• 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!

U.S. scientists officially declare 2016 the hottest year on record.

Russell797 said:
The paleoclimate record indicates that recent decades have been among the warmest of the entire Holocene period, during which human civilization has developed and prospered. That's the science. You call for proof. You will not get "proof" but you will get the best estimates which current science can provide. That's what science does, it informs us of it's current understanding of how the world works. If you deny science you deny science. That's your prerogative but not a very wise choice given the success of the scientific method on all manner of issues.
Click to expand...

You didn't offer evidence of anything... you just said some stuff.

Did you even read what you wrote? Convoluted nonsense. I can deny estimates because science doesn't offer proof... science just offers estimates so if I deny estimates I am denying science that didn't prove anything... so denying lack of proof is unwise. Great.
 
Threegoofs said:
And I accept your goal here is solely to troll. Buh-bye.
Click to expand...

More ad hom insults? Sure sign of a lack of argument. Provide one. With evidence. Jeesh...
 
JackA said:
You've made the same ignorant point before. Everyone understands it.
Click to expand...
Your opinion is worthless... ad homs and appeal to majority. Logical fails. Anything that actually adresses the point or is that all you got?
 
FWIW:

earth_temperature_timeline.png
 
"We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom. The world henceforth will be run by synthesizers, people able to put together the right information at the right time, think critically about it, and make important choices wisely."

"Competing is intense among humans, and within a group, selfish individuals always win. But in contests between groups, groups of altruists always beat groups of selfish individuals."

"Political ideology can corrupt the mind, and science."

"Because the living environment is really what sustains us."

"Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it is wrong."

"It's obvious that the key problem facing humanity in the coming century is how to bring a better quality of life - for 8 billion or more people - without wrecking the environment entirely in the attempt."

"One planet, one experiment."

~ All from E.O. Wilson.
 
JackA said:
For you it is.
Click to expand...

Thank God you won"t be addressing ne with any more of your uneducated Logical Fallacies or unwarranted personal insults.
 
Kushinator said:
FWIW:

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/ea][/QUOTE]

Other than it looks like itvwas drawn with crayons it looks like humans couldn't possibly be causing it. Is is rising too fast too quickly
Click to expand...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Other than it looks like itvwas drawn with crayons it looks like humans couldn't possibly be causing it. Is is rising too fast too quickly
Click to expand...

:lol:

If anything, the illustration shows the exact opposite.
 
Absentglare said:
"We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom. The world henceforth will be run by synthesizers, people able to put together the right information at the right time, think critically about it, and make important choices wisely."

"Competing is intense among humans, and within a group, selfish individuals always win. But in contests between groups, groups of altruists always beat groups of selfish individuals."

"Political ideology can corrupt the mind, and science."

"Because the living environment is really what sustains us."

"Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it is wrong."

"It's obvious that the key problem facing humanity in the coming century is how to bring a better quality of life - for 8 billion or more people - without wrecking the environment entirely in the attempt."

"One planet, one experiment."

~ All from E.O. Wilson.
Click to expand...
There is simply not enough fossil fuels in the ground to allow the entire worlds population, to advance to first world standards.
The is however enough energy hitting the ground from the sun to allow this.
The only problem is the energy is not is a readily usable form.
Following a pattern established by nature, we can store and accumulate solar energy as hydrocarbon fuels.
If the source for the Carbon is atmospheric or oceanic CO2, the fuel would be carbon neutral.
The fuel would be compatible with existing needs and infrastructure, and the solar panels would also generate
power for improving lifestyles.
 
Once again, for the ostriches:

The reason there is a scientific consensus is because there is a strong consilience of evidence - as shown in hundreds of thousands of research papers in the peer-reviewed Science Journals. This research is summarised for the layperson in publications like this:

Royal Society:
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/

National Acadeny of Sciences:
Climate Change: Evidence and Causes » Climate Change at the National Academies of Sciences

or summarised more in depth by the IPCC reports
Fifth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013


Every major scientific society/association/institution worldwide makes very similar statements like:

American Geophysical Union
http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2...ugust-2013.pdf

Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action

Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes. Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase.

Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences…​

The AGU has also signed onto more recent letters on climate from an array of scientific organizations, including the June 28, 2016 letter to the U.S. Congress: https://www.eurekalert.org/images/20...ter6-28-16.pdf

Similar statements by all major Science Institutions worldwide.

Here's just a few of them:

American Meteorological Society
https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cf...limate-change/

American Physical Society
https://www.aps.org/policy/statements/15_3.cfm

Geological Society of America
https://www.geosociety.org/documents...10_climate.pdf

National Academies of Science
https://nas-sites.org/americasclimat...ce-and-causes/

American Society of Agronomy
Soil Science Society of America
https://www.soils.org/files/science-...-statement.pdf

The Royal Society (UK)
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/pol...communique.PDF
https://royalsociety.org/topics-poli...idence-causes/

The Geological Society (UK)
https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/~/media/s...rmat.pdf?la=en

The Institute of Physics (IOP)
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/pol...communique.PDF

The Institution of Chemical Engineers
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/pol...communique.PDF

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
http://www.amos.org.au/Main/About_us...0-700d89c3d4f5

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
http://www.cmos.ca/site/ps_pos_statements?a=7

European Academy of Sciences and Arts
http://www.euro-acad.eu/downloads/me...7_-_final2.pdf

European Federation of Geologists
http://eurogeologists.eu/wp-content/...al-Storage.pdf

European Geosciences Union
http://www.egu.eu/about/statements/e...acidification/

European Physical Society
2015 Statement
http://www.eps.org/resource/resmgr/p...rgyPol2015.pdf

Royal Society of New Zealand
http://royalsociety.org.nz/expert-ad...r-new-zealand/


World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/

World Meteorological Organization
https://public.wmo.int/en/our-mandate/climate
 
Russell797 said:
You introduced Gore and DiCaprio into this conversation not me. It would appear that you disagree with their message. They are not scientists, they are advocates just like you. The difference is they have a much louder voice than you do. Why did you mention them?

I get my science from scientific institutions, not individual people with a bias. Not from biased news sources. Not from biased blogger websites.

You apparently listen to information coming out of political think tanks such as the Heartland institute and the Cato Institute. You may not realize the origin of skeptic talking points, but go look at the membership of those think tanks and you will find names which read like the who's who of climate change denial.
Click to expand...
Anthony60 said:
Oh, but the left holds them in such high regard. Just a little info for you, if I mention someone in a post, it doesn't mean I support them of get my information from them.

Oh, good.
Well, another false assumption on your part.
Click to expand...

So where DO you get your "information" from?
 
Russell797 said:
The science is resolute in it's understanding of why the world is warming. You can deny the science if you wish. The solution is to greatly reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. How we go about that is the question you should be asking. The solution is not a transfer of wealth. What on Earth will that do to dramatically reduce emissions?

The Paris agreement is a start toward all the major and minor countries of the world (nearly 200 have signed on) to reduce emissions. How they go about doing so is up to them. They each can determine their own strategy. In the U.S. we are shutting down the most carbon intensive fossil fuel industries in favour of natural gas. This will not be stopped since the market is driving the transition. However, we must do much more over time if we and the world are to make a meaningful attempt at limiting man made climate change.

Where do you get the idea that there is some sort of transfer of wealth required for the countries of the world to do this? Yes there is a fund set up to help the poor nations make the transition and adapt to changes which have and will continue to occur. This effort will take decades to accomplish and all the nations of the world will play their part if we are to be successful in eventually reaching a carbon neutral global economy followed by a persistent decrease in reliance on fossil fuel for our energy need. The denial of science only serves to hamper and delay what must eventually happen and will happen.
Click to expand...

Who's denying science? That is your strawman. Science is best understood when it is constantly challenged. Wouldn't you agree? As for creating a fiat currency I suggest you read up on the 'carbon credit scheme' and the Chicago exchange, and who is behind it...Now, I am all for cleaner energy, and abundance of renewable if they can handle the load, and be cheaper. I am NOT however, in favor of being bullied by certain people who treat this issue like a religion, and demand that I destroy my prosperity while either they get rich off my sacrifice, or other countries that continue to do NOTHING about their emissions ....
 
Quaestio said:
Once again, for the ostriches...
Click to expand...


Just a suggestion, I don't believe you will get ANYONE to take you, or your posted information seriously when you start out shaming, and name calling....This is the type of bullying approach that leads to vast skepticism....
 
j-mac said:
Just a suggestion, I don't believe you will get ANYONE to take you, or your posted information seriously when you start out shaming, and name calling....This is the type of bullying approach that leads to vast skepticism....
Click to expand...

So you don't believe the science because people are mean to you?

Aw. Poor, delicate snowflake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom