Parliamentary debate starts to happen.

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate Policy > Parliamentary debate starts to happen.

Parliamentary debate starts to happen.08-11-2015 17:42
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/davies-uk-m-p-quotes-ipcc-in-parliament-as-a-reason-to-be-skeptical/ This video gives me hope. Finally we are starting to see more sane commentary in western parliaments. David TC Davies MP shows how politicians can master enough of the scientific details on this debate to crush the usual bumper-sticker trite "consensus" hogwash. He talks of Roman warming, the Medieval Warm Period, the Younger Dryas, the age of the Earth. It's high school science type level, but more than enough to expose some of the silliness. He also counters the "climate change denier" tag. He cites just enough key numbers to back up each of his points. His skill here is in prioritizing the numbers that matter. Here's hoping a few of the silent political skeptics will feel more confident to speak out. The bullying and namecalling breaks when enough people stand up to it. That's coming. I agree with him. Any other comments?
08-11-2015 22:06
Ceist ★★★☆☆ (592)	Looks like he gets his er...'information' from the same anti-science conspiracy blogs you do. We have a couple of pollies in Australia who have done that too, and made themselves look like complete fools. He misrepresented the IPCC by cherry-picking one sentence (he got the page number wrong too, it's pg 15, not 17) and ignoring everything else the report said. Btw, why do you think he didn't read the next sentence directly after the one he quoted? "The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period" He blathered on with the same science-denier pseudoscience that you can find on conspiracy blogs like Jo Nova claiming it was warmer during Roman and Medieval times than now (it wasn't). He does the really ignorant 'we're just bouncing back from the little ice age' schtick and 'climate is always changing' schtick. He got the figure wrong when he said .8 degrees over 250 years (it's more like 1.5C in the last 250 years, almost a degree in the last 100 years) and says it's 'minor'. What next? A dishonest faked graph from Jo Nova? Her blog is a great source for them. He could get a faked Monckton graph from WTFUWT too. No wonder Jo Nova thinks it's 'beautiful to watch'. Why would anyone want a poly who uses conspiracy blogs as a 'source'? Do you want to be deluded by pseudoscience, misinformation and lies? Edited on 08-11-2015 22:51
08-11-2015 22:32
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Ceist, I would like to see an inquiry with scientists giving evidence under oath. They are not imune to corruption any more than any other type of human is. Would you? Edited on 08-11-2015 22:32
08-11-2015 22:49
Ceist ★★★☆☆ (592)	Tim the plumber wrote: Ceist, I would like to see an inquiry with scientists giving evidence under oath. They are not imune to corruption any more than any other type of human is. Would you? Oh FFS. You're seriously talking about tens of thousands of scientists from all around the world from different fields who would have to be involved in some massively complex hoax. That's pure conspiracy ideation. Stop reading conspiracy blogs (or at least do some basic fact checking). Unless you want to delude yourself. Edited on 08-11-2015 22:57
08-11-2015 22:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	Tim the plumber wrote: http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/davies-uk-m-p-quotes-ipcc-in-parliament-as-a-reason-to-be-skeptical/ This video gives me hope. Finally we are starting to see more sane commentary in western parliaments. David TC Davies MP shows how politicians can master enough of the scientific details on this debate to crush the usual bumper-sticker trite "consensus" hogwash. He talks of Roman warming, the Medieval Warm Period, the Younger Dryas, the age of the Earth. It's high school science type level, but more than enough to expose some of the silliness. He also counters the "climate change denier" tag. He cites just enough key numbers to back up each of his points. His skill here is in prioritizing the numbers that matter. Here's hoping a few of the silent political skeptics will feel more confident to speak out. The bullying and namecalling breaks when enough people stand up to it. That's coming. I agree with him. Any other comments? It's refreshing to see such a glimmer of hope. Here and there I've been seeing it too. I think it will be a very long while to get the name calling and bullying to stop.

09-11-2015 11:44
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Ceist wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Ceist, I would like to see an inquiry with scientists giving evidence under oath. They are not imune to corruption any more than any other type of human is. Would you? Oh FFS. You're seriously talking about tens of thousands of scientists from all around the world from different fields who would have to be involved in some massively complex hoax. That's pure conspiracy ideation. Stop reading conspiracy blogs (or at least do some basic fact checking). Unless you want to delude yourself. It would not need to take evidence from all of them. Such an inquiry would only need to establish the basic facts. Why are you opposed to that?
09-11-2015 11:46
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Into the Night wrote:It's refreshing to see such a glimmer of hope. Here and there I've been seeing it too. I think it will be a very long while to get the name calling and bullying to stop. I don't think that those who have GW as a sort of religion will ever stop that. I just want there to be proper challenge to the hype and proper examination of the facts and need, or not, to act.
09-11-2015 12:23
Ceist ★★★☆☆ (592)	Tim the plumber wrote: Ceist wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Ceist, I would like to see an inquiry with scientists giving evidence under oath. They are not imune to corruption any more than any other type of human is. Would you? Oh FFS. You're seriously talking about tens of thousands of scientists from all around the world from different fields who would have to be involved in some massively complex hoax. That's pure conspiracy ideation. Stop reading conspiracy blogs (or at least do some basic fact checking). Unless you want to delude yourself. It would not need to take evidence from all of them. Such an inquiry would only need to establish the basic facts. Why are you opposed to that? No amount of 'enquiries' will satisfy you because you just don't want to accept what the science is saying. Therefore you need to swallow conspiracies that the scientists must be corrupt. If you didn't like the results of the first enquiry because you didn't hear what you wanted to hear, you would just say, "the enquiry was corrupt!, Do another one!", and another, and another. Meanwhile scientists would be so busy being interrogated in a court room they wouldn't be able to do any research. Maybe that's what you really want? All the basic facts and evidence are in the peer-reviewed science Journals. They are the 'court room' of science. Seriously mate, you would also need to believe that every science institution, University and academic publisher all over the world is also in on this supposed massive 'hoax' and are all corrupt. That's just nuts. Edited on 09-11-2015 12:25
09-11-2015 13:10
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Ceist wrote: No amount of 'enquiries' will satisfy you because you just don't want to accept what the science is saying. Therefore you need to swallow conspiracies that the scientists must be corrupt. If you didn't like the results of the first enquiry because you didn't hear what you wanted to hear, you would just say, "the enquiry was corrupt!, Do another one!", and another, and another. Meanwhile scientists would be so busy being interrogated in a court room they wouldn't be able to do any research. Maybe that's what you really want? All the basic facts and evidence are in the peer-reviewed science Journals. They are the 'court room' of science. Seriously mate, you would also need to believe that every science institution, University and academic publisher all over the world is also in on this supposed massive 'hoax' and are all corrupt. That's just nuts. It would be nuts. But I do accept what the sceince says. I just don't see why we need to worry about any of it. I see no reason to act at all due to the potential threat from this GW stuff. I see good reasons to put money into solar power research or geothermal power from Iceland, Etna and Yellowstone But not silly wind farms that don't actually work. The hype around the reaction to the science would be cleared by such a hearing. What have you to fear? (still not answered)
09-11-2015 13:41
Ceist ★★★☆☆ (592)	Tim the plumber wrote: Into the Night wrote:It's refreshing to see such a glimmer of hope. Here and there I've been seeing it too. I think it will be a very long while to get the name calling and bullying to stop. I don't think that those who have GW as a sort of religion will ever stop that. I just want there to be proper challenge to the hype and proper examination of the facts and need, or not, to act. Religious belief doesn't rely on evidence. It often relies on ignoring or rejecting evidence. Who are the ones ignoring and rejecting evidence? Who's going to do a 'proper challenge' and 'proper examination of the facts'? Scientifically illiterate people on conspiracy blogs who don't like what the science says because of their political ideology so spend their time trashing scientists and misrepresenting science? A judge with no background in science? A politician with no background in science whose main source of political contributions is from the fossil fuel industry? An electrical engineer or medical doctor or food technician with no background in earth sciences? A 95 year old theoretical physicist with no background in earth sciences? Someone who works for a political 'think tank' funded by fossil fuel who doesn't want any form of regulation that might impact their profits? A loud mouthed British peer with no background in any field of science? Pseudoscience cranks who don't even understand basic atmospheric physics? A scientist who believes only God can affect the climate and that fossil fuels are his Gods gift to mankind? Or scientists from all over the world with the relevant qualifications, knowledge and experience who do the field work, observations, experimentation, analysis etc from the many different fields involved in climate science, hashing it out in the science Journals by presenting their evidence-based research for critique by other scientists who use different methodology or different sources to check if the conclusions are valid or find weak or flawed areas that need more research etc, and so refine and advance and add to the body of science? You present a piece of political nonsense on the Jo Nova conspiracy blog of a politician cherry picking, lying and misrepresenting the IPCC Report and science? Jo Nova's blog is a source of dishonest faked graphs and misrepresentation of science floating around the internet, and you claim you want a 'proper challenge' and 'proper examination of the facts'? LOL! Pull the other one. Edited on 09-11-2015 14:16
09-11-2015 16:20
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Ceist wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Into the Night wrote:It's refreshing to see such a glimmer of hope. Here and there I've been seeing it too. I think it will be a very long while to get the name calling and bullying to stop. I don't think that those who have GW as a sort of religion will ever stop that. I just want there to be proper challenge to the hype and proper examination of the facts and need, or not, to act. Religious belief doesn't rely on evidence. It often relies on ignoring or rejecting evidence. Who are the ones ignoring and rejecting evidence? Who's going to do a 'proper challenge' and 'proper examination of the facts'? Scientifically illiterate people on conspiracy blogs who don't like what the science says because of their political ideology so spend their time trashing scientists and misrepresenting science? A judge with no background in science? A politician with no background in science whose main source of political contributions is from the fossil fuel industry? An electrical engineer or medical doctor or food technician with no background in earth sciences? A 95 year old theoretical physicist with no background in earth sciences? Someone who works for a political 'think tank' funded by fossil fuel who doesn't want any form of regulation that might impact their profits? A loud mouthed British peer with no background in any field of science? Pseudoscience cranks who don't even understand basic atmospheric physics? A scientist who believes only God can affect the climate and that fossil fuels are his Gods gift to mankind? Or scientists from all over the world with the relevant qualifications, knowledge and experience who do the field work, observations, experimentation, analysis etc from the many different fields involved in climate science, hashing it out in the science Journals by presenting their evidence-based research for critique by other scientists who use different methodology or different sources to check if the conclusions are valid or find weak or flawed areas that need more research etc, and so refine and advance and add to the body of science? You present a piece of political nonsense on the Jo Nova conspiracy blog of a politician cherry picking, lying and misrepresenting the IPCC Report and science? Jo Nova's blog is a source of dishonest faked graphs and misrepresentation of science floating around the internet, and you claim you want a 'proper challenge' and 'proper examination of the facts'? LOL! Pull the other one. Technical issues are often examined by politicians. They are often good at getting expert advice. This dispute is why the process has to be done under oath. Then Jo Nova would be under the same restrictions and possibility of going to jail if they lied. What have you to fear?
09-11-2015 22:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	Tim the plumber wrote: Into the Night wrote:It's refreshing to see such a glimmer of hope. Here and there I've been seeing it too. I think it will be a very long while to get the name calling and bullying to stop. I don't think that those who have GW as a sort of religion will ever stop that. I just want there to be proper challenge to the hype and proper examination of the facts and need, or not, to act. As you say...quite refreshing.
09-11-2015 22:23
Ceist ★★★☆☆ (592)	Tim the plumber wrote: Ceist wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Into the Night wrote:It's refreshing to see such a glimmer of hope. Here and there I've been seeing it too. I think it will be a very long while to get the name calling and bullying to stop. I don't think that those who have GW as a sort of religion will ever stop that. I just want there to be proper challenge to the hype and proper examination of the facts and need, or not, to act. Religious belief doesn't rely on evidence. It often relies on ignoring or rejecting evidence. Who are the ones ignoring and rejecting evidence? Who's going to do a 'proper challenge' and 'proper examination of the facts'? Scientifically illiterate people on conspiracy blogs who don't like what the science says because of their political ideology so spend their time trashing scientists and misrepresenting science? A judge with no background in science? A politician with no background in science whose main source of political contributions is from the fossil fuel industry? An electrical engineer or medical doctor or food technician with no background in earth sciences? A 95 year old theoretical physicist with no background in earth sciences? Someone who works for a political 'think tank' funded by fossil fuel who doesn't want any form of regulation that might impact their profits? A loud mouthed British peer with no background in any field of science? Pseudoscience cranks who don't even understand basic atmospheric physics? A scientist who believes only God can affect the climate and that fossil fuels are his Gods gift to mankind? Or scientists from all over the world with the relevant qualifications, knowledge and experience who do the field work, observations, experimentation, analysis etc from the many different fields involved in climate science, hashing it out in the science Journals by presenting their evidence-based research for critique by other scientists who use different methodology or different sources to check if the conclusions are valid or find weak or flawed areas that need more research etc, and so refine and advance and add to the body of science? You present a piece of political nonsense on the Jo Nova conspiracy blog of a politician cherry picking, lying and misrepresenting the IPCC Report and science? Jo Nova's blog is a source of dishonest faked graphs and misrepresentation of science floating around the internet, and you claim you want a 'proper challenge' and 'proper examination of the facts'? LOL! Pull the other one. Technical issues are often examined by politicians. They are often good at getting expert advice. This dispute is why the process has to be done under oath. Then Jo Nova would be under the same restrictions and possibility of going to jail if they lied. What have you to fear? I think the question is, why do you only fear science which you believe threatens your ideological beliefs? What other science don't you like and would like to put on trial? Evolution? By the way, do you remember this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_ZDQKq2F08 Edited on 09-11-2015 22:24
09-11-2015 22:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	Ceist wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Into the Night wrote:It's refreshing to see such a glimmer of hope. Here and there I've been seeing it too. I think it will be a very long while to get the name calling and bullying to stop. I don't think that those who have GW as a sort of religion will ever stop that. I just want there to be proper challenge to the hype and proper examination of the facts and need, or not, to act. Religious belief doesn't rely on evidence. It often relies on ignoring or rejecting evidence. Who are the ones ignoring and rejecting evidence? Who's going to do a 'proper challenge' and 'proper examination of the facts'? Scientifically illiterate people on conspiracy blogs who don't like what the science says because of their political ideology so spend their time trashing scientists and misrepresenting science? A judge with no background in science? A politician with no background in science whose main source of political contributions is from the fossil fuel industry? An electrical engineer or medical doctor or food technician with no background in earth sciences? A 95 year old theoretical physicist with no background in earth sciences? Someone who works for a political 'think tank' funded by fossil fuel who doesn't want any form of regulation that might impact their profits? A loud mouthed British peer with no background in any field of science? Pseudoscience cranks who don't even understand basic atmospheric physics? A scientist who believes only God can affect the climate and that fossil fuels are his Gods gift to mankind? Or scientists from all over the world with the relevant qualifications, knowledge and experience who do the field work, observations, experimentation, analysis etc from the many different fields involved in climate science, hashing it out in the science Journals by presenting their evidence-based research for critique by other scientists who use different methodology or different sources to check if the conclusions are valid or find weak or flawed areas that need more research etc, and so refine and advance and add to the body of science? You present a piece of political nonsense on the Jo Nova conspiracy blog of a politician cherry picking, lying and misrepresenting the IPCC Report and science? Jo Nova's blog is a source of dishonest faked graphs and misrepresentation of science floating around the internet, and you claim you want a 'proper challenge' and 'proper examination of the facts'? LOL! Pull the other one. In other words, only the certified priests of the religion are right, eh? No one 'owns' science. The 'uncertified' can be just as right or wrong as the 'certified' can be. You wouldn't even have electrical engineers if you stuck to the 'certified priests' of science.
09-11-2015 22:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	Ceist wrote: I think the question is, why do you only fear science which you believe threatens your ideological beliefs? What other science don't you like and would like to put on trial? Evolution? Evolution is on trial. Every branch of science is...every day...all the time. There is no such thing as a proof in science.

09-11-2015 22:57
Ceist ★★★☆☆ (592)	Into the Night wrote: Ceist wrote: I think the question is, why do you only fear science which you believe threatens your ideological beliefs? What other science don't you like and would like to put on trial? Evolution? Evolution is on trial. Every branch of science is...every day...all the time. There is no such thing as a proof in science. You miss the point. Tim seems to want only science he feels threatened by to be put on trial in a court of law. (not the 'court of science', which is the peer-reviewed science Journals where evidence is presented in research papers and 'examined' and questioned by other scientists doing research). Anyone interested in seeing how Intelligent Design was exposed as Creationism rebadged to try to sneak Creationism into school science classes, should watch the following documentary on the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. It's fascinating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI Actually, may be it would be interesting to see science deniers on trial in a court room Imagine Lord Monckton blustering and threatening to sue the judge when he is exposed for dishonestly misrepresenting science?
09-11-2015 23:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	Ceist wrote: Into the Night wrote: Ceist wrote: I think the question is, why do you only fear science which you believe threatens your ideological beliefs? What other science don't you like and would like to put on trial? Evolution? Evolution is on trial. Every branch of science is...every day...all the time. There is no such thing as a proof in science. You miss the point. Tim seems to want only science he feels threatened by to be put on trial in a court of law. (not the 'court of science', which is the peer-reviewed science Journals where evidence is presented in research papers and 'examined' and questioned by other scientists doing research). Anyone interested in seeing how Intelligent Design was exposed as Creationism rebadged to try to sneak Creationism into school science classes, should watch the following documentary on the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. It's fascinating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI Actually, may be it would be interesting to see science deniers on trial in a court room Imagine Lord Monckton blustering and threatening to sue the judge when he is exposed for dishonestly misrepresenting science? No, you miss the point. All of science is always on trial. Sometimes that trial involves a court of law, but it is always on trial with or without a court. I am not going to argue evolution with you. This is a climate debate forum, not a religious discussion forum.
10-11-2015 11:44
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Ceist wrote: I think the question is, why do you only fear science which you believe threatens your ideological beliefs? What other science don't you like and would like to put on trial? Evolution? By the way, do you remember this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_ZDQKq2F08 Were the testimonies of the tobacco companies taken under oath? I assume not as they were not being all that legally evaisive. Since there is no big problem with evolution being questioned by anybody with a brain there is no need to have such an enquiry. If there was then there would be no problem having it though. Given the vast sums of money which are being spent in the cause of GW I think it is very right and proper to have such a hearing under oath. This subject is killing more people than tobacco ever did. That is why I am fearful of the GW hype. What do you fear about it?
10-11-2015 11:47
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Ceist wrote: Into the Night wrote: Ceist wrote: I think the question is, why do you only fear science which you believe threatens your ideological beliefs? What other science don't you like and would like to put on trial? Evolution? Evolution is on trial. Every branch of science is...every day...all the time. There is no such thing as a proof in science. You miss the point. Tim seems to want only science he feels threatened by to be put on trial in a court of law. (not the 'court of science', which is the peer-reviewed science Journals where evidence is presented in research papers and 'examined' and questioned by other scientists doing research). Anyone interested in seeing how Intelligent Design was exposed as Creationism rebadged to try to sneak Creationism into school science classes, should watch the following documentary on the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. It's fascinating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI Actually, may be it would be interesting to see science deniers on trial in a court room Imagine Lord Monckton blustering and threatening to sue the judge when he is exposed for dishonestly misrepresenting science? I would love to see Lord Mockton in court under oath explaining his points. I think he would love to be there as well. Have you been following the Michael Mann case? Guess how many of the expected to fellow scientists are actually going to stand up and support his case that his methods have not tortured and distorted the data?
10-11-2015 17:53
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14395)	Ceist wrote: I think the question is, why do you only fear science which you believe threatens your ideological beliefs? I've been asking you that same question for a while now. Why do you fear science so much that you won't learn any? Ceist wrote: Anyone interested in seeing how Intelligent Design was exposed as Creationism rebadged to try to sneak Creationism into school science classes, should watch the following documentary on the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. It's fascinating. Anyone interested in seeing how "Climate Science" was exposed as Global Warming rebadged to try to sneak Global Warming into school science classes, should watch the following video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw Ceist wrote: Imagine Lord Monckton blustering and threatening to sue the judge when he is exposed for dishonestly misrepresenting science? Imagine you blustering and calling the judge a sky dragon slayer when you are exposed for knowing no science yet nonetheless forming angry opinions out of obedience to your church. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-11-2015 00:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	IBdaMann wrote: Ceist wrote: I think the question is, why do you only fear science which you believe threatens your ideological beliefs? I've been asking you that same question for a while now. Why do you fear science so much that you won't learn any? Ceist wrote: Anyone interested in seeing how Intelligent Design was exposed as Creationism rebadged to try to sneak Creationism into school science classes, should watch the following documentary on the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. It's fascinating. Anyone interested in seeing how "Climate Science" was exposed as Global Warming rebadged to try to sneak Global Warming into school science classes, should watch the following video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw Ceist wrote: Imagine Lord Monckton blustering and threatening to sue the judge when he is exposed for dishonestly misrepresenting science? Imagine you blustering and calling the judge a sky dragon slayer when you are exposed for knowing no science yet nonetheless forming angry opinions out of obedience to your church. . Nice talk. The guy laid it out pretty clearly. Thanks for the link.
13-11-2015 03:52
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Ceist wrote: I think the question is, why do you only fear science which you believe threatens your ideological beliefs? I've been asking you that same question for a while now. Why do you fear science so much that you won't learn any? Ceist wrote: Anyone interested in seeing how Intelligent Design was exposed as Creationism rebadged to try to sneak Creationism into school science classes, should watch the following documentary on the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. It's fascinating. Anyone interested in seeing how "Climate Science" was exposed as Global Warming rebadged to try to sneak Global Warming into school science classes, should watch the following video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw Ceist wrote: Imagine Lord Monckton blustering and threatening to sue the judge when he is exposed for dishonestly misrepresenting science? Imagine you blustering and calling the judge a sky dragon slayer when you are exposed for knowing no science yet nonetheless forming angry opinions out of obedience to your church. . Nice talk. The guy laid it out pretty clearly. Thanks for the link. Yes, guy paid by oil and coal companies to say that global warming isn't important says that global warming isn't important. Most reassuring.
13-11-2015 04:31
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14395)	Surface Detail wrote:Yes, guy paid by oil and coal companies to say that global warming isn't important says that global warming isn't important. Most reassuring. Translation: You can't refute any of it. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-11-2015 04:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Ceist wrote: I think the question is, why do you only fear science which you believe threatens your ideological beliefs? I've been asking you that same question for a while now. Why do you fear science so much that you won't learn any? Ceist wrote: Anyone interested in seeing how Intelligent Design was exposed as Creationism rebadged to try to sneak Creationism into school science classes, should watch the following documentary on the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. It's fascinating. Anyone interested in seeing how "Climate Science" was exposed as Global Warming rebadged to try to sneak Global Warming into school science classes, should watch the following video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw Ceist wrote: Imagine Lord Monckton blustering and threatening to sue the judge when he is exposed for dishonestly misrepresenting science? Imagine you blustering and calling the judge a sky dragon slayer when you are exposed for knowing no science yet nonetheless forming angry opinions out of obedience to your church. . Nice talk. The guy laid it out pretty clearly. Thanks for the link. Yes, guy paid by oil and coal companies to say that global warming isn't important says that global warming isn't important. Most reassuring. Bulverism. I don't care who he works for. The arguments presented make sense. They don't have near the fallacies you do.

Join the debate Parliamentary debate starts to happen.:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Gravity Has Energy Debate	33	03-02-2024 17:02
We mourn the passing of climate debate.com	15	04-12-2023 17:11
Tell your old college professors to check out climate-debate.com for biogeochemistry	307	04-12-2023 15:34
climate-debate.com awaits 100th new member since my first post	9	01-11-2023 22:45
Quantum Light Experiment Proves Photosynthesis Starts with a Single Photon	15	22-06-2023 23:00