• 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!

Top climate change myths answered [W:126]

PMZ said:
The lousiest way in the world to save money is to ignore reality.

My personal opinion of the denier industry is that it is completely disingenuous. The real agenda is to push off the bills due for our lifestyle to the next generation.
Click to expand...

And that is why you are so ineffective in debate.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about.:peace
Click to expand...

You said that you rely on data from things that have not happened yet. I've always thought to do that requires voodoo or something.
 
To the point on opinions. That's politics not science. Science is about what is, not what you want.
 
PMZ said:
You said that you rely on data from things that have not happened yet. I've always thought to do that requires voodoo or something.
Click to expand...

Please identify the post in which I said I "rely on data from things that have not happened yet.":peace
 
Jack Hays said:
Please identify the post in which I said I "rely on data from things that have not happened yet.":peace
Click to expand...

You said that you rely on data. The bulk of AGW consequences are in the future. I question the reliability of data from things that haven't happened yet.

Am I going to fast for you here?
 
PMZ said:
You said that you rely on data. The bulk of AGW consequences are in the future. I question the reliability of data from things that haven't happened yet.

Am I going to fast for you here?
Click to expand...

I don't recall posting about AGW consequences. Nor about the future. This is why you debate so ineffectively. You don't actually follow the discussion.:peace
 
Climate science is about understanding the interactions of land, sea and air to energy. Mankind has introduced a change in the flow of energy out of our system, but not in, creating a fundamental imbalance that has to be resolved by planetary warming.
These facts present some very challenging dilemmas to some politics.

People with a stake in the outcome of the politics have created a whole industry to obscure the truth of science in order to promote their political agenda. Not a very innovative strategy but workable in our over marketed world. Many people have fallen for it, but not enough.
 
PMZ said:
Climate science is about understanding the interactions of land, sea and air to energy. Mankind has introduced a change in the flow of energy out of our system, but not in, creating a fundamental imbalance that has to be resolved by planetary warming.
These facts present some very challenging dilemmas to some politics.

People with a stake in the outcome of the politics have created a whole industry to obscure the truth of science in order to promote their political agenda. Not a very innovative strategy but workable in our over marketed world. Many people have fallen for it, but not enough.
Click to expand...

So you have abandoned the previous exchange? As you wish. It is a comforting fantasy for you that climate skepticism has its origin in politics. Skepticism actually has its origin in the record of climate data to date.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
So you have abandoned the previous exchange? As you wish. It is a comforting fantasy for you that climate skepticism has its origin in politics. Skepticism actually has its origin in the record of climate data to date.:peace
Click to expand...

You abandoned it.

More dreams of data from future events. The only thing that I can say is that you'll have the data that you crave some day.

Science is about extending the reach of our minds to beyond the scope of our senses. It allows climate scientists to peer into the future and predict the consequences of continuing our present actions. That gives us the choice to continue or change.

Waiting for the future to come to us eliminates those choices.
 
Threegoofs said:
That is AR5. At least, the part thats been released. The other working groups are still not finished - I think the rest will be released by the end of the year.

I'm impressed that youve been discussing this for weeks but only now just figured it out.

Then again, the guy who googled it for you has been discussing it for months and hasnt gotten it either..
Click to expand...
Still can't get past the title page.

Let me google that for you

Nothing will open in the contents list. It might be my old steam powered computer or my poor computer skills.

For the record I've only been quoting the 4th report.

P.S. Clever video bit.
 
Have I missed the posting of the peer reviewed paper showing a likely 10 degree c warming by 2100?

I don't think so but.......
 
PMZ said:
The lousiest way in the world to save money is to ignore reality.

My personal opinion of the denier industry is that it is completely disingenuous. The real agenda is to push off the bills due for our lifestyle to the next generation.
Click to expand...
And so do your part and prove the elusive forcing exists--with the data.
My skepticism is that the alarmist want to levy
a tax to mitigate a problem that may not exists.
When the data and the theory do not match, it is usually the theory that is wrong.
The alarmist have not met the Scientific burden of proof.
 
longview said:
And so do your part and prove the elusive forcing exists--with the data.
My skepticism is that the alarmist want to levy
a tax to mitigate a problem that may not exists.
When the data and the theory do not match, it is usually the theory that is wrong.
The alarmist have not met the Scientific burden of proof.
Click to expand...

Data is from the past. AGW consequences are future. The data will come when they are in the past, when it's too late to mitigate and adaptation is all that's left.

I really can't imagine what's so hard to understand about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom