The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!
Is Climate change total nonsense?
in Science
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: True Believers    band of religious fanatics   probable logical progression   part of some fanatic religious cult  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yeah, we even have living examples of Marxism in action - China, North Korea and Russia. These countries are miserable countries to live in with low wages, poor living conditions and virtually no freedom of speech. Yet, this is exactly what these clowns want our countries of free speech and good life style to turn into. It's the false promise of a paradise that never arrives. That's the carrot that the deceitful Marxist dangles in front of the delirious donkey to keep them marching forward to the cliff edge and over.
  Considerate: 46%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: miserable countries    countries   countries of free speech   poor living conditions  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Have you read Red Hot Lies, Christopher Horner's 2008 book which finely details the deception, manipulation and outright lies of the AGW crowd? It's almost hard to believe the sheer number of instances where the "scientists" involved in the AGW hoax utilized comically bad tactics to collect falsified data obviously designed to exaggerate the temperatures recorded. For instance, recording devices were located in close proximity to barbecue grills, in the middle of inner city heat islands and in the middle of large, asphalt parking lots. When the USSR collapsed, their recording stations shut down so their input into calculating "global" temperatures were omitted over a period of years. Tell me, Zeus, how do you think omitting temperature recordings from the former USSR affected "global" temperature calculations?
How much have you read about Climategate and the East Anglia University conspiracy to manipulate and disseminate falsified data? You remember "The Hockey Stick" and "Hide the Decline", right? The worst part about that telling embarrassment was their laughable attempt to cover up their malfeasance and lies by recruiting "peers" to investigate and clear them of wrongdoing. It really doesn't do much to prop up one's faith in peer review.
We have spent the last 25+ years listening to the likes of Al Gore telling us that various years- all long since past- were "tipping points" or "points of no return". Our coastlines were all supposed to be inundated by now. Hurricanes were to be so numerous and powerful that they'd tear our coastal cities to shreds. The polar ice caps are supposed to be long gone. The Himalayan glaciers were to have been in the Indian Ocean at least a decade ago. Which of those things have happened, Zeus? I can't say for certain but I don't recall the AGW crowd ever turning up a computer model whose predictions actually proved correct. If this is "science", well, things are not looking good for its future.
Why the breathless hyperbole and fear-mongering if all of this is so firmly based in science, which, after all, means it can all be proven? Why the photoshopped pictures of polar bears stranded on faraway ice floes? Why must we witness those same polar bears falling from the sky and dying gruesome deaths as they hit the ground in AGW propaganda commercials? Why have I, personally, never had a True Believer give me a straight answer when I ask which is more consequential to global climate- solar cycles or human CO2 emissions? Why the hateful shrieks of "DENIER!" every time someone questions the validity of the AGW theory or notices that it pretty much never produces the horrors it is supposed to?
I can tell you why, Zeus. It's because this isn't about global warming, climate change or even Earth science. This is ALL about economics and politics. Fortunately, you don't have to take my word for it. You can read through the quotes from the people closest to the genesis of this scam to find out why it is SO important to them that it not be allowed to die a dignified death like other failed scientific hypotheses have when they've flamed out.
The following are excerpts from an article in Forbes magazine by Larry Bell published February 5, 2013:
A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)
Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”
In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”
Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”
IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth...”
The late Stephen Schneider, who authored The Genesis Strategy, a 1976 book warning that global cooling risks posed a threat to humanity, later changed that view 180 degrees, serving as a lead author for important parts of three sequential IPCC reports. In a quotation published in Discover, he said: “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
I can continue with these kinds of quotes from people who are just as, or more, fervent "believers" than you, Zeus, but I think you get the point. I urge you to look up and read the entire Forbes article, as it also details a lot about the flawed, manipulated and falsified "science" backing the AGW political movement.
"True Believers" are the people who have blindly accepted the litany of phony "science" and faked data and doomsday propaganda they've been fed on a near daily basis for decades. School children have been taught this drivel as if it's gospel and it's no wonder they buy into it considering the fervor and the supposed staked involved. Ironically, the people who hatched, nurtured and disseminated this hoax and scam are the ones who know full well how much deception is involved and what it's really all designed to accomplish. I hope you now understand why I likened the movement to a massive band of religious fanatics or cult members. It's all playing out almost exactly like it does for those groups. The "faith" is now unshakeable.
Hope you have a good weekend. Personally, I am hoping for some weather warm enough to merit a trip to the beach. So far, it's mid-June and it's been a little too chilly to sit out there. I don't remember Al Gore predicting that in An Inconvenient Truth.
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.24  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 26%  
  Learn More About Debra
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.46  
  Sources: 10  
  Relevant (Beta): 18%  
  Learn More About Debra
I appreciate your concern for my cognitive skills but I urge you not to waste time concentrating on other peoples' supposed shortcomings in that regard. Your own inability to recognize how spectacularly the "science" of AGW has flamed out and collapsed is what should concern you, especially when I have provided to you, in their own words, the principles of the AGW movement admitting that they have no proof and it's not really about climate or the environment. I can't really think of any other scientific theory or hypothesis in history that has so diligently and enthusiastically been researched in hopes of providing proof. And despite the zeal, there hasn't been the slightest bit of progress on the part of the thousands of "scientists" involved in turning up that proof. Sorry to break the news to you but consensus doesn't cut it in science. If you disagree, tell us what other theory or hypothesis has been deemed "settled science" based on consensus rather than proof. That is not how science works.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.9  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 6%  
  Learn More About Debra
After signing off this morning, I thought about your previous response periodically throughout the day. It dawned on me that you had off-handedly dismissed Christopher Horner's book based on the facts that, 1) he's a lawyer, and, 2) he has been funded by the coal industry. First, his training as a lawyer has no relevance to our argument. His book is decidedly not an attempt to add to or detract from the science of global climate. Red Hot Lies is a thoroughly researched and documented history and expose of the chicanery, manipulation, hyperbole, propaganda and lies used by leftist globalists to prop up the failed AGW theory. No advanced degrees in science are required to expose corruption. Second, if we are going to strike from the record anything anyone says about AGW based on who funds them, then we are going to have a huge problem with the scientists of academia who promote the theory. Seeing how they are almost fully dependent on the very politicians (like Al Gore- a lawyer whose post-political career has been funded by the phony carbon credits 'industry') who demand that AGW remains center stage to be used to frighten an ignorant populace into sacrificing their standard of living to promote a political ideology based on lies, I would say that their position is now far more compromised than Horner's ever was. Also, your arguments concerning Horner are the same, tired and worn out tactics the left has been using for decades to denigrate and besmirch anyone who dares to question their dogma.
Speaking of tired and worn out tactics, your answer regarding Climategate and the EAU scandal are even more Clintonesque than your Horner response. You say the scandal is "old conspiracy theories that have already been refuted". Again, consider the source of those supposed refutations. And, as we have learned from the Clintons and the Obamas, calling a scandal "old news" or pretending that it never happened does not make the facts of the matter disappear. Mann and Hansen were caught red-handed conspiring to manipulate and falsify data; of that there is no doubt. The fact that they got some of their buddies to say, "no, they didn't" does not exonerate them in any way nor does it change the fact that they were ginning up data to embellish their position. It never ceases to amaze me how tenacious and diligent the left are when it comes to supporting their own corruption by circling the wagons and repeating "nothing to see here" to the whole world, even when the evidence is clear and irrefutable. What does surprise me is the number of people who are eager to continue accepting the protestations of innocence from clearly guilty people just because of their social standing.
Let me be clear, Zeus, I not only believe in climate change, I have lived through it and experienced it firsthand. I need no one to tell me that this was a colder planet when I was a child. I also don't need anyone to tell me that when my parents were children, the Earth was as warm as it was in the 1990's. Climate changes and nothing that we do or don't do is going to make it stop, much less imposing confiscatory taxation and international wealth redistribution.
It is an insulting and despicable tactic used by the left to label AGW skeptics as "climate deniers" or to act as if none of us have the slightest cause for skepticism or evidence that the AGW movement is a hoax. What I dispute and what I feel is being utilized for political gain is the greenhouse gas theory. The percentage of global atmospheric CO2 emitted by humans is minimal and it is not a particularly effective greenhouse gas in the first place. Global temperatures have risen .8 degrees C in the last 140 years, hardly the stuff of doomsday predictions. There is nothing to suggest that world governments have any tools at their disposal that will "solve" climate change, especially when the world's two largest polluters are routinely dismissed from any "solutions".
If AGW proponents want everyone to sign on to their efforts and lend their full support, all they need to do is steer the conversation away from the doomsday predictions we've endured for 25 years and announce that they want to launch a massive, coordinated campaign to mitigate pollution of all kinds as rapidly as possible using all available means without crippling the world economy. Support would be nearly universal and instantaneous. What's so difficult about that?
As for your questions, I suppose that I could research and present far more empirical and objective evidence that discredits the premise behind AGW and the climate change "crisis". However, this is clearly a waste of time when you have already refused to accept anything I gave you on 6/15. Your Alinskyite tactics are standard and predictable. You will obviously accept nothing that I present; all of it will be either "old news", "conspiracy theories that have been debunked" or collected from sources that you reject because, well, you reject them. My answers are below and they are not based on anything that anyone else has to say. They are based on my considerable experience conversing with AGW proponents online and in person for the last 20 years. If they don't meet your standards, I really don't care. They meet the standard of truth.
1. Not everyone who buys into the AGW movement is a True Believer but there are many whose reaction to any stated doubts or skepticism verges on revulsion, ridicule and outrage, much as if their religion had been attacked. Legitimate evidence that compromises the science of AGW or the people who promote it is unacceptable and dismissed without discussion. Your yourself have reacted in this way during our exchange. You will have to pardon me for likening these reactions to those of religious fanatics or cult members.
2. I gave you numerous quotations from people who are revered in the AGW movement who have admitted that this is more about changing our socioeconomic model than it is about climate or the environment. I'm not sure what more you need than those peoples' own admissions. Are you contending that they didn't say these things or that the quotes are not what they really meant?
3. How many predictions need to fail? How many computer models need to go off the rails? How many people need to be caught falsifying data and corrupting the methods used to collect it? Why does the movement need to rely on propaganda and PR and scare tactics and indoctrinating children if the science is so rock solid? Why are the only proposed "solutions" all based on grand schemes of global wealth redistribution instead of massive, coordination pollution control measures? It seems to me that if anyone has a problem with denial, it's people who can't answer these questions.
4. See #2 and #3. Only socialists/communists would be interested in using this "crisis" for political gain. Why do you think the debate is split perfectly by political ideology?
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 41%  
  Learn More About Debra
Mann manipulated data in ways both large and small. Mann's Nature trick was to splice proxy data to 1980 with instrumental data after 1980 to calculate the smoothed value.
This was different trick to brute deletion of adverse data as in IPCC diagram.
The email in question -
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
Conclusion - Yeah, I can see this decline is not about real temps. lol
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.08  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Mann's Nature trick    Phil JonesTo   IPCC diagram.The email   Phil JonesClimatic Research Unit Telephone  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
Mann manipulated data in ways both large and small. Mann's Nature trick was to splice proxy data to 1980 with instrumental data after 1980 to calculate the smoothed value.
This was different trick to brute deletion of adverse data as in IPCC diagram.
The email in question -
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
Conclusion - Yeah, I can see this decline is not about real temps. lol
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.08  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Mann's Nature trick    Phil JonesTo   IPCC diagram.The email   Phil JonesClimatic Research Unit Telephone  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
Mann manipulated data in ways both large and small. Mann's Nature trick was to splice proxy data to 1980 with instrumental data after 1980 to calculate the smoothed value.
This was different trick to brute deletion of adverse data as in IPCC diagram.
The email in question -
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email
Conclusion - Yeah, I can see this decline is not about real temps. lol
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.32  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Mann's Nature trick    Phil JonesTo   IPCC diagram.The email   ray bradley  
  Relevant (Beta): 37%  
  Learn More About Debra
Mann manipulated data in ways both large and small. Mann's Nature trick was to splice proxy data to 1980 with instrumental data after 1980 to calculate the smoothed value.
This was different trick to brute deletion of adverse data as in IPCC diagram.
The email in question -
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
Conclusion - Yeah, I can see this decline is not about real temps. lol
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.46  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Mann's Nature trick    Phil JonesTo   ray bradleyDear Ray   IPCC diagram.The email  
  Relevant (Beta): 78%  
  Learn More About Debra
Mann manipulated data in ways both large and small. Mann's Nature trick was to splice proxy data to 1980 with instrumental data after 1980 to calculate the smoothed value.
This was different trick to brute deletion of adverse data as in IPCC diagram.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.66  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Mann's Nature trick    Mann   proxy data   data  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
It seems as if this argument will get settled when we experience our next solar minimum and the real controller of Earth's climate, the Sun, demonstrates that mankind has an extremely limited effect on climate and certainly no control over it. Of course, at that point, a new generation of climate scientists will begin bleating about 1970's-style global cooling and how we're all going to die from that instead. Things do change but they just keep going around and around.
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 69%  
  Learn More About Debra
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 47%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 23%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 73%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Care    fallacy   nbsp    
  Relevant (Beta): 62%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 40%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: religions    monetary benefits   illogical consequences    
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 47%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 81%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 29%  
  Substantial: 56%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.4  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: sincere belief    climate change   scientific fact   stupid americans  
  Relevant (Beta): 62%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you are saying that the science theory is fact can you help locate then mathematic proof that science has set as a new law of physics?
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 55%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: science theory    mathematic proof   fact   science  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.7  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: scientific fact    people   lizard people    
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
Is that the new standard; "pretty much been proven a scientific fact"? Where do you folks come up with these gems? For the record, anything that has "pretty much" been done, has NOT been done. When you're talking about proving scientific facts, it REALLY has not been done.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 58%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Hey, Zeus, a quick question; do you agree with AOC that mankind has 12 years to act on climate change or we're finished? You know, "this is our World War II" and all that?
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
Didn't misquote anything.
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
Thanks, Zeus. Maybe in the future it would be better if you didn't use quotation marks when you decide to misquote someone. At least then you'll have plausible deniability. Claiming "Didn't misquote anything" after putting quotation marks around something I never said is frankly just silly. Of course you did.
As for True Believers including all climate scientists, well, that's your supposition, not mine. I understand that there are lots of climate scientists out there doing good, valid work. I think many or most of them probably believe that we are going to face consequences that none of them can guarantee or even reasonably assure. That doesn't make them True Believers. The True Believers who behave like religious fanatics are the ones who categorically reject ANY argument or criticism of the AGW theory or its proponents regardless of evidence and then proceed to attack people with legitimate questions and doubts.
What about the 12- year deadline for action, Zeus? Are you onboard with AOC's claim? And while you're answering questions, maybe you can get around to these ones I posed earlier that you ignored:
- Why can't climate scientists generate a computer model that proves accurate? GIGO?
- If the science is so strong and sure, why does the movement consistently resort to fear-mongering, propaganda, indoctrination of children and Alinskyite tactics?
- How does the movement explain the litany of horrific doomsday predictions that have utterly failed to materialize?
- Since scientists and their political allies have repeatedly and inaccurately predicted 'end of days' scenarios for centuries, why should we suddenly believe they're getting this one right?
- Why do ALL "solutions" to climate change necessarily involve wealth redistribution on a massive, global scale? Wouldn't investment in pollution mitigation technologies be more logical and effective?
I'm not actually here simply to answer your questions, Zeus, although I have no problem with you asking them. I have accumulated a wealth of knowledge concerning the AGW movement over many years and I firmly believe the entire issue has been hijacked for strictly political purposes. I'll speak out on it all as I see fit. if you don't like my posts, no one is forcing you to read them.
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 55%  
  Learn More About Debra
My argument here is Time a computer does not have a realistic mathematic understanding of time as a linear position. The reasons for this is almost all people do not understand the distance time divides is the Earths equator. It does this by using the sun's motion across the sky, a compass, a sexton, and horizon.
Ever see a couple argue after becoming lost?
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: climate scientists    sun's motion   realistic mathematic understanding of time   computer model  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.54  
  Sources: 14  
  Relevant (Beta): 59%  
  Learn More About Debra
We agree to be as truthful as we understand. The mathematic proof behind climate change and human climate manipulation are not the same goal in testing and discovery.
To understand time and how it is connected to this solar system by the distance of solar time is measured by the area around the sun as a mathematic rational constant. This is simply not translated mathematically to any computer yet. Rights Reserved.
The argument is not made clear because of the chosen basic principle not by any truth, facts, or duration both are held together .  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 57%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: mathematical proof    science theory   word problem   relationship  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: mathematical proof    science theory   word problem   legal proof  
  Relevant (Beta): 67%  
  Learn More About Debra
Just wondering if you knew.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 17%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: nbsp         
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 20%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 80%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: John    nbsp      
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 38%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: mathematic proof    theory of human climate manipulation   John   possible climate change  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
"For all temperature that is changed there exists a motion of that temperature as reading. "
Science as a United State can best prove that a human method can change temperature as a level measured in heat simply by moving any amount of cold substance as mass.
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://principia-scientific.org/climate-bombshell-audit-exposes-ipcc-data-as-careless-and-amateur/
"The first ever audit of the world’s most important temperature data set has found it to be so riddled with errors that it is effectively useless.
HadCRUT4 is the primary dataset used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to make its dramatic claims about “man-made global warming”, to justify its demands for trillions of dollars to be spent on “combating climate change” and as the basis for the Paris Climate Accord.
But according to a groundbreaking analysis by Australian researcher John McLean it’s far too sloppy to be taken seriously even by climate scientists, let alone a body as influential as the IPCC or by the governments of the world."
Of course, this audit received practically zero coverage by MSM outlets all over the world because it only added to the mounting evidence that the AGW theory is not only fatally flawed, it is being propagated by inept and corrupt individuals with a massive political agenda. The actual temperature data used by the IPCC to sell the AGW theory has been so carelessly collected and catalogued that it isn't credible at all. It certainly cannot be used to justify spending trillions of dollars to combat a phantom problem that can't even be demonstrated to exist.
The details of the article are shocking. How something like this can go largely unreported is an indictment of the world press as a whole. And any attempt to discredit John McLean would be absurd seeing that he had previously been consulted by the IPCC as an advisor.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 66%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.18  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 35%  
  Learn More About Debra
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 57%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: individual's personal beliefs    scientific research   scientific factual information   nature  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 57%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: individual's personal beliefs    scientific research   nature   world  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.12  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 40%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: miserable countries    United States   countries of free speech   North Korea  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yeah, sure, you can lodge a grievance in China, Russia and North Korea but you would do better to go commit suicide and save them the trouble of disposing of you.
  Considerate: 29%  
  Substantial: 47%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: North Korea    grievance   China   Russia  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 29%  
  Substantial: 45%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: head    sand      
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.34  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: freedom of speech    freedom of speech address   Constitutional right   North Korea  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
To address an issue of basic principle here about united state. In truth, as part of a much larger whole truth, time does not matter in how it is applied to a beginning of human effort as people have started and really all that is taking place is those efforts are ignored. This may be in part to the fact any efforts are not having an effect because the described cause is wrong.
While in truth about humans and War, World War III may have been World War II and World War II never ended as we call it a Drug War now. Which in basic principle the Drug War can just be call a World Civil War, W.C.W. I, and World War III is not a numbered War at all and is a Chemical World War. Making the Drug War a Cold Chemical World War. C.C.W.W. as I do not believe it is just civil. There would have been War program given out during the intermission as to keep track, had there been an intermission to this War???
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.64  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.32  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
The earth is going to evolve, weather wise, how it always has.
At its own leisure, and all humanity can do, is either adapt, or deal with the consequences of not adapting?
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: climate change    nonsense.The earth   weather   humanity  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
Would you mind elaborating on what the political left has to gain and the control and power they're after regarding the AGW issue?
Would you mind elaborating on the reasons for how you've come to this conclusion too?
Thanks.
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Hi, Zeus. Sure, I'd be happy to elaborate on both points.
Leftist governments uniformly seek increased control over the lives of their constituents through Big Government initiatives. Their challenge is to package these policy positions as compassionate, caring programs that inevitably improve peoples' lives. Since their target audience usually includes large numbers of the middle and lower classes and corresponding numbers of people who are either politically disengaged or uninformed, their job is somewhat easier. This is why the Democrats in the US compete with each other to see who can offer the most "free stuff". Short-sighted people eat these promises up, since the massive tax increases necessary to fund the programs will ostensibly not affect the target audience directly.
Climate change- both the actual science and the resulting political issue- presents a huge opportunity for the leftists of the world. First, it's a global issue, so the interested governments can collude to use the issue to their advantage, advancing globalism and having world-wide consequences; think Paris Climate Accords. Second, the issue directly involves some of the largest and most lucrative multi-national corporations in the world, putting trillions of dollars on the line and potentially putting much of that money at the disposal of the governments involved in "solving" the problem. Thirdly, the issue can be demagogued to frighten the masses into believing that their very lives are in imminent danger. If and when the issue is played correctly, the populations will enable the governments to hobble the corporations, empowering political elites and enabling them effectively to confiscate and redistribute money in unprecedented sums. Rather than concentrating on technological solutions to pollution mitigation, leftist governments will invariably target profits, free markets and capitalism in general. It's a very neat and convenient way for the world's Marxists to undermine the capitalist systems that dominate the world's economy and ironically, it will have little, if anything, to do with climate science.
One of the hallmarks of the Obama Administration and other Democrat governments has been their tendency to pick and choose winners and losers in the private sector, especially during times of crisis. FDR's Administration did the same thing with the New Deal, twisting the arms of corporate bigwigs when they were down by demanding compliance and cooperation with federal interference in the free market. There's a great story about FDR trying to get Henry Ford to comply with the New Deal "Blue Eagle" program, ending with Ford telling Roosevelt to "shove that chicken up his ", or words to that effect. Of course, leftists despise huge oil companies and will seize any opportunity fo stifle them or take their profits. Conversely, "green" companies are feted and showered with endless tax breaks and government assistance to stay competitive with traditional businesses; think Tesla, wind farms, solar panel manufacturers, etc. The CEOs of these companies are never vilified or demonized as are CEOs of traditional businesses, rather they are made instant millionaires and billionaires, insulated from the normal slings and arrows that the left reserves for rich, fat cats. The climate change issue presents unprecedented opportunity for leftists to 'mold' the economy in the shape they would like it to be.
Because the climate change issue presents so much potential and opportunity for the left to shape the world in their own vision- their primary, overarching goal- the approaches and techniques employed to promote their political and economic "solutions" have become progressively more alarmist, drastic, urgent, hyperbolic and insulting. This has occurred even as the evidence supporting the AGW theory has been slowly but surely eroding. We are entering the third decade of failed predictions, failed computer models and questionable "science" surrounding the global warming scare. The simultaneous, breathless Chicken Little- act from the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the looney left in Hollywood does not help the credibility of the movement.
Sorry for the "essay"! My thoughts tend to get a little wordy. I'd try being more concise but I'm an old dog and that would be a new trick for me.
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.38  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra