• 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!

Yet another failed AGW prediction

lifeisshort

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2014
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
421
Location
the high desert
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And given the miserable track record of the AGW models a predicting a single thing accurately, we should take those models and make huge spending investments in green tech alternatives, and kill off anything that isn't.

As if that's a sensical economic policy with which to proceed with.
 

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

:agree: It's still a theory, yet they're trying to act as if it's a proven fact. :werd: The fact in my area of the country is that we do not get the sunlight or the wind necessary to go green, so I wonder what they intend to come up with for us?

Happy Thanksgiving!
 

Greetings, Polgara. :2wave:
And a Happy Thanksgiving to you too.

If their theories were accurate, and their models were accurately based on their theories, then the models should, with reasonable accuracy, predict what's going to happen.

This models haven't predicted anything with sufficient accuracy to be used in any impactful decision making. So either the models are not accurately representing the theories, or the they are, and the theories are wrong. I figure it gotta be one or the other.

So the AGW supporters want to make hugely impactful decisions on what has been demonstrated as either flawed models or flawed theories? This makes no sense in the least.

This would include Obama's latest AGW announcement while on his trip. Not hard to figure out why, it's all politics as usual.
  • It's his latest cave in to the ecomentalists to curry voting favor
  • Fire up the ecomentalist base in support of him and the Democrats
  • It's his latest poke Republicans in the eye with a stick (Working across the aisle? Hardly)
  • Fighting off his inevitable irrelevancy, which came to his administration earlier than most

All around AGW hasn't yet passed the sniff test, and even the scientific community is coming to grips with that.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...tists-have-signed-petition-rejecting-agw.html

Global Warming Petition Project

Say what you will about the rather old fashioned web presentation, it doesn't detract from the quality and validity of the petition signatories.
 

The problem with the AGW computer models and the "settled science" claim as opposed to the scientific method is that the scientific method asks a question then attempts to answer it. AGW starts with a preconceived notion i.e, the sky is falling, then attempts to develop models to prove the point.

In the case of scientific method, if the research doesn't answer the question, then the question must be wrong. In AGW, if the expected results are not achieved, then the models must be wrong.
 
The only accurate complaint in this thread is that of the models failing to predict the very weak surface temperature warming of the last 15 years or so. However that does not undo all the science and the very strong evidence supporting significant future warming. The Earth is still sucking up a massive net positive energy imbalance it just isn't showing up on surface temperatures recently, we don't know exactly why. All that heat is going somewhere though and pretending all is well is just wishful thinking.

Everything else said in this thread are the same old debunked myths that have been explained dozens of times, some just this week even. Why do you guys never learn???
 



Let's see.............

Everything in this thread is wrong, you are the expert inferring everyone else misleading.

So, please, where is the proof? I didn't see any counter evidence in your post, perhaps my eyes are betting bad....

Here's the really TRUTH...the "models" are bull****, this is NOT a case of a few mistakes, but a massive campaign to deceive.

Let's examine the model they called the "hockey stick" shall we? What was it Warmist scientists laughed about among themselves? The "hockey stick" could be used to prove anything. When your best "model" gets run into the boars with a double minor, the rest of you models are at the very least suspect.

Here's what happens. When there is any kind of off chart weather, you guys all as one voice yell "denier" and arrogantly explain it's "local weather". But when the data shows severe, asinine, bull****, exaggerated predictions like it's all over but the suffering by 2014, then the only shouting is "denier".

Sorry, but this fable has been a news item since 1983 when my station did a story about how the beaches would be near my street....in the year 5525. Since then the Berlin Wall came down and all the little peace pimps had to become science pimps so the "threat to the entire planet" had to be updated to a more imposing disaster.
 

I've posted proof hundreds of times, tired of doing it with the same people who don't learn.

As for the rest of your ignorant, unhinged, rambling rant... I do not care about your misconceptions. Everything you need to answer your problems lies in education on the issue.

Notice a trend here? People who can't learn who don't understand.
 



So it should be easy to find. You certainly seem to have enough time to troll.
 
Verax said:
Not trolling, laying down the way it is. I'll answer this question since you asked.

To answer the OP:

NASA - Cold Snaps Plus Global Warming Do Add Up
Click to expand...
The people heavily invested in the AGW hoax are constantly scrambling to try and find reasons their predictions are falling like dominoes. The fAct is though they are failing and there is no reason to believe their new predictions will not also fail. Setting energy policy based on such a poor record is foolish
 

Your OP is stupid, have anything to say about that? Or are you just going to run to the next talking point after this one is revealed to be bs?
 
lifeisshort said:
Did you read my sig?
Click to expand...

If you have to make a special signature because people so many people do not talk to you in a nice way, that should be a hint that you're doing something wrong.
 
Verax said:
If you have to make a special signature because people so many people do not talk to you in a nice way, that should be a hint that you're doing something wrong.
Click to expand...

More of a comment on the liberals here. It s somewhere between difficult and impossible to find one that can discuss the subject instead of their debate opponent but their are a few. I tire of them attempting to drag me down to their level
 
lifeisshort said:
More of a comment on the liberals here. It s somewhere between difficult and impossible to find one that can discuss the subject instead of their debate opponent but their are a few. I tire of them attempting to drag me down to their level
Click to expand...

More of a comment on the right-wingers here. It is somewhere between difficult and impossible to find one that can discuss the subject honestly but there are a few. I tire of their dishonest tactics that distort and obfuscate any real debate.
 
Verax said:
More of a comment on the right-wingers here. It is somewhere between difficult and impossible to find one that can discuss the subject honestly but there are a few. I tire of their dishonest tactics that distort and obfuscate any real debate.
Click to expand...

Enjoy your turkey
 
Congrats to Verax for derailing a thread that scared him. Mission accomplished.
 
Wow. Weather isn't climate. Those three words pretty much can eviscerate the OP.

For an example of how AGW is having a major effect upon the Rockies, look to the mountain pine beetle, which is devastating millions of acres of forest. The pine beetle's activity is checked by low, low temperatures, which are not happening much anymore, and their range is expanding North and to higher elevations.

I just drove through a massive area of beetle kill- hundreds of acres of dead trees- and this is now a very, very common sight in the Rockies.

It was also 60+ degrees yesterday in Northern Colorado, so even the weather has gone back to warm.

http://www7.nau.edu/mpcer/direnet/publications/publications_c/files/Carrol_et_al_2003.pdf
 
lifeisshort said:
Congrats to Verax for derailing a thread that scared him. Mission accomplished.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not you're not the first person to waltz into this subforum and declare cold weather = no global warming. Did you take a look at that link I posted? Its from NASA, not a newspaper, or blog, or somebody selling something. Its probably pretty accurate. It explains the fault in your misconceptions.

That should have ended the thread but it whizzed right past your infinitely wise skull and you continued on in true denier form moving to some other stupid blathering.
 

Here in Utah I was walking around in shorts and a t-shirt yesterday, today is supposed to be 60+ as well. I guess that means I should make a thread about how I have proof of global warming now right? :lamo

I lived all over Colorado for many years, man it gets cold there in the Winter, worst was -20, had to go to work at 4am. I tried to crank my truck and it went whr................ whr.... it barely turned over lol. Took me about 5 minutes of on and off cranking for it to warm up enough to crank faster and fire off a cylinder or two. Then it would fire 3, then 4, then it finally started.
 

I'm traveling for TG and on the Front Range. Not nearly as cold as the mountains.

But I've experienced -20 in Colorado, and it's actually much nicer than 10 degrees in Chicago! But that's weather, not climate.

Interestingly enough, I've been asking people here and they said this fall has been unusually warm and long until that brief cold snap happened. Guess that means the prediction was right.
 



It's actually not a Theory. It's a notion.
 




You STILL don't get it.

To doubt, all you need to do is to not accept that which is not proven or that which proven to be wrong.

To blindly accept and parrot, you must be able to prove the case. Otherwise, your assertions are just dogmatic repetitions of those things that are wrong.

YOU have not proven your case. When the actual real world data destroys your case, you dismiss the real world data and accept the faulty and wrong Science of AGW.

Why do you never learn?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…