• 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!

What is your view on climate change?

What is your view on climate change?

  • It occurs naturally regardless of how severe or minute those changes are.

    Votes: 11 23.9%

  • It occurs naturally with small and severe changes, some of it is anthropogenic.

    Votes: 23 50.0%

  • It occurs naturally with small changes,but severe changes are anthropogenic.

    Votes: 5 10.9%

  • It does not occur naturally, any changes we have now are anthropogenic.

    Votes: 3 6.5%

  • Climate change does not occur.There is no global warming or cooling.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I do not know/other.

    Votes: 4 8.7%
  • Total voters
    46
Please repost the poll once the definition of "climate change" quits changing and stabilizes to something on which we can all disagree more cogently. ;)
 
For my short life span, climate changed several times. As an aside of warming, and in the direction of cooling.
Of course, this does not mean that we must artificially degrade nature. And do not think that, aftermath of human activity, do not affect the climate on Earth, but should not exaggerate this effect.
 
shrubnose said:
Some people are opposed to this idea and they are entitled to their opinion.

But if the human race doesn't start treating this planet a little better it really needs to start looking for another one.
Click to expand...
I like your statement. But still, humanity in this form as it is now, not survive the next coming soon Ice period. We live at the end of a short period of warming, which periodically occurs between long periods of cooling.
An ice age, or more precisely, a glacial age, is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or alternatively "glacials" or "glaciations" or colloquially as "ice age"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres.[1] By this definition, we are still in the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.[2]
Click to expand...
From Wikipedia
 
shrubnose said:
I've already answered this question.
Click to expand...

Well, you already avoided this question.

I ask again;

What is the worst case you think is going to happen?

And additionally why are you unhappy about answering it?
 
loader said:
I like your statement. But still, humanity in this form as it is now, not survive the next coming soon Ice period. We live at the end of a short period of warming, which periodically occurs between long periods of cooling.
From Wikipedia
Click to expand...
Click to expand...






Anyone who makes their plans for the future based only on mankind's limited knowledge of what may or may not happen is likely to be surprised by what actually happens.
 
shrubnose said:
[/B]





Anyone who makes their plans for the future based only on mankind's limited knowledge of what may or may not happen is likely to be surprised by what actually happens.
Click to expand...

Or Yes or No. But I've already bought 50 acres of land in Alaska, in the hope of Global Warming.:2wave:
 
shrubnose said:
You have a problem that I am not going to waste my time on.

Get a grip.
Click to expand...

I think it is you who should get a grip.

You wish us all to take action based on ...... erm... nothing you are willing to describe.....
 
Last edited:
Medicament, which offer liberals tribute to prevent Global Warming, extremely painful and ineffective. There is no "green" technology that can replace traditional. Electric cars do not drive themselves. For what would it move, need electricity to charge the battery. Electricity is produced by burning gas. Windmills and solar panels more expensive than electricity, which they can develop for all the time they work. Hybrid Cars, a dead-end branch of development. Too expensive to manufacture and repair.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I think it is you who should get a grip.

You wish us all to take action based on ...... erm... nothing you are willing to describe.....
Click to expand...

How about when Greenland and the Antarctic stop melting, the ocean level will inundate some shoreline. Like Miami, for instance.
 
DaveFagan said:
How about when Greenland and the Antarctic stop melting, the ocean level will inundate some shoreline. Like Miami, for instance.
Click to expand...

I think you have mis-writen that, but assuming that you mean that Greenland and Antarctic ice caps will melt then;-

There is no peer reviewed paper suggesting that any sea level increase will be more than the IPCC's worst case scenario which is, in my view nothing to worry about.

Do you have anything which suggests that the IPCC has underestimated the danger?
 
DaveFagan said:
How about when Greenland and the Antarctic stop melting, the ocean level will inundate some shoreline. Like Miami, for instance.
Click to expand...

the Vikings settled in Greenland in around 985. There are burials under the walls of this church from earlier phases of use but older churches have not been identified at this site. The Hvalsey church is mentioned in several late medieval documents as one of the 10-14 parish churches in the Eastern Settlement. The church was still in use in 1408
Click to expand...
.
Greenland was warm, people lived and nobody heard about glaciers ...
 
Tim the plumber said:

I think you have mis-writen that, but assuming that you mean that Greenland and Antarctic ice caps will melt then;-

There is no peer reviewed paper suggesting that any sea level increase will be more than the IPCC's worst case scenario which is, in my view nothing to worry about.

Do you have anything which suggests that the IPCC has underestimated the danger?
Click to expand...

Did you check to see how far above sea level Miami is?
 
What an odd polll with odd wording.

Its pretty clear that wholesale climate change is part and parcel of the history and geologic changes on this planet.

And its also pretty clear that the current climate is changing very rapidly in comparison to what we seem to have seen in the past and this is due to precisely the effects of digging up gigatons of carbon which has been sequestered in the earth since the carboniferous age and releasing it back into the atmophere. The carbon was sequestered over millions of years, and we are releasing it in the timespan of decades.

Of course, we dont think in geologic times, so we dont differentiate climate change that usualy takes place over thousands of years with the change that is taking place over dozens of years.
 
EdwinWillers said:
Please repost the poll once the definition of "climate change" quits changing and stabilizes to something on which we can all disagree more cogently. ;)
Click to expand...

:lamo Well said! :thumbs:

Greetings, EdwinWillers. :2wave:
 
Threegoofs said:
And its also pretty clear that the current climate is changing very rapidly in comparison to what we seem to have seen in the past and this is due to precisely the effects of digging up gigatons of carbon which has been sequestered in the earth since the carboniferous age and releasing it back into the atmophere. The carbon was sequestered over millions of years, and we are releasing it in the timespan of decades.

Of course, we dont think in geologic times, so we dont differentiate climate change that usualy takes place over thousands of years with the change that is taking place over dozens of years.
Click to expand...
Nope, the present rate is quickish but not at all exceptional.

In fact it hasn't changed for the last one and a half decades.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Nope, the present rate is quickish but not at all exceptional.

In fact it hasn't changed for the last one and a half decades.
Click to expand...

It's also unique, and since CO2 equilibrate so over 100 years, you can project the extrapolated warming to be quite exceptional, given that a century or two is light speed in geologic time.
 
Threegoofs said:
It's also unique, and since CO2 equilibrate so over 100 years, you can project the extrapolated warming to be quite exceptional, given that a century or two is light speed in geologic time.
Click to expand...

I don't know what "equiliberate" means but the climate has not moved for the last 15 or so years.

The period 1970 to 1998 saw fairly quick warming. That's as scary as it is.
 
Tim the plumber said:

I don't know what "equiliberate" means....

.
Click to expand...

Which may be a symptom of the problem.

The last fifteen years have been about the warmest fifteen year stretch we have ever measured directly on the planet. Nine of the ten hottest years have all occured in the last fifteen years or so.

Leave the complicated stuff to the educated people, OK? My knowledge of science is fairly extensive, but I would never presume to tell a climatologist he's wrong. Especially if I didnt understand basic scientific issues like equilibrium.
 
jamesrage said:
What is your view on climate change?

It occurs naturally regardless of how severe or minute those changes are.
It occurs naturally with small and severe changes, some of it is anthropogenic.
It occurs naturally with small changes,but severe changes are anthropogenic.
It does not occur naturally, any changes we have now are anthropogenic.
Climate change does not occur.There is no global warming or cooling.
I do not know/other.





I believe climate change occurs naturally regardless of how minute or severe those changes are.It is something that has been going on for billions of years on this planet and it is stupid to use a hundred or two hundred years of temperatures changes to claim we are having man made induced climate change. If the billions of years of climate change was a bucket of water the last 100-200 years would be microscopic drop of water.
Click to expand...

I used to be a climate change denier, trusting the spokesmen from my political team as the honest and ethical ones on any issue. However, in recently years I'm been forced to rethink that assessment and consider all sides and positions more objectively. At present the most honest answer is I'm not sure but this one thing I have concluded, I don't trust the people speaking the loudest against climate change's legitimacy farther than I can throw and elephant. In the meantime, even if climate change is a farce there are plenty of reasons to pursue most green energy initiatives that have nothing to do with global warming, not the least of which is defunding Middle East based terrorism.

- Air pollution is so bad in some American cities due to internal combustion engine car exhaust weather forecasters issue smog alerts.

- In cities with high levels of internal combustion engine car exhaust medical experts say the population in those cities suffer much higher incidents of chronic respiratory health issues, especially children.

- An entire region of Louisiana where much of the state's petroleum industry is concentrated has become known as "Cancer Alley" due to the much higher incidents of cancer from among its residents. Full disclosure: Efforts have been made to dismiss the health concerns of Cancer Alley residents as "normal," possibly PR actions made by groups with vested interests in the petroleum industry. Not sure.

- There's no question that the 9/11 attacks on the WTC, the War in Afghanistan response, The war in Iraq, the Patriot Act where Americans lost many of their privacy rights, TSA airport body screeners that deny Americans privacy over their own bodies, Operation Desert Storm, the US Embassy in Iran hostage crisis in the 1970s, a batch of dictators controlling the US economy via OPEC and North Korea's entry into the nuclear club all without exception trace their roots to the petroleum oligopoly over personal transportation.

Even if global warming is a complete lie, why on earth would any American want any of this and more to continue? What I think is a big motive is political tribalism and not resisting efforts toward energy modernization means their side is giving in to the "environmentalist wackos" and ignore everything except the climate change debate, which they deny is based in truth.
 
Last edited:
The climate naturally changes constantly. Humans have an impact on weather, just like glaciers have an impact on weather. Cities create hotspots because of the reflected heat from the sun bouncing off concrete and rooftops. Weather and climate are different and I suppose there is a case to be made for hotspots impacting climate. Mankind has had an impact on the chemical make up of our atmosphere but with respect to any warming, water vapor in the first twenty feet of atmosphere is responsible for most of the worlds heat retention, without which earth would be uninhabitable.

With respect to AGW, it's an interesting theory, unproven. One day it might be proved or disproved, who knows. In the interem we know that our climate is affected by solar radiation, cloud cover, volcanic activity, the earths orbit around the sun and the relationship to solar ice, oceans and land mass. Climate is complicated and pointing at one issue and claiming that it's responsible for changes in climate seems a little simplistic to me.
 
longview said:
We Humans have enough real problems ahead of us without contriving imaginary
windmills to tilt.
Long term, weather Co2 is a major factor or not, is irrelevant.
The technology is already invented to solve the problem.
The cost of the inorganic fuels may be higher than Americans pay now,
but lower than Europeans pay.
It turns out hydrocarbons my be both the problem and the solution.
Nature shows us the best way to store energy, we duplicate it.
And the infrastructure is already in place.
Storing green electricity as natural gas - Press Release May 5 2010
Fueling the Fleet, Navy Looks to the Seas - U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
Audi opens 6 MW power-to-gas facility: pv-magazine
I could envision an energy credit system, where anyone who creates energy, can get credits
that can be saved to use in winter, spent at the gas pump, or purchase electricity.
Energy storage was always the real problem, and now a solution has been found.
FYI: I think modern refineries are already rearranging the hydrocarbon molecules to increase yields
of high demand fuels. (If someone is a Petroleum Engineer, maybe they could confirm this.)
Click to expand...

There is much more effective solutions. A Space Based Solar Network (SBSN) could provide the power demand of the entire world three times over and provide energy at half the cost that we are paying now. I read a business plan, and essentially the fuel for the space planes, space planes, launching facilities, and materials themselves would cost 100 billion dollars over 10 years. These costs does not include R&D facilities and all labor. I am not educated enough on the subject to give an accurate estimate on the rest of the project, but we could be safe in our assumptions. Let's assume 100 billion dollars for 10 years, to a total of 1 trillion dollars.

If we really wanted to as a country, through deficit spending we could solve the entire world's energy needs if we wanted to. And, we could transition the network to the private sector. The beauty of this is this method will produce excess energy 24 hours a day. The network will be capable to produce three times the world's demand of power. Therefore, there is room for development across the globe. There is absolutely no pollution. There would have to be no fly zones over power retrieval stations across the globe, but there are no fly zones across nuclear power plants.

The NASA design of such a network is compartmentalized. This basically means they can add more, or take away compartments, based off of repair or upgrades. The network could probably be scaled past the 155 TW marker when we need it to.

To me that is a solution because it ends the debate. We wouldn't release carbon powering the grid at least, and we could rest at ease in the fact that we would greatly reduce the amount of CO2 released into the air. The deficit spending isn't a big deal in my opinion (I don't want to get into a debate about economics). I've written my representatives though, and the republican who actually wrote back to me, said he only wants to harness the available carbon resources in the country. He has no interest in such a project.

To me that smells of lobby.

But I think this system of continuing to make hydrocarbons is a bad idea. What is so bad about harnessing the sun?
 
Born Free said:
Before the 7 billion humans doing all that nasty stuff, what caused all the natural climate changes? Like, going through the ice ages and warming periods were pretty drastic.
Click to expand...

Hardly my area of expertise but I'll take a guess© that it might have been time combined with the continuing formation of the planet itself. Didn't all this take place over millions of years and by cosmic standards aren't we a young planet in a young galaxy?

In this era, we have added a lot of chemicals to the air and eliminated some natural areas like forests. I'm not sure why anyone denies this. I don't think much can be done about it but to deny the obvious for political reasons seems kind of silly to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom