• 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!

Hottest July on record in Sweden

Jack Hays said:
I am but a humble servant of the data.
Click to expand...

I'm just curious, did you sing this same tune, pre-2016? Did you then adjust your rhetoric accordingly? Or maybe, you sang a different tune, after 2016 - the measuring stations are not accurate? etc, etc... One thing is for certain - you still sang some kind of denial tune.
 
Media_Truth said:
I'm just curious, did you sing this same tune, pre-2016? Did you then adjust your rhetoric accordingly? Or maybe, you sang a different tune, after 2016 - the measuring stations are not accurate? etc, etc... One thing is for certain - you still sang some kind of denial tune.
Click to expand...

What, exactly, is your question?
 
Threegoofs said:
AKA....conspiracy theory.

It’s ok. Embrace it.
Click to expand...

Not at all.

What does human nature cause people to do in decision making? Consider what most people would do, if their career was based on the wrong interpretation of variables? They have to protect their positions, because if they are wrong, they no longer have all this nice grant money flowing in.
 
Media_Truth said:
Exactly my point. When 2016 came and went, you used some other warped logic.
Click to expand...

No. 2016 was largely an El Nino event. Inconsequential in the larger scheme of things. Not a reason to change anything. It's the Sun's approach to minimum that is important.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Not at all.

What does human nature cause people to do in decision making? Consider what most people would do, if their career was based on the wrong interpretation of variables? They have to protect their positions, because if they are wrong, they no longer have all this nice grant money flowing in.
Click to expand...

Right. Because the grants are given to people who are pursuing accurate science, and given out by scientists.

You don’t really know how any of this works, do you?
 
Threegoofs said:
Right. Because the grants are given to people who are pursuing accurate science, and given out by scientists.

You don’t really know how any of this works, do you?
Click to expand...

That even the fossil fuel companies own studies have shown the negative effects of manmade global warming. Like for example this study from Shell.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...h-climate-change-20-years-ago-documents-show/

That the fossil fuel companies have know about man made global warming for a long time, but decided to deceive the public instead of adapting their businesses.

"It is difficult to imagine that executives, lobbyists, and scientists at major fossil companies were by this time unaware of the robust scientific evidence of the risks associated with the continued burning of their products.

More than half of all industrial carbon emissions have been released since 1988—after major fossil fuel companies knew about the harm their products were causing. Enlarge image.
Indeed, one of the key documents highlighted in the deception dossiers is a 1995 internal memo written by a team headed by a Mobil Corporation scientist and distributed to many major fossil fuel companies. The internal report warned unequivocally that burning the companies' products was causing climate change and that the relevant science "is well established and cannot be denied."

How did fossil fuel companies respond? They embarked on a series of campaigns to deliberately deceive the public about the reality of climate change and block any actions that might curb carbon emissions."

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.W5InQs4zaUk
 
Thankfully you have more and more people acknowledging the urging need for action on climate change. Like for example that you tomorrow will have thousands of rallies all over the world demanding action on climate change and a fast and fair transition to 100% renewable energy for all.

https://riseforclimate.org/
 
Threegoofs said:
Right. Because the grants are given to people who are pursuing accurate science, and given out by scientists.

You don’t really know how any of this works, do you?
Click to expand...

More so than you, when it comes to the untested sciences of climate.
 
It's all the immigrants from warmer places bringing their heat with them. Can't be AGW.
 
Lord of Planar said:
More so than you, when it comes to the untested sciences of climate.
Click to expand...

Yes, you do seem to know lots about the untested sciences.

But the ones that are tested and published clearly say AGW is real and a serious problem. All the scientists know this. Ask them. Oh, wait. You dont know any.
 
Threegoofs said:
Right. Because the grants are given to people who are pursuing accurate science, and given out by scientists.

You don’t really know how any of this works, do you?
Click to expand...

No. The grants are given out by government bureaucrats.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
That even the fossil fuel companies own studies have shown the negative effects of manmade global warming.Like for example this study from Shell.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...h-climate-change-20-years-ago-documents-show/

That the fossil fuel companies have know about man made global warming for a long time, but decided to deceive the public instead of adapting their businesses.

"It is difficult to imagine that executives, lobbyists, and scientists at major fossil companies were by this time unaware of the robust scientific evidence of the risks associated with the continued burning of their products.

More than half of all industrial carbon emissions have been released since 1988—after major fossil fuel companies knew about the harm their products were causing. Enlarge image.
Indeed, one of the key documents highlighted in the deception dossiers is a 1995 internal memo written by a team headed by a Mobil Corporation scientist and distributed to many major fossil fuel companies. The internal report warned unequivocally that burning the companies' products was causing climate change and that the relevant science "is well established and cannot be denied."

How did fossil fuel companies respond? They embarked on a series of campaigns to deliberately deceive the public about the reality of climate change and block any actions that might curb carbon emissions."

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.W5InQs4zaUk
Click to expand...

1) Fossils don't burn.Shell sells oil products. Oil is a renewable resource. So is natural gas.
2) You haven't defined either 'global warming' or 'climate change'. These are still meaningless buzzwords.
3) It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Shell can't measure it either. You are denying mathematics again.
4) Neither carbon nor carbon dioxide is capable of warming the Earth. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
5) Science isn't a 'study' or a 'research'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not possible to have a theory of any kind about 'global warming' or 'climate change' until you can define them without using circular definitions.
 
Last edited:
Bergslagstroll said:
Thankfully you have more and more people acknowledging the urging need for action on climate change. Like for example that you tomorrow will have thousands of rallies all over the world demanding action on climate change and a fast and fair transition to 100% renewable energy for all.

[
Click to expand...

Marches and parties are not proof of 'climate change' (whatever that actually means). Oligarchies, dictatorships, and prices controls don't work. They just bring misery. Such governments can only survive by stealing wealth.
 
Into the Night said:
1) Fossils don't burn.Shell sells oil products. Oil is a renewable resource. So is natural gas.
2) You haven't defined either 'global warming' or 'climate change'. These are still meaningless buzzwords.
3) It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Shell can't measure it either. You are denying mathematics again.
4) Neither carbon nor carbon dioxide is capable of warming the Earth. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
5) Science isn't a 'study' or a 'research'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not possible to have a theory of any kind about 'global warming' or 'climate change' until you can define them without using circular definitions.
Click to expand...

Hey look who's back. I didn't read any further after your first lie - "oil is a renewable resource". Please provide a link from a reputable scientific organization.
 
Media_Truth said:
Hey look who's back. I didn't read any further after your first lie - "oil is a renewable resource". Please provide a link from a reputable scientific organization.
Click to expand...

False authority fallacy. Science isn't an 'organization'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

You should study up on the Fischer-Tropsche process. That synthesizes oil from either CO and hydrogen or CO2 and hydrogen using high heat, high pressure, and an iron catalyst...conditions found naturally underground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom