• 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!

Is Global Warming a myth?

Is Global Warming a myth?


  • Total voters
    115
You mean do I have more faith in the National Academy of Sciences and all the world's major science academies than I do an internet blog? Yes I do.

Your faith in your religion of lies to Global Warming
 
Only because the former says tells you want to hear and the latter does not. Reverse the situation, and you will reverse your preference.
What you refuse to accept is that the science that supports AGW is tainted and thus, to anyone with any degree of intellectual integrity, circumspect. You refuse to question the science because it reports what you want to hear, and nothing else.

Your faith, thus described.

Do what's in bold, and we end up in your shoes. You are doing exactly the same thing as you claim Catawba is doing.

The science behind anthropogenic climate change is completely sound. The claims that many people make of global catastrophe are far-fetched, but they are based off of sound reasoning, taken to extremes albeit.

Increase in CO2 by way of paleo-carbon inevitably increases the amount evaporation, which starts a positive feedback loop which inevitably increases the global temperature on average. And since the water in the ITCZ gets warmer, there will be more violent storms. But thats meteorology, a tiny bit different, thought related to, climate change.
 
The Earth has been warming and cooling in cycles for Millions of years.

Wacko enviromental people fail to mention that..:2wave:
 
When do they deny it? And how does it debunk global warming?
 
Last edited:
Is global warming a myth? Hell no. :fueltofir:fart:fart

See, I just warmed up the planet.
 
The Earth has been warming and cooling in cycles for Millions of years.

Wacko enviromental people fail to mention that..:2wave:

Do you really think all these scientists, the ones who discovered the cycle in the first place, just totally forgot to take that into account?
 
But who can deny that the weather patterns are all topsy turvy these days?

Welcome to chaos theory.

It's not like DC and Texas and Florida haven't seen snow before.

the Chicken Littles seize on every little warm spell as evidence of "global warming ...oops...CLIMATE CHANGE", and then tell people pointing to cold weather that isolated instances of snow don't mean anything, then they say that the snow is evidence of CLIMATE CHANGE, as if they didn't just contradict themselves.

What you people need to do is buy hard hats, then you'll stop worrying about that sky falling issue you have.
 
Welcome to chaos theory.

It's not like DC and Texas and Florida haven't seen snow before.

the Chicken Littles seize on every little warm spell as evidence of "global warming ...oops...CLIMATE CHANGE", and then tell people pointing to cold weather that isolated instances of snow don't mean anything, then they say that the snow is evidence of CLIMATE CHANGE, as if they didn't just contradict themselves.

What you people need to do is buy hard hats, then you'll stop worrying about that sky falling issue you have.

Record breaking snow not just a small amount.
 
Record breaking snow not just a small amount.

Well, yes it is.

You just have to understand what "record breaking" means.

It doesn't mean it's never snowed that much there before.

It means nobody was keeping records when it had.

The depth of the Little Ice Age was ca. 1650. Ya think the natives of Texas were keeping records back then?

Do you realize that in the second year weather records were kept on an organized basis that there was a 50% chance of record breaking high temperatures EVERY SINGLE DAY?
 
Last edited:
Well, yes it is.

You just have to understand what "record breaking" means.

It doesn't mean it's never snowed that much there before.

It means nobody was keeping records when it had.

The depth of the Little Ice Age was ca. 1650. Ya think the natives of Texas were keeping records back then?

Do you realize that in the second year weather records were kept on an organized basis that there was a 50% chance of record breaking high temperatures EVERY SINGLE DAY?


Nice spin not credible but nice spin :spin:
 
Can't believe this thread is still going on.

And I'm amazed that people who laugh at 9/11 conspiracy theorists see no irony in their belief that the vast majority of scientists from every country and political view have conspired to make up Climate Change theory, without any apparent gain to them and at a tremendous risk to their jobs and reputation.

It boggles the mind.

They never challenge other scientific theories. No one is arguing against the theory of gravity or plate tectonics. No, the only time science is so challenged is for reasons political (climate change) or religious (evolution).
 
Can't believe this thread is still going on.

And I'm amazed that people who laugh at 9/11 conspiracy theorists see no irony in their belief that the vast majority of scientists from every country and political view have conspired to make up Climate Change theory, without any apparent gain to them and at a tremendous risk to their jobs and reputation.

It boggles the mind.

They never challenge other scientific theories. No one is arguing against the theory of gravity or plate tectonics. No, the only time science is so challenged is for reasons political (climate change) or religious (evolution).


Hello?

"Vast majority"?

Got any evidence that George Bush led a team of CIA operatives on a midnight mission to mine the World Trade Center?

I've got evidence the leading authorities on global warming cooked their books and tried to manipulate the reviewing process.

Oh, btw, AGW theory IS a religion to people who refuse to heed the science that refutes it.
 
Hello?

"Vast majority"?

Got any evidence that George Bush led a team of CIA operatives on a midnight mission to mine the World Trade Center?

I've got evidence the leading authorities on global warming cooked their books and tried to manipulate the reviewing process.

Oh, btw, AGW theory IS a religion to people who refuse to heed the science that refutes it.



Here you go scientist trying to figure out the cooling taking place.



Reuters AlertNet - ANALYSIS-Scientists examine causes for lull in warming

Climate scientists must do more to work out how exceptionally cold winters or a dip in world temperatures fit their theories of global warming, if they are to persuade an increasingly sceptical public.

At stake is public belief that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet, and political momentum to act as governments struggle to agree a climate treaty which could direct trillions of dollars into renewable energy, away from fossil fuels.

Public conviction of global warming's risks may have been undermined by an error in a U.N. panel report exaggerating the pace of melt of Himalayan glaciers and by the disclosure of hacked emails revealing scientists sniping at sceptics, who leapt on these as evidence of data fixing.

Scientists said they must explain better how a freezing winter this year in parts of the northern hemisphere and a break in a rising trend in global temperatures since 1998 can happen when heat-trapping gases are pouring into the atmosphere.

"There is a lack of consensus," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, on why global temperatures have not matched a peak set in 1998, or in 2005 according to one U.S. analysis. For a table of world temperatures: [ID:nLDE6050Y5]

Part of the explanation could be a failure to account for rapid warming in parts of the Arctic, where sea ice had melted, and where there were fewer monitoring stations, he said.

"I think we need better analysis of what's going on on a routine basis so that everyone, politicians and the general public, are informed about our current understanding of what is happening, more statements in a much quicker fashion instead of waiting for another six years for the next IPCC report."
 
Here you go scientist trying to figure out the cooling taking place.



Reuters AlertNet - ANALYSIS-Scientists examine causes for lull in warming

Climate scientists must do more to work out how exceptionally cold winters or a dip in world temperatures fit their theories of global warming, if they are to persuade an increasingly sceptical public.

At stake is public belief that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet, and political momentum to act as governments struggle to agree a climate treaty which could direct trillions of dollars into renewable energy, away from fossil fuels.

Public conviction of global warming's risks may have been undermined by an error in a U.N. panel report exaggerating the pace of melt of Himalayan glaciers and by the disclosure of hacked emails revealing scientists sniping at sceptics, who leapt on these as evidence of data fixing.

Scientists said they must explain better how a freezing winter this year in parts of the northern hemisphere and a break in a rising trend in global temperatures since 1998 can happen when heat-trapping gases are pouring into the atmosphere.

"There is a lack of consensus," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, on why global temperatures have not matched a peak set in 1998, or in 2005 according to one U.S. analysis. For a table of world temperatures: [ID:nLDE6050Y5]

Part of the explanation could be a failure to account for rapid warming in parts of the Arctic, where sea ice had melted, and where there were fewer monitoring stations, he said.

"I think we need better analysis of what's going on on a routine basis so that everyone, politicians and the general public, are informed about our current understanding of what is happening, more statements in a much quicker fashion instead of waiting for another six years for the next IPCC report."


They don't fit theories of anthropogenic global warming. It part of the evidence of AGW falsity.
 
Explain how the science behind the greenhouse effect isn't sound. More specifically, explain how the logic train behind climate change is illogical.

Former NASA scientist defends theory refuting global warming doctrine


Examiner.com: Has there been global warming?
Dr. Miskolczi: No one is denying that global warming has taken place, but it has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect or the burning of fossil fuels.

Examiner.com: According to the conventional anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, as human-induced CO2 emissions increase, more surface radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, with part of it re-radiated to the earth’s surface, resulting in global warming. Is that an accurate description of the prevailing theory?
Dr. Miskolczi: Yes, this is the classic concept of the greenhouse effect.

Examiner.com: Are man-made CO2 emissions the cause of global warming?
Dr. Miskolczi: Apparently not. According to my research, increases in CO2 levels have not increased the global-average absorbing power of the atmosphere.

Examiner.com: Where does the traditional greenhouse theory make its fundamental mistake?
Dr. Miskolczi: The conventional greenhouse theory does not consider the newly discovered physical relationships involving infrared radiative fluxes. These relationships pose strong energetic constraints on an equilibrium system.

Examiner.com: Why has this error escaped notice until now?
Dr. Miskolczi: Nobody thought that a 100-year-old theory could be wrong. The original greenhouse formula, developed by an astrophysicist, applies only to the stars, not to finite, semi-transparent planetary atmospheres. New equations had to be formulated.

Examiner.com: According your theory, the greenhouse effect is self-regulating and stabilizes itself in response to rising CO2 levels. You identified (perhaps discovered) a “greenhouse constant” that keeps the greenhouse effect in equilibrium. Is that a fair assessment of your theory?
Dr. Miskolczi: Yes. Our atmosphere, with its infinite degree of freedom, is able to maintain its global average infrared absorption at an optimal level. In technical terms, this “greenhouse constant” is the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere, and its theoretical value is 1.87. Despite the 30 per cent increase of CO2 in the last 61 years, this value has not changed. The atmosphere is not increasing its absorption power as was predicted by the IPCC.

Examiner.com: You used empirical data, rather than models, to arrive at your conclusion. How was that done?
Dr. Miskolczi: The computations are relatively simple. I collected a large number of radiosonde observations from around the globe and computed the global average infrared absorption. I performed these computations using observations from two large, publicly available datasets known as the TIGR2 and NOAA. The computations involved the processing of 300 radiosonde observations, using a state-of-the-art, line-by-line radiative transfer code. In both datasets, the global average infrared optical thickness turned out to be 1.87, agreeing with theoretical expectations.

Examiner.com: Have your mathematical equations been challenged or disproved?
Dr. Miskolczi: No.
 
Looking beyond the "examiners" stringent review process we also have a glimpse of the peer review process in action among other critiques of his paper we find this:

Miskolczi's key error in the "Virial Theorem" portion of his argument is definitely that he forgot to include a "hard core" potential to represent the surface of the Earth. His error means that Miskolczi's assumption that 2<K> = -<V> is false.

He also makes errors in his application of "Kirchoff's Law of Radiation" --- but the errors in the "Virial Theorem" portion of his argument are already sufficient to invalidate his paper.

The greenhouse of Miskolczi - Page 2


apparently this question needs to be re-asked:

Examiner.com: Have your mathematical equations been challenged or disproved?
 
Looking beyond the "examiners" stringent review process we also have a glimpse of the peer review process in action among other critiques of his paper we find this:



The greenhouse of Miskolczi - Page 2


apparently this question needs to be re-asked:

Examiner.com: Have your mathematical equations been challenged or disproved?

Funny thing is you base GW on a 100 year old theory before all the industrialization of man? That tells me this is a flawed theory.

You use a blog? This is your source?
JC-hysterical.gif
JC-ROFL.gif
 
Didn't you know that newtons laws expired years ago. That tells me this is a flawed theory.
:rofl

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssT7NkDDsC0"]YouTube- Weird Al - Everything You Know Is Wrong - Original Quality[/ame]

unless it is wrong, and you are right, in which case enjoy the video.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom