The drought across Europe is drying up rivers, killing fish and shriveling crops

[Lord of Planar]

Again, this Frontline program is not unbiased. They are clearly trying to show reason to dismiss the skeptical position, which is 100% anti-science.

They are science deniers themself.

 

[Lord of Planar]

In part 2 a little after 11:20, VP Cheney, straight up states why it isn't feasible to have carbon caps.

Who can argue with what he said?

 

[Fabiusbile]

First we need the loudmouth climate change deniers to just STFU so that we can all work TOGETHER to come up with ways to solve the problem.

May this never happen. You do not understand the basic things, where one of the most important is that developing countries with at least some degree of independence perceive the "climate change" agenda as a direct lever to limit growth rates and this is done by developed countries. You call for, and sometimes requires, a rather vague "reduction of hydrocarbon emissions" and as if you don't understand that the requirement is to limit industry and industrialization. Developed countries have an economic reserve and the strength of the economy for such games, developing countries do not have this and such reasoning is not perceived differently, that the West is trying to preserve poverty in third countries and they will not go for it... at least those who have a share of independence.

 

[Lord of Planar]

First we need the loudmouth climate change deniers to just STFU so that we can all work TOGETHER to come up with ways to solve the problem.

Wow. Shame on you.

You want a dictatorship, huh?

Silence those you disagree with because you cannot defend against the truth is what this sounds like. You want the lies to go unquestioned...

If your position had adequate merit, then there wouldn't be so many others with valid points against your view.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Genetic fallacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Interesting. I pointed out that these were biased sources. They are. I did however also say I would give it a chance, and watched the video. My viewpoint stands. PBS is biased.

Did you watch the video?

 

[Yes_Minister]

Interesting. I pointed out that these were biased sources. They are. I did however also say I would give it a chance, and watched the video. My viewpoint stands. PBS is biased.

Did you watch the video?

Is their information on this point incorrect? If so, how is it incorrect?

 

[Middleground]

It still uses cherry picked information, and clearly sides with the agenda. They do present the skeptical viewpoint, but the overwhelming narrative is with the cultist like belief that AGW will be a disaster for us.

I've been busy and had to stop it several times, but I would like to point out a perfect example of the media lies. Starting at about 51:40 in the program, they talk about the summary that says:

The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.​

Nobody disagrees with this. But after the point this agreed upon statement out, they show media clips lying about what was just said. Start at 51:40, and then listen to the media response.

My goto references are Nature, Nature Climate Change, Nature Geoscience, and Science, peer reviewed journals. I use other actual peer reviewed material also. I read what the scientists actually say, instead of the lies put out by the media and bloggers.

That doesn't matter. Awards are also agenda drive, Just look at the recent year awards for the Nobel Prize.

Your Front lines is biased, in their presentation.

I miss Walter Cronkite.

Tell me... what would be the skeptical viewpoint to counter the presentation? How do you counter that fact that Shell had their own research and knew from the early 80s that their product was going to cause climate change? It was their research that dictated their conclusion. How do you counter that?

 

[longview]

Tell me... what would be the skeptical viewpoint to counter the presentation? How do you counter that fact that Shell had their own research and knew from the early 80s that their product was going to cause climate change? It was their research that dictated their conclusion. How do you counter that?

I think there is a large misconception of what is the skeptical viewpoint!
Very few scientific skeptics say that CO2 does not cause any warming, so there is no need to counter Shell's and Exxon's
early research showing that CO2 emissions would cause future warming.
The question is how much warming will added CO2 cause, what is the climate's sensitivity to added CO2?
If you read the IPCC AR6 SPM, they present a broad range, for a doubling of the CO2 level, depending
if the simulation is a 1% annual increase vs a single abrupt doubling pulse.
The 2XCO2 range is ~0.70 °C to 4.0°C, represented by the following statements.

In the literature, units of °C per 1000 PgC (petagrams of carbon) are used, and the AR6 reports the
TCRE likely range as 1.0°C to 2.3°C per 1000 PgC in the underlying report, with a best estimate of 1.65°C.

and,

The equilibrium climate sensitivity is an important quantity used to estimate how the climate responds to radiative
forcing. Based on multiple lines of evidence,21 the very likely range of equilibrium climate sensitivity is between 2°C (high
confidence) and 5°C (medium confidence). The AR6 assessed best estimate is 3°C with a likely range of 2.5°C to 4°C
(high confidence), compared to 1.5°C to 4.5°C in AR5, which did not provide a best estimate.

Now for TCRE, one has to convert 1000 GtC to CO2 ppm, and there exists an uncertainty if the IPCC TCRE range is based on
Pre or post airborne fraction, (How much of the emissions were absorbed by the environment),
but because TCRE is calculated using a 1% annual increase in CO2 concentration, I go with post airborne fraction.
Just to be through the low end TCRE range of 1.0°C per 1000GtC is 1.22°C if calculated as a pre airborne fraction.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Tell me... what would be the skeptical viewpoint to counter the presentation? How do you counter that fact that Shell had their own research and knew from the early 80s that their product was going to cause climate change? It was their research that dictated their conclusion. How do you counter that?

The problem is, the conclusions they came to were nothing concrete. Not quantified. This is the problem. The AGW side considers this settled, and everyone else wrong.

THAT IS NOT SCIENCE!

 

[PoS]

Here’s the difference between an internet denier troll (you) and a climate scientists: instead of posting in a chat room, they spend their time actually looking into the conditions that cause drought, both past and present.
And to answer your last question, the excess (over otherwise) of human-produced CO2 is causing the atmosphere to heat up and this ADDITIONAL heat is EXACERBATING the droughts all across the world, not only in Europe but also in Siberia, the western United States, and elsewhere. Do you really not know this?

Climate scientists?

You mean like this one?

Climate Cult scientist made bogus claims in study on ocean acidification

https://www.science.org/content/article/star-marine-ecologist-committed-misconduct-university-says The investigative panel’s draft report, which Science’s News team has seen in heavily redacted form, paints a damning picture of Dixson’s scientific work, which included many studies that...

debatepolitics.com

And this one?

NASA climate scientist is a confirmed neo-luddite

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kalmus_(climate_scientist) Talk about an agenda: he hates cars, tech and capitalism, doesnt want people to fly, and wants to "degrowth" society. And the climate cult tells us to trust this kind of scientist?

debatepolitics.com

 

[watsup]

Wow. Shame on you.

You want a dictatorship, huh?

Silence those you disagree with because you cannot defend against the truth is what this sounds like. You want the lies to go unquestioned...

If your position had adequate merit, then there wouldn't be so many others with valid points against your view.

“Valid points”. You wish! The great majority of AGW deniers haven’t the slightest clue as to what they are talking about but rather spend their time parroting the denier propaganda that they have heard on FOX or right wing radio, as long monetarily supported by Big Oil for at least two decades now. I was responding to new chatter Queen Margo who, much like “veteran” chatter flogger, thinks that “debate” is asking troll questions in order to immediately be able to dismiss them in a sarcastic manner.
The denier community, in general, has a foundation of “talking points” that they learned through propaganda sources and generally see the issue as undergirded by their mostly far right POLITICAL standards. And yes, they need to STFU until they spend some time actually at least learning some basics instead of thinking that they know it all by watching a YouTube denier video or two. The discussion would then be much better off.

 

[watsup]

The problem is, the conclusions they came to were nothing concrete. Not quantified. This is the problem. The AGW side considers this settled, and everyone else wrong.

THAT IS NOT SCIENCE!

AGW and associated climate change is clearly settled science in that it is actually happening. It is the details that need refining, but that can be said of any science. That’s why there are research scientists.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

First we need the loudmouth climate change deniers to just STFU so that we can all work TOGETHER to come up with ways to solve the problem.

In defense of the greedy capitalist who only cares about profits. Water conservation, environmentl protections cuts into their massive profits. Can't have that

One-trick pony.

All the right wingers are, the same moronic one line deflecting responses to troll and show they don't have any facts for the scummy, moronic shit they believe.

 

[Lord of Planar]

AGW and associated climate change is clearly settled science in that it is actually happening. It is the details that need refining, but that can be said of any science. That’s why there are research scientists.

It depends on how they state it. If they state it as anything past likely, then they are acting like an activist, and not true to science.

Science if full of "what ifs" and "speculation." None of this is proven until actual experimentation is done to verify their hypothesis.

Hes, COI2 is a greenhouse gas. But... there is no way to do anything but speculate on its qualitative effects.

This has been repeated over and over, yet you still are in a religious like cult with the dogma that AGW will be harmful.

Your faith is very strong. Faith is a religious type characteristic. No different than like the people who believed that Jesus walked on water.

You cannot show proof that our greenhouse gas part of AGW is harmful. The best evidence and experiments do however show that increased CO2 is good for the plants.

 

[watsup]

It depends on how they state it. If they state it as anything past likely, then they are acting like an activist, and not true to science.

Science if full of "what ifs" and "speculation." None of this is proven until actual experimentation is done to verify their hypothesis.

Hes, COI2 is a greenhouse gas. But... there is no way to do anything but speculate on its qualitative effects.

This has been repeated over and over, yet you still are in a religious like cult with the dogma that AGW will be harmful.

Your faith is very strong. Faith is a religious type characteristic. No different than like the people who believed that Jesus walked on water.
Y
You cannot show proof that our greenhouse gas part of AGW is harmful. The best evidence and experiments do however show that increased CO2 is good for the plants.

Gish Gallop of standard denier talking points. *YAWN*

 

[Buzz]

There is no evidence that we have actually changes the climate. Yes, we have made it a little warmer with greenhouse gasses. Yes, we have dramatically increased the temperatures of populated areas with land use changes. Yes, the pollutants from poorly burning fossil fuels melt glacier ice.

No evidence that we have changed the climate? But yet you admit that we have warmed the planet. You are contradicting yourself.

I am with the program. I understand these sciences, probably more than anyone else here at DP.

There are and have been several around here who understand these sciences far better than you do.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No evidence that we have changed the climate? But yet you admit that we have warmed the planet. You are contradicting yourself.

I think you should look up the definition of "climate."

There are and have been several around here who understand these sciences far better than you do.

I see they have fooled you!

 

[Buzz]

I think you should look up the definition of "climate."

I see they have fooled you!

Whatever, dude. There is a reason I have proven you wrong over and over and over again.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Whatever, dude. There is a reason I have proven you wrong over and over and over again.

Why do you continue that lie?

 

[Buzz]

Why do you continue that lie?

It is not a lie. And I can, and have proven it.

Here is that link again where I provide examples.

Why do you continue to lie?

 

[Lord of Planar]

It is not a lie. And I can, and have proven it.

Here is that link again where I provide examples.

Why do you continue to lie?

Pounding your own chest again. Then in that link, you dflat out lie about what my claims are.

Unlike you, I am not insecure, and I do not need to try to prove others wrong. You even lie about proving people wrong.

the only what your claims appear to prove me wrong, is by lying about what I have said. Every one of those claims in the link do not accurately reflect what I said.

You do this over and over. Why haven't you learned yet?

 

[Buzz]

Pounding your own chest again. Then in that link, you dflat out lie about what my claims are.

Unlike you, I am not insecure, and I do not need to try to prove others wrong. You even lie about proving people wrong.

the only what your claims appear to prove me wrong, is by lying about what I have said. Every one of those claims in the link do not accurately reflect what I said.

You do this over and over. Why haven't you learned yet?

Lie after lie after lie...

Is that all you can do anymore?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Lie after lie after lie...

Is that all you can do anymore?

That's your way of doing things.

Why can't you accurately recount my words?

Why do you misrepresent what I say? Is it intellectual deception, or ignorance?

We have been through this countless times, and you continue to twist my words.

The fact that you are incapable of properly repeating what I say, and crafting it into a win for you, shows just of dishonest you are.

 

[Buzz]

That's your way of doing things.

Why can't you accurately recount my words?

Why do you misrepresent what I say? Is it intellectual deception, or ignorance?

We have been through this countless times, and you continue to twist my words.

The fact that you are incapable of properly repeating what I say, and crafting it into a win for you, shows just of dishonest you are.

Why do you insist on lying?

I provided examples and links to what you have said so anyone can go and see for themselves what was said and whether or not I proved you wrong or not.

Your not fooling anyone that is willing to go look for themselves.

 

[watsup]

Why do you continue that lie?

More psychological projection!!!!!!