• 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!

Socialists turn to weather gods to create world communism

Redress said:
Well, aren't you special.
Click to expand...

It appears so, yes. :clap:

Random scenarios that have nothing to do with the topic do not in fact make your point.
Click to expand...

It wasn’t random. It was picked carefully to compare with what you do. You have an ocean of information at the tips of your fingers, telling you about all the anti-AGW scientists, and you never look at it. Then you have the nerve to say it doesn’t exist, and demand I ‘find’ it for you. This is EXACTLY like the woman in the analogy, who doesn’t bother to move her head to see the Atlantic Ocean, insisting it doesn’t exist. No different at all; perfectly apt.

you go from "AGW has been disproven and debunked", to "some scientists disagree with AGW". Those are two significantly different things.
Click to expand...

I didn’t go from one to the other at all. AGW has been disproved and debunked by thousands of scientists, and you can Google or Bing them anytime you bother to look. Here, allow me to move your head in the direction of the ocean again:

"AGW debunked" - Bing

that does not hint, suggest state, or come even close to saying AGW has been disproven nor debunked.
Click to expand...

You’ve been carried away by the misinformation fairies. Let’s straighten this out:

1) You said that I ‘provide no sources for your assertions’ and that ‘I spin memes’.

2) I gave you millions of sources and ‘started you off’ with one. You were meant to read many others, leaving out those you already know (i.e. the Leftist myths).

3) Now you’re whining that just providing these sources was not enough. You want me to read them out to you aloud, like a child being put to bed by daddy.

As I have said, you obviously don’t know any of the anti-AGW science, and it’s up to you to read it. I’m not in charge of your education dear. You need to do that yourself. You have Google and Bing. Go to it. If you wish to enter debates on this, you need to read both sides.

Now, if you followed the link within your source, you would have seen
Click to expand...

Nice try, but I’ve already seen all the myths from the Left on this. I know them all, and have seen them all debunked. I didn’t give you the link to see the ocean of anti-AGW science for you to cherry pick out some of your worn out clichés. I gave it to you so that you can read the OTHER side of the coin – the side you are totally oblivious to.

Really? You did not go with this as soon as some one questioned you:

Are there any adults on this board, or is it only for teenagers?
Click to expand...

Where is the insult in that? I had a bunch of kiddies pissing on my ankles, and wondered if the entire board was the same. If so it would not do at all.
 

Well, no. I have never denied anti-AGW scientists exist. Do try and fail less.

Rob Larrikin said:
I didn’t go from one to the other at all. AGW has been disproved and debunked by thousands of scientists, and you can Google or Bing them anytime you bother to look. Here, allow me to move your head in the direction of the ocean again:
Click to expand...

Um, dude...there are multiple hypothesis used by anti AGW scientists, most of which are mutually exclusive. Why don't you pick an actual hypothesis you agree with. I will highlight the other absurdity in a second...

Rob Larrikin said:
"AGW debunked" - Bing
Click to expand...

Using your logic, I am about to blow your mind: flat earth proved - Bing

Yup, by using your methodology, I just proved the earth is flat.

Rob Larrikin said:
You’ve been carried away by the misinformation fairies. Let’s straighten this out:
Click to expand...

No, I used the source you provided. I quoted from the source your source used. Maybe you should have read your source...

Rob Larrikin said:
1) You said that I ‘provide no sources for your assertions’ and that ‘I spin memes’.
Click to expand...

Didn't you tell me to learn to quote? Why the sudden failure by you?


You should probably learn to read what is actually written, instead of what you which was written so you could argue against it. Pick a source that you stand by. Then argue in favor of that source. This is not hard stuff, why do you struggle so?


Evidence suggests I know more about it than you, since I have displayed some knowledge of the topic, which you have not. Once again, there are more than one hypothesis connected to anti-AGW scientists.


Sure you did. And I bet you are a self made millionaire, and really Batman too! This is the internets, no one cares what wild claims you make. Until you show you actually know what you are talking about, no one is going to believe you know what you are talking about. And you have shown zero evidence you know anything about AGW/anti-AGW.

