• 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!

Solar Activity Lowest in 400 Years

Congratulations. You managed to accuse me of saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I said.

That's the fundamental difference between an honest poster and a dishonest one.



I only read what you posted and determined that this must be the cause of your misunderstanding of the real science that undermines the idea of AGW.

When so many predictions are utterly wrong and wrong by a wide margin, either the natural world is wrong or the people making the predictions are wrong.

If it's the people who are wrong, then they must be trying to fit the data into their conclusion instead of changing the conclusion when the data does not support it.

See where you've made your mistake? The "then" part of the "if-then" is always wrong because your experts are ignoring actual science and using AGW Science. IF they are always wrong, THEN they must be using AGW Science.

By the way, have you located the instrumental record that justifies the AGW Science saying that the Deep Ocean is warming?

73 Climate models that don't match reality.webp
 
I only read what you posted and determined that this must be the cause of your misunderstanding of the real science that undermines the idea of AGW.

When so many predictions are utterly wrong and wrong by a wide margin, either the natural world is wrong or the people making the predictions are wrong.

If it's the people who are wrong, then they must be trying to fit the data into their conclusion instead of changing the conclusion when the data does not support it.

See where you've made your mistake? The "then" part of the "if-then" is always wrong because your experts are ignoring actual science and using AGW Science. IF they are always wrong, THEN they must be using AGW Science.

By the way, have you located the instrumental record that justifies the AGW Science saying that the Deep Ocean is warming?

Your missing the concept of the thread and what's been posted, again.
 
there has been secondary evidence (sea level increases, GHG increases, melting sea ice) building up for years, that would have indicated that the atmospheric temperatures are rising faster ...
Not exactly.

Sea level increase "building up for years," but still unnoticeable to the naked eye.

"GHG increases ... building up for years," but warming has slowed down.

And "melting sea ice ... building up for years," but doing little to add to sea level rise.
 
Back
Top Bottom