• 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 Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat

It's funny arguing with these people, because the more clarity you request on their predictions, the more they avoid giving a specific answer and instead attack you for ignorance.

They don't know anything except what the official talking points tell them to believe. Even scientists who study this stuff aren't in agreement on things, so a lot of it is simply guesswork. I gotta go with those who are honest enough to admit that we don't know enough about climate cycles to make accurate predictions yet. After all, it wasn't so long ago that we were told we would all be freezing to death because their models that showed global cooling. Whatever is in charge of the universe must either laugh at our ignorance, or feel pity that we are egotistical enough to believe we can change anything that was set in motion hundreds of millions of years ago! :scared:
 
Well said, Polgara:agree

They don't know anything except what the official talking points tell them to believe. Even scientists who study this stuff aren't in agreement on things, so a lot of it is simply guesswork. I gotta go with those who are honest enough to admit that we don't know enough about climate cycles to make accurate predictions yet. After all, it wasn't so long ago that we were told we would all be freezing to death because their models that showed global cooling. Whatever is in charge of the universe must either laugh at our ignorance, or feel pity that we are egotistical enough to believe we can change anything that was set in motion hundreds of millions of years ago! :scared:
 
There's a difference between questioning the "orthodoxy", as you call it, and denying the science itself. If you don't deny the science then you, like me, are a real Skeptic and not the "skeptic" that true Deniers - the one's that do deny the science - use for themselves. I'm not saying the models are correct, obviously they're not. But as you've just noted, the response to that is not to throw out the models but do more research to make the models better. The Deniers would have us throw out the models completely, which is absurd.

This is correct. More real world data is needed to refine the models. So far their accuracy is pretty poor.
 
The difference is though we are not being told to tear up our economies over gravity :(
Tearing up our economies? :lamo

We'd be better off tossing all the Bankers in jail and throwing their models out the window!!!
 
Last edited:
Tearing up our economies? :lamo

We'd be better off tossing all the Bankers in jail and throwing their models out the window!!!

The 'bankers' worry me a lot less than the wretched long term future the eco nuts would have us indulge should we allow them to impose thier warped worldview upon us. They are the true enemy of humanity :(
 
The 'bankers' worry me a lot less than the wretched long term future the eco nuts would have us indulge should we allow them to impose thier warped worldview upon us. They are the true enemy of humanity :(
A true ostrich! :lamo :lamo :lamo
 
A true ostrich! :lamo :lamo :lamo

Sorry but I like humans and want the species to survive despite the best efforts of your green faith group so that self admission was quite unecsessary. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Apparently not ...

Sorry but I do not think that putting artificial green impediments in the way of human progress will somehow 'save' either us or the impossibly 'precious' planet and no verifiable evidence has been shown to date that would validate such a position. This ongoing demonization of CO 2 a benign beneficial and naturally occurring gas is just such an impediment :(
 
Last edited:
Why is it a mystery? It seems to me there are plenty of factors to look at. I believe solar changes are the drivers of changes. The only way to make it be a mystery is to be dead set that CO2 is the major climatic driver, and ignore those that make sense.

NASA link: Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

tsi_composite_strip.jpg
 
Sorry but I do not think that putting artificial green impediments in the way of human progress will somehow 'save' either us or the impossibly 'precious' planet and no verifiable evidence has been shown to date that would validate such a position. This ongoing demonization of CO 2 a benign beneficial and naturally occurring gas is just such an impediment :(
Spoken like a true preacher! LOL!

People said the same kind of things in the 70's when the EPA was formed. It's truly amazing how much of a parallel there is between your output and the rhetoric of the people who were against the EPA at that time.
 
Why is it a mystery? It seems to me there are plenty of factors to look at. I believe solar changes are the drivers of changes. The only way to make it be a mystery is to be dead set that CO2 is the major climatic driver, and ignore those that make sense.

NASA link: Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

tsi_composite_strip.jpg
There are two major problems with this research:

1. It uses climate models, which we all know are pure crap, and
2. NOAA/NASA participated in the research and we know they're part of the Big Climate Conspiracy.

With two big marks like that against it, this HAS to be on the Denier Black List and should be ignored as total crap! LOL!
 
Spoken like a true preacher! LOL!

I'm not the one with the faith to defend

People said the same kind of things in the 70's when the EPA was formed. It's truly amazing how much of a parallel there is between your output and the rhetoric of the people who were against the EPA at that time

Heads up. CO 2 is not pollution. Indeed the ideal growing level for plants is around three times that of today. Alarmists just love to conflate the two as suits thier particular political motivations :roll:
 
I'm not the one with the faith to defend
Of course you are. Your Denial often goes far beyond real skepticism and your Conspiracy Theory deserves it's own special thread in the proper section.


Heads up. CO 2 is not pollution. Indeed the ideal growing level for plants is around three times that of today. Alarmists just love to conflate the two as suits thier particular political motivations :roll:
I never said it was. Try again. :lamo
 
Of course you are. Your Denial often goes far beyond real skepticism and your Conspiracy Theory deserves it's own special thread in the proper section.

Feel free to start one if my viewpoint so irritates you. I'll knock you dead on every point by using real science to do it ,however many strawmen smokescreens you create for yourself. :lol:

I never said it was. Try again.

So why use the EPA as some kind of analogous affirmation ? I'll let others judge your intent there as far as that goes
 
Last edited:
Feel free to start one if my viewpoint so irritates you. I'll knock you dead on every point by using real science to do it ,however many strawmen smokescreens you create for yourself. :lol:
You don't understand real science, or if you do you do a damn good job of playing stupid. You constantly quote political blogs instead of actually looking at the studies and critiquing them. You've made the issue into some political Conspiracy instead of keeping it to the science. In your world science is a nasty word not used in polite company - unless, of course, it happens to back up your opinion, then it's OK. :roll:
 
There are two major problems with this research:

1. It uses climate models, which we all know are pure crap, and
2. NOAA/NASA participated in the research and we know they're part of the Big Climate Conspiracy.

With two big marks like that against it, this HAS to be on the Denier Black List and should be ignored as total crap! LOL!
There are a few, who use their position at NASA for their own agenda, and should be fired. That doesn't mean all the information should be ignored.

Did you even read the article? I'll bet by your remarks you didn't.
 
There are a few, who use their position at NASA for their own agenda, and should be fired. That doesn't mean all the information should be ignored.

Did you even read the article? I'll bet by your remarks you didn't.
Of course I did. I love NASA's reporting - and not just the climate stuff! I've been reading NASA's reports since they started sharing on their website. :) I was a member of TPS for a long time and for awhile even the NSS. My desktop:

DarkMatterRingSM.jpg

(A false color dark matter ring computed from the gravitational lensing of a large galaxy behind the a galaxy cluster and overlaid on a standard optics image of the cluster. The darker ring you see is where dark matter isn't. The central "blob" and outer ring are dark matter.)



I guess you don't know me well enough to understand that post was pure sarcasm. Oh well ...
 
Last edited:
You don't understand real science, or if you do you do a damn good job of playing stupid. You constantly quote political blogs instead of actually looking at the studies and critiquing them. You've made the issue into some political Conspiracy instead of keeping it to the science. In your world science is a nasty word not used in polite company - unless, of course, it happens to back up your opinion, then it's OK. :roll:

I dont have any burden of proof to defend yet despite that I've probably cited or linked more actual studies in support of my position than almost anyone else here as far as that goes. Perhaps if you had actually opened some of the links rather than dismissing everything you dont want to see out of hand you would have discovered that already. :roll:
 
I dont have any burden of proof to defend yet despite that I've probably cited or linked more actual studies in support of my position than almost anyone else here as far as that goes. Perhaps if you had actually opened some of the links rather than dismissing everything you dont want to see out of hand you would have discovered that already. :roll:
If you linked to actual studies instead of Denier blogs I probably would read them. Sorry, but you lost all credibility with me when the first three links of yours I opened lead straight to political crap instead of the science you claimed. Having a Denial blogger tell me what's in a study is NOT linking to the study. Like I said, no clue what science is ...
 
If you linked to actual studies instead of Denier blogs I probably would read them. Sorry, but you lost all credibility with me when the first three links of yours I opened lead straight to political crap instead of the science you claimed. Having a Denial blogger tell me what's in a study is NOT linking to the study. Like I said, no clue what science is ...

Really ?

Feel free to cite any of those particular 'political crap' or 'denier blog' links in question ? :roll:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom