New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Dateline 17,000 BC: The First Global Warming Debate

redtide

Mayor
The AGW theory is better and more accurate than the ideologically motivated denial of it because it has a track record of highly accurate, specific predictions and because it is consistent with basic chemistry and physics.
the AGW THEORY has as much relevance as the virgin birth theory, water into wine theory or any other theory put forth by other cults
 
C

Capitalist

Guest
So you want me to prove the observations are reliable? How could I do that? I could show they are consistent from one dataset to another, I could walk you through the process of how they are obtained and point out how little it is susceptible to manipulation, I could show that aggregations of the data pass the Benford test and other tests to detect data falsification, but none of that would satisfy you because you aren’t seeking knowledge in good faith, you are looking to raise spurious objections and as soon as each one is shit down to raise another because you have an ideological objection to the truth.
Prove that the data set forth by Patrick Michael is wrong. You haven't done that. What you've done is asserted data that contradicts his. Prove yours is good and his is bad.

But before you do that, you must realize you are at a disadvantage. You accuse him of cherry picking while he accuses your side of cherry picking. Which one is lying? Well, you've said he's cherry picking the models when apparently that is not the case. He used all 32 families of models. And that's not cherry picking.
 

redtide

Mayor
Prove that the data set forth by Patrick Michael is wrong. You haven't done that. What you've done is asserted data that contradicts his. Prove yours is good and his is bad.

But before you do that, you must realize you are at a disadvantage. You accuse him of cherry picking while he accuses your side of cherry picking. Which one is lying? Well, you've said he's cherry picking the models when apparently that is not the case. He used all 32 families of models. And that's not cherry picking.
the simple fact is that like any cult they mix facts with cult doctrine. Heck, even the Bible and koran have actual facts in them but that does not make them the truth.
 

EatTheRich

President
Prove that the data set forth by Patrick Michael is wrong. You haven't done that. What you've done is asserted data that contradicts his. Prove yours is good and his is bad.

But before you do that, you must realize you are at a disadvantage. You accuse him of cherry picking while he accuses your side of cherry picking. Which one is lying? Well, you've said he's cherry picking the models when apparently that is not the case. He used all 32 families of models. And that's not cherry picking.
I don’t have a track record of deceit. He does.
https://skepticalscience.com/patrick-michaels-serial-deleter-of-inconvenient-data.html
 
C

Capitalist

Guest
Skeptical Science: Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism

Uh huh. No bias there.

How can anyone embrace global warming when you have Joe Baggodonuts kicking holes in the climate science?

Certainly not the first time.

From the comments:

"I know, let´s surrender all of our money and freedoms over to the State! I am sure that will "save the planet, regulate the heavens and lower the tides""

That's what this is.
 

EatTheRich

President
Skeptical Science: Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism

Uh huh. No bias there.

How can anyone embrace global warming when you have Joe Baggodonuts kicking holes in the climate science?

Certainly not the first time.

From the comments:

"I know, let´s surrender all of our money and freedoms over to the State! I am sure that will "save the planet, regulate the heavens and lower the tides""

That's what this is.
Uninformed and misleading attacks on the climate science do not in any way impugn it.

Being skeptical does not mean being biased, quite the contrary in fact. Global warming “skeptics,” unlike the folks at Skeptical Science, are not in fact skeptics but rather agenda-driven dogmatists.
 
C

Capitalist

Guest
Uninformed and misleading attacks on the climate science do not in any way impugn it.
His opinion was so well informed that the scientists issued a retraction. Didn’t you get to that point in the video?

Being skeptical does not mean being biased, quite the contrary in fact. Global warming “skeptics,” unlike the folks at Skeptical Science, are not in fact skeptics but rather agenda-driven dogmatists.
Projection.

Just attack the message, if you can, and leave the messenger alone.
 

EatTheRich

President
His opinion was so well informed that the scientists issued a retraction. Didn’t you get to that point in the video?


Projection.

Just attack the message, if you can, and leave the messenger alone.
Nic Lewis is not the guy in the video (the guy you claimed was “poking holes in the science”) and he does real work as a mathematician while the video was all about rhetoric.

When have you ever attacked the message? The burden is on you to show, not that one retracted paper contained an error, but that the basics of climatology are wrong from A to Z.
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
One more vague, unsupported generalization.

Among the evidence I have pointed to, and you have ignored:

1. The instrumental record of warming, predicted in advance to within hundredths of a degree.
2. The predicted, and observed, stratospheric cooling.
3. The predicted, and observed, ocean acidification.
4. The predicted, and observed, decrease in C-13/C-12 ratios.
5. The predicted, and observed, increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
6. The predicted, and observed, shift upward and poleward of plant and animal habitats.
7. The predicted, and observed, increase in precipitation.
8. The predicted, and observed, imbalance between the frequency of high-temperature records and low-temperature records.
9. The predicted, and observed, increase in the rate of glacial melt.
10. The predicted, and observed, increase in the rate of sea level rise.
11. The predicted, and observed, increase in the frequency of extreme weather events.
12. The predicted, and observed, increase in the rate of infection by tropical diseases.
13. Proxy data demonstrating that warming over the last several thousand years was much more gradual than the present rate.
14. Paleontological data demonstrating that abrupt climate change is unusual and generally associated with mass extinction events.
15. The predicted, and observed, acceleration of the rate of extinction behind what can be attributed to habitat destruction and predation alone.
16. The predicted, and observed, changes in seasonal patterns of plant and animal life.
17. The ability of climate models that don't include anthropogenic global warming to accurately fit observed paleoclimate data, but their inability to fit the modern record.
18. The ability of climate models that do include anthropogenic global warming to not only accurately retrodict the observed data over preceding decades, but also to predict weather patterns that are later observed much more accurately than models that assume the present warming is caused by some combination of factors that does not include fossil fuel combustion.
19. The basic physics that dictate that burning fossil fuels will increase the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases, and that these will warm the troposphere by amplifying the greenhouse effect.
20. The consensus of everyone in the world who doesn't have their head up their ass.
No numbers equals no facts
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
Your ideologically motivated resistance to the facts won’t stop the Earth from warming.
May 15, 2019 Gorebal Warming is so bad it was 40* here in NC this morning, I've never had to build a fire on May 15...……….
 

EatTheRich

President
May 15, 2019 Gorebal Warming is so bad it was 40* here in NC this morning, I've never had to build a fire on May 15...……….
Almost as if the climate has changed and vectors determined by the heat equation are moving in a different direction.
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
The numbers are all available from NASA or any of the other science organizations that have unanimously come to the conclusion that humans are causing global warming.
Again all I am asking for is the evidence that those conclusions were based on.

Yawn, no evidence, no science
 

redtide

Mayor
The entire climate cult purpose was created by elites to bring not only the US but all developed nations in to a system of feudalism. The same kind of feudalism most of the world "enjoyed right up to the Renaissance
 
Top