Rob Larrikin said:
Where is the insult in that? I had a bunch of kiddies pissing on my ankles, and wondered if the entire board was the same. If so it would not do at all.
Click to expand...

Apparently self-analysis is beyond you too...
 

The assertions I made above include the assertion that ‘the anthropogenic (man-made) global warming myth has been disproved and debunked by thousands of climate scientists around the world’.

Redress said:
You provide no sources for your assertions, nor do you offer any evidence to back them up. You spin memes and talking points into what appears to be a paranoid fantasy.
Click to expand...

That would indicate to a normal person that you are denying such anti-AGW climate scientists exist, or that they have debunked AGW. I certainly don’t see you bending over backwards to agree they existed.

Redress said:
I have never denied anti-AGW scientists exist.
Click to expand...

Sure. We believe you. :roll:

Um, dude...there are multiple hypothesis used by anti AGW scientists, most of which are mutually exclusive. Why don't you pick an actual hypothesis you agree with. I will highlight the other absurdity in a second...
Click to expand...

Don’t get too tangled up in your job. Just read the different scientists who oppose AGW, and familiarize yourself with their arguments. Once you’ve done that you might be ready to address the OP – something you’ve avoided like a zombie Rottweiler.

Using your logic, I am about to blow your mind: flat+earth+proved&qs=n&form]flat earth proved - Bing[/url]
Yup, by using your methodology, I just proved the earth is flat.
Click to expand...

That’s amateur sleight of hand, since I didn’t claim to prove anything by providing a link. The link was to show you where you could find the proof.

I quoted from the source your source used.
Click to expand...

That’s more amateur sleight of hand, since all searches result in irrelevant flotsam. A search for ‘Alec Baldwin’ will bring up stuff like ‘gay’ or ‘halitosis’, but a normal person knows how to ignore flotsam.

Didn't you tell me to learn to quote? Why the sudden failure by you?
Click to expand...

Obviously you have more to learn. I quoted you exactly, using quote marks. Whether you quote using quote marks or using the software, the quote has to be accurate.

The rest was just flame, wasn’t it?

When you’ve learned about the anti-AGW science and wish to debate the OP, get back to me. Until then, your banter is boring.
 

You do realise that climatology extends to more than just global warming, and that we will still have a climate and weather that needs to be studied, global warming or not. Climatology research does not begin and end with global warming, and the idea that funding would be stopped if global warming was shown to be natural is laughable.
 
Aristaeus said:
You do realise that climatology extends to more than just global warming,
Click to expand...

Really? Wow. Will wonders never cease?

and that we will still have a climate and weather that needs to be studied, global warming or not.
Click to expand...

My. That’s modern technology for ya. Hyuk.

Climatology research does not begin and end with global warming,
Click to expand...

Really? Durn. What will they think of next?

and the idea that funding would be stopped if global warming was shown to be natural is laughable.
Click to expand...

Heh heh. You’re a scream. :mrgreen:
 
Rob Larrikin said:
Really? Wow. Will wonders never cease?



My. That’s modern technology for ya. Hyuk.



Really? Durn. What will they think of next?



Heh heh. You’re a scream. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

So you agreeing with me in that they wouldn't get their funding cut for coming out against AGW because there are lots of other areas of climatology. Thanks for disproving your own argument.
 
Aristaeus said:
So you agreeing with me in that they wouldn't get their funding cut for coming out against AGW because there are lots of other areas of climatology. Thanks for disproving your own argument.
Click to expand...

You are a gas, man. A real gas.

When funding for weather myths are finally axed, the weather industry can continue on as before, minus all the funding for weather myths.
 
Rob Larrikin said:
You are a gas, man. A real gas.

When funding for weather myths are finally axed, the weather industry can continue on as before, minus all the funding for weather myths.
Click to expand...


If global warming is a myth, how come temperatures are rising, and the poles and glaciers are melting? These are observable things.
 
X Factor said:
I was countering your trolling.
Click to expand...

Well, that was dumb. I troll the idiotic OP. You counter-troll why? To defend the idiotic OP? :rofl:
 
Cardinal said:
To be precise, that we exacerbated their frequency and their strength is the issue.
Click to expand...

To be even more precise, warming of the ocean water exacerbated their frequency and strength.
 

I don't care how many earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, or wild fires your God sends at us. I am not going to stop masturbating.
 

The vast, vast majority of climatologists (and scientists in related fields) acknowledge the reality of humanity's effect on climate. Sorry, pal, but Bing (LOL) searches for the infinitesimal sliver of crackpots who don't really only proves the existence of crackpots.

I could probably find a "scientist" who claims that drinking too much orange juice causes AIDS. That doesn't mean it does.
 
Thorgasm said:
I don't care how many earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, or wild fires your God sends at us. I am not going to stop masturbating.
Click to expand...

The cars and cows have to do with what you subscribe to as the causation of Global Warming. That New York Latinos driving cars, Wisconsin farmers with cows that fart, cause hurricanes around Southern coastal cities. Creating a strawman does not change that.

Just as Global Warming is called Climate Change. Maybe it is... I don't know. Of current I don't like the concept nor understand it. But then neither of those two things means a claim or model of conceptualization is wrong. Then again... not liking a concept and not understanding it does not mean I need to jump on the bandwagon and merely agree in blind faith with authority figures. Recall the United States history of scientific eugenics that it now apologizes for (or some states have at least) and has paid out financial compensation to some surviving victimized women. Most Americans simply went in blind faith along with the liberal intellectual, and scientific authorities, both of whom were certain they were right.




My experience--in Southeast Wisconsin--leads me to believe there are more warmer days throughout are colder Wisconsin seasons. More but not a complete change in the climate of Southeast Wisconsin. So, in that sense I can by experience be persuaded (even if I'm tricked, or my perception is faulty) of concept occurring we call Global Warming. I have a bigger issue with the concept called Climate Change that is said to be occurring. Because I like my conceptualization better of an earth with multiple climates and no one single climate. Why?

So, let's use a logical thought experiment. Lets call the earth "the alphabet." And let's call climate "letters."

There is one alphabet (earth) with many letters (climates) but the alphabet is simultaneously only one letter (one climate) and that one letter (climate) which is in fact all letters (climates) at one and the same time (kind of like the 3 Persons in 1 God dogma of Christians) is changing.

Now, I have a problem with this on a number of levels. But maybe most importantly is that if Las Vegas and Miami and the Antarctica all are one and the same climate then how can the one climate (one letter) change on the earth (in the alphabet). If the letter "A" is all letters of the alphabet then it already is every letter of the alphabet and can't "change" into other letters (climates).

So, I like the way I conceptualize it better (at the moment anyways), as it is simpler and more rational (not mystical like the 3 Persons in 1 God concept): that being there is one earth (one alphabet) with many climates (many letters) and no one climate on earth that is changing. And my experience in Wisconsin is that although I perceive there to be more warm days throughout our colder seasons, the 4 seasons still come and go, and come winter it will still at multiple points drop below zero degrees Fahrenheit and the sidewalks will be covered in ice.

I want it to warm actually. So, I'm all for Global Warming. As for hurricanes... I do not buy into the story line that humans around the world are causing the hurricanes to strike regions that have always been at risk of being struck by hurricanes. It's a line taken right out of religion. Bearing in mind ancient man must have been just as fearful as modern man that their actions were or could cause "bad weather," because a lot of human sacrifices by pagans (such as the Aztecs) were to appease the gods of various weather phenomena.
 

The majority of scientists believed the sun rotated around the earth, ran the man that proposed sickness and diseases were caused by germs (rather than psychological fears such as hearing Catholic priests ring bells) out of his profession as a doctor, and supported eugenics and believed in biological determinism. The "majority" of scientists believing something, as an appeal to authority, does not mean x, y, or z thing is partially or fully true. Remember when the majority of scientist thought you could tell if a man was a thief, murderer, or a charitable person by feeling the contours and bumps on their skulls?
 
FastPace said:
The majority of scientists believed the sun rotated around the earth...
Click to expand...

That's not quite true. Asians, Greeks, and Egyptians new better. The "Church" attacked European scientists who threatened their doctrine with facts as heretics and killed them.
 
Rob Larrikin said:
That's a lie. Go find out about the scientists who disagree. Google and Bing are free.
Click to expand...

Not what he said. His point was that the academies don't disagree.

Your linkage of international communism to acceptance of scientific support for human influenced climate change makes me think you probably don't know what international communism is, or was supposed to be, either.

But you've generated an entertaining thread.
 

Yes, scientists believed those things, but lacked the empirical evidence. We have that now.

Most of what you describe above predates the scientific method by a few centuries.
 


It's no lie, man. Honest. There is not a single scientific organization on the entire planet that disputes AGW. If there is, let me know. There may be a handful of individual scientists here and there who may still question it. But there are those who still question things like evolutionary biology as well, and think that Bigfoot and UFO abductions are real and being covered up by the government. Every profession has a handful of kooks and charlatans in it.
 
Last edited:

But even the scientists working for Exxon agree with AGW.

 

So it sounds like you want to dismiss all of modern science, is that correct?

After all, you can't use the argument above to just dismiss things in modern science you just don't happen to currently like. Either you take the whole thing, or you reject the whole thing. Which is it going to be?
 
Thorgasm said:
That's not quite true. Asians, Greeks, and Egyptians new better. The "Church" attacked European scientists who threatened their doctrine with facts as heretics and killed them.
Click to expand...

No, I'm sorry, it's a well established historical fact most scientists of the time did have "consensus" that the sun revolved around the earth. You've heard a overly simplistic tale about the early controversy over whether the earth was center of the universe (which it is... any planet can be actually and with much more logic than a 1 climate earth) ad its sun revolved around it.

The Church was a as strong a patron to science as it was to the arts. Ergo, that's why modern science developed out of Catholic Italy as opposed to a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or some pagan country. It takes money and support of major institutions in a country for science to flourish. Not tyrannical repression and the confiscation of funds, destruction of tools and facilities.

Anyways... you have your own religion revolving around man and his relation to both earth and the broad universe don't you? It's not born from a science deriving optimism about a human child born (the Nativity scene in Christianity) but rather from a science deriving pessimism about a human child born (Satan's contempt for human's and a child that can grow into an adult and "save"). All science departs from a philosophical position. Sorry, it does. Then it draws upon logic and math to prove its departing philosophical position correct, and or articulate and defend it.




Many modern liberals--and many of them are in the sciences too--start from Satan's pessimistic attitude, actually contempt, for human children being born and man on earth. And they like to also refer to it as being "anthropocentric" :lol:. I freely admit I am anthropocentric. I mean... what other species produces veterinarians or electrical engineers?

Humans are a keystone species I would say, so, definitely we have a disproportionate impact upon our environments. That's why the two greatest destructive forces on environment, capitalism and communism, have to be kept in check. Capitalism needs to have regulations (to some extent) imposed upon its industries to give some oversight. But CO2 is not a pollutant and as with the Little Climatic Optimum the earth warms and cools. Like the Little Ice Age we are in now. Humans are basically a tropical species though, that is why the so-called "Nuclear Winter" is really the catastrophe that would hit humanity (not to mention crop production plummeting) and not the earth warming enough to melt the glaciers (albeit, I doubt the earth will warm enough for that to happen, some warming, some glacial melt, does not de facto mean all glaciers will melt).

Anyways... I came across this dude on the Rubin Report, never heard of him before. Smart guy. He may have converted me to be less fearful of establishing more nuclear energy plants. Dr. Helen Caldicott has had me nervous about them because she has explained some of the medical effects that will happen is they are blown up in a terrorist attack or a war. Anyways, the dude has observed the same thing I have about many modern liberals: they are anti-human.

Alex Epstein and Dave Rubin Discuss the Climate Change Debate (Full Interview)
Click to expand...
 
Aristaeus said:
If global warming is a myth, how come temperatures are rising, and the poles and glaciers are melting? These are observable things.
Click to expand...

The myth is ‘man made global warming’, remember? AGW. As for whether temperatures are rising, or poles and glaciers are melting, have you ever bothered doing a ten second search to see what opposing scientists say? Too lazy for a few seconds of research?

https://www.google.com/search?sourc....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.1.233.0...0.ujvaotaFlkU

https://www.google.com/search?q="po...JMaQ8wXAk4OgCw&start=10&sa=N&biw=1344&bih=680

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1...0i7i30k1j0i8i7i30k1j0i13i5i30k1.0.v67b9DzmRUo

Like all search results there is some irrelevant debris, but there you have a rich yield of contrary views and science. Before you dare go around assuming science is ‘settled’ you must see the contrary arguments. Wade through and read many of the pages you find, and then ask yourself how settled your “science” is.
 
Kobie said:
Yes, scientists believed those things, but lacked the empirical evidence. We have that now.

Most of what you describe above predates the scientific method by a few centuries.
Click to expand...

By a few centuries? All of that--with the exception of the geocentric model--occurred in the 1800s and 20th century.

It was in the 20th century when in the attempt to persuade opinions based upon scientists numbers, consensus, 100 scientists denounce Albert Eisenstein (one of their piers) for being wrong about what was it... his General Relativity Theory or something?

I'm not a scientist but I have enough common sense and objectivity to figure out the earth warming will do far more good (for me) for humanity and most life on earth than negative outcomes. But here is the thing whether the earth warms, cools, or remains the same some species of life will win out more than others. There is no such thing as every species of life wins or benefits exactly equally.

CO2 is not a pollutant and in terms of heating the earth up I'm skeptical about that no matter how much the Climate Change Religion enthusiastically seeks math data to use to make correlation equal causation. I'll tell you what will piss me off is if the earth starts cooling.
 
ataraxia said:
So it sounds like you want to dismiss all of modern science, is that correct?
Click to expand...

Here we go with this tape played again :roll:. I mean the exact, the exact same thing was said to me (I was accused of) numerous times many years ago over two separate controversies (few to no one was worked up on Climate Change).

#1. "Modern science" has proven homosexuality is genetically determined, genetically inherited (even from two heterosexual parents). I stood my ground on that being false (because I'm like the German in the 1930s that opposes the Nazis rather than simply signing up to mob consensus) and one the epigenetic revolution came in I was confirmed right in the life sciences.

#2. "Modern science" has proven the earth is over populated. Even the USA is overpopulated the story line went. I stood my ground on opposing that. I mean it was "retarded" anyways because for the first time in human history the planet had more "fat" people on it than "skinny" people, but so long as some scientist flapped their gums in some religious sermon about "everyone is going to starve, institutions will collapse, wars will be fought every where over water and food," plenty of Americans bought into that nonsense. So, what happened jut recently that more or less proved me right? Democrats demanded more Mexicans be allowed to flood into the USA and their religious scientist remained silent--instead they switched to a different dooms day, end of the world, the sky is falling song: the earth is warming! God forbid. Humans by their sinful behaviors cause hurricanes, tornadoes, every natural disaster.




So, let me make a prediction about a more warm, a more green earth if in fact the earth warms up: life will actually get better for humans with crop productions up. And it will be a few less days Chicagoans have to slip on ice.

I'm so confident in that I wish Las Vegas could put up some long term bets for when most scientists or Climate Change people say Florida will be sunk under water and chaos and starvation will sweep earth. I'll place my bet against that at win enough money to become a multimillionaire or billionaire.


After all, you can't use the argument above to just dismiss things in modern science you just don't happen to currently like. Either you take the whole thing, or you reject the whole thing. Which is it going to be?
Click to expand...

No, you don't have to subscribe to every claim made in modern day science or otherwise you have to reject every hypothesis, theory, or law put forth in science as nonsense.
 
JackA said:
Not what he said. His point was that the academies don't disagree.
Click to expand...


Your linkage of international communism to acceptance of scientific support for human influenced climate change makes me think you probably don't know what international communism is, or was supposed to be, either.
Click to expand...

The kidnapping of environmentalism by Marxists has been well known for a long time. Here is an excellent talk by Lord Monckton from 2010 that covers the gist of it. This is the first of five vids:

https://youtu.be/OuoP1c5Uimc?t=10s


Here is a talk given by the original founder of Greenpeace in 2015:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIvLEwGS-70


Here’s the same guy again in a shorter vid, being interviewed in 2014:

https://youtu.be/cA6WZ4SX_-0?t=1m8s


But you've generated an entertaining thread.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…