• 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!

Man made global warming is a hoax

The all important aspect of AGW, is and always has been our climate’s sensitivity to added CO2.
If the fully equalized warming from 2XCO2, is 2C or less, then Concerns about emissions are of little concern. On the other hand, if the fully equalized warming from 2XCO2 is say, 4C, then high emission levels could be of concern.
The question is which is closer to the truth?

If you are truly interested in a discussion about this, join the Skeptical Science website. They have lots of members who are extremely knowledgeable about AGW and will challenge your inputs heartily if they are wrong. Or I suppose you can just stay here and make the very same posts as you have been doing for months ad infinitum in the future. If you do decide to meet th challenge at Skeptical Scence, let us know what your chat name is there so that we can follow you. Her is their website: https://skepticalscience.com/Welcome-to-Skeptical-Science.html

So now it's up to you: defecate or get off the pot.
 
Why are we switching back over to this discussion point? I thought we were talking about solar.



I'm still sticking with what the vast majority of the professionals who specialize in this and have investigated it over the past several decades say.

Sorry.
[/QUOTE
It is all tied together, the climate's CO2 sensitivity is subtractive in nature, meaning they take the observed warming and
subtract out all the known causes of warming, what remains is attributed to added greenhouse gasses.
If they have the warming from changes in insolation incorrect, that affects the amount that remains that can be attributed to
increases in greenhouse gasses.
I think we need to consider that aerosol dimming, could have been happening for several centuries, but very slowly.
After the problem with aerosol pollution was understood and corrected, the subsequent brightening could have
happened quickly (3 or 4 decades) relative to the dimming time frame.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth’s Surface
"Over the period covered so far by BSRN
(1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth reflec-
tance corresponds to an increase of 6 W m-2
in absorbed solar radiation by the globe (22)"
The reference period begins in 1950, but imagine if the dimming had been happening for several centuries
(Like since we started using coal for fuel), while the reverse only took decades?
 
If you are truly interested in a discussion about this, join the Skeptical Science website. They have lots of members who are extremely knowledgeable about AGW and will challenge your inputs heartily if they are wrong. Or I suppose you can just stay here and make the very same posts as you have been doing for months ad infinitum in the future. If you do decide to meet th challenge at Skeptical Scence, let us know what your chat name is there so that we can follow you. Her is their website: https://skepticalscience.com/Welcome-to-Skeptical-Science.html

So now it's up to you: defecate or get off the pot.
I think I would rather a less biased platform.
 
Research shows that there is 35 billion tons of CO2 produced my man every year.

The total weight of the Atmosphere is 5.5 quadrillion tons.

Dividing 35 billion by 5.5 quadrillion come out to .000006

So made made CO2 compared to the whole earths atmosphere is 6 parts in a million. That is such a small amount that it is meaningless.

So lets stop the BS about man made global warming.
I’m impressed at your ability to reach a strong conclusion with only a couple of random data points.

BTW, why do you call yourself “Logical”? If it’s satire, good one!
 
I think I would rather a less biased platform.

Biased? And by biased you mean "based on cited research by professionals in the field"?

Skeptical Science, for being a "blog" provides ample references in the peer reviewed literature to support their explanations.

So what would be a less biased source of information?
 
Biased? And by biased you mean "based on cited research by professionals in the field"?

Skeptical Science, for being a "blog" provides ample references in the peer reviewed literature to support their explanations.

So what would be a less biased source of information?
I could try, but in the past, they remove comments that do not agree with their agenda.
 
Skeptical Science removes comments that do not agree with their agenda.

How do you know that?

Actually they ban you from posting. I've been banned there since December 2012
I posted that they had put up a straw man - which they did - and I was banned.
 
Skeptical Science removes comments that do not agree with their agenda.



Actually they ban you from posting. I've been banned there since December 2012
I posted that they had put up a straw man - which they did - and I was banned.

You were clearly banned for simply being argumentative rather than supporting your posts with science-based information. Skeptical science is not like this place where you right wingers can simply rave and rant and insult rather than remain on topic with science-based sources. They want serious and informed feedback, not the typical insult-based rants that we get from your type here. Good for them.
 
I could try, but in the past, they remove comments that do not agree with their agenda.

or you could try publishing in peer review. I’m sure you’d come away assuming any negative reviews you get are due to you disagreeing with their agenda , amirite?
 
What is their “agenda” that seems to upset you?

It is probably the "anti-Longview" agenda. Skeptical Science and almost all of "big science" is made up of morons who don't know what they are talking about at all but they DO see the threat that longview poses to the "Big Scam" that is helping to turn common atmospheric scientists into big-pimpin' millionaires.
 
Biased? And by biased you mean "based on cited research by professionals in the field"?

Skeptical Science, for being a "blog" provides ample references in the peer reviewed literature to support their explanations.

So what would be a less biased source of information?
I don't know of any "unbiased" information regarding the climate sciences except for Curry's blogs. The science community should be ashamed of itself.

Judith Curry is probably the least biased of any scientist vocal out there. I will claim that any of the climate scientists that have a problem with her well thought out positions, are biased and blinded to reality.

 
Skeptical Science, for being a "blog" provides ample references in the peer reviewed literature to support their explanations.
I was searching for something else, but came across this:


Their write-up on the Skeptical Science blog is spot-on. I cannot speak for the integrity of the MasterResource web site, but I do plan on exploring this newly discovered site.
 
Another climate scientist! They are coming out of the woodwork!
We received flat earth theories, for example, from 'scientists' who used non-scientific methods to base theories. So have we received the climate change catastrophe theory (too much CO2 in the 'sphere causes climate change) based on non-scientific data from 'scientists'. When will someone show scientific data to prove their climate change catastrophe theory?:ROFLMAO:
 
Feel free to attempt to prove what his numbers wrong!

I thought your position was that the amount of CO2 was not going to have a significant effect. Now you are saying you even disagree with the amount of CO2?

Which is it? Or is it just whatever is against current climate change science?
 
I thought your position was that the amount of CO2 was not going to have a significant effect. Now you are saying you even disagree with the amount of CO2?

Which is it? Or is it just whatever is against current climate change science?
How can you even asked that after the points have been repeatedly said, over and over?

The two positions are not mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:
I was searching for something else, but came across this:


Their write-up on the Skeptical Science blog is spot-on. I cannot speak for the integrity of the MasterResource web site, but I do plan on exploring this newly discovered site.


I like the "rather cursory dismissal" of the Climate Skeptic Points. IF you had ever actually checked out the site you'd see that there are usually three levels of response (in tabs across the top) ranging from the simple to the much more complex. All of it supported by actual peer reviewed resources.

Now, it COULD be that the blog you rely on, Lord, is 10 years old on this topic. Perhaps things have changed since 2010 when this blog entry was written.

In your desperation to confirm your bias you WERE able to find a critique from 10 or 11 years ago. Kudos!

MAYBE you should try looking at Skeptical Science and taking on the peer reviewed articles cited therein. That will save time having a go at the author of the blog.
 
We received flat earth theories, for example, from 'scientists' who used non-scientific methods to base theories. So have we received the climate change catastrophe theory (too much CO2 in the 'sphere causes climate change) based on non-scientific data from 'scientists'. When will someone show scientific data to prove their climate change catastrophe theory?:ROFLMAO:

Just wait til you take some science classes in school! It's much more interesting, but it's going to be hard for you. You'll have to pay close attention! Get ready to learn!
 
I don't know of any "unbiased" information regarding the climate sciences except for Curry's blogs. The science community should be ashamed of itself.

Judith Curry is probably the least biased of any scientist vocal out there. I will claim that any of the climate scientists that have a problem with her well thought out positions, are biased and blinded to reality.

So anyone who disagrees with Curry is biased? She is the only scientist who sees the truth?

And you know this exactly how? You have a two year degree and NOT IN THIS AREA. And you prefer the position that most aligns with your wishes vs the vast majority of climate researchers over the last nearly half century?
 
I like the "rather cursory dismissal" of the Climate Skeptic Points. IF you had ever actually checked out the site you'd see that there are usually three levels of response (in tabs across the top) ranging from the simple to the much more complex. All of it supported by actual peer reviewed resources.

Now, it COULD be that the blog you rely on, Lord, is 10 years old on this topic. Perhaps things have changed since 2010 when this blog entry was written.

In your desperation to confirm your bias you WERE able to find a critique from 10 or 11 years ago. Kudos!

MAYBE you should try looking at Skeptical Science and taking on the peer reviewed articles cited therein. That will save time having a go at the author of the blog.
I have read many things from the SS site. You shouldn't assume I haven't. I actually do find information useful from some papers they reference. As I have stated before, when people go after WUWT, I go to the papers referenced at that blog and make my opinion based on the papers. Not by WUWT says.

Did you read the article? How the SS will dismiss scientists because they are not "climate scientists" and points out that Hansen and James Cook aren't either? Do you believe in hypocrisy?

As I said, I found that article by accident. I simply thought it was a good read, and still applies after all these years.
 
Last edited:
So anyone who disagrees with Curry is biased? She is the only scientist who sees the truth?

And you know this exactly how? You have a two year degree and NOT IN THIS AREA. And you prefer the position that most aligns with your wishes vs the vast majority of climate researchers over the last nearly half century?
Have you ever actually read her work, and how she properly applies what we do and do not know? Did you watch that video at the congressional panel were where tears Mann to pieces with logic and fact?
 
Have you ever actually read her work,

Yes.

and how she properly applies what we do and do not know? Did you watch that video at the congressional panel were where tears Mann to pieces with logic and fact?

I'm still curious why YOU, someone with less education and virtually none in this particular area prefer to side with the tiny, tiny, tiny minority on this topic.
 
Back
Top Bottom