• 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!

In case of Global Warming....

Threegoofs said:
Yes. My answer is you need to learn some basic science.
Click to expand...

LOL...

LOL...

This from you, who cannot debate the climate sciences in your own words?

LOL...
 
Threegoofs said:
We end up with alternative renewable energy sources,
Click to expand...

Which is inevitable either way...

People are always seeking to innovate by increasing energy efficiency.

Too bad that the types of "renewable" energy comes from using food as fuel.

minimize our dependence upon fossil fuels and dealing with nasty dictatorships who sit on lots of oil,
Click to expand...

Well... Most of those dictators are OUR dictators.

Beyond that, if only you knew...

end up with cleaner air and water,
Click to expand...

Only because all industry would be shut down.

and retain the bulk of our oil gas and coal reserves to use judiciously in the future.
Click to expand...

There's ridiculous amounts of oil left, I mean centuries worth at current consumption. The energy crisis is more about price control then it is about any lack.

The question is, what happens if YOU are wrong?
Click to expand...

Cheaper food, a few extra days of summer, Warmer winters, more wildlife...

However, because we are focused on the red herring of co2, we don't ever discuss any of the REAL POLLUTION causing real and measurable environmental damage, much of it irreversible (in our lifetimes). That's the real concern...

More evidence of the dumbing down of our culture... When I was young it was CFC's, then dioxins, and other pollutants... And now it's an essential nutrient to life that we are trying to eliminate, a fools errand if you ask me, even if there was some validity to the alarmist position.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I would disagree.

Only two mistakes that were aired in the original broadcast that were corrected for the DVD release.
Click to expand...

"Mistakes" like complete fabrication of a temperature chart? Like creative editing that completely reversed the apparent opinion of one of the guys they interviewed? How about the blatant cherry pick of cutting off a temperature vs. solar flare chart at 1980 and labeling it "now"?

Mistakes? How do you accidentally show temperature data that doesn't exist?
 
OscarB63 said:
ask Al Gore.......
Click to expand...

Gore didnt make mistakes. Gore intentionally committed fraud as do the rest of the client 'scientists' that fabricate and (what was the word they used...oh yeah) gamed the data to show what they wanted it to show.
 
VanceMack said:
Gore didnt make mistakes. Gore intentionally committed fraud as do the rest of the client 'scientists' that fabricate and (what was the word they used...oh yeah) gamed the data to show what they wanted it to show.
Click to expand...

Well, they've sure fooled the entire scientific community and all the major scientific organizations!

Why aren't those darn scientists as smart as you at science? It's sure a mystery....
 
Threegoofs said:
Well, they've sure fooled the entire scientific community and all the major scientific organizations!

Why aren't those darn scientists as smart as you at science? It's sure a mystery....
Click to expand...
Gee...I dont know...

marysville2-m-web.jpg

This is one of hundreds of temp sensing monitors used to prove AGW. How could those sensors POSSIBLY be negatively impacted by being placed over black tops, radiators, air conditioning exhaust, etc?

When the assclowns are caught in their own emails discussing ways to game computer models to synthetically demonstrate what they are trying to prove...well...they may be whiz bang book geniuses...but they arent very ****ing bright.
 
VanceMack said:
Gee...I dont know...

View attachment 67152135

This is one of hundreds of temp sensing monitors used to prove AGW. How could those sensors POSSIBLY be negatively impacted by being placed over black tops, radiators, air conditioning exhaust, etc?

When the assclowns are caught in their own emails discussing ways to game computer models to synthetically demonstrate what they are trying to prove...well...they may be whiz bang book geniuses...but they arent very ****ing bright.
Click to expand...

You really should tell NASA and NOAA about this! OMG!
 
Threegoofs said:
You really should tell NASA and NOAA about this! OMG!
Click to expand...
Well...thats certainly a valid retort. I wonder...are you honest enough to answer a basic question? Is it HOTTER than 'real' temperatures over an asphalt pad? Would that give you a false temp reading?
 
VanceMack said:
Well...thats certainly a valid retort. I wonder...are you honest enough to answer a basic question? Is it HOTTER than 'real' temperatures over an asphalt pad? Would that give you a false temp reading?
Click to expand...

Like I said. You apparently know much more about this than the people who have invested the time and energy into getting their PhDs, studying this data for decades and designing, implementing and analyzing data from temperature monitoring stations all over the world.

Maybe they'll start using satellites instead. Oh wait. Nevermind.

You really should tell them. I'm sure they'll thank you for your brilliant insight that they dont every study systematically ever. At all. Oh wait. Someone did.
Global warming critic Richard A. Muller does 'total turnaround,' admits he was wrong | cleveland.com
 
Threegoofs said:
Like I said. You apparently know much more about this than the people who have invested the time and energy into getting their PhDs, studying this data for decades and designing, implementing and analyzing data from temperature monitoring stations all over the world.

Maybe they'll start using satellites instead. Oh wait. Nevermind.

You really should tell them. I'm sure they'll thank you for your brilliant insight that they dont every study systematically ever. At all. Oh wait. Someone did.
Global warming critic Richard A. Muller does 'total turnaround,' admits he was wrong | cleveland.com
Click to expand...
As expected...
 
Threegoofs said:
Like I said. You apparently know much more about this than the people who have invested the time and energy into getting their PhDs, studying this data for decades and designing, implementing and analyzing data from temperature monitoring stations all over the world.

Maybe they'll start using satellites instead. Oh wait. Nevermind.

You really should tell them. I'm sure they'll thank you for your brilliant insight that they dont every study systematically ever. At all. Oh wait. Someone did.
Global warming critic Richard A. Muller does 'total turnaround,' admits he was wrong | cleveland.com
Click to expand...

Cool.

So where is the money quote? Where did he talk about CO2 causing most the warming?
 
[h=2]Climate Science – A Field of Dreams[/h] Posted by Jeff Condon on August 4, 2013
Real Climate is still trying to communicate the message that climate science needs to communicate better, never realizing that the content of their message is their problem. I mean, the first link on their page is to a Richard Alley presentation, where he flat says that there is no reason to adjust models. He uses multiple paths like a straw man argument that critics of the models are only looking at one study. He pulled up the example of the paleo-sensitivity plot where one recent study showed a lower climate sensitivity than the rest and complained about the amount of time he spent addressing that one. The whole problem with his argument, which is conveniently brushed over, is that paleo-sensitivity papers are made of the least accurate and least trustworthy data and as we all know, the papers are quite often comprised of the exact same data. Now he makes several other arguments, but the one he doesn’t make, is the one which holds the most credibility in the eyes of those of us who don’t collect government paychecks of a magnitude proportional to our climate activism — comparisons of models to observations.
Lucia has some nice and very current work on the matter. The chart below shows models from AR5 with their central trends and error bars in relation to GISS temperatures. note that every single model is well above the observed GISS temp trend line and the very wide error bars still do not meet the GISS red line in most cases. In a sane world, climate scientists should be very concerned about this, but instead we get piles of rubbish about how models are “pretty good” and a bunch of excuse making from Richard Alley’s of the world regarding ocean heat content. But for those in the “know” there is one little detail – models are supposed to have heat content taken into account already.
rcp45_since1991-500x500.png

​
Why isn’t this a mainstream concern in a field that has become so dominated and enamored by modeling the addition of global warming gases to the atmosphere?
It certainly would cause a scientist in ANY other field to step back and take note. A person willing to step up and say that this result across every model is somehow “reasonable” or that there isn’t a problem, would be ignored in our drummed out of our fill-in-the-blank field with trailing guffaws, yet we are faced with a bunch of activist cheerleaders pushing for ideological “change” while ignoring the values on their instruments. In the meantime, instead of addressing the blatantly obvious problems with the modeled results, they hold an entire conference on improving communication of climate doom to the public.
It gets better though.
There are 4 highlighted presentations in the Real Climate link above. I couldn’t listen to the fourth one because it hurt my ears but the first three can be categorized as: 1 – argue that the science is still good and don’t present data to the contrary, 2 – Risk communication, more widely known as fear mongering, and 3 – Buzzwords, which perform the functions of the first two.
It isn’t an impressive plan when written out in clear English.
But what really got me going yesterday was the numerous news reports on two recent papers, which I don’t intend to read, where the scientists concluded that recent climate change IS TEN TIMES FASTER THAN ANY TIME IN HISTORY!
From one article:
One study, from Stanford University, suggests that climate change is happening 10 times faster than it has at any time in the past 65 million years. The other study, from the University of Texas, suggests that Antarctic permafrost is now melting 10 times faster than in 11,000 years, adding further evidence that Earth’s Antarctic is, in fact, warming just as Earth’s Arctic is.
​
We who read papers know that historic data is proxy based, and that for various physical reasons proxy based data has a very poor time and magnitude resolution. We also know that recent data is instrument based, and instrument based data has excellent time and magnitude resolution. Essentially, the scientists know full-well that instrument data captures a higher frequency component than the historic proxy data can. If today’s warming had happened and reversed at any time in the past 11,000 years, the event would be so short that it would look like a rounded imperceptibly small bump in the proxy based result instead of the clean high frequency response provided by modern instruments.
The “scientists” are fully aware of this, yet they make claims that are not just unsubstantiated, but they are known to be unsubstantiable with proxy data. The claims are as disingenuous as you can be. Now it is true that the equally activist media likes to exaggerate the claims further, but there sure isn’t a lot of correcting the record visible to those of us lowly CO2 producing readers.
If you wonder why people like myself, otherwise considered reasonably intelligent, would disagree with such a huge “scientific” consensus, you need look no farther than recent media for your answer.
Warming rate and problematic effects of climate change are mathematically lower than what is being claimed. Note the difference between that statement and the denialist meme Real Climate would write about skeptical bloggers like myself. If the dreamers of Climate Science, want to affect change, they need to start with the quality of their own work.

Posted in Uncategorized | 31 Comments »
 
coolest June on record, one of the coolest Julys on record. the last couple of days the high temp have been in the mid 70s in Alabama in the middle of August. Where the hell is this global warming happening? because it sure isn't warming here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom