• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

Homer. said:
A new study by the WMO (World Meteorological Organisation) shows the planet "experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes" in the ten years from 2001 to 2010, the warmest decade since the start of modern measurements in 1850.

Those ten years also continued an extended period of accelerating global warming, with more national temperature records reported broken than in any previous decade. Sea levels rose about twice as fast as the trend in the last century.

Unprecedented climate extremes marked last decade, says UN | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Further evidence, if any more were needed, that climate change is a reality. Sure, the climate change deniers, like all conspiracy theorists, will deny any evidence put before them. Hopefully this new evidence will make some people to see the reality.
Click to expand...

No, once again when confronted with the weaknesses of the case for anthropogenic global warming, the alarmists change the subject.

There is little dispute among knowledgable skeptics about the fact that the world is gradually warming (estimates of how fast vary).

The unresolved questions are these: 1) What is causing the warming? 2) Is there anything even remotely feasible that mankind can do that will significantly alter this trend?

Following the example of Matt Ridley, I accept the consensus on the theory of evolution because the available data supports that theory.

I accept the consensus on most other areas of science for the same reason.

I do not accept the consensus on AGW because, from what I can tell, the data and the methods of climate scientists do not adequately support that theory.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, please do explain it.

Every place the AR4 talks about the 0.12 W/m^2 solar forcing, they call it "direct forcing." I'm sure you read my explanation on this in other threads, so tell me. What am I missing?
Click to expand...

That the .12 number is the net change in solar forcing over that period, not the total amount of solar energy. They aren't saying the sun "doesn't matter." They are saying it matters a lot, but it hasn't really changed much this century. (On average. It oscillated up and down a fair bit but more or less evens out)
 
Deuce said:
There are people who still think the planet is not getting warmer. Silly, I know, but it needs to be addressed because someone who doesn't think the planet is warming is unable to have a reasonably informed opinion on AGW and any potential actions, or lack thereof.

And why are "generic units" helpful?
Click to expand...

But, the tesearch has admittedly been faked to reach that conclusion.

Oh snap!
 
LowDown said:
No, once again when confronted with the weaknesses of the case for anthropogenic global warming, the alarmists change the subject.

There is little dispute among knowledgable skeptics about the fact that the world is gradually warming (estimates of how fast vary).

The unresolved questions are these: 1) What is causing the warming? 2) Is there anything even remotely feasible that mankind can do that will significantly alter this trend?

Following the example of Matt Ridley, I accept the consensus on the theory of evolution because the available data supports that theory.

I accept the consensus on most other areas of science for the same reason.

I do not accept the consensus on AGW because, from what I can tell, the data and the methods of climate scientists do not adequately support that theory.
Click to expand...

What are your qualifications when it comes to climatology? The telling phrase here is 'from what I can tell'. What can you tell exactly? How can you know if the methods don't support the theory if you're not an expert in the field? Why do the vast, vast majority of climatologists who've spent years researching climate change think the methods do support the theory?

If you have proof that 90+% of climatologists are wrong, then feel free to publish a peer reviewed paper showing that the methods are wrong.
 
jmotivator said:
Sure they can have regional effect. In fact, while the Aral Sea was drying up there was large tracts of Russia becoming green and fertile. So what is the net change to global climate?
Click to expand...

The Aral Sea was once one of the largest inland body's of water in the world, now it is little more then a lake. And it was not caused by natural climate change, it was because the people of the region used inefficient agricultural practices and deprived the Aral Sea of its source of water.

Thousands of species are now extinct and what was once a large sea is now a desert. If that is not manmade climate change I will be amused to find out why.
 
Yeah, I believe there is probably global warming.

I also don't care that much.

I believe I do my part to help the environment.

And I will be dead before global warming will probably affect me.

So why should I worry?


Besides, if humankind is so stupid that they let this thing get out of control (if it's true) and it wipes them/us all out...then we deserved it and the universe is better off without such dumbasses.
 
Why are all the ACC deniers right wing?

Is it because they don't want to be seen agreeing with the Democrat Al Gore?
Is it because oil companies, who produce anti climate change propaganda because they want petrol to remain dominant, fund the GOP?
 
Middleground said:
And water is wet.
Now quit evading the answer... do you honestly believe the planet is not getting warmer? A yes or no will suffice.
Click to expand...

Your moving the goal posts. The real debate has always been about AGW (man-made climate change), not about all other climate change. We climate change during the dinosaurs, no debates that.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The Aral Sea was once one of the largest inland body's of water in the world, now it is little more then a lake. And it was not caused by natural climate change, it was because the people of the region used inefficient agricultural practices and deprived the Aral Sea of its source of water.

Thousands of species are now extinct and what was once a large sea is now a desert. If that is not manmade climate change I will be amused to find out why.
Click to expand...


I didn't say it wasn't. I only pointed out that in terms of GLOBAL WARMING you need to know what change occurred in the GLOBAL CLIMATE due to the added greening of the areas of Russia where that water was diverted to.

The only thing we can conclude for certain from your example is that the Russian government is a bunch of a-holes.
 
Lord of Planar said:
There are also people who thinks the sun doesn't matter. I never understood that since the sun is the source of 99.99+% of the energy that becomes measurable temperature on earth.
Click to expand...

I have had a pond since 1990. I never had algae growth in the winter but I do now and each year it gets worse. And I have noticed that weeds do not die off either. So, something is going on.
 
Homer. said:
Why are all the ACC deniers right wing?
Click to expand...

Because we are smart and actually read the literature before deciding rather than abdicate our own intellectual sovereignty to hucksters and snake oil salesmen.
 
Carleen said:
I have had a pond since 1990. I never had algae growth in the winter but I do now and each year it gets worse. And I have noticed that weeds do not die off either. So, something is going on.
Click to expand...

Must me Sasquatch, seeking relief from the heat, swimming in your pond. It's the only logical conclusion.

Anyone who disagrees is obviously an algae denier.
 
Homer. said:
Why are all the ACC deniers right wing?

Is it because they don't want to be seen agreeing with the Democrat Al Gore?
Is it because oil companies, who produce anti climate change propaganda because they want petrol to remain dominant, fund the GOP?
Click to expand...

I'd say its mostly because of the propaganda. They attack the entire food chain, anything suppressing fossil fuels, anything supporting alternative energy of ANY kind, electric cars. If you read Foxnews comments whenever there is an article on an electric car you will see the members going absolutely nuts about how its the worst thing ever.

The other thing I would say is the implications of climate change, it requires a lot of effort (money) to fix. So rather than tackle the problem they'd prefer to pretend it doesn't exist and bury their head in the sand. This is very primitive and basic psychology, kind of funny that it plays out like this.
 
American said:
Your moving the goal posts. The real debate has always been about AGW (man-made climate change), not about all other climate change. We climate change during the dinosaurs, no debates that.
Click to expand...

American, despite the slam dunk evidence, some members here even refuse to admit that the planet is warming! :doh
 
jmotivator said:
Because we are smart and actually read the literature before deciding rather than abdicate our own intellectual sovereignty to hucksters and snake oil salesmen.
Click to expand...

If you were smart and read the literature you would know the evidence strongly supports AGW and you would know the snake oil salesmen are the fossil fuel corporations and their bought off politicians.
 
Homer. said:
What are your qualifications when it comes to climatology? The telling phrase here is 'from what I can tell'. What can you tell exactly? How can you know if the methods don't support the theory if you're not an expert in the field? Why do the vast, vast majority of climatologists who've spent years researching climate change think the methods do support the theory?

If you have proof that 90+% of climatologists are wrong, then feel free to publish a peer reviewed paper showing that the methods are wrong.
Click to expand...

If some of these "experts" who've spent years researching climate change really feel man is causing global warming (we're not) why do they come up with lie's to support their conclusions? Feel free to publish a peer reviewed paper explaining why it's necessary to believe a bunch of known liars. I can't come up with a reason to believe a single word they say or write. Are you receiving financial gain from this scam as so many others are?
 
Homer. said:
What are your qualifications when it comes to climatology? The telling phrase here is 'from what I can tell'. What can you tell exactly? How can you know if the methods don't support the theory if you're not an expert in the field? Why do the vast, vast majority of climatologists who've spent years researching climate change think the methods do support the theory?
Click to expand...

I can tell you don't trust my ability to analyze the science even though the science in question isn't that complicated. However, I do trust my own ability, and that's all that counts.

Worshiping at the feet of experts is something to be avoided.

If you have proof that 90+% of climatologists are wrong, then feel free to publish a peer reviewed paper showing that the methods are wrong.
Click to expand...

Scientific articles that dispute the "consensus" on anthropogenic global warming are published a lot more often than you seem to think. My thoughts on the issue are hardly original.

The ideas that 1) we aren't certain about how much human activity contributes to global warming; and 2) nothing that is financially or politically feasible can be done that will significantly affect climate trends; are well within the bounds of the current debate going on among climate scientists.
 
Verax said:
If you were smart and read the literature you would know the evidence strongly supports AGW and you would know the snake oil salesmen are the fossil fuel corporations and their bought off politicians.
Click to expand...

Nope. I've been reading the literature since the late 1980s and it's only become more advocacy than science over the years. The biggest trouble with the AGW theory is that it has failed to match real world data while the solar variance model predicted bother the mid 90s spike and the current lul.

You have to be insane to cast out the more reliable model for the less reliable one, but I have watched so many do just that. The only conclusion I can come to after watching this for decades is that a lot of people simply WANT the AGW theory to be right, and others have laid their career on the line for AGW and NEED it to be right.
 
Middleground said:
American, despite the slam dunk evidence, some members here even refuse to admit that the planet is warming! :doh
Click to expand...

It warms, it cools, it warms, and it cools.

The earth was incredibly warm during medieval times. Must have been all the SUV jousting tournaments, I suppose.
 
Verax said:
This is why conservatives aren't scientists and do not possess the right mind for
this kind of work. You're not able to differentiate between junk science and real science. You cannot differentiate between an oil company funding a "study" to promote views that are favorable to the individual company with centuries of scientific work brought together from nations across the globe by scientists of all different walks of life with a passion for discovery and knowledge.

You chalk all this up to the simple formula that funding poisons the scientific process from start to finish in every situation so we can't trust anything they do. If you knew anything about real science you would realize how petty and ridiculous this is.
Click to expand...

But you can make broad brush subjective statements like ". Conservatives aren't scientist and do not possess the right mind for scientific work" ?

A very unscientific and inaccurate analysis of a group of people.

Iv'e got 30 years of electronic, avionic and applied PLC programming and power correction experience, things that I do on a day to day basis that would make your head spin, things I promise you just don't have the base IQ to comprehend and I'm a proud Conservative. What I make look easy would perpetually confound you as most of your ilk are so married to a corrupt ideology the chance for true objectivity is a lost option.

When ever you want to test your percieved "higher intelligence" over mine I'm ready.

I'll expose your limitiations in an instant.

But I'm guessing like most liberals you'll crawfish away from this challenge. It's typical.
The left has done more damage to the legitimate science of alternative energies by politicizing them than any Conservatuve group.

Oh but wait, all we have to do is payup, more taxes on a imaginary construct called carbon credits and the world will be saved.

Sorry youv'e been called on your BS, what did you expect ?
 
The question of whether or not man made global warming is a reality is actually irrelevant when you think about it. If it is happening, then what can be done about it is the more important question. The "solutions" to date amount to moving us(meaning the United States) away from fossil fuels via taxation.

Great. So we tax the **** out of fossil fuels and use that money to subsidize "green" energy. In the process, energy costs skyrocket, a few people who are already rich beyond anyone's wildest dreams get even richer because they already have their seats at the head table of the new Carbon Exchange reserved for them, and it has no effect on "climate change" because the developing economies like China and India have given the idea the middle finger and are burning oil and coal at higher and higher rates every single year.

Whether or not man made global warming is real or not, people need to wake up to the reality that we are being pushed in the direction of a very bad idea that has no chance of solving anything. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, should support cap and trade. Liberal, conservative, believer, non-believer, this is just a bad idea and we will all end up poorer in the end.
 
Fenton said:
But you can make broad brush subjective statements like ". Conservatives aren't scientist and do not possess the right mind for scientific work" ?

A very unscientific and inaccurate analysis of a group of people.

Iv'e got 30 years of electronic, avionic and applied PLC programming and power correction experience, things that I do on a day to day basis that would make your head spin, things I promise you just don't have the base IQ to comprehend and I'm a proud Conservative. What I make look easy would perpetually confound you as most of your ilk are so married to a corrupt ideology the chance for true objectivity is a lost option.

When ever you want to test your percieved "higher intelligence" over mine I'm ready.

I'll expose your limitiations in an instant.

But I'm guessing like most liberals you'll crawfish away from this challenge. It's typical.
The left has done more damage to the legitimate science of alternative energies by politicizing them than any Conservatuve group.

Oh but wait, all we have to do is payup, more taxes on a imaginary construct called carbon credits and the world will be saved.

Sorry youv'e been called on your BS, what did you expect ?
Click to expand...

His entire argument was summed up a few posts ago. He hates big oil (and big corporations). Anything that attacks it, he supports.

The argument for AGW is so full of holes, it's ridiculous. Even many of those "scientists" are losing their enthusiasm for it because they know they jumped to so many unscientifically proven assumptions, it's unbecoming of their profession.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom