| 28-06-2026 15:46 |
sealover★★★★★
(2123) |
Patricio wrote:
The science is unusually coherent; the politics is where the friction begins. Why an honest conversation requires moving past binary thinking to face the real trade-offs.
Climate change has achieved the dubious honor of becoming one of those topics that Americans discuss incessantly while conspicuously avoiding its actual substance. It is treated as a tribal marker rather than an empirical question, a litmus test of political identity rather than a problem to be understood and managed. This is odd, because beneath the noise the scientific picture presented by the major research institutions is unusually coherent. The Earth is warming. Human activity is widely understood to be the primary driver [2][3]. The evidence cited in support of both propositions is extensive, overlapping, and drawn from many independent lines of observation. What remains controversial is not the basic physics of the atmosphere, but how a modern society should respond when the bill for two centuries of industrial success finally arrives.
It is worth starting from ground that, according to mainstream climate science, is no longer seriously disputed. Instrumental temperature records, satellite data, ocean heat measurements, and reconstructions of past climates are repeatedly cited as pointing to the same conclusion: global average temperatures have risen sharply over the past century, with the most recent decade standing apart even from the recent past [1][3]. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations now exceed 427 parts per million, a level scientists say has not occurred for hundreds of thousands of years, based on ice-core records and modern measurements [1]. The timing of this increase closely tracks the industrial era. Human activities such as burning fossil fuels, clearing forests, and producing cement are widely identified as the dominant contributors [2]. By contrast, natural influences--changes in solar output, volcanic activity, and long-term orbital cycles--are generally regarded by climate researchers as insufficient to explain the observed warming on their own [2]. Meanwhile, the consequences are no longer abstractions. Heat extremes, altered rainfall patterns, rising seas, and shifting ecosystems are increasingly reported across many regions and datasets by institutions with differing methods and missions [3].
None of this implies that climate science has reached some priestly certainty beyond further inquiry. On the contrary, scientists are often explicit about the limits of their projections. Uncertainty here does not mean ignorance; it reflects a range of possible outcomes rather than a single, fixed prediction. Broad global trends are easier to estimate than local effects. Predicting how average temperatures change worldwide is more straightforward than predicting how rainfall patterns will evolve in a particular state or how individual storm systems may behave decades from now. Estimates of climate sensitivity--the amount of warming associated with higher carbon dioxide levels--fall within a studied range rather than a precise figure [2]. Potential tipping points, such as ice-sheet loss or changes in ocean circulation, are discussed as real risks but with acknowledged uncertainty about timing and thresholds [2]. Add to this the difficulty of forecasting economic impacts, whether from climate damage or from climate policy, and it becomes clear why reasonable experts can disagree without disputing the core diagnosis.
Where the argument truly begins is not in the laboratory but in the legislature. Democratic climate policy, broadly speaking, treats emissions reduction as an urgent imperative. It favors rapid decarbonization, large-scale deployment of renewable energy, electrification of transport, regulatory pressure on industry, international agreements, and significant public investment in clean technologies. The underlying wager is that early action is cheaper than delay, that prevention costs less than repair, and that the risks of inaction grow faster than the costs of transition. This is not an irrational position; it reflects a particular approach to managing long-term risk under uncertainty.
Republican approaches are more varied than their caricatures, and their strongest arguments are often misrepresented by opponents who prefer straw men to engagement. Many on the right do not deny warming so much as question the proposed remedies. They emphasize the economic and social costs of rapid decarbonization: higher energy prices, disproportionate burdens on lower-income households, disruption of existing industries, and potential loss of competitiveness. These concerns are not imaginary. They reflect real tradeoffs, and acknowledging them is part of taking the issue seriously rather than turning it into a moral contest.
There is also a defensible case for technological optimism. Major energy transitions in the past were driven less by bans than by better alternatives. Advanced nuclear power, carbon capture, geothermal energy, hydrogen systems, and next-generation batteries are often cited as examples of technologies that could reduce emissions without requiring abrupt economic dislocation. Many researchers argue that innovation of this kind may ultimately prove more effective than regulation alone. To raise this point is not to deny urgency, but to question which tools are most likely to work.
Then there is the arithmetic that refuses to be wished away. The United States is no longer the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. China now accounts for more than 30 percent of global emissions, with India rising rapidly behind it [4]. Even the most ambitious American climate policy cannot, by itself, stabilize the global climate. This does not excuse inaction, but it does underscore the necessity--and fragility--of international cooperation. Climate change is, by definition, a collective-action problem. The atmosphere does not recognize national borders.
Republicans also draw attention to uncertainty in climate modeling, sometimes clumsily, sometimes fairly. Models generate ranges of outcomes rather than definitive forecasts. Regional projections are less certain than global ones, and uncertainty grows over longer time horizons. This is not a concession forced from scientists; it is part of how climate research is routinely described. Uncertainty does not negate risk, but it complicates long-term planning. Finally, there is the emphasis on adaptation: wildfire management, water systems, coastal defenses, and infrastructure hardening. These measures are necessary regardless of how emissions trajectories unfold, and many climate scientists themselves note that adaptation receives less attention than mitigation [5].
For all the shouting, the overlap between the parties is larger than commonly admitted. Support for nuclear power has grown substantially in recent years. Investment in carbon capture, grid modernization, energy efficiency, research and development, and infrastructure resilience has attracted bipartisan support through legislation and funding. These areas offer the most plausible foundation for durable progress, precisely because they do not require either side to pretend the other is acting in bad faith.
The real dispute, then, is not about whether the planet is warming. It is about how to respond, how fast to move, how much to spend, and who should bear the costs. Democrats tend to emphasize speed, regulation, emissions reduction, and international coordination. Republicans tend to emphasize cost, innovation, energy independence, adaptation, and competitiveness. Both sets of priorities contain insights, and both contain blind spots. A serious climate strategy will almost certainly borrow from each.
What an honest conversation requires is a refusal to reduce climate change to a morality play. The mainstream scientific conclusion--that the planet is warming and human activity plays a central role--is well established [2][3]. Everything beyond that is strategy. A productive debate acknowledges the reality of the problem, the legitimacy of economic concerns, the importance of innovation, the necessity of global cooperation, and the value of both mitigation and adaptation. Climate change is not a binary proposition to be believed or denied. It is a complex challenge that demands scientific humility, economic pragmatism, technological ingenuity, and political maturity. No party has a monopoly on wisdom here, and no ideology will be vindicated by the atmosphere.
References:
1. https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
2. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
3. https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence
4. https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2025
5. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/
Patricio posted this excellent essay for discussion.
It picked up 600 new "views" in two days.
But now I cannot make any sense of the shifting viewership.
New views seem to have come to a virtual standstill.
Maybe it is not coincidence that these weeks when the New Messiah has been the most tenacious in his more than six years of trolling this website.
At a loss to explain where the viewers all went, I may have to invoke the supernatural to make sense of it.
The New Messiah's GOD powers now include a magic, viewer repellent aura
Nobody wants to view ANY of the threads in his shadow. |
| 28-06-2026 22:58 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(15313) |
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote: Need I say more?
Yes, you absolutely do?
These are the questions that remain outstanding; you have an obligation to answer them thoroughly.
List Found Here on Politiplex:
[*-QUESTIONS_FOR_ROBERT] https://politiplex.freeforums.net/thread/410/outstanding-robert
So Robert has decided that honesty and integrity have no place in his leftist echo chamber, and will not preach in good faith (pun intended). He has made it clear that he will never define his terms and will never provide any clarification for the obvious disinformation that he tries to disseminate.
Now he wants to be a censor so that he can silence the voices of others, the main theme of his Marxist Climate Change tyranny. We can all see the nasty spamming tantrums he throws when opposing voices are allowed to be heard.
Let's review a few of the stupid claims that Robert has made (aside from the assertion that all of his self-doxxing was somehow my fault) and the easy, simple, straightforward question that he refuses to answer (for obvious reasons):
1. What is the formal, unambiguous definition of the global climate that doesn't violate physics, math, logic and economics?
2. What fuels do fossils burn, and what fossils are burned as fuels?
3. Why should any rational adult believe that the ocean's alkalinity is somehow changing to any discernible extent?
4. Why deny the carbon cycle, and instead preach that CO2 simply accumulates in the ocean due to water never evaporating?
5. Why claim that lipids are hydrocarbons? Aren't you supposed to be a chemist who knows better?
6. Why should any rational adult believe as you do that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature somehow spontaneously increases in temperature in violation of thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann?
7. Why claim that Dominican coral reefs were destroyed?
8. How can one distinguish "man-made" carbon from wholesome, Climate-formed carbon that is meticulously hand-crafted naturally in the loving warmth of Global Warming?
9. "Power" has meaning in science. In what way, exactly, is N2O somehow 200 to 300 times "more powerful" than CO2, and what is the exact coefficient?
These are the questions that remain outstanding; he has an obligation to answer them thoroughly.
. |
| 29-06-2026 21:24 |
sealover★★★★★
(2123) |
Patricio wrote:
The science is unusually coherent; the politics is where the friction begins. Why an honest conversation requires moving past binary thinking to face the real trade-offs.
Climate change has achieved the dubious honor of becoming one of those topics that Americans discuss incessantly while conspicuously avoiding its actual substance. It is treated as a tribal marker rather than an empirical question, a litmus test of political identity rather than a problem to be understood and managed. This is odd, because beneath the noise the scientific picture presented by the major research institutions is unusually coherent. The Earth is warming. Human activity is widely understood to be the primary driver [2][3]. The evidence cited in support of both propositions is extensive, overlapping, and drawn from many independent lines of observation. What remains controversial is not the basic physics of the atmosphere, but how a modern society should respond when the bill for two centuries of industrial success finally arrives.
It is worth starting from ground that, according to mainstream climate science, is no longer seriously disputed. Instrumental temperature records, satellite data, ocean heat measurements, and reconstructions of past climates are repeatedly cited as pointing to the same conclusion: global average temperatures have risen sharply over the past century, with the most recent decade standing apart even from the recent past [1][3]. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations now exceed 427 parts per million, a level scientists say has not occurred for hundreds of thousands of years, based on ice-core records and modern measurements [1]. The timing of this increase closely tracks the industrial era. Human activities such as burning fossil fuels, clearing forests, and producing cement are widely identified as the dominant contributors [2]. By contrast, natural influences--changes in solar output, volcanic activity, and long-term orbital cycles--are generally regarded by climate researchers as insufficient to explain the observed warming on their own [2]. Meanwhile, the consequences are no longer abstractions. Heat extremes, altered rainfall patterns, rising seas, and shifting ecosystems are increasingly reported across many regions and datasets by institutions with differing methods and missions [3].
None of this implies that climate science has reached some priestly certainty beyond further inquiry. On the contrary, scientists are often explicit about the limits of their projections. Uncertainty here does not mean ignorance; it reflects a range of possible outcomes rather than a single, fixed prediction. Broad global trends are easier to estimate than local effects. Predicting how average temperatures change worldwide is more straightforward than predicting how rainfall patterns will evolve in a particular state or how individual storm systems may behave decades from now. Estimates of climate sensitivity--the amount of warming associated with higher carbon dioxide levels--fall within a studied range rather than a precise figure [2]. Potential tipping points, such as ice-sheet loss or changes in ocean circulation, are discussed as real risks but with acknowledged uncertainty about timing and thresholds [2]. Add to this the difficulty of forecasting economic impacts, whether from climate damage or from climate policy, and it becomes clear why reasonable experts can disagree without disputing the core diagnosis.
Where the argument truly begins is not in the laboratory but in the legislature. Democratic climate policy, broadly speaking, treats emissions reduction as an urgent imperative. It favors rapid decarbonization, large-scale deployment of renewable energy, electrification of transport, regulatory pressure on industry, international agreements, and significant public investment in clean technologies. The underlying wager is that early action is cheaper than delay, that prevention costs less than repair, and that the risks of inaction grow faster than the costs of transition. This is not an irrational position; it reflects a particular approach to managing long-term risk under uncertainty.
Republican approaches are more varied than their caricatures, and their strongest arguments are often misrepresented by opponents who prefer straw men to engagement. Many on the right do not deny warming so much as question the proposed remedies. They emphasize the economic and social costs of rapid decarbonization: higher energy prices, disproportionate burdens on lower-income households, disruption of existing industries, and potential loss of competitiveness. These concerns are not imaginary. They reflect real tradeoffs, and acknowledging them is part of taking the issue seriously rather than turning it into a moral contest.
There is also a defensible case for technological optimism. Major energy transitions in the past were driven less by bans than by better alternatives. Advanced nuclear power, carbon capture, geothermal energy, hydrogen systems, and next-generation batteries are often cited as examples of technologies that could reduce emissions without requiring abrupt economic dislocation. Many researchers argue that innovation of this kind may ultimately prove more effective than regulation alone. To raise this point is not to deny urgency, but to question which tools are most likely to work.
Then there is the arithmetic that refuses to be wished away. The United States is no longer the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. China now accounts for more than 30 percent of global emissions, with India rising rapidly behind it [4]. Even the most ambitious American climate policy cannot, by itself, stabilize the global climate. This does not excuse inaction, but it does underscore the necessity--and fragility--of international cooperation. Climate change is, by definition, a collective-action problem. The atmosphere does not recognize national borders.
Republicans also draw attention to uncertainty in climate modeling, sometimes clumsily, sometimes fairly. Models generate ranges of outcomes rather than definitive forecasts. Regional projections are less certain than global ones, and uncertainty grows over longer time horizons. This is not a concession forced from scientists; it is part of how climate research is routinely described. Uncertainty does not negate risk, but it complicates long-term planning. Finally, there is the emphasis on adaptation: wildfire management, water systems, coastal defenses, and infrastructure hardening. These measures are necessary regardless of how emissions trajectories unfold, and many climate scientists themselves note that adaptation receives less attention than mitigation [5].
For all the shouting, the overlap between the parties is larger than commonly admitted. Support for nuclear power has grown substantially in recent years. Investment in carbon capture, grid modernization, energy efficiency, research and development, and infrastructure resilience has attracted bipartisan support through legislation and funding. These areas offer the most plausible foundation for durable progress, precisely because they do not require either side to pretend the other is acting in bad faith.
The real dispute, then, is not about whether the planet is warming. It is about how to respond, how fast to move, how much to spend, and who should bear the costs. Democrats tend to emphasize speed, regulation, emissions reduction, and international coordination. Republicans tend to emphasize cost, innovation, energy independence, adaptation, and competitiveness. Both sets of priorities contain insights, and both contain blind spots. A serious climate strategy will almost certainly borrow from each.
What an honest conversation requires is a refusal to reduce climate change to a morality play. The mainstream scientific conclusion--that the planet is warming and human activity plays a central role--is well established [2][3]. Everything beyond that is strategy. A productive debate acknowledges the reality of the problem, the legitimacy of economic concerns, the importance of innovation, the necessity of global cooperation, and the value of both mitigation and adaptation. Climate change is not a binary proposition to be believed or denied. It is a complex challenge that demands scientific humility, economic pragmatism, technological ingenuity, and political maturity. No party has a monopoly on wisdom here, and no ideology will be vindicated by the atmosphere.
References:
1. https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
2. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
3. https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence
4. https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2025
5. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/
Patricio may or may not continue to "lurk" at climate-debate.com
Patricio, if we haven't heard the last from you, I'm curious how you evaluate the relative scientific competence of the trolls you encounter at different websites.
I have only two others for comparison. A now defunct site called "theenvironmentsite.com" was where I got my first total immersion in the surreal world of scientific "debate" about climate change. I had been sheltered for so long in the Ivory Tower, I had no idea what "the people" were saying about climate science on the Internet. It was flabbergasting.
The strategy used by the trolls at the environment site was to use resources such as Watts up with That? for "scientific papers" to cite. Some were legit papers that were horribly distorted to appear to be "skeptical" of AGW. Others were complete frauds, published in pseudo journals with a political agenda. The trolls USED those meaningless "buzzwords" from the "papers" for their "argument", rather than deny that the terms had any meaning at all.
Then I got my SECOND total immersion in the surreal internet "debate" right here at climate-debate.com. The troll team here had a very different approach. No "papers" were to be discussed at all. Science is not a paper. No scientific terms used by climate scientists were to be used, with a handful of exceptions. They were just meaningless "buzzwords".
My THIRD immersion into Internet debate was at a much larger forum, FACEBOOK. A little over a year ago, I began posting in a several-years-old "Climate Change Reality" group that had just over 900 members. It grew exponentially and now has 9800 members. I got to observe a different kind of troll.
The anti science trolls at Facebook have a much more sophisticated approach to "debunking" anthropogenic climate change.
Rather than deny that greenhouse gases even EXIST (a la climate-debate.com), they pretend to understand greenhouse gases very well.
They point out the differential infrared absorption at DIFFERENT WAVELENGTHS, and suggest that certain wavelengths are "saturated" by the corresponding greenhouse gas. Water versus nitrous oxide. Their power isn't a matter of their CONCENTRATION, but rather which specific wavelengths of IR do they absorb most. They even know how to bluff with the "thermodynamics" bullshit around it. I imagine the hilarious "debate" the Facebook trolls could have with IBdaMann and Into the Night
Edit added after the fact:
Specifically, have you ever seen the "(name of ion) is not a chemical" argument used anywhere else? Is denial of "chemical" status to ions doing the heavy lifting for the argument of any "chemist" trolls you encountered elsewhere?
Have you seen the "Science is not (whatever)" argument as a major pillar of any "debate" argument in other forums? Have you seen trolls elsewhere compose lists of everything that science is NOT to make their point?
And what about the "There is no such thing as '(common science term?'." argument? I never saw trolls anywhere else who expect to get any mileage from insisting that there is "no such thing" as the thing that ANYONE can very quickly verify to, indeed, exist.
My limited experience at other websites leads me to conclude that the trolls here are of a unique and special variety you don't find at other websites.
Pure science denial in its PUREST form.
There is NO SUCH THING as "science", if you call biochemistry "science".
So, Patricio, my question is how to you rate the local trolls in comparison to the trolls you have met elsewhere?
Edited on 29-06-2026 21:40 |
| 29-06-2026 23:56 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(24251) |
sealover wrote:
Patricio wrote:
I have only two others for comparison. A now defunct site called "theenvironmentsite.com" was where I got my first total immersion in the surreal world of scientific "debate" about climate change. I had been sheltered for so long in the Ivory Tower, I had no idea what "the people" were saying about climate science on the Internet. It was flabbergasting.
Climate cannot change.
Climate is not science.
Science is not your religion.
sealover wrote:
Patricio wrote:
The strategy used by the trolls at the environment site was to use resources such as Watts up with That? for "scientific papers" to cite. Some were legit papers that were horribly distorted to appear to be "skeptical" of AGW. Others were complete frauds, published in pseudo journals with a political agenda. The trolls USED those meaningless "buzzwords" from the "papers" for their "argument", rather than deny that the terms had any meaning at all.
Science is not a paper.
Science is not a website.
Science is not a journal.
Science is not a magazine.
Science has no politics.
Science is not buzzwords.
sealover wrote:
Patricio wrote:
Then I got my SECOND total immersion in the surreal internet "debate" right here at climate-debate.com. The troll team here had a very different approach. No "papers" were to be discussed at all. Science is not a paper. No scientific terms used by climate scientists were to be used, with a handful of exceptions. They were just meaningless "buzzwords".
Science is not a paper.
Climate is not science.
Science is not buzzwords.
Science is not your religion.
sealover wrote:
Patricio wrote:
My THIRD immersion into Internet debate was at a much larger forum, FACEBOOK. A little over a year ago, I began posting in a several-years-old "Climate Change Reality" group that had just over 900 members. It grew exponentially and now has 9800 members. I got to observe a different kind of troll.
The anti science trolls at Facebook have a much more sophisticated approach to "debunking" anthropogenic climate change.
Rather than deny that greenhouse gases even EXIST (a la climate-debate.com), they pretend to understand greenhouse gases very well.
They point out the differential infrared absorption at DIFFERENT WAVELENGTHS, and suggest that certain wavelengths are "saturated" by the corresponding greenhouse gas. Water versus nitrous oxide. Their power isn't a matter of their CONCENTRATION, but rather which specific wavelengths of IR do they absorb most. They even know how to bluff with the "thermodynamics" bullshit around it. I imagine the hilarious "debate" the Facebook trolls could have with IBdaMann and Into the Night
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one.
You cannot reduce entropy.
You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.
Holy Word (power). Buzzword fallacy.
You are ignoring Watt's Law and Sieman's Law again.
The presence of a gas it not power or energy.
sealover wrote:
Patricio wrote:
Edit added after the fact:
Specifically, have you ever seen the "(name of ion) is not a chemical" argument used anywhere else? Is denial of "chemical" status to ions doing the heavy lifting for the argument of any "chemist" trolls you encountered elsewhere?
Have you seen the "Science is not (whatever)" argument as a major pillar of any "debate" argument in other forums? Have you seen trolls elsewhere compose lists of everything that science is NOT to make their point?
Stop making up random names for 'chemicals', and you wont' have this problem, Robert.
You cannot blame your problem on anybody else.
sealover wrote:
Patricio wrote:
And what about the "There is no such thing as '(common science term?'." argument? I never saw trolls anywhere else who expect to get any mileage from insisting that there is "no such thing" as the thing that ANYONE can very quickly verify to, indeed, exist.
Your buzzwords are YOUR problem, Robert. You cannot blame anybody else for them.
sealover wrote:
Patricio wrote:
My limited experience at other websites leads me to conclude that the trolls here are of a unique and special variety you don't find at other websites.
Pure science denial in its PUREST form.
Inversion fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Patricio wrote:
There is NO SUCH THING as "science", if you call biochemistry "science".
There is no such thing as 'biochemistry'. Buzzword fallacy.
You deny science.
sealover wrote:
Patricio wrote:
So, Patricio, my question is how to you rate the local trolls in comparison to the trolls you have met elsewhere?
Talking to yourself is pointless, Robert.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 02-07-2026 17:07 |
sealover★★★★★
(2123) |
I hope that Patricio will come back to visit climate-debate.com
His comments were FAR more interesting than the CRAP posted by Into the Night, such as in the post below.
"Climate cannot change.
Climate is not science.
Science is not your religion."
And those were just the first three sentences.
So many sentences in a row that all hinge on "is not" or "you cannot".
Talk about a LAME way to "debate" science.
I would MUCH prefer to have some kind of intelligent discussion with Patricio, rather than just swatting away flies who write meaningless drivel.
If Patricio were really my "sock", I'd bring him in right now.
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Patricio wrote:
I have only two others for comparison. A now defunct site called "theenvironmentsite.com" was where I got my first total immersion in the surreal world of scientific "debate" about climate change. I had been sheltered for so long in the Ivory Tower, I had no idea what "the people" were saying about climate science on the Internet. It was flabbergasting.
Climate cannot change.
Climate is not science.
Science is not your religion.
sealover wrote:
Patricio wrote:
The strategy used by the trolls at the environment site was to use resources such as Watts up with That? for "scientific papers" to cite. Some were legit papers that were horribly distorted to appear to be "skeptical" of AGW. Others were complete frauds, published in pseudo journals with a political agenda. The trolls USED those meaningless "buzzwords" from the "papers" for their "argument", rather than deny that the terms had any meaning at all.
Science is not a paper.
Science is not a website.
Science is not a journal.
Science is not a magazine.
Science has no politics.
Science is not buzzwords.
sealover wrote:
Patricio wrote:
Then I got my SECOND total immersion in the surreal internet "debate" right here at climate-debate.com. The troll team here had a very different approach. No "papers" were to be discussed at all. Science is not a paper. No scientific terms used by climate scientists were to be used, with a handful of exceptions. They were just meaningless "buzzwords".
Science is not a paper.
Climate is not science.
Science is not buzzwords.
Science is not your religion.
sealover wrote:
Patricio wrote:
My THIRD immersion into Internet debate was at a much larger forum, FACEBOOK. A little over a year ago, I began posting in a several-years-old "Climate Change Reality" group that had just over 900 members. It grew exponentially and now has 9800 members. I got to observe a different kind of troll.
The anti science trolls at Facebook have a much more sophisticated approach to "debunking" anthropogenic climate change.
Rather than deny that greenhouse gases even EXIST (a la climate-debate.com), they pretend to understand greenhouse gases very well.
They point out the differential infrared absorption at DIFFERENT WAVELENGTHS, and suggest that certain wavelengths are "saturated" by the corresponding greenhouse gas. Water versus nitrous oxide. Their power isn't a matter of their CONCENTRATION, but rather which specific wavelengths of IR do they absorb most. They even know how to bluff with the "thermodynamics" bullshit around it. I imagine the hilarious "debate" the Facebook trolls could have with IBdaMann and Into the Night
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one.
You cannot reduce entropy.
You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.
Holy Word (power). Buzzword fallacy.
You are ignoring Watt's Law and Sieman's Law again.
The presence of a gas it not power or energy.
sealover wrote:
Patricio wrote:
Edit added after the fact:
Specifically, have you ever seen the "(name of ion) is not a chemical" argument used anywhere else? Is denial of "chemical" status to ions doing the heavy lifting for the argument of any "chemist" trolls you encountered elsewhere?
Have you seen the "Science is not (whatever)" argument as a major pillar of any "debate" argument in other forums? Have you seen trolls elsewhere compose lists of everything that science is NOT to make their point?
Stop making up random names for 'chemicals', and you wont' have this problem, Robert.
You cannot blame your problem on anybody else.
sealover wrote:
Patricio wrote:
And what about the "There is no such thing as '(common science term?'." argument? I never saw trolls anywhere else who expect to get any mileage from insisting that there is "no such thing" as the thing that ANYONE can very quickly verify to, indeed, exist.
Your buzzwords are YOUR problem, Robert. You cannot blame anybody else for them.
sealover wrote:
Patricio wrote:
My limited experience at other websites leads me to conclude that the trolls here are of a unique and special variety you don't find at other websites.
Pure science denial in its PUREST form.
Inversion fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Patricio wrote:
There is NO SUCH THING as "science", if you call biochemistry "science".
There is no such thing as 'biochemistry'. Buzzword fallacy.
You deny science.
sealover wrote:
Patricio wrote:
So, Patricio, my question is how to you rate the local trolls in comparison to the trolls you have met elsewhere?
Talking to yourself is pointless, Robert. |
| 02-07-2026 19:33 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24251) |
sealover[/b and [b]Patricio wrote:
I hope that Patricio will come back to visit climate-debate.com
Talking to yourself accomplishes nothing, Robert.
sealover[/b and [b]Patricio wrote:
His comments were FAR more interesting than the CRAP posted by Into the Night, such as in the post below.
"Climate cannot change.
Climate is not science.
Science is not your religion."
And those were just the first three sentences.
So many sentences in a row that all hinge on "is not" or "you cannot".
Talk about a LAME way to "debate" science.
Whining also accomplishes nothing.
sealover[/b and [b]Patricio wrote:
I would MUCH prefer to have some kind of intelligent discussion with Patricio, rather than just swatting away flies who write meaningless drivel.
You cannot blame your buzzwords and gibber-babble on anybody else, Robert.
Inversion fallacy.
sealover[/b and [b]Patricio wrote:
If Patricio were really my "sock", I'd bring him in right now.
You just did.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 04-07-2026 04:55 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3712) |
Into the Night wrote:
sealover[/b and [b]Patricio wrote:
I hope that Patricio will come back to visit climate-debate.com
Talking to yourself accomplishes nothing, Robert.
sealover[/b and [b]Patricio wrote:
His comments were FAR more interesting than the CRAP posted by Into the Night, such as in the post below.
"Climate cannot change.
Climate is not science.
Science is not your religion."
And those were just the first three sentences.
So many sentences in a row that all hinge on "is not" or "you cannot".
Talk about a LAME way to "debate" science.
Whining also accomplishes nothing.
sealover[/b and [b]Patricio wrote:
I would MUCH prefer to have some kind of intelligent discussion with Patricio, rather than just swatting away flies who write meaningless drivel.
You cannot blame your buzzwords and gibber-babble on anybody else, Robert.
Inversion fallacy.
sealover[/b and [b]Patricio wrote:
If Patricio were really my "sock", I'd bring him in right now.
You just did.
Into the Night, I am more than willing to read any chemistry work you have published somewhere in the public domain.
I have repeatedly given you the citations to be able to read the chemistry work that I have published, and you stubbornly refuse.
Wouldn't you want to show off your "chemist" skills and TRASH what I published?
Some of my papers' titles are "buzzwords" or things that DON'T EVEN EXIST.
We published a method to measure "organic nitrogen" (a meaningless buzzword") using "persulfate" (which SOMEONE doesn't recognize as a "chemical") to finally measure nitrate, which is ALSO not a "chemical".
Imagine tricking everyone into publishing a peer-reviewed new method of chemical analysis to measure something that isn't even REAL, claiming to use or measure things that are not even a "chemical".
Just tear apart ANY of my published chemistry research with your insightful analysis and no viewer will have any doubt which of us is really a "chemist".
What a field day of low hanging fruit for a competent chemist to analyze and criticize! |
| 06-07-2026 15:20 |
sealover★★★★★
(2123) |
From what I understand, the essay by Patricio (below) was also published on another website where it got thousands of replies.
Climate-debate.com isn't the kind of discussion site where that happens.
But this gem below by Patricio is not LOST here.
These pearls cast before swine can still be found by others, and they will.
Follow the "views"!
Patricio wrote:
The science is unusually coherent; the politics is where the friction begins. Why an honest conversation requires moving past binary thinking to face the real trade-offs.
Climate change has achieved the dubious honor of becoming one of those topics that Americans discuss incessantly while conspicuously avoiding its actual substance. It is treated as a tribal marker rather than an empirical question, a litmus test of political identity rather than a problem to be understood and managed. This is odd, because beneath the noise the scientific picture presented by the major research institutions is unusually coherent. The Earth is warming. Human activity is widely understood to be the primary driver [2][3]. The evidence cited in support of both propositions is extensive, overlapping, and drawn from many independent lines of observation. What remains controversial is not the basic physics of the atmosphere, but how a modern society should respond when the bill for two centuries of industrial success finally arrives.
It is worth starting from ground that, according to mainstream climate science, is no longer seriously disputed. Instrumental temperature records, satellite data, ocean heat measurements, and reconstructions of past climates are repeatedly cited as pointing to the same conclusion: global average temperatures have risen sharply over the past century, with the most recent decade standing apart even from the recent past [1][3]. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations now exceed 427 parts per million, a level scientists say has not occurred for hundreds of thousands of years, based on ice-core records and modern measurements [1]. The timing of this increase closely tracks the industrial era. Human activities such as burning fossil fuels, clearing forests, and producing cement are widely identified as the dominant contributors [2]. By contrast, natural influences--changes in solar output, volcanic activity, and long-term orbital cycles--are generally regarded by climate researchers as insufficient to explain the observed warming on their own [2]. Meanwhile, the consequences are no longer abstractions. Heat extremes, altered rainfall patterns, rising seas, and shifting ecosystems are increasingly reported across many regions and datasets by institutions with differing methods and missions [3].
None of this implies that climate science has reached some priestly certainty beyond further inquiry. On the contrary, scientists are often explicit about the limits of their projections. Uncertainty here does not mean ignorance; it reflects a range of possible outcomes rather than a single, fixed prediction. Broad global trends are easier to estimate than local effects. Predicting how average temperatures change worldwide is more straightforward than predicting how rainfall patterns will evolve in a particular state or how individual storm systems may behave decades from now. Estimates of climate sensitivity--the amount of warming associated with higher carbon dioxide levels--fall within a studied range rather than a precise figure [2]. Potential tipping points, such as ice-sheet loss or changes in ocean circulation, are discussed as real risks but with acknowledged uncertainty about timing and thresholds [2]. Add to this the difficulty of forecasting economic impacts, whether from climate damage or from climate policy, and it becomes clear why reasonable experts can disagree without disputing the core diagnosis.
Where the argument truly begins is not in the laboratory but in the legislature. Democratic climate policy, broadly speaking, treats emissions reduction as an urgent imperative. It favors rapid decarbonization, large-scale deployment of renewable energy, electrification of transport, regulatory pressure on industry, international agreements, and significant public investment in clean technologies. The underlying wager is that early action is cheaper than delay, that prevention costs less than repair, and that the risks of inaction grow faster than the costs of transition. This is not an irrational position; it reflects a particular approach to managing long-term risk under uncertainty.
Republican approaches are more varied than their caricatures, and their strongest arguments are often misrepresented by opponents who prefer straw men to engagement. Many on the right do not deny warming so much as question the proposed remedies. They emphasize the economic and social costs of rapid decarbonization: higher energy prices, disproportionate burdens on lower-income households, disruption of existing industries, and potential loss of competitiveness. These concerns are not imaginary. They reflect real tradeoffs, and acknowledging them is part of taking the issue seriously rather than turning it into a moral contest.
There is also a defensible case for technological optimism. Major energy transitions in the past were driven less by bans than by better alternatives. Advanced nuclear power, carbon capture, geothermal energy, hydrogen systems, and next-generation batteries are often cited as examples of technologies that could reduce emissions without requiring abrupt economic dislocation. Many researchers argue that innovation of this kind may ultimately prove more effective than regulation alone. To raise this point is not to deny urgency, but to question which tools are most likely to work.
Then there is the arithmetic that refuses to be wished away. The United States is no longer the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. China now accounts for more than 30 percent of global emissions, with India rising rapidly behind it [4]. Even the most ambitious American climate policy cannot, by itself, stabilize the global climate. This does not excuse inaction, but it does underscore the necessity--and fragility--of international cooperation. Climate change is, by definition, a collective-action problem. The atmosphere does not recognize national borders.
Republicans also draw attention to uncertainty in climate modeling, sometimes clumsily, sometimes fairly. Models generate ranges of outcomes rather than definitive forecasts. Regional projections are less certain than global ones, and uncertainty grows over longer time horizons. This is not a concession forced from scientists; it is part of how climate research is routinely described. Uncertainty does not negate risk, but it complicates long-term planning. Finally, there is the emphasis on adaptation: wildfire management, water systems, coastal defenses, and infrastructure hardening. These measures are necessary regardless of how emissions trajectories unfold, and many climate scientists themselves note that adaptation receives less attention than mitigation [5].
For all the shouting, the overlap between the parties is larger than commonly admitted. Support for nuclear power has grown substantially in recent years. Investment in carbon capture, grid modernization, energy efficiency, research and development, and infrastructure resilience has attracted bipartisan support through legislation and funding. These areas offer the most plausible foundation for durable progress, precisely because they do not require either side to pretend the other is acting in bad faith.
The real dispute, then, is not about whether the planet is warming. It is about how to respond, how fast to move, how much to spend, and who should bear the costs. Democrats tend to emphasize speed, regulation, emissions reduction, and international coordination. Republicans tend to emphasize cost, innovation, energy independence, adaptation, and competitiveness. Both sets of priorities contain insights, and both contain blind spots. A serious climate strategy will almost certainly borrow from each.
What an honest conversation requires is a refusal to reduce climate change to a morality play. The mainstream scientific conclusion--that the planet is warming and human activity plays a central role--is well established [2][3]. Everything beyond that is strategy. A productive debate acknowledges the reality of the problem, the legitimacy of economic concerns, the importance of innovation, the necessity of global cooperation, and the value of both mitigation and adaptation. Climate change is not a binary proposition to be believed or denied. It is a complex challenge that demands scientific humility, economic pragmatism, technological ingenuity, and political maturity. No party has a monopoly on wisdom here, and no ideology will be vindicated by the atmosphere.
References:
1. https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
2. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
3. https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence
4. https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2025
5. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/ |
| 06-07-2026 20:48 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24251) |
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, I am more than willing to read any chemistry work you have published somewhere in the public domain.
Chemistry is not a book or paper.
Im a BM wrote:
I have repeatedly given you the citations to be able to read the chemistry work that I have published, and you stubbornly refuse.
Chemistry is not a book or paper.
You deny chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
Wouldn't you want to show off your "chemist" skills and TRASH what I published?
Already have.
Im a BM wrote:
Some of my papers' titles are "buzzwords" or things that DON'T EVEN EXIST.
This statement is correct.
Im a BM wrote:
We published a method to measure "organic nitrogen" (a meaningless buzzword") using "persulfate" (which SOMEONE doesn't recognize as a "chemical") to finally measure nitrate, which is ALSO not a "chemical".
Nitrogen is not organic.
Persulfate is not a chemical.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Imagine tricking everyone into publishing a peer-reviewed new method of chemical analysis to measure something that isn't even REAL, claiming to use or measure things that are not even a "chemical".
Chemistry is not a voting bloc.
Chemistry does not use consensus.
Im a BM wrote:
Just tear apart ANY of my published chemistry research with your insightful analysis and no viewer will have any doubt which of us is really a "chemist".
Chemistry is not a research.
Im a BM wrote:
What a field day of low hanging fruit for a competent chemist to analyze and criticize!
You deny chemistry.
You deny the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
You deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You deny Black's law.
You deny Henry's law.
Chemistry is not buzzwords or gibber-babble.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 06-07-2026 20:50 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24251) |
sealover and Patricio wrote:
From what I understand, the essay by Patricio (below) was also published on another website where it got thousands of replies.
Climate-debate.com isn't the kind of discussion site where that happens.
But this gem below by Patricio is not LOST here.
These pearls cast before swine can still be found by others, and they will.
Follow the "views"!
Stop spamming.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 09-07-2026 17:08 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3712) |
Into the Night wrote:
sealover and Patricio wrote:
From what I understand, the essay by Patricio (below) was also published on another website where it got thousands of replies.
Climate-debate.com isn't the kind of discussion site where that happens.
But this gem below by Patricio is not LOST here.
These pearls cast before swine can still be found by others, and they will.
Follow the "views"!
Stop spamming.
Stop trolling, you pHake, pHraud, pHony, pHull of pHeces, pHalse "chemist".
You are no "chemist". Just a pHucking TROLL!
I am surprised that this thread has only racked up about 3000 views.
I guess climate-debate.com has lost the magic it had a year ago. |