• 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!

The Climate Cult's New Goal: Degrowth

PoS said:


Timely piece by Stossel. These neo luddites are such morons! :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...


It's not new.

From the climate concerned point of view, it's either de-growth or collapse - take your pick.
 
multivita-man said:
It's not new.

From the climate concerned point of view, it's either de-growth or collapse - take your pick.
Click to expand...
Thanks for demonstrating that you are a Malthusian cultist. It must drive you crazy that you can't just off five billion people like your ilk so desperately wants. The really scary part is that you consider mass genocide to be a goal worth achieving. How sick and twisted does someone have to be to actively seek the death of billions?
 
The climate cult wants others to limit their growth rather than trying to monitor and limit their own environmental footprint.
 
Last edited:
tshade said:
no climate cult----------just science
Click to expand...
The science depends on lots of models with best guesses as to the numbers to plug in.
www.forbes.com

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
PoS said:
Please show proof that theres gonna be a worldwide collapse if we dont go neo luddite.
Click to expand...

The only proof you'd accept is the collapse of civilization itself.

Before then, your first clue will be inflation, followed by significant food & water scarcity and unstable power grids.
 
Integrityrespec said:
The science depends on lots of models with best guesses as to the numbers to plug in.
www.forbes.com

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
Click to expand...
They agree that certain solutions are wrong----------but they basically ALL agree with Climate Change being real and a threat, big time


Your attempted counter is deceptive here--------you lose this point
 
PoS said:
Please show proof that theres gonna be a worldwide collapse if we dont go neo luddite.


What science? Show it.
Click to expand...
There are 600 respectable websites on it, let alone credible news reports in years past.......................I am not your search engine.

Be more specific
 
tshade said:
There are 600 respectable websites on it, let alone credible news reports in years past.......................I am not your search engine.

Be more specific
Click to expand...
When you actually dig down into the science, there is very little empirical evidence that added CO2 is causing warming.
While in theory, it may be possible that increasing CO2 levels could cause some warming, the observed data show the vast majority
of the warming since 2002, is from more absorbed solar radiation, as opposed to less outgoing longwave radiation.
There is a good article on the topic here, The Greenhouse Effect, A Summary of Wijngaarden and Happer
But it is the very science that limits how much warming that could results from added CO2.
Basic physics suggests that Earth's surface is warmer than it would be with a transparent atmosphere, that is no greenhouse gases (GHGs), clouds, or oceans. If we assume Earth is a blackbody, then subtract the solar energy reflected, from the hypothetically non-existent clouds, atmosphere, land, ice, and oceans; we can calculate a surface temperature of 254K or -19℃. The actual average temperature today is about 288.7K or roughly 15.5℃. This modeled difference of 35℃ is often called the overall greenhouse effect.
Click to expand...
NASA says the total greenhouse effect is 33℃, but that is to the starting level of ~280 ppm.
CO2 is said to account for 20% of the total greenhouse effect, so 20% of 33℃ is 6.6℃.
If we consider that each doubling of the CO2 level has a value, and start at 1 ppm, it takes
8 doublings to reach 256 ppm, and an additional 0.9 doublings to reach 280 ppm.
This means that each doubling has a value of 6.6℃ /8.09 = 0.81℃.
 
longview said:
When you actually dig down into the science, there is very little empirical evidence that added CO2 is causing warming.
While in theory, it may be possible that increasing CO2 levels could cause some warming, the observed data show the vast majority
of the warming since 2002, is from more absorbed solar radiation, as opposed to less outgoing longwave radiation.
There is a good article on the topic here, The Greenhouse Effect, A Summary of Wijngaarden and Happer
But it is the very science that limits how much warming that could results from added CO2.

NASA says the total greenhouse effect is 33℃, but that is to the starting level of ~280 ppm.
CO2 is said to account for 20% of the total greenhouse effect, so 20% of 33℃ is 6.6℃.
If we consider that each doubling of the CO2 level has a value, and start at 1 ppm, it takes
8 doublings to reach 256 ppm, and an additional 0.9 doublings to reach 280 ppm.
This means that each doubling has a value of 6.6℃ /8.09 = 0.81℃.
Click to expand...
Therein is the problem. There is no such thing as a "transparent atmosphere." Assuming Earth is a theoretical object that absorbs all energy from the electromagnetic spectrum, a.k.a. black body, then it would not reflect any energy, much less solar. The fact that Earth has a measurable albedo demonstrates that it cannot be a black body. Thus making it an erroneous assumption to presume Earth to be a black body and making everything else that follows that assumption equally as bogus.
 
Last edited:
iamwhatiseem said:
Which has a video presented as the argument.
Granted, starting out with "Climate Cult..." is not going to enlist a lot of cooperation, but you could ignore that and make an actual point.
Just sayin
Click to expand...

He did make a point. I understood the point just fine.
 
longview said:
When you actually dig down into the science, there is very little empirical evidence that added CO2 is causing warming.
While in theory, it may be possible that increasing CO2 levels could cause some warming, the observed data show the vast majority
of the warming since 2002, is from more absorbed solar radiation, as opposed to less outgoing longwave radiation.
There is a good article on the topic here, The Greenhouse Effect, A Summary of Wijngaarden and Happer
But it is the very science that limits how much warming that could results from added CO2.
Click to expand...

Oh look, a link to a climate concern troll website.

:rolleyes:
 
multivita-man said:
Oh look, a link to a climate concern troll website.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Perhaps you can elaborate on the specifics they got wrong in the article?
Bear in mind the director of NASA's GISS publishes very similar numbers.
Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect
The size of the greenhouse effect is often estimated as being the difference between the actual global surface temperature and the temperature the planet would be without any atmospheric absorption, but with exactly the same planetary albedo, around 33°C.
Click to expand...
We find that water vapor is the dominant substance — responsible for about 50% of the absorption, with clouds responsible for about 25% — and CO2 responsible for 20% of the effect. The remainder is made up with the other minor
Click to expand...
 
longview said:
Perhaps you can elaborate on the specifics they got wrong in the article?
Bear in mind the director of NASA's GISS publishes very similar numbers.
Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect
Click to expand...

So you're saying that human industrial activity is adding 37 million gigatons of ancient, unearthed water vapor into the atmosphere each year?

Fascinating.
 
multivita-man said:
So you're saying that human industrial activity is adding 37 million gigatons of ancient, unearthed water vapor into the atmosphere each year?

Fascinating.
Click to expand...
Can you cite and quote what that is in reference to?
 
longview said:
Can you cite and quote what that is in reference to?
Click to expand...

My point is that while CO2 may only be 20% (or whatever amount it actually is) of the greenhouse effect, it's that amount that is sharply trending upward. Our atmosphere is rather sensitive to what would appear to be minor changes in its composition. At present CO2 accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere, but the geological record clearly correlates past mass extinction events due to changes in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

You knew the point I'm making, I'm just calling out your unique brand of climate denial schtick in which you toss out random babble from 'scientific' websites, begging people to get fetch shit to disprove what you're saying. Usually, I ignore, but when I feel like it, I call it out, like I am now - for the benefit of other readers.
 
multivita-man said:
My point is that while CO2 may only be 20% (or whatever amount it actually is) of the greenhouse effect, it's that amount that is sharply trending upward. Our atmosphere is rather sensitive to what would appear to be minor changes in its composition. At present CO2 accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere, but the geological record clearly correlates past mass extinction events due to changes in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

You knew the point I'm making, I'm just calling out your unique brand of climate denial schtick in which you toss out random babble from 'scientific' websites, begging people to get fetch shit to disprove what you're saying. Usually, I ignore, but when I feel like it, I call it out, like I am now - for the benefit of other readers.
Click to expand...
So did CO2 cause the mass extinction events, or was increased CO2 a result of mass extinction events?
Since NASA says that CO2 accounts of 20% of the total greenhouse effect of 33°C (6.6°C) why would you think
the climate's sensitivity to new CO2 would be any different?
You stated the cited article was from a "climate concern troll website"
I simply wanted you to say if you thought they got their facts wrong?
 
longview said:
So did CO2 cause the mass extinction events, or was increased CO2 a result of mass extinction events?
Since NASA says that CO2 accounts of 20% of the total greenhouse effect of 33°C (6.6°C) why would you think
the climate's sensitivity to new CO2 would be any different?
You stated the cited article was from a "climate concern troll website"
I simply wanted you to say if you thought they got their facts wrong?
Click to expand...

As always, I'm refuting the implications - theirs and yours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom