense !

If you had actually read them you would know that it in fact does nothing of the sort. There are no 'multiple studies' that show empirical evidence of this. There are NONE whatsoever. Take away the shonky climate models and all we have is a natural heating phase quite unremarkable from many other such phases of this post glaciation era ,as has been illustrated a great length many times over multiple threads now :roll:
 
Nonsense !

If you had actually read them you would know that it in fact does nothing of the sort. There are no 'multiple studies' that show empirical evidence of this. There are NONE whatsoever. Take away the shonky climate models and all we have is a natural heating phase quite unremarkable from many other such phases of this post glaciation era ,as has been illustrated a great length many times over multiple threads now :roll:

Uh huh.

Why don't you write that up and submit it to PNAS? I'm sure they would be fascinated by your educated critique.
 
Uh huh.

Why don't you write that up and submit it to PNAS? I'm sure they would be fascinated by your educated critique.
PNAS is not his thing, either for submission or citing.
 
One can illustrate the OP point on this Very Board.
AGW: Politically or Scientifically interested?

Poster: - - - - -- Climate Posts - Science/Tech posts

Deniers:
Flogger -- - - -- - - 2502 - - - - - - - - 0
Sawyer - - - - - - - 1697 - - - - - - - - 15
JMotivator - - - - -- 235 - - - - - - - - - 0
Gslack - - - - - - -- 180 - - - - - - - - - 0
Code1211 - - -- - - 1431 - -- - - - - - - 1
Papabear - - - - - -- 70 - - - - - - - - - 0
Poptech - - - - - - - 142 - - - - - - -- - 0

Pro AGW:
mbig - - - - - - - - - 164 - - - - - - - - 181
MoSurveyor - - - - - 886 - - -- - - - -- 362
Dittohead - - - - - - 959 - - - - - - - - 229
MancSkip - - - - - - 406 - - - - - - -- - 80

Total posts in Science/Tech by (4) Pro-AGW posters? 852
Total posts of Climate deniers (7) in Science/Tech? - - 16

You'll see a similar spread for the Evolutionists vs Doctrinaly motivated Creationists.
 
Last edited:
One can illustrate the OP point on this Very Board.
AGW: Politically or Scientifically interested?

Poster: - - - - -- Climate Posts - Science/Tech posts

Deniers:
Flogger -- - - -- - - 2502 - - - - - - - - 0
Sawyer - - - - - - - 1697 - - - - - - - - 15
JMotivator - - - - -- 235 - - - - - - - - - 0
Gslack - - - - - - -- 180 - - - - - - - - - 0
Code1211 - - -- - - 1431 - -- - - - - - - 1
Papabear - - - - - -- 70 - - - - - - - - - 0
Poptech - - - - - - - 142 - - - - - - -- - 0

Pro AGW:
mbig - - - - - - - - - 164 - - - - - - - - 181
MoSurveyor - - - - - 886 - - -- - - - -- 362
Dittohead - - - - - - 959 - - - - - - - - 229
MancSkip - - - - - - 406 - - - - - - -- - 80

Total posts in Science/Tech by (4) Pro-AGW posters? 852
Total posts of Climate deniers (7) in Science/Tech? - - 16

You'll see a similar spread for the Evolutionists vs Doctrinaly motivated Creationists.

Odd then that when threads degenerate into political smearing its the activist side that initiates it every time

I believe environmental alarmism with AGW at its vanguard is perhaps the greatest threat to the future progress of humanity I have seen since the Cold War. I make no apologies about calling it out on its claims every time it tries to indoctrinate with its guilt. You dont need to take my word for it though . Here Patrick Moore the co founder of Greenpeace issues a similar stark warning about the dangers of such extremism today for many humans. Environmentalism now simply means anything that will limit the quality and ultimately the quantity of human existence period

greenpeace founder questions manmade global warming - YouTube

You try to allege supporters of AGW are scientific and non political then brand skeptics as 'deniers' . That says it all right there about your real personal motivations frankly :roll:
 
Last edited:
One can illustrate the OP point on this Very Board.
AGW: Politically or Scientifically interested?

Poster: - - - - -- Climate Posts - Science/Tech posts

Deniers:
Flogger -- - - -- - - 2502 - - - - - - - - 0
Sawyer - - - - - - - 1697 - - - - - - - - 15
JMotivator - - - - -- 235 - - - - - - - - - 0
Gslack - - - - - - -- 180 - - - - - - - - - 0
Code1211 - - -- - - 1431 - -- - - - - - - 1
Papabear - - - - - -- 70 - - - - - - - - - 0
Poptech - - - - - - - 142 - - - - - - -- - 0

Pro AGW:
mbig - - - - - - - - - 164 - - - - - - - - 181
MoSurveyor - - - - - 886 - - -- - - - -- 362
Dittohead - - - - - - 959 - - - - - - - - 229
MancSkip - - - - - - 406 - - - - - - -- - 80

Total posts in Science/Tech by (4) Pro-AGW posters? 852
Total posts of Climate deniers (7) in Science/Tech? - - 16

You'll see a similar spread for the Evolutionists vs Doctrinaly motivated Creationists.


Hah, hey look guys, a CAGW true believer has come up with a rather dubious model for measuring scientific posters and then hand picked data to prove his point. He's been taking pointers from the CAGW movement obviously.

But really, imagine that... people come to a "Debate Politics" site and then debate politics. Also, talking about Windows 8 and the price of 4k TVs apparently makes you more of a credible opinion on global warming according to Matt Damon up there....

Funny how you also narrowed down your list of "Pro AGW" to four posters... I guess including Threegoofs and others on your side would have just ruined your study. Typical intellectual cowardice from the "Pro AGW" crowd...
 
floger said:
greenpeace founder questions manmade global warming - YouTube
And this compares to Cook's Peer reviewed Study or Andereg's PNAS one ... HOW?
LOL

Jmotivater said:
...But really, imagine that... people come to a "Debate Politics" site and then debate politics. Also, talking about Windows 8 and the price of 4k TVs apparently makes you more of a credible opinion on global warming according to Matt Damon up there....

Funny how you also narrowed down your list of "Pro AGW" to four posters... I guess including Threegoofs and others on your side would have just ruined your study. Typical intellectual cowardice from the "Pro AGW" crowd..
Yes that's my point.
People come to 'debate politics' NOT science.
They come, like you, into sections they are clueless about, and then right back to ie, 'Abortion' to post their Straight-Line POLITICS. (it's so predictable and so trite)
Like everyone on your flat-earth side, you post NOTHING of note here, just harassing/Peanut-gallery nonsense, bashing all manner of logical and prestigious-link posts like PNAS; our last unfortunate but typical encounter.
 
Last edited:
Video
Climate of Doubt | FRONTLINE | PBS
53 mins.

Transcript:
Transcript | Climate of Doubt | FRONTLINE | PBS


Like what these clowns say is 'just' 'the Theory evolution', this is just another political position for them.
Pandering to Red State politicos.
This is like a sporting event for low brows.

The fact:

Just a political position while there are concerns that global climate change may harm bacteria. A certain kind of bacteria named cyanobacteria that can photosynthesize thereby making other also useful bacteria dependent on them (i.e., King bacteria?). Two of such cyanobacteria exist, but the one named M. Vaginatus is special since it helps with fertility (hence the name?) on soil and develops a crust that prevents erosion (Garcia-Pichel et al, 2013).

The thing is M. Vaginatus does not tolerates too much heat! Hence there could be global changes on soil (i.e., our food) also if temperature goes up. These concerns related to what we may or may not eat in the future are real potential developments while some political parties treat it as a political "position" instead!

Ironically this threat to our food due to climate change finding comes along right with the breakthrough to stop Ug99 wheat stem rust pathogen (i.e., fungal pathogen). Plant pathology scientists have found a gene named Sr35 that can now trigger awareness in wheat towards the threat that the fungi is taking over them and cause the plants to react defensively against the fungi. This will boost food supply for our increasingly growing worldwide populations (Saintenac et al, 2013).

So what you have is a threat to the soil due to temperature dependent bacteria that promote the soils fertility like M. Vaginatus (so easy to remember this name), while you have protection against fungi in wheat development on the other hand. You may prioritize between these developments which one should stand as first area of serious engagement. After all what good is protection from fungi if both fungi and wheat may not be raised due to lack of M. Vaginatus to fertilize the soil and stop erosion, right?

Hence may lack enough food if the climate disturbs M. Vaginatus. But at least we may have more desalinated water. Chemical scientists have discovered a cheaper way to desalinate water by using 3.0 volts to a plastic chip where seawater resides. After it neutralizes some of the chloride ions in seawater it creates an ion depletion zone that increases the local electric field. This added electricity then branches salt in one direction and pure from salt water in another direction. They managed to get out 25% (out of required 99%) of 40 nanoliters of water in a minute per those 3.0 volts with their device. They admit that it still needs working to make it of greater use to people but the potential is high (Knust et al, 2013).

As a summary, we may have no food due to higher temperatures in the future, but greater protection from fungi whom may also otherwise die for the same reason. Unless the Knust et al (2013) device becomes in so much greater use so as to use sea water for irrigation of soil and keep M. Vaginatus cool and happy enough to stay.

References:

Garcia-Pichel, F., Loza, V., Marusenko, Y., Mateo, P., & Potrafka, R. M. (2013). Temperature drives the continental-scale distribution of key microbes in topsoil communities. Science, 340 (6140): 1574 DOI: 10.1126/science.1236404

Knust, K. N., Hlushkou, D., Anand, R. K., Tallarek, U., & Crooks, R. M. (2013). Electrochemically mediated seawater desalination. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, DOI: 10.1002/anie.201302577

Saintenac, C., Zhang, W., Salcedo, A., Rouse, M. N., Trick, H. N., ... Dubcovsky, J. (2013). Identification of wheat gene Sr35 that confers resistance to Ug99 stem rust race group. Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1239022

Global warming may affect soil microbe survival, with unknown consequences on soil fertility and erosion

Potential boost for world's food supply: Resistance gene found against Ug99 wheat stem rust pathogen

Chemists work to desalinate the ocean for drinking water, one nanoliter at a time
 
Yes that's my point.
People come to 'debate politics' NOT science.


You don't debate science, obviously. Your arguments are distinctly political in nature and anti-science. You are an non skeptical follower whose goal is to promote political action and demean skeptics, and that's it. You seem incapable of actually questioning anything on a technical level.


They come, like you, into sections they are clueless about, and then right back to ie, 'Abortion' to post their Straight-Line POLITICS. (it's so predictable and so trite)


Ah, mbig, you are the classic pawn. You don't actually understand any of the science being discussed, gravitate to the people who make the least intellectual, most emotional argument, and then try and pretend to be smart by calling others "clueless" who don't believe the low-brow arguments you champion. Now you are getting angry because your attempt at statistics was a failure.


Like everyone on your flat-earth side, you post NOTHING of note here, just harassing/Peanut-gallery nonsense, bashing all manner of logical and prestigious-link posts like PNAS; our last unfortunate but typical encounter.


The head of the Flat Earth Society believes in CAGW. But then you don't actually think very deeply and are prone to spout phrases from Obama without any critical thought of your own. Which I guess should be fairly clear from the way you perform in a debate.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom