• 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!

Headlines in Climate Science

or, on the other hand, you get the anti science perspective of the denialist brigade.
Denialist brigade?

These are also real scientists. They disagree with the works of other scientists. This means the science of AGW is not sound, else there would be no reason to be a skeptic.
 
Wow ... You really know the material. Your bulletproof logic has convinced me.
THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOU BY SARCASM

just stating the obvious .... you can classify that as sarcasm if you like
 
Denialist brigade?

These are also real scientists. They disagree with the works of other scientists. This means the science of AGW is not sound, else there would be no reason to be a skeptic.

seriously LoP - how many scientists who study this REALLY disagree?

most of the denialist brigade seems to be made up of schills for think tanks and the FF Industry
 
In the climate scientists, the heretics to political forces are drummed out. I know you true believers don't believe that, but just keep the possibility in mind.

you need to read more widely and not rely on denialist bloggers for your "scientific" information
 
It's been cooler these last few years here in the Pacific Northwest.

as I said ....even if the whole globe went through unusually hot weather for a couple of years, that wouldn't even be evidence of global climate change.

the same goes for it being cooler in the pacific northwest NOT being "evidence" that the earth has been cooling for the last decade.
 
marywollstonecraft said:
seriously LoP - how many scientists who study this REALLY disagree?
Plenty do. Most remain silent because the heretics cannot find jobs, and several have been removed from their positions when they came out of the closet.


marywollstonecraft said:
most of the denialist brigade seems to be made up of schills for think tanks and the FF Industry
No, those are the people they can work for. It doesn't mean they aren't real scientists.
 
Not all of them are liars, no. But where is the uptick in extreme weather? Increased Hurricanes? No. Tornadoes? No. Drought? No. Floods? No. You seem to assume that whichever scientist scares you the most is the one telling the truth.

I see you don't read reports about global weather.

Flood | euronews
Japan floods 2012: Devastating floods caused by record rainfall leave 28 dead and damage thousands of homes | Mail Online
PM - Queensland towns brace for record flooding 06/02/2012
Lateline - 01/03/2012: Record floods threaten NSW and Victoria
2012 Great Britain and Ireland floods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thousands Flee As Record Floods Inundate Central Europe | ThinkProgress
Thousands flee their homes as floods hit Germany | Mail Online
Bangladesh hit hard by record floods - Central & South Asia - Al Jazeera English
BBC News - Beijing chaos after record floods in Chinese capital
Record floods put 20,000 at risk - Asia - World - The Independent
2013 Argentina floods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2013 European floods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
January 2013 Eastern Australia floods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Canada Toronto "Record Breaking" Flooding 126mm of Rain July 8th 2013 - YouTube
2012
http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/20...w-zealand-drought-was-most-extreme-on-record/
PM - Drought predicted as April hits heat records 02/05/2013
Droughts Hit World’s Agricultural Regions: Without Water, U.S. Corn Crop Faces Setbacks | Circle of Blue WaterNews
IRIN Asia | VIETNAM: Record drought threatens livelihoods | Vietnam | Environment | Food Security | Natural Disasters | Water & Sanitation
2012 Breaks Records for Heat, Drought, Weather Extremes | Environment News Service
Drought, grain, and foodstuffs prices in Russia and Central Asia: Consequences for vulnerable households | Europe & Central Asia | UNDP
The 2012 Drought - 'A Dry Season'
The driest season: Global drought causes major worries - CNN.com
there are heaps more that demonstrate what is happening - but I would not argue that any of this is PROOF of climate change - so pretending it isn't happening doesn't help your argument.
1990 climate change predictions turn out to be accurate | TG Daily
 
Plenty do. Most remain silent because the heretics cannot find jobs, and several have been removed from their positions when they came out of the closet.



No, those are the people they can work for. It doesn't mean they aren't real scientists.

so denialist scientists are the modern day equivalent of the Keplers and the Galileos ... and the scientific community is a modern day inquisition?

You can't expect to be taken seriously.
 
It seems to me the left is just fine with anti- science when it suits the agenda.

See: Obama statements on climate
See: Laughable statements by Dem. Rush Holt( you know, the science guy) .

Personally, I'm all for science. As long as it's not corrupted. Climate science most assuredly is.

two problems with this.

one - climate change is not a left/right issue. Many conservative governments recognize the science and the need to act. Political difference is more over HOW to address the issue - not whether there is or is not an issue.

two - its not very clever to lump "the left" as being anti science. Many scientists are more on the left than the right, and many people who understand nothing about science are on the left.

both of your assumptions indicate a tendency to think in black and white.

thats OK for simple minds, but you can't expect people who actually THINK to take you seriously
 
Plenty do. Most remain silent because the heretics cannot find jobs, and several have been removed from their positions when they came out of the closet.



No, those are the people they can work for. It doesn't mean they aren't real scientists.
I would like to add to this some, I worked at a university for a decade,
and there are a lot of politics that go on.
To keep lab space,and staff, a researcher must keep winning grants.
The RFP's are written in such a way that even if you don't agree with AGW,
You had better sound like it on your proposal.
Tenure MAY insure you have a job, but is no guarantee you will like the job
you have.
Just like any other employee anywhere, you may think your bosses/company/department
are idiots, but keep quiet about it.
 
I see you don't read reports about global weather.

Flood | euronews
Japan floods 2012: Devastating floods caused by record rainfall leave 28 dead and damage thousands of homes | Mail Online
PM - Queensland towns brace for record flooding 06/02/2012
Lateline - 01/03/2012: Record floods threaten NSW and Victoria
2012 Great Britain and Ireland floods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thousands Flee As Record Floods Inundate Central Europe | ThinkProgress
Thousands flee their homes as floods hit Germany | Mail Online
Bangladesh hit hard by record floods - Central & South Asia - Al Jazeera English
BBC News - Beijing chaos after record floods in Chinese capital
Record floods put 20,000 at risk - Asia - World - The Independent
2013 Argentina floods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2013 European floods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
January 2013 Eastern Australia floods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Canada Toronto "Record Breaking" Flooding 126mm of Rain July 8th 2013 - YouTube
2012
http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/20...w-zealand-drought-was-most-extreme-on-record/
PM - Drought predicted as April hits heat records 02/05/2013
Droughts Hit World’s Agricultural Regions: Without Water, U.S. Corn Crop Faces Setbacks | Circle of Blue WaterNews
IRIN Asia | VIETNAM: Record drought threatens livelihoods | Vietnam | Environment | Food Security | Natural Disasters | Water & Sanitation
2012 Breaks Records for Heat, Drought, Weather Extremes | Environment News Service
Drought, grain, and foodstuffs prices in Russia and Central Asia: Consequences for vulnerable households | Europe & Central Asia | UNDP
The 2012 Drought - 'A Dry Season'
The driest season: Global drought causes major worries - CNN.com
there are heaps more that demonstrate what is happening - but I would not argue that any of this is PROOF of climate change - so pretending it isn't happening doesn't help your argument.
1990 climate change predictions turn out to be accurate | TG Daily



They are WEATHER. And you are reading NEWS, not science.

Scientific studies have been done to determine if there is a trend in flooding severity over the lat 50+ years and they haven't found any discernible trend.

Until there is a discernible trend in flooding worldwide there is no grounds to claim that flooding is increasing. In fact, studies of regional flooding anomalies have concluded that the reason for larger floods is a change in land use over time. The greater the impenetrable ground (concrete, asphalt, buildings) the more water run-off. None of that has anything to do with global climate.
 
Last edited:
two problems with this.

one - climate change is not a left/right issue.

You can't possibly be that naive? Or Did you mean to sat that it shouldn't be?
There are some issues that ( for reasons not that hard to figure ) fall into the " This is what our team says to believe so I'm believing it" . The Martin/ Zimmerman case is another recent example.
 
two
two - its not very clever to lump "the left" as being anti science. Many scientists are more on the left than the right, and many people who understand nothing about science are on the left.

both of your assumptions indicate a tendency to think in black and white.

thats OK for simple minds, but you can't expect people who actually THINK to take you seriously

I didn't " lump "anything. I cited two very specific examples. Rush Holt and Obama.

ANd BTW- thank you for bolstering a point I've made repeatedly. Higher ed is dominated by liberals. The scientific journals are dominated by academics. Thus there is is a massive liberal bias. An echo chamber effect.
 
I didn't " lump "anything. I cited two very specific examples. Rush Holt and Obama.

ANd BTW- thank you for bolstering a point I've made repeatedly. Higher ed is dominated by liberals. The scientific journals are dominated by academics. Thus there is is a massive liberal bias. An echo chamber effect.

Reality has a well known liberal bias. That explains all the left wing scientists, I guess.


This isnt a left right issue. Its a scientific issue. The solutions can be left/right. But the right's solution in the US is currently to put their head under their pillows. A carbon tax that is rebated back to the population, given a net zero tax increase, is one possible conservative solution. But the party in the US that are called the Republicans are not Conservatives anymore. They are reactive anti-government, anti-tax ideologues.
 
Reality has a well known liberal bias. .

Well you just wish you would have have come up with that before the inimitable Margaret Thatcher, don't you?
"The facts of life are conservative" -The Iron lady

And she's been proved right 100 times over.
 
so denialist scientists are the modern day equivalent of the Keplers and the Galileos ... and the scientific community is a modern day inquisition?

You can't expect to be taken seriously.
LOL...

No, it's the likes of the alarmists who are losing credibility as time passes.
 
Threegoofs said:
Reality has a well known liberal bias. That explains all the left wing scientists, I guess.
In the minds of the deluded.


Threegoofs said:
This isnt a left right issue. Its a scientific issue.
I agree with you for once, but the left is generally on the wrong side of it.


Threegoofs said:
The solutions can be left/right. But the right's solution in the US is currently to put their head under their pillows.
LOL...

You say it's not a left/right issue, then you point at the right...

Again, you are wrong. The right doesn't put their heads under the pillows. They just see the issue for what it is. There is climate change and global warming, but not so much of it is anthropogenic. The right just needs to see proof. Not pal reviewed papers.


Threegoofs said:
A carbon tax that is rebated back to the population, given a net zero tax increase, is one possible conservative solution.
In your dreams. How many other taxes do you dream about?


Threegoofs said:
But the party in the US that are called the Republicans are not Conservatives anymore.
Agreed. Most are liberal light. I call them RINO's.


Threegoofs said:
They are reactive anti-government, anti-tax ideologues.
They are primarily anti-democrat.
 
You can't possibly be that naive? Or Did you mean to sat that it shouldn't be?
There are some issues that ( for reasons not that hard to figure ) fall into the " This is what our team says to believe so I'm believing it" . The Martin/ Zimmerman case is another recent example.

are you saying that the conservative party in Britain is left wing?

The Conservative Party | Policy | Where we stand | Climate Change and Energy

maybe the reason you don't understand this issue is because you don't understand what "global" means.

In Europe, opinion is not strongly divided among left and right parties. Although European political parties on the left, and Green parties, strongly support measures to address climate change, conservative European political parties maintain similar sentiments, most notably in Western and Northern Europe. For example, France's center-right President Chirac pushed key environmental and climate change policies in France in 2005–2007, and conservative German administrations (under the Christian Democratic Union and Christian Social Union) in the past two decades have supported European Union climate change initiatives. In the period after former President Bush announced that the United States was leaving the Kyoto Treaty, European media and newspapers on both the left and right criticized the move. The conservative Spanish La Razón, the Irish Times, Irish Independent, the Danish Berlingske Tidende, and the Greek Kathimerini all condemned the Bush administration's decision along with left-leaning newspapers.[11]

In Norway, a 2013 poll conducted by TNS Gallup found that 92% of those who vote for the Socialist Left Party and 89% of those who vote for the Liberal Party believe that global warming is caused by humans, while the percentage who held this belief is 60% among voters for the Conservative Party and 41% among voters for the Progress Party.[12]

The shared sentiments between the political left and right on climate change further illustrate the divide in perception between the United States and Europe on climate change. As an example, conservative German Prime Ministers Helmut Kohl and Angela Merkel have differed with other parties in Germany only on "how to meet emissions reduction targets, not whether or not to establish or fulfill them."[11]

Public opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Well you just wish you would have have come up with that before the inimitable Margaret Thatcher, don't you?
"The facts of life are conservative" -The Iron lady

And she's been proved right 100 times over.

was Maggie T a leftist?


As a Fellow of the Royal Society, Britain's national science academy, she presented a series of high profile speeches on the topic of climate change. Armed with a degree in chemistry from Oxford, her scientific expertise enabled her to speak from a position of strength and knowledge about climate-related issues.

She used that knowledge to act as a champion for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and personally opened the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (the UK's foremost climate change research centre).

What many people admired about Margaret Thatcher was her ability to embrace the potential of science to guide and lead the way on environmental issues. What marked her out even more is that she embraced the 'precautionary principle' years before other politicians did. As she once said:

"...the danger of global warming is as yet unseen but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations."
On November 8th 1989, she addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations about the need for nations to join together in tackling climate change.

It was a groundbreaking speech where she eloquently set out the case for international action and argued for an ongoing role for the IPCC. Indeed, some would argue that the IPCC owes its existence to the support that Thatcher gave it at that time.

Her political understanding of the issue also led to her call for a global response that would bring about real change:

"It is no good squabbling over who is responsible or who should pay. Whole areas of our planet could be subject to drought and starvation if the pattern of rains and monsoons were to change as a result of the destruction of forests and the accumulation of greenhouse gases. The environmental challenge which confronts the whole world demands an equivalent response from the whole world. Every country will be affected and no one can opt out."
Twenty-three years after that speech, the world is still lacking a political leader with Thatcher's scientific understanding and the will to tackle the climate issue head on. This was a problem that she herself foresaw. In her speech to the second World Climate Conference in 1990 she said:

"Our ability to come together to stop or limit damage to the world's environment will be perhaps the greatest test of how far we can act as a world community. No one should under-estimate the imagination that will be required, nor the scientific effort, nor the unprecedented co-operation we shall have to show. We shall need statesmanship of a rare order."
Whether you agreed or not with her political outlook, Margaret Thatcher's speeches on climate change have a timeless resonance and strength that are as powerful today as they were 23 years ago.

As she herself said:"We must remember our duty to nature before it is too late. That duty is constant. It is never completed. It lives on as we breathe. It endures as we eat and sleep, work and rest, as we are born and as we pass away."

How Margaret Thatcher led the way on climate change – Opinion – ABC Environment (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
 
Well you just wish you would have have come up with that before the inimitable Margaret Thatcher, don't you?
"The facts of life are conservative" -The Iron lady

And she's been proved right 100 times over.

was Maggie T a leftist?


As a Fellow of the Royal Society, Britain's national science academy, she presented a series of high profile speeches on the topic of climate change. Armed with a degree in chemistry from Oxford, her scientific expertise enabled her to speak from a position of strength and knowledge about climate-related issues.

She used that knowledge to act as a champion for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and personally opened the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (the UK's foremost climate change research centre).

What many people admired about Margaret Thatcher was her ability to embrace the potential of science to guide and lead the way on environmental issues. What marked her out even more is that she embraced the 'precautionary principle' years before other politicians did. As she once said:

"...the danger of global warming is as yet unseen but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations."
On November 8th 1989, she addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations about the need for nations to join together in tackling climate change.

It was a groundbreaking speech where she eloquently set out the case for international action and argued for an ongoing role for the IPCC. Indeed, some would argue that the IPCC owes its existence to the support that Thatcher gave it at that time.

Her political understanding of the issue also led to her call for a global response that would bring about real change:

"It is no good squabbling over who is responsible or who should pay. Whole areas of our planet could be subject to drought and starvation if the pattern of rains and monsoons were to change as a result of the destruction of forests and the accumulation of greenhouse gases. The environmental challenge which confronts the whole world demands an equivalent response from the whole world. Every country will be affected and no one can opt out."
Twenty-three years after that speech, the world is still lacking a political leader with Thatcher's scientific understanding and the will to tackle the climate issue head on. This was a problem that she herself foresaw. In her speech to the second World Climate Conference in 1990 she said:

"Our ability to come together to stop or limit damage to the world's environment will be perhaps the greatest test of how far we can act as a world community. No one should under-estimate the imagination that will be required, nor the scientific effort, nor the unprecedented co-operation we shall have to show. We shall need statesmanship of a rare order."
Whether you agreed or not with her political outlook, Margaret Thatcher's speeches on climate change have a timeless resonance and strength that are as powerful today as they were 23 years ago.

As she herself said:"We must remember our duty to nature before it is too late. That duty is constant. It is never completed. It lives on as we breathe. It endures as we eat and sleep, work and rest, as we are born and as we pass away."

How Margaret Thatcher led the way on climate change – Opinion – ABC Environment (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
 
They are WEATHER. And you are reading NEWS, not science.

Scientific studies have been done to determine if there is a trend in flooding severity over the lat 50+ years and they haven't found any discernible trend.

Until there is a discernible trend in flooding worldwide there is no grounds to claim that flooding is increasing. In fact, studies of regional flooding anomalies have concluded that the reason for larger floods is a change in land use over time. The greater the impenetrable ground (concrete, asphalt, buildings) the more water run-off. None of that has anything to do with global climate.

you were discussing weather events.

your authors refer to global increase/decrease in flooding, not what is happening in specific locations over time. that said - there are numerous factors that influence flooding, as you correctly point out changes in land use is one factor (eg increased areas of hard surface covering) deforestation and land clearing are also very significant.

I wouldn't argue that increased flooding or drought alone is indicative of anything - although changes in precipitation patterns are more likely to have some relevance.
 
I didn't " lump "anything. I cited two very specific examples. Rush Holt and Obama.

ANd BTW- thank you for bolstering a point I've made repeatedly. higher ed is dominated by liberals. The scientific journals are dominated by academics. Thus there is is a massive liberal bias. An echo chamber effect.

higher education is a liberal conspiracy to make conservatives feel stupid?

science journals are propaganda vehicles for the liberal agenda?
 
you were discussing weather events.

your authors refer to global increase/decrease in flooding, not what is happening in specific locations over time. that said - there are numerous factors that influence flooding, as you correctly point out changes in land use is one factor (eg increased areas of hard surface covering) deforestation and land clearing are also very significant.

I wouldn't argue that increased flooding or drought alone is indicative of anything - although changes in precipitation patterns are more likely to have some relevance.


No, I was discussing the dubious attempts to equate weather events with global climate. But they keep making the same mistake you do and trying to make global claims off of anecdotes, as displayed in the news reports you provided. But then it's understandable that they would take that highly emotional, unscientific approach because the actual global average of these events has not shown a dramatic increase. It's hard to scare people with the truth that extreme flooding is generally random and unpredictable.
 
Back
Top Bottom