• 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!

There never have been wildfires here....

Oh, goody.... more cherry-picked and misleading data from the idiot liar who got himself banned from youtube!!
Nothing wrong with this. But that is only because it came from a real scientist. And then every single thing Tony says in this post of his is just stupid.
What kind of idiot uses a 124-year trend when considering what AGW has been doing to precipitation? Most of the effect from AGW have happened in the last few decades. All Tony is doing by using such a long trend is hiding the recent and immediate effects of AGW on precipitation:
View attachment 67301315
So... Colorado has been seeing a decline in precipitation in recent years.
Saying that this is entirely from "data tampering" is a lie! Again... looking at the last 40 years of this data instead of the ridiculous 124 years shows much more warming:
View attachment 67301316
And that is warming Tony Heller can't make go away no matter if he only uses raw data or not.

Cherry pick away. I hope your special pleading gives you comfort.
 
Cherry pick away. I hope your special pleading gives you comfort.
Hey... at least the time period I am choosing makes sense and is an acceptable time frame for most scientists. Unlike Tony who cherry-picks to get the result he wants.
 
Aren't wildfires a part of nature? They will burn out......eventually. How dare mankind intervene with forest management.
 
No. CO2 is the main driver of AGW. AGW is not a climate problem.


Then, are you saying GW is not a problem of any kind, short or long term? Or just the AGW 50% part? What are you saying?
 
Quite dishonest of you. Of course CO2 is a component of AGW. AGW is not a problem.


Then, are you saying GW is not a problem of any kind, short or long term? Or just the AGW 50% part? What are you saying?
 
Then, are you saying GW is not a problem of any kind, short or long term? Or just the AGW 50% part? What are you saying?
Do you think global warming whatever the cause is a problem? if so, why?
 
Then, are you saying GW is not a problem of any kind, short or long term? Or just the AGW 50% part? What are you saying?
With regard to humanity, global warming has been a massive benefit in every respect. Our species has been around for ~200,000 years, and yet it has only been since the beginning of the Holocene Interglacial Period 11,700 years ago that we developed civilization and the technology we enjoy today. It has also been since the beginning of the Holocene Interglacial Period that our population really began to start increasing.

We are only able to sustain 7.8 billion people on this planet because of global warming. Every year more land is freed from permafrost and becomes arable.

The second thing you should know is that atmospheric CO2 has a negligible effect on the climate. Of all the greenhouse gases water vapor is responsible for 95%+ of the radiative forcing, while atmospheric CO2 is responsible for less than 3%. That is less than 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, all 412 ppmV. Not the pathetically piddly 4.8 ppmV that humanity contributes. If all atmospheric CO2 is less than 3% of the radiative forcing, imagine how small 1.117% of less than 3% would be: 0.0351%

Only Marxists push the AGW scam, and have from the beginning. They are the only ones stupid enough with the massive hubris to believe that the human contribution of 4.8 ppmV of atmospheric CO2 is effecting the climate of the entire planet.
 
Last edited:
Do you think global warming whatever the cause is a problem? if so, why?


Yes, global warming, more broadly climate change, is a problem as edified in the following excerpts from the articles in the links further below:
  • at the same time that sea levels are rising, human population continues to grow most rapidly in flood-vulnerable, low-lying coastal zones;
  • places where famine and food insecurity are greatest in today’s world are not places where milder winters will boost crop or vegetation productivity, but instead, are places where rainfall will probably become less reliable, and crop productivity is expected to fall;
  • the countries most vulnerable to global warming’s most serious side effects are among the poorest and least able to pay for the medical and social services and technological solutions that will be needed to adapt to climate change.
  • IPCC: “Taken as a whole, the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.”
Why is global warming a problem?
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/why-is-global-warming-a-problem/
Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States
https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/reports/global-climate-change-impacts-united-states
 
Yes, global warming, more broadly climate change, is a problem as edified in the following excerpts from the articles in the links further below:
  • at the same time that sea levels are rising, human population continues to grow most rapidly in flood-vulnerable, low-lying coastal zones;
  • places where famine and food insecurity are greatest in today’s world are not places where milder winters will boost crop or vegetation productivity, but instead, are places where rainfall will probably become less reliable, and crop productivity is expected to fall;
  • the countries most vulnerable to global warming’s most serious side effects are among the poorest and least able to pay for the medical and social services and technological solutions that will be needed to adapt to climate change.
  • IPCC: “Taken as a whole, the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.”
Why is global warming a problem?
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/why-is-global-warming-a-problem/
Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States
https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/reports/global-climate-change-impacts-united-states
Notice the wording, will probably become less reliable, and crop productivity is expected to fall;
the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.
Also we have to consider that the climate does change without Human activity, and which portion
of the changes are purely natural, and which portion could be changed by changes in Human activity?
 
With regard to humanity, global warming has been a massive benefit in every respect. Our species has been around for ~200,000 years, and yet it has only been since the beginning of the Holocene Interglacial Period 11,700 years ago that we developed civilization and the technology we enjoy today. It has also been since the beginning of the Holocene Interglacial Period that our population really began to start increasing.

We are only able to sustain 7.8 billion people on this planet because of global warming. Every year more land is freed from permafrost and becomes arable.

The second thing you should know is that atmospheric CO2 has a negligible effect on the climate. Of all the greenhouse gases water vapor is responsible for 95%+ of the radiative forcing, while atmospheric CO2 is responsible for less than 3%. That is less than 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, all 412 ppmV. Not the pathetically piddly 4.8 ppmV that humanity contributes. If all atmospheric CO2 is less than 3% of the radiative forcing, imagine how small 1.117% of less than 3% would be: 0.0351%

Only Marxists push the AGW scam, and have from the beginning. They are the only ones stupid enough with the massive hubris to believe that the human contribution of 4.8 ppmV of atmospheric CO2 is effecting the climate of the entire planet.


Then by your belief, 97% of the science community are Marxist because they have concluded that humans are the major cause of GW and climate change and human emission of CO2 is the major cause of GW and that water vapor is not a direct agent of radiative forcing but rather as a climate feedback. A scam perpetrated by the vast majority of scientist leaves you a conspiracy theorist.
 
GW is not a problem.


Typical Jack. You’re not taking a definitive position. “GW is not a problem” is not a definitive answer to the question “Is GW neither a short nor long term problem?”. Your answer appears to be in the present tense. Your usual evasive self. I’ll try one more time. When you say “GW is not a problem”, do you mean GW is neither a short nor long term problem? A direct, forthright answer will be appreciated.
 
Typical Jack. You’re not taking a definitive position. “GW is not a problem” is not a definitive answer to the question “Is GW neither a short nor long term problem?”. Your answer appears to be in the present tense. Your usual evasive self. I’ll try one more time. When you say “GW is not a problem”, do you mean GW is neither a short nor long term problem? A direct, forthright answer will be appreciated.
GW is neither a short nor long term problem, now or ever.
 
GW is neither a short nor long term problem, now or ever.
The scientific community disagrees with you

 
The scientific community disagrees with you

and the politicians, or at least some of them, agree.
So, who is the more credible, politicians or scientists? That is what the whole controversy boils down to.
Personally, I'll go with modern science. Politics hasn't evolved much since at least Roman times.
 
Notice the wording, will probably become less reliable, and crop productivity is expected to fall;
the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.
Also we have to consider that the climate does change without Human activity, and which portion
of the changes are purely natural, and which portion could be changed by changes in Human activity?


All of which you say has been delineated in the IPCC report of consensus science, which you cannot refute with any science backed by any significant number of scientist.
 
All of which you say has been delineated in the IPCC report of consensus science, which you cannot refute with any science backed by any significant number of scientist.
Only in your mind, The IPCC report, is a report issued by the UN designed to keep the alarms about climate change ringing,
it only represents what the editor's of the report allow through.
Here is an example from AR5 concerning a best estimate of ECS.
AR5 SPM
"No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies."
When in reality the scientist working on the report did report a best estimate of ECS, which they published as a Nature article.
otto
"The most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C "
But they could not have the lead authors of the last IPCC report, reporting that the ECS from doubling the CO2 level would only be 2.0 °C,
So they made one of the most unscientific statements ever, that the model results disagreed with the observation's, and so no agreement could be found.
In science, if the model disagrees with the observation, the model is wrong!
 
Only in your mind, The IPCC report, is a report issued by the UN designed to keep the alarms about climate change ringing,
it only represents what the editor's of the report allow through.
Here is an example from AR5 concerning a best estimate of ECS.
AR5 SPM
"No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies."
When in reality the scientist working on the report did report a best estimate of ECS, which they published as a Nature article.
otto
"The most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C "
But they could not have the lead authors of the last IPCC report, reporting that the ECS from doubling the CO2 level would only be 2.0 °C,
So they made one of the most unscientific statements ever, that the model results disagreed with the observation's, and so no agreement could be found.
In science, if the model disagrees with the observation, the model is wrong!
More BS that you have been shown to be wrong more than once. The IPCC scientists never said that Otto et al.2013 was the best estimate. As a matter of fact, one of the authors of Otto said that the model was too simplistic and was probably not the best study.
 
More BS that you have been shown to be wrong more than once. The IPCC scientists never said that Otto et al.2013 was the best estimate. As a matter of fact, one of the authors of Otto said that the model was too simplistic and was probably not the best study.
You do know that Otto, was one of the lead authors of IPCC AR5, right?
 
You do know that Otto, was one of the lead authors of IPCC AR5, right?
Yes. So what? Just because he was a lead author doesn't mean this one particular study is anything special.
 
Yes. So what? Just because he was a lead author doesn't mean this one particular study is anything special.
If that is the research of one of the lead authors, why did the IPCC exclude it?
 
If that is the research of one of the lead authors, why did the IPCC exclude it?
It wasn't excluded. And I have proven this exact point to you before.
 
Back
Top Bottom