• 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)

And this compares to Cook's Peer reviewed Study or Andereg's PNAS one ... HOW?
LOL

Which have been done to death already multiple times elsewhere

Yes that's my point.
People come to 'debate politics' NOT science.

My concern is modern environmentalisms demonization of humanity and its pursuit of policies that will negatively impinge on the continued welfare and existence of most of us.

They come, like you, into sections they are clueless about, and then right back to ie, 'Abortion' to post their Straight-Line POLITICS

I've studied this contentious issue for years and have a very clear perception of its ultimate agenda based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and science to date.

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

I hold my position because those very organisations and publications have similarly failed to produce anything more than opinions and assertions on this. If we are about to take a hatchet to our societies I for one want to see the hard evidence that this is absolutely necessary. The mystery for me is why posters like you do not. This suggests your motivations are other than the pursuit of scientific integrity or any legitimate concern for the welfare of the planet frankly
 
Last edited:
it depends what you mean by "wrong"

models always have limitations, however if you look back at the predictions made in the past, you can see they are reasonably accurate: 1990 climate change predictions turn out to be accurate | TG Daily


Damn. Now these guys are going to have to either:
1. Ignore this, or
2. pretend it doesnt say what it says, or
3. attack the source as a 'blog', despite the primary source being published in 'Nature'. or,
4. Alternatively, just pretend that 'Nature' is a biased 'magazine' (the big conspiracy theory). or,
5. Redirect and throw out a couple ad hominems for good measure.


Which will they choose? :popcorn2:
 
Damn. Now these guys are going to have to either:
1. Ignore this, or
2. pretend it doesnt say what it says, or
3. attack the source as a 'blog', despite the primary source being published in 'Nature'. or,
4. Alternatively, just pretend that 'Nature' is a biased 'magazine' (the big conspiracy theory). or,
5. Redirect and throw out a couple ad hominems for good measure.


Which will they choose? :popcorn2:
You were 100% Right.
Near 2 Months and..... Nada.
 
The right has turned science into politics? Really?

Global Warming has always been a political agenda. It originated on the far left of the political scale. It doesn't take much to trace it but a good place to start would be the resume of Obama's first Climate Czar, Carol M. Browner.

Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama’s pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for “global governance” and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.

By Thursday, Mrs. Browner’s name and biography had been removed from Socialist International’s Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group’s congress in Greece was still available.

Socialist International, an umbrella group for many of the world’s social democratic political parties such as Britain’s Labor Party, says it supports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies.

The group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, the organization’s action arm on climate change, says the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Obama, who has said action on climate change would be a priority in his administration, tapped Mrs. Browner last month to fill a new position as White House coordinator of climate and energy policies. The appointment does not need Senate confirmation.

Mr. Obama’s transition team said Mrs. Browner’s membership in the organization is not a problem and that it brings experience in U.S. policymaking to her new role.

“The Commission for a Sustainable World Society includes world leaders from a variety of political parties, including British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who succeeded Tony Blair, in serving as vice president of the convening organization,” Obama transition spokesman Nick Shapiro said.
Obama climate czar has socialist ties - Washington Times

Why in just that little article and the mention of different "socialist" political organizations whose goal is to bring about world governance using global warming to meet that goal, pretty much says it all.
 
The right has turned science into politics? Really?

Global Warming has always been a political agenda. It originated on the far left of the political scale. It doesn't take much to trace it but a good place to start would be the resume of Obama's first Climate Czar, Carol M. Browner.


Obama climate czar has socialist ties - Washington Times

Why in just that little article and the mention of different "socialist" political organizations whose goal is to bring about world governance using global warming to meet that goal, pretty much says it all.

Looks like a pivot to #5.
 
Back
Top Bottom