This political chat room is for you to sound off about any political ideology and discuss current political topics. Everyone is welcome, yes, even conservatives, but keep in mind, the nature of the No Holds Barred political chat forum platform can be friendly to trolling. It is your responsibility to address this wisely. Forum Rules

User avatar
Neo

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 32,648
Politics: Conservative

Roll Out
I clearly remember in the 1970s and early 80s they were predicting another ice age. Stop with the gaslighting, some of us are old enough to remember the ice age predictions.
 

User avatar
Vegas giants

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 8,318

Neo » 04 May 2021, 10:09 am » wrote: I clearly remember in the 1970s and early 80s they were predicting another ice age. Stop with the gaslighting, some of us are old enough to remember the ice age predictions.
Great.  Name the scientific agency that issued a policy statement on that.  Like these


https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

User avatar
Ike Bana

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4,523

Neo » 30 Apr 2021, 7:07 am » wrote: Oh no chicken little, whatever shall we do??? You mean ocean levels have risen 6 inches over the past 150 years? Time to panic!!!!
Was mother nature stupid enough to let you reproduce?  If so, when are you gonna apologize to your progeny for **** it up for them?

Why do you hate scientific method so much? 
 

User avatar
Ike Bana

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4,523

Neo » 04 May 2021, 10:09 am » wrote: I clearly remember in the 1970s and early 80s they were predicting another ice age. Stop with the gaslighting, some of us are old enough to remember the ice age predictions.
If I'm ever charged with murder, I'm going to do everything I can to get you on the jury.  I have never run in to anybody to whom evidence means so little.  Doesn't matter if it's climate change evidence or pandemic/vaccination evidence or Presidential election evidence or cop testimony evidence. 

But all that biblical evidence like "on the sixth day god said let us make a man" and you're rolling around in it like a pig in slop.

User avatar
Neo

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 32,648
Politics: Conservative

Roll Out
IkeBana » 04 May 2021, 10:15 am » wrote: Was mother nature stupid enough to let you reproduce?  If so, when are you gonna apologize to your progeny for **** it up for them?

Why do you hate scientific method so much?
I accept the scientific observations. I don't see any reason to accept the alarmist conclusions. 
 

User avatar
Vegas giants

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 8,318

Neo » 04 May 2021, 10:23 am » wrote: I accept the scientific observations. I don't see any reason to accept the alarmist conclusions.
I think it's cute you think your scientific opinions matter.  Lol

User avatar
Ike Bana

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4,523

Neo » 04 May 2021, 10:23 am » wrote: I accept the scientific observations.
Good.  But it's a damn shame your reading comprehension is so bad that you don't understand the scientific observations.  Dyslexia?  Or did you go to school in South Carolina?
 

User avatar
Neo

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 32,648
Politics: Conservative

Roll Out
IkeBana » 04 May 2021, 10:26 am » wrote: Good.  But it's a damn shame your reading comprehension is so bad that you don't understand the scientific observations.  Dyslexia?  Or did you go to school in South Carolina?
The observations do not support the alarmist predictions.
 

User avatar
Vegas giants

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 8,318

Neo » 04 May 2021, 10:29 am » wrote: The observations do not support the alarmist predictions.
And the earth is flat.  Lol

User avatar
Zeets2

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 3,980
Politics: Conservative

Vegasgiants » 04 May 2021, 9:42 am » wrote: You cant find one?

Not even one!

HAHAHAHAHA
I thought you'd find it obvious after so much evidence proved how the data has been purposely skewed to fool dopes like you!  But if you're basing your entire belief on AGW, the Chicago Climate Conference destroyed any possibility of AGW because of the fraudulent methods used to create it:
Chicago Climate Conference: AGW Global Warming Fraud Exposed
July 25, 2010: S. T. Karnick / The American Culture – July 25, 2010
https://stevenjohnhibbs.wordpress.com/2 ... d-exposed/ 

Last week’s meeting of 700+ scientists, policymakers, and concerned citizens in Chicago to discuss the science and economics of global warming at the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change was a huge success as measured by the intent of its sponsors: to establish once and for all that the climate realist position is increasingly the accepted conclusion among thinking people in the three categories noted above. That position is this: manmade global warming is not a crisis.Yes, all parties at the conference pretty much agreed that there was a good deal of warming in the 1980s and 1990s, and that the trend stopped and reversed in the current decade. Global temperatures have been falling in recent years, even though the weather stations and other data chosen to represent the official temperature records are in fact skewed to show higher and more-rising temperatures than are actually occurring.The predictions of a steady, horrifying increase in temperatures have proven false, which should have been a great embarrassment to the climate alarmists who made the claims and set them as the basis for their extravagant power grabs such as emissions limits and cap and trade. Yet the embarrassment has not been forthcoming from those proven to be wrong, because they are shameless.
Your problem is your staunch belief that a "scientific consensus" somehow makes your position undeniable.  It does not.  Science HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A CONSENSUS!  "Consensus" is a term to be used in politics to push an agenda.  Science DOESN'T REQUIRE A CONSENSUS!  It requires no more than ONE scientist WHO HAPPENS TO BE RIGHT, because they have results that are VERIFIABLE BY REFERENCE TO THE REAL WORLD!  "Consensus" is totally irrelevant if it cannot provide reproducible results, and the fact is that since their hypothesis has NOT been proven by the last 50 years of actual history, indeed it's been DISPROVEN, the "consensus" you claim is totally worthless!
And the fact is, the greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
 

User avatar
Vegas giants

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 8,318

Zeets2 » 04 May 2021, 10:34 am » wrote: I thought you'd find it obvious after so much evidence proved how the data has been purposely skewed to fool dopes like you!  But if you're basing your entire belief on AGW, the Chicago Climate Conference destroyed any possibility of AGW because of the fraudulent methods used to create it:

Your problem is your staunch belief that a "scientific consensus" somehow makes your position undeniable.  It does not.  Science HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A CONSENSUS!  "Consensus" is a term to be used in politics to push an agenda.  Science DOESN'T REQUIRE A CONSENSUS!  It requires no more than ONE scientist WHO HAPPENS TO BE RIGHT, because they have results that are VERIFIABLE BY REFERENCE TO THE REAL WORLD!  "Consensus" is totally irrelevant if it cannot provide reproducible results, and the fact is that since their hypothesis has NOT been proven by the last 50 years of actual history, indeed it's been DISPROVEN, the "consensus" you claim is totally worthless!
And the fact is, the greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
Just one.  One scientific agency that agrees with you.  Anywhere on earth.  Just one.


 

User avatar
Neo

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 32,648
Politics: Conservative

Roll Out
Vegasgiants » 04 May 2021, 10:31 am » wrote: And the earth is flat.  Lol
Scientific observation doesn't support flat earth any more than it supports catastrophic climate change. Both beliefs go against the observations.
 

User avatar
Vegas giants

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 8,318

Neo » 04 May 2021, 10:45 am » wrote: Scientific observation doesn't support flat earth any more than it supports catastrophic climate change. Both beliefs go against the observations.
Prove it

User avatar
omh

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 17,005

Ike Bana » 04 May 2021, 10:15 am » wrote: Was mother nature stupid enough to let you reproduce?  If so, when are you gonna apologize to your progeny for **** it up for them?

Why do you hate scientific method so much? 
 
Mother Nature is a literary caricature that mirrors the concept of Mary having a virgin Birth of a male child. Virgin births only reproduce what the gender of the mother was and that takes being asexual per lifetime to the species.

Father Time is karma, gods, God, Allah, Buddha, Satan. everything created to keep brains minding possibilities takes the form of supernatural entities so every generation never accepts natural balancing to be the forces of eternal changing taking place in plain sight of equally set apart reproductions now.

From the shadows of doubt comes the nurtured results of everyone just won't believe life is limited to being eternally separated as displaced now.
Humanity invents reasons to never get along and each generation follows the logic set forth academically, artistically, spiritually, politically, socially, economically, ancestral order of lifetimes acting the themes out one generation after another.

What I am is one male, who were you led to believe that changes by the numbers present?

User avatar
Neo

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 32,648
Politics: Conservative

Roll Out
Prove that the temperature has risen 2 degrees over 150 years or that the seas have risen 6 inches? Documented. You are the ones claiming these measurable rises are harbingers of doom and destruction. 
 

User avatar
Vegas giants

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 8,318

Neo » 04 May 2021, 11:00 am » wrote: Prove that the temperature has risen 2 degrees over 150 years or that the seas have risen 6 inches? Documented. You are the ones claiming these measurable rises are harbingers of doom and destruction.
No I am not.  The guys who faked the moon landing  to keep the funding going are

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

User avatar
Zeets2

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 3,980
Politics: Conservative

Vegasgiants » 04 May 2021, 10:36 am » wrote: Just one.  One scientific agency that agrees with you.  Anywhere on earth.  Just one.
If you insist, since they're not as hard to find as it is to get a zealot like you to believe all the science I've already given you, so here are three:
Climate Intelligence Foundation
https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/  
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... 202014.pdfClimate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. In particular, scientists should emphasize that their modeling output is not the result of magic: computer models are human-made. What comes out is fully dependent on what theoreticians and programmers have put in: hypotheses, assumptions, relationships, parameterizations, stability constraints, etc. Unfortunately, in mainstream climate science most of this input is undeclared.To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in.  This is precisely the problem of today’s climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models. In future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science.
There is no climate emergency

A global network of 900 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures. Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warmingThe geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming. Warming is far slower than predictedThe world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and re-adapt. The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. In a prosperous society men and women are well educated, birthrates are low and people care about their environment. The World Climate Declaration (WCD) has brought a large variety of competent scientists together from all over the world*. The considerable knowledge and experience of this group is indispensable in reaching a balanced, dispassionate and competent view of climate change. From now onward the group is going to function as “Global Climate Intelligence Council”. The CLINTEL Council will give solicited and unsolicited advice on climate change and energy transition to governments and companies worldwide.
THE DISPROOFS OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (AGW) HYPOTHESIS INTRODUCTION 
Natural Climate Change

Dr. Eric T. Karlstrom, Emeritus Professor of Geography, California State University, Stanislaus Global Temperatures (2500 B.C. to 2040 A.D.)Over the past twenty years, governments of the world have spent $100’s of billions on “research” ($50 to 60 billion in US alone) expressly to validate the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).  This is in order to justify “the largest regulatory intervention in history: the restricting of carbon emissions from all human activity” (Horner, 2010).  Today, however, this hypothesis has been thoroughly disproven by the scientific evidence.  Most people understand one of the most basic rules of science is that when a hypothesis is disproven by the facts, that hypothesis is invalidated and must be discarded.  As Thomas Huxley noted:“The great tragedy in science- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”Award-winning Meteorologist Brian Sussman stated:“Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels is allegedly warming the planet.  This hypothesis couldn’t stand the test of an eighth grade science fair.  (But) if you dare poke holes in the hypothesis you’re branded a ‘denier’.  Well fine. I’d rather be called a ‘denier’ than try to push a scheme that would make Karl Marx green with envy.”Now that satellite, radiosonde balloon, and new ocean measurements all show the world has been cooling since about 1998, the dire warnings of catastrophic “global warming” have been changed to dire warnings about catastrophic “climate change” or “climate disruption.”   That the normal processes of science are not being followed, indeed, have been turned upside down, is a strong indication that this hypothesis serves some very important political/economic agendas.
Or maybe you like this one better:
https://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=8
Friends of Science PROVIDING INSIGHT INTO CLIMATE CHANGE

Our Goal:
To educate the public about climate science and through them bring pressure to bear on governments to engage in public debates on the scientific merits of the hypothesis of human induced global warming and the various policies that intend to address the issue.  Friends of Science is a non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals. We have assembled a Scientific Advisory Board of esteemed climate scientists from around the world to offer a critical mass of current science on global climate and climate change to policy makers, as well as any other interested parties. We also do extensive literature research on these scientific subjects. Concerned about the abuse of science displayed in the politically inspired Kyoto protocol, we offer critical evidence that challenges the premises of Kyoto and present alternative causes of climate change.
Our major environmental concern is the significant shift in recent years away from the important emphasis of previous decades on continual reductions in air and water pollution, to focus almost exclusively on global warming. The current obsession with global warming is misguided in that climate fluctuations are natural phenomena and we suggest that adaptation should be emphasized rather than misguided attempts at control. Consensus on Climate Change?  
 97% Nonsensus
There has never been a survey of all scientists, not even all climate scientists. “Catastrophic Anthropogenic (Human-caused) Global Warming” (CAGW) is a theoretical threat, mostly used by environmental groups to raise money.
And with that, I'm done catering to your ignorance, as I've got more important things to do. You'll never admit to your rudimentary knowledge of the facts, so there's little point to continue any further. I learned long ago not to try to put lipstick on a pig. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig.  
 

User avatar
Vegas giants

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 8,318

Zeets2 » 04 May 2021, 1:15 pm » wrote: If you insist, since they're not as hard to find as it is to get a zealot like you to believe all the science I've already given you, so here are three:

Or maybe you like this one better:

And with that, I'm done catering to your ignorance, as I've got more important things to do. You'll never admit to your rudimentary knowledge of the facts, so there's little point to continue any further. I learned long ago not to try to put lipstick on a pig. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig.
I said a scientific agency.  Not a PR group. Lol

Berkhout founded the Netherlands-based organization Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL). Mid 2019 plans of CLINTEL and Berkhout were leaked showing that they were organizing a campaign against political commitments to net zero carbon emissions being made into law. The campaign features a number of academics and industry figures with ties to climate change denial groups, as well as members from oil and gas companies.[8] Berkhout claimed the ideal of the organization was to provide an alternative to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[9]In late September 2019 the group produced an open letter which stated that there was no climate emergency and repeated a number of claims that were inconsistent with the scientific evidence on climate.[10] A fact check performed by climate scientists for Climate Feedback gave the letter an overall scientific credibility of "very low", and tagged it as "Biased, Cherry-picking, Inaccurate, Misleading". The analysis also added that, out of the roughly 500 signatories, only 10 self-identified as climate scientists.[11]


Now run along. 


Morons piss me off

User avatar
Zeets2

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 3,980
Politics: Conservative

Vegasgiants » 04 May 2021, 1:18 pm » wrote: I said a scientific agency.  Not a PR group. Lol

Berkhout founded the Netherlands-based organization Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL). Mid 2019 plans of CLINTEL and Berkhout were leaked showing that they were organizing a campaign against political commitments to net zero carbon emissions being made into law. The campaign features a number of academics and industry figures with ties to climate change denial groups, as well as members from oil and gas companies.[8] Berkhout claimed the ideal of the organization was to provide an alternative to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[9]In late September 2019 the group produced an open letter which stated that there was no climate emergency and repeated a number of claims that were inconsistent with the scientific evidence on climate.[10] A fact check performed by climate scientists for Climate Feedback gave the letter an overall scientific credibility of "very low", and tagged it as "Biased, Cherry-picking, Inaccurate, Misleading". The analysis also added that, out of the roughly 500 signatories, only 10 self-identified as climate scientists.[11]

Now run along. 

Morons piss me off
You've been crushed, nitwit!  The Climate Intelligence Foundation is a global network composed of 900 scientists and professionals and IS NOT A PR GROUP!
And neither is the Friends of Science,  which is a non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals. We have assembled a Scientific Advisory Board of esteemed climate scientists from around the world to offer a critical mass of current science on global climate and climate change to policy makers, as well as any other interested parties. We also do extensive literature research on these scientific subjects. Concerned about the abuse of science displayed in the politically inspired Kyoto protocol, we offer critical evidence that challenges the premises of Kyoto and present alternative causes of climate change.

But I get it.  You've gone out so far on that limb that there's no returning to reality when you get your nose rubbed in it like I just did.

Fortunately for you, there's no law against choosing to remain ignorant.  Had there been, you'd be facing a life sentence.
 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot], Annoyed Liberall, Arris, Benson13, Bidennextpresident, Blutarski, Buffalo, Cannonpointer, ConsRule, Crazytrain, crimsongulf, DawnDavenport, Famagusta, FOS, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Hank, Ike Bana, Jantje_Smit, nefarious101, neue regel, PaperLi [Bot], Pinterest [Bot], Polar1ty, PoliticalPopUp, Semrush [Bot], SJConspirator, solon, sooted up Cyndi, Steve Jobs [Bot], Taipan, Twitter [Bot], user1620678236, Vegas, Vegas giants, Yahoo [Bot], Zeets2 and 571 guests