Remember me
▼ Content

Are partisan politics skewing the climate debate?


Are partisan politics skewing the climate debate?19-10-2017 00:02
XavierWard
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Are partisan politics skewing the climate debate, and why can't U.S. Republicans openly support action on climate change?

Link to an article below.

https://thesocialhumanist.com/2017/10/18/climate-change/
19-10-2017 00:14
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1325)
XavierWard wrote:
Are partisan politics skewing the climate debate, and why can't U.S. Republicans openly support action on climate change?

Link to an article below.

https://thesocialhumanist.com/2017/10/18/climate-change/


Great question. Why can't the US Democrats openly get involved in shutting down the climate change hoax?
19-10-2017 01:29
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
GasGuzzler wrote:
XavierWard wrote:
Are partisan politics skewing the climate debate, and why can't U.S. Republicans openly support action on climate change?

Link to an article below.

https://thesocialhumanist.com/2017/10/18/climate-change/


Great question. Why can't the US Democrats openly get involved in shutting down the climate change hoax?


The climate is changing. I think such a characterization limits discussion. I live in Ky. where Sen. McConnell and Congressman Barr both represent me and are both Republicans. Neither one cares that we need co2 in our atmosphere to protect the ozone layer. I think with Republicans they just oppose any type of regulations which could have prevented the economic collapse of 2006. And as history showed us, Rome fell because it's politicians fought over the wealth of the state.
I'll see about doing some math. Basically it will be to see how many watts of energy enter our atmosphere because of ozone depletion. UV-B radiation can be stopped with a healthy ozone layer. And I have yet to see anyone ever say how many watts of energy is in that radiation of which I think over 70% of it is being allowed into our atmosphere. And to do the math might take some time.
And now the door is opened for Into the Night to say that ozone can not be destroyed nor created when that actually applies to energy when can only change forms according to the accepted laws of thermodynamics.
19-10-2017 01:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
XavierWard wrote:
Are partisan politics skewing the climate debate, and why can't U.S. Republicans openly support action on climate change?

Link to an article below.

https://thesocialhumanist.com/2017/10/18/climate-change/


Great question. Why can't the US Democrats openly get involved in shutting down the climate change hoax?


The climate is changing.

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions.
James_ wrote:
I think such a characterization limits discussion.

Quoting scripture without even understanding it like you do usually does. Such is typical of the Church of Global Warming.
James_ wrote:
I live in Ky. where Sen. McConnell and Congressman Barr both represent me and are both Republicans. Neither one cares that we need co2 in our atmosphere to protect the ozone layer.

CO2 has no effect on ozone or the ozone layer.
James_ wrote:
I think with Republicans they just oppose any type of regulations which could have prevented the economic collapse of 2006.

There was no economic collapse in 2006.
James_ wrote:
And as history showed us, Rome fell because it's politicians fought over the wealth of the state.

Not the reason Rome fell.

You seem to have a problem with history.

James_ wrote:
I'll see about doing some math.

You might want to learn it first.
James_ wrote:
Basically it will be to see how many watts of energy enter our atmosphere because of ozone depletion.

The ozone is not being depleted.
James_ wrote:
UV-B radiation can be stopped with a healthy ozone layer.

Ozone doesn't stop UV-B. Oxygen absorbs most UV-B, but some still does get through to the surface. Ozone stops UV-C. Go look up the Chapman cycle.
James_ wrote:
And I have yet to see anyone ever say how many watts of energy is in that radiation of which I think over 70% of it is being allowed into our atmosphere.

No UV-C reaches the surface. Some UV-B does, but that varies by time of day and by season and even by the weather.
James_ wrote:
And to do the math might take some time.

You don't know the math required.
James_ wrote:
And now the door is opened for Into the Night to say that ozone can not be destroyed nor created

??? Where the hell did you get THAT idea???
James_ wrote:
when that actually applies to energy when can only change forms according to the accepted laws of thermodynamics.

??? That is NOT a law of thermodynamics! It is the law of the conservation of energy.

Matter is also conserved. It cannot be created or destroyed, just like energy.

Matter and energy are not the same thing.


The Parrot Killer
19-10-2017 03:15
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzling" gushed: Why can't the US Democrats openly get involved in shutting down the climate change hoax?

As opined by "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzling", who continues to prove itself, an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner.
Edited on 19-10-2017 03:16
20-10-2017 00:25
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
XavierWard wrote:
Are partisan politics skewing the climate debate, and why can't U.S. Republicans openly support action on climate change?

Link to an article below.

https://thesocialhumanist.com/2017/10/18/climate-change/


Here is the problems as I see them:

1. While the climate is changing the same as it always has (we have four warm periods on record - they occur every thousand years or so and this one is less warm that the previous ones) there isn't any chance at all that man has had anything other than purely local effects - such as Urban Heat Island Effects. This suggests that the climate is not changing since what we're seeing is a cyclic even that has occurred many times in the past.

2. These warm periods last for about a hundred years and there hasn't been anything other than anomalies for the last 40 years. This present even started in 1886 when man was incapable of any effects on climate. This suggests that this warm period is over. These warm periods are usually followed by cold periods. While most are relatively mild the last cold period following the Medieval Warm Period was the Little Ice Age. We have not presently recovered from that cold period and that is probably why our present warm period is less extreme that the last three.

3. CO2 and the other so-called Greenhouse Gases are in the atmosphere in trace amounts. And the wavelengths at which they absorb energy is almost entirely covered by water vapor in the air. This has a world wide average of 4%. So this makes H2O 100 times more common than CO2. And over oceans which comprise some 65% of the planet the levels of humidity are often over 80%.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/

Notice his statement: "I'm retired so I don't need to keep my mouth shut anymore. Kept my mouth shut for 40 years, now I will tell you, not one single IR astronomer gives a rats arse about CO2."

This means that the IPCC has been actively threatening people's jobs in order to maintain this facade of man-made global warming.

4. Virtually ALL of the talking about man-made global warming is done by people without one single qualification to speak about it. They read one article in Popular Science and believe they are experts on the matter.

5. Regardless of any radiation, in the tropopause (the atmosphere below the stratosphere) the density of gas particles is so high that all of the movement of thermal energy is via conduction and convection. The specific heat capacities of all of the common atmospheric gases is approximately the same. In fact CO2 is somewhat lower than N2 or O2 meaning that CO2 actually cools the lower atmosphere more effectively than others. However, because it is of such a low percentage it has no measurable effect.

6. The Earth had an ice age when the CO2 levels were over 1,000 ppm. Presently we are still in an ice age - though in what is known as an Interglacial Period. To claim that we're heating without noting that homosapiens has not been alive on this Earth during anything other than an interglacial period is skewing the real natural conditions of this Earth.

7. The low levels of CO2 were reaching the levels at which photosynthesis could not occur. The increases in CO2 has caused an immense increase in the food supply. During the time in which "man-made global warming" is supposed to have occurred the World's population has increased from less than one trillion people to over six trillion people and there is now less hunger on this planet than in any time in history. This equates to wars not for food, meaning that entire populations kill entire populations, to wars for power - meaning they only fight for who is the top dog.

8. There is a strange sociological thing going on presently because the education of the millennials has been essentially reduced to almost nothing. While higher education is higher than ever, below that people are hard pressed to know how to read and write. This is especially noticeable to long time teachers who are screaming this from the rooftops only to be told to shut up or lose your job by "liberal" governments. The ignorant are more easily led with lies and deceit.

9. The present day conditions were clearly predicted in the 1960's by brilliant philosophers such as Eric Hoffer. If you read his books it is like reading a history of the 21st century.
20-10-2017 00:57
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzling" gushed: Why can't the US Democrats openly get involved in shutting down the climate change hoax?

As opined by "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzling", who continues to prove itself, an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner.


EEeewwwww!!!!!!!
Attached image:





Join the debate Are partisan politics skewing the climate debate?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why is Climate-debate.com so messed up?6519-07-2019 07:37
Climate debate myth1822-06-2019 20:58
Climate change is on the move — but the political debate is standing still130-04-2019 16:29
The Senate Will Reject the Green New Deal. But It's Already Changing the Debate on Climate Change027-03-2019 17:27
Climate change politics may defy even the most rational arguments: Don Pittis025-03-2019 15:01
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact