• 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

MoSurveyor said:
And you keep pushing the same failed point, which is also not uncommon for you. The one under discussion is taken out of context.

The EPA had zero position on any kind of climate change in the 70's other than pressing things like LA smog and the death of Lake Erie. I'm sure that's anti-human to you, though. Heaven forbid we should care about the toxic chemicals and particulates in our water and air if it costs money.

As you said, "atta boy keep wriggling". :lamo
Click to expand...

Like I said being anti environmental extremism doesnt equate to a pro pollution stance irrespective of what you are trying to smear me with here :roll:
 
MoSurveyor said:
I suggest you spend some time in your local library.

"Sucking up" to Deuce? :lamo
Only a corporatist shill would use that type of language.
Click to expand...

Is the local library where you find these “science papers” you think I need to read?
Corporatist shill? Now you’re using Stalinist language to describe what we here in the USA call freedom? Thanks for revealing your true colors.
 
Your Star said:
This is science, of course people aren't going to agree, that's the whole point, but the overwhelming fact is that our environment is in some serious trouble.
Click to expand...
That's what some people want you to think. Either because they are ignorant or because they are greedy lying scumbags.

Did you read the leaked climategate e-mails?
 
flogger said:
Like I said being anti environmental extremism doesnt equate to a pro pollution stance irrespective of what you are trying to smear me with here :roll:
Click to expand...
You smeared yourself. Don't blame me for your bad links and misleading quotes.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Is the local library where you find these “science papers” you think I need to read?
Corporatist shill? Now you’re using Stalinist language to describe what we here in the USA call freedom? Thanks for revealing your true colors.
Click to expand...
If you need an explanation about why science reports and publications are important, which is what you asked, then you're going to have to go back to the basics of science. Their are plenty of books in your local library that cover that material.

But since you mention it, yes, most science publications are available at any good library. Of course, those are publicly funded so I can understand where you may not want to use those resources.
 
GPS_Flex said:
The earth’s climate obviously isn’t as sensitive as the alarmists, or the IPCC models, think.
Click to expand...
They need to stop making models that focus on CO2 as the explanation. Their models will show whatever they design it to. It appears all models focus on CO2, then make the other variables do a best fit dance.

That's not science.
 
Lord of Planar said:
They need to stop making models that focus on CO2 as the explanation. Their models will show whatever they design it to. It appears all models focus on CO2, then make the other variables do a best fit dance.

That's not science.
Click to expand...

Even scientists of the caliber of Freeman Dyson have highlighted this Voodoo science for what it is and been soundly rebuked for thier heretical utterences despite the fact that this guy probably knows as much about the potential efficacy of such modelling as anyone alive.

http://noconsensus.org/scientists/freeman_dyson.php

Computer models are essentially calculators when it all boils down to it . Now try getting the correct answer when you dont know the correct values for most of the major imputs or the number of those inputs or whether you should add subtract or multiply them. After that factor in the various unknown non linearities involved here and you can come up with any answer you like. Welcome to the crazy world of climate modelling because without such modelling there is no AGW 'crisis' as this whole agenda is totally reliant on them ! If you then discount such models all you have left is a stalled modest natural heating phase quite unremarkable from many others in recent millenia in terms of either its level or rate of change :roll:
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
If you need an explanation about why science reports and publications are important, which is what you asked, then you're going to have to go back to the basics of science. Their are plenty of books in your local library that cover that material.

But since you mention it, yes, most science publications are available at any good library. Of course, those are publicly funded so I can understand where you may not want to use those resources.
Click to expand...

That’s impressive MoSurveyor; it takes most vituperative newbies at least a week to navigate this hackneyed sequence, culminating in banal proclamations that I’m an uneducated, blog consuming, corporatist shill; yet you’ve managed to arrive at these conclusions in less than 36 hours.

With such characteristics being so highly prized among critical thinkers, who can blame you for being boastful? Keep up the good work. :sarcasticclap
 
GPS_Flex said:
That’s impressive MoSurveyor; it takes most vituperative newbies at least a week to navigate this hackneyed sequence, culminating in banal proclamations that I’m an uneducated, blog consuming, corporatist shill; yet you’ve managed to arrive at these conclusions in less than 36 hours.

With such characteristics being so highly prized among critical thinkers, who can blame you for being boastful? Keep up the good work. :sarcasticclap
Click to expand...
"Less than 36 hours"? So you believe your past posts are some big secret that no one can see? Ooooh - Kaaaay ...
 
flogger said:
Or he could try some real science rather than the distorted propaganda from a rabidly activist blogsite .... just a thought :roll:
Click to expand...
:lamo You're one to talk about "distorted propaganda from a rabidly activist blogsite"! :lamo



The best reason for reading DP, a laugh an hour!
 
MoSurveyor said:
"Less than 36 hours"? So you believe your past posts are some big secret that no one can see? Ooooh - Kaaaay ...
Click to expand...

If you were as thorough with this supposed investigation of my previous posts, perhaps you’d like share the results of this investigation, and compare these findings with your recent assumptions about my educational prowess in the sciences? Obviously you haven't done the research you feign, so stop being a bore and put up or shut up.

As I insinuated earlier, these aren’t exactly the most admirable characteristics one finds in critical thinkers. If you want to thump your chest and pat yourself on the back, perhaps you should consider the international politics forum where the criteria (no critical thinking required) might be a bit more suitable.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Why not have do some basic research yourself
What is Global Warming | NRDC
Click to expand...

I "have do" some basic research myself. I'm not the one telling others they don't know dill from a hole in the ground, you are. I thought it might be more productive, and entertaining, if you explained “how Global Warming actually works, or at least the very basics” to sawyerloggingon, seeing as how you obviously understand it well enough to know he doesn’t understand the “very basics”.

I'd like to hear you explain "the very basics" to sawyerloggingon. It will be entertaining, and hopefully, educational.
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
:roll:
Yea cuz 3% of scientists know the truth Expert credibility in climate change
Click to expand...

This is funny. You found a PNAS commentary (PNAS publishes anything) by a biased, pimple faced college student, William R. L. Anderegg , with nothing more than a BA in human biology, who probably isn’t old enough to drink yet, and you use it as the foundation of your claim that 97% of scientists agree on AGW?

If this were even halfway reliable, it would have been on the front page of every newspaper in the world. Get a clue!
 
MoSurveyor said:
:lamo You're one to talk about "distorted propaganda from a rabidly activist blogsite"! :lamo

The best reason for reading DP, a laugh an hour!
Click to expand...

You didnt read the link he supplied which despite its multiple claims of doom doesnt have a single scientific citation on it . Mine do. You are in this thread to score party political smartie points nothing more and we get it already :(
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
:roll:
Yea cuz 3% of scientists know the truth Expert credibility in climate change
Click to expand...

And 100% of watermelons unquestioningly accept what the Doran Zimmermann poll these figures originally come from says :roll:

Climate Change Dispatch | Because the debate is NOT over

This figure miraculously came from 77 out of an original poll of 10,572 Earth scientists of which two thirds didnt even bother to respond such was thier concern for the planet. Yet they still got 97% from it all the same ! :lol:
 
Last edited:
GPS_Flex said:
If you were as thorough with this supposed investigation of my previous posts, perhaps you’d like share the results of this investigation, and compare these findings with your recent assumptions about my educational prowess in the sciences? Obviously you haven't done the research you feign, so stop being a bore and put up or shut up.

As I insinuated earlier, these aren’t exactly the most admirable characteristics one finds in critical thinkers. If you want to thump your chest and pat yourself on the back, perhaps you should consider the international politics forum where the criteria (no critical thinking required) might be a bit more suitable.
Click to expand...
One can see your sterling characteristics are on display, too, aren't they? :lol:
 
There may now be sufficient equipment in place to test the actual theory of AGW.
The foundation of the AGW hypothesis rest on the idea that infrared photons,
emitted from the heated surfaces of the earth, are being slowed down as they
exit our atmosphere by excess Co2.
This latency of delay of cooling, is causing a heat buildup outside the normal curves.

Since Co2 levels cycle daily and seasonally, a tune-able laser sending pulsed data streams,
to a receiver on the ISS should be able to build a wavelength/latency/Co2 level graph.
Another factor to consider would be range to target. (How think is the atmosphere measured.)
By determining the latency and pulse dispersion of different Co2 levels/wavelength, in actual
atmospheric conditions, we may be able to better define the processes that may be occurring.
A secondary experiment would involve finding and defining all of the quantum states of the
energy in the pulse that was lost. ( It all went somewhere.)
 
Lord of Planar said:
Who gets the grants for research?

They guy who want to do work that supports the political agenda, or the guy who wants to harm a great political agenda?
Click to expand...


The real question is: Who gets the funding for PR releases? In almost every instance, the most vocal opponents to AGW are funded by either the fossil fuel industry or by individuals with large financial interests in the fossil fuel industry.

Actual climatologists do receive government funding simply because (most) capitalist corporations see no positive economic benefit in paying for such research. There are some companies that do see the economic benefits but they are few in number.
 
Somerville said:
The real question is: Who gets the funding for PR releases? In almost every instance, the most vocal opponents to AGW are funded by either the fossil fuel industry or by individuals with large financial interests in the fossil fuel industry.

Actual climatologists do receive government funding simply because (most) capitalist corporations see no positive economic benefit in paying for such research. There are some companies that do see the economic benefits but they are few in number.
Click to expand...

Sorry comrade but it wasnt any of those 'running dogs' that stopped the temperatures from rising and throwing the whole hypothesis into question. AGWs own high priests managed to do that all on thier own even were that not happening. Loose lips sink ships and all that :roll:
 
GPS_Flex said:
This is funny. You found a PNAS commentary (PNAS publishes anything) by a biased, pimple faced college student, William R. L. Anderegg , with nothing more than a BA in human biology, who probably isn’t old enough to drink yet, and you use it as the foundation of your claim that 97% of scientists agree on AGW?

If this were even halfway reliable, it would have been on the front page of every newspaper in the world. Get a clue!
Click to expand...
I have seen somebody's survey of scientists. The way the word it, I would be one of the 97%, but that doesn't mean I agree with the warming being primarily AGW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom