• 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!

IPCC Climate change report published

Hafnium1979 said:
Your points seldom stray far from the usual "skeptical position".



Why? I actually find them more compelling than your posts.



Look at you! Running to @flogger 's side when people disagree with them...and I found flogger was alarmingly unfamiliar with the science field they claimed to understand (an earth science topic!) That's not exactly a good sign. I mean this is an earth science topic and when someone claims to be an earth scientist but can't even speak about the mineral phases they make their living from, well...let's just say I'm not prone to listen to them on much. But you are!

So, let's not get into who is better than what, shall we?
Click to expand...

Longview too. Because of their confirmation bias, they normally stand behind flogger and every other idiot denier that shows up here with their totally ridiculous theories and stupid questions. All that does is to lessen their overall credibility even more.
 
flogger said:
So quantify what those worlds 'experts' are saying we should do and why you think it would work ?

How would modulating 0.01% (100PPM) of our atmosphere at enormous economic and humanitarian cost make the slightest difference ?
Click to expand...

Gosh I wish you understood the atmosphere just a bit better.

flogger said:
A peer review study affirming any of this action would be nice too and I look forward to you providing it :unsure:
Click to expand...

What an enormous waste of my time! Why do you ask when you KNOW you will just glance at the link and decree it somehow lacking.

Here's an idea: why don't YOU post some science some time! And not just from some 1990's era blog!
 
Hafnium1979 said:
Gosh I wish you understood the atmosphere just a bit better.



What an enormous waste of my time! Why do you ask when you KNOW you will just glance at the link and decree it somehow lacking.

Here's an idea: why don't YOU post some science some time! And not just from some 1990's era blog!
Click to expand...

So basically that will be a NO I can't provide any peer reviewed study confirming your assertions then ?

Have a nice day :)
 
Last edited:
Buzz said:
How about when you liken someone to the racist KKK and then call them a bigot? And all for doing the exact same thing you have done many times.
Click to expand...
I'm only pointing out why this so-called "accepted" derogatory term is not really acceptable, by showing a similar example of what some people consider acceptable.

If the shoe fits...
Buzz said:
I think you just like playing the victim. It gives you a reason to change the subject when you can't actually debate something.
Click to expand...
Believe as you wish.
 
Threegoofs said:
I could list names, but I’m pretty sure there are more who aren’t posting.
Click to expand...

So what is your solution and why would it be better than what we already have ?

Please empirically quantify that effect via peer reviewed literature ? ;)
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm only pointing out why this so-called "accepted" derogatory term is not really acceptable, by showing a similar example of what some people consider acceptable.

If the shoe fits...

Believe as you wish.
Click to expand...

There is a HUGE difference. The n-word was used as a way to derogate the entire person as basically worthless and even subhuman. That is quite different from pointing out that a person disagrees with the conclusions of hundreds and even thousands of scientists who have studied and researched climate change for literally decades now. Denying their well-documented research and conclusions (verb) makes that person a denier (noun). See how easy that is.
 
flogger said:
So what is your solution and why would it be better than what we already have ?

Please empirically quantify that effect via peer reviewed literature ? ;)
Click to expand...

Empirically quantify blah blah blah.....
 
Threegoofs said:
Not sure if you noticed that the experts just published a report today.
Click to expand...
So what stands out for you in it that they said?

It's not actually published yet. If you had actually read it you would have seen almost every page says on it: "accepted version subject to final editing." Then there are two more associated documents with the correction to be made to it for errors found so far.

But then, this doesn't surprise me that you think this is the "published" AR6.
 
flogger said:
So what is your solution and why would it be better than what we already have ?

Please empirically quantify that effect via peer reviewed literature ? ;)
Click to expand...
I told you already. I guess I can give you a link, but I guarantee you’ll dismiss it and whine and cry about it.

Www.IPCC.ch
 
Lord of Planar said:
So what stands out for you in it that they said?

It's not actually published yet. If you had actually read it you would have seen almost every page says on it: "accepted version subject to final editing." Then there are two more associated documents with the correction to be made to it for errors found so far.

But then, this doesn't surprise me that you think this is the "published" AR6.
Click to expand...
Hold on to that technicality for dear life.

All the main stuff is stuff you denied when the last report came out anyway.
 
Threegoofs said:
I told you already. I guess I can give you a link, but I guarantee you’ll dismiss it and whine and cry about it.

Www.IPCC.ch
Click to expand...
Cite the chapter and verse from your bible quantifying any effect our mitigation will have on temperature ?

Go on I dare ya ? :D
 
watsup said:
There is a HUGE difference. The n-word was used as a way to derogate the entire person as basically worthless and even subhuman. That is quite different from pointing out that a person disagrees with the conclusions of hundreds and even thousands of scientists who have studied and researched climate change for literally decades now. Denying their well-documented research and conclusions (verb) makes that person a denier (noun). See how easy that is.
Click to expand...
Regardlessof the impact, do you agree or disagree that calling a person or class of people a "denier" meaning not accepting science, is a derogatory term?

The the intensity of the name-calling mean its not name-calling if its below some arbitrary acceptable level?
 
Threegoofs said:
Hold on to that technicality for dear life.

All the main stuff is stuff you denied when the last report came out anyway.
Click to expand...
What have I denied?

Please be specific.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom