• 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
LOL! So you are prepared to figure out the whole climate change process on your own, as long as you don't have to read a few paragraphs?

That could very well explain why your research keeps coming up short.

The whole climate change process = naturally cyclic variations.

Done.
 
Quite.

But, actually, I DID read it.

Which didn't prevent me in any way from complaining about the wall of text in a joking manner.

There was nothing to indicate you were joking. Next time add (just joking) to avoid confusion. Thanks!
 
If so, then I simply need more explanation/persuasion to understand your point. Simply repeating a statement does not make it any plainer to one who possesses the level of skull thickness that I do.

You can't be serious and you're probably pulling my leg, but here goes: The argument from one side is basically since localized weather has been colder recently than global warming is a myth. I then said, "what part of the word "global" don't you under stand? " You came along and say well that is part of the world or something to that effect.

Here's the key word: "Global," meaning the entire globe! That the U.S. is part of the global average temperature is irrelevant.

Verstehen?
 
Last edited:
The whole climate change process = naturally cyclic variations.

Done.

Thanks for your opinion!


Published on Friday, March 5, 2010 by the Herald Scotland
Fresh Evidence Global Warming Is Man-Made

"The new research involved drawing together evidence from more than 100 climate change studies, many of which were conducted since the last major IPCC report in 2007.

It showed that, on a global scale, predictions made about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions match actual trends seen over the past 50 years.

Since 1980, average global temperature has increased by about 0.5˚C. Currently, the Earth is getting warmer at the rate of about 0.16˚C per decade.

The study found natural forces such as volcanic eruptions and cyclical changes in the brightness of the Sun could not explain what was happening to the world's climate, said Dr Stott.

For example, solar heating would have warmed both upper and lower layers of the atmosphere, the stratosphere and troposphere. However, what was seen was that while the stratosphere had cooled, the troposphere had warmed.

Asked if the new research would help silence those who question man-made climate change, Dr Stott said: "I just hope people will make up their minds informed by the scientific evidence."
 
There you go again Catawba, trying to counter ignorance with facts. It the poster won't listen it's like teaching pigs to sing. They won't do it and they just get mad. :mrgreen:
 
You can't be serious and you're probably pulling my leg, but here goes: The argument from one side is basically since localized weather has been colder recently than global warming is a myth. I then said, "what part of the word "global" don't you under stand? " You came along and say well that is part of the world or something to that effect.

Here's the key word: "Global," meaning the entire globe! That the U.S. is part of the global average temperature is irrelevant.

Verstehen?
I think you've got the sequence of events slightly mixed up, but you gathered the gist of it.

Obviously the word "global" means the entire globe.

I never denied that.

I was simply pointing out to the person who stated that "America is not the world" (obvious), that America is part of the world (also obvious). Both statements were (I believe) made in a slightly joking manner.

Then you seemingly attacked me for saying such, so I defended.

Thus this discussion.
 
There you go again Catawba, trying to counter ignorance with facts. It the poster won't listen it's like teaching pigs to sing. They won't do it and they just get mad. :mrgreen:

I don't post the facts to try to convince the ignorant. I make the posts for the lurkers out there that are not convinced all the world's preeminent scientists have been conspiring for decades, but are just unaware of the mainstream scientific consensus (with new evidence each year) of man's contribution to global warming.
 
Last edited:
You can't be serious and you're probably pulling my leg, but here goes: The argument from one side is basically since localized weather has been colder recently than global warming is a myth. I then said, "what part of the word "global" don't you under stand? " You came along and say well that is part of the world or something to that effect.

Here's the key word: "Global," meaning the entire globe! That the U.S. is part of the global average temperature is irrelevant.

Verstehen?

Actually, the argument from one side is that because agencies that have been proven to compromise their intregity and have been known to falsify their research have said in the past that global warming is happening then the globe will always be warming, even when the ice sheets roll over Chicago, the globe will still be warmer.

Because globally it has been cooler than a decade ago, people are saying, "gee, it's cooler now than it was a decade ago." That's an amazing coincidence, that people would say it's cooler when it's actually cooler, but there you have it, people are too stupid to know when it's getting hotter and insist on reaching for those parkas and scarves anyway.
 
It showed that, on a global scale, predictions made about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions match actual trends seen over the past 50 years.

You mean outside of the current near-decade long cooling trend, and that green house gases can't account for the cooling trend of the seventies, either.

Outside of those facts, and the aura of hysterical panic all AGWers exude, your failed theory fits the facts just fine, except where it doesn't fit.

Here's a hint: Green house gases can't cause the current cooling trend observed and not predicted by AGW theory. Ergo, AGW theory is false.

Since 1980, average global temperature has increased by about 0.5˚C. Currently, the Earth is getting warmer at the rate of about 0.16˚C per decade.

Except for the last decade, which cooled.

The study found natural forces such as volcanic eruptions and cyclical changes in the brightness of the Sun could not explain what was happening to the world's climate, said Dr Stott.

Especially the last decade of cooling.

For example, solar heating would have warmed both upper and lower layers of the atmosphere, the stratosphere and troposphere. However, what was seen was that while the stratosphere had cooled, the troposphere had warmed.

Except where the troposphere has cooled, which is pretty much everywhere these last nine or ten years.

Asked if the new research would help silence those who question man-made climate change, Dr Stott said: "I just hope people will make up their minds informed by the scientific evidence."

Yes, when are the AGWers going to open up their clams to facts, like the fact that the planet is now cooling, that the planet has historically been warmer in the past, and much warmer when there weren't any homo sapiens around to be confused by AGW conmen, too?
 
You mean outside of the current near-decade long cooling trend, and that green house gases can't account for the cooling trend of the seventies, either.

Outside of those facts, and the aura of hysterical panic all AGWers exude, your failed theory fits the facts just fine, except where it doesn't fit.

Here's a hint: Green house gases can't cause the current cooling trend observed and not predicted by AGW theory. Ergo, AGW theory is false.



Except for the last decade, which cooled.



Especially the last decade of cooling.



Except where the troposphere has cooled, which is pretty much everywhere these last nine or ten years.



Yes, when are the AGWers going to open up their clams to facts, like the fact that the planet is now cooling, that the planet has historically been warmer in the past, and much warmer when there weren't any homo sapiens around to be confused by AGW conmen, too?

Cite your source, and from somewhere beyond the blogosphere.
 
Actually, the argument from one side is that because agencies that have been proven to compromise their intregity........

What agencies? Do you mean scientific societies? All of them from all over the world that reached a consensus years ago?

This could only occur if there was a world wide conspiracy, and you have shown no proof of that.
 
Last edited:
What agencies? Do you meant scientific societies? All of them from all over the world that reached a consensus years ago?

This could only occur if there was a world wide conspiracy, and you have shown no proof of that.

Interesting point to note, Scarecrow has provided no links of real value, whereas you have cited the IPCC. And Scarecrow expects you to find his links more valuable and credible then the committee whose job it is to study the climate. Plain backwards to me...
 
What agencies? Do you mean scientific societies? All of them from all over the world that reached a consensus years ago?

This could only occur if there was a world wide conspiracy, and you have shown no proof of that.

Like NOAA-GISS, like NASA that has to keep refining it's statements because they keep getting caught in what we can charitably call mistakes, if we had any charity. Since I'm not charitable to con-men, I call them lies (2008 was not the warmest year on record, 1934 was. Oh, and since 2008 was allegedly the warmest year on record, how can the planet be "warming" if the year isn't warmer than 2008? You people ever try to waste any of your precious time actually thinking about what it is you're being told and what it is you say? Hmmmm?)

Hadley CRU, a MAJOR fount of global warming hysteria, is caught with compromising e-mails, including discussion on how to "hide the decline" and plotting on how to get rid of honest reviewing peers.

The Father of the Hockey Stick is revealed to have used completely cherry picked data and a curve matching algorithm that will generate a hockey stick graph on completely random data sets.

The IPCC includes the Medieval Warming Period in one official report, and since the Medieval Warming Period is an inconvenient truth, removed that data from the calculations in the next report, to show the faked Hockey Stick in greater horrific contrast.

You yourself ignore the inconvenient truth that the whole planet was warmer in the Eemian period of the last interstadial period and don't want to discuss the irrefutable fact that the sea levels that time 'round were fifteen feet higher.

Since the top five warmest years on record actually happened before 1940, how can it be "warming" when this decade is cooler than the last one?
 
Interesting point to note, Scarecrow has provided no links of real value, whereas you have cited the IPCC. And Scarecrow expects you to find his links more valuable and credible then the committee whose job it is to study the climate. Plain backwards to me...

Oh, I forget to mention that the IPCC used detailed peer review articles to source it's hysteria over the vanishing Himalayan glaciers.

That the peers reviewing the climbing magazine the IPCC used as it's source were, in effect, "high", isn't relevant to your worship of the IPCC.

To the rest of us, it's a sign of the typical arrogance of con-men pretending to be scientists. You should go to Cardiff, New York sometime. Just a short bicycle ride west of Syracuse, you'll see a sign on the road marking the site of the discovery of another famous scientific hoax. The hoax of anthropogenic global warming is so huge there won't be any one place to put a sign commemorating it's discovery, though.
 
Like NOAA-GISS, like NASA that has to keep refining it's statements because they keep getting caught in what we can charitably call mistakes, if we had any charity. Since I'm not charitable to con-men, I call them lies (2008 was not the warmest year on record, 1934 was. Oh, and since 2008 was allegedly the warmest year on record, how can the planet be "warming" if the year isn't warmer than 2008? You people ever try to waste any of your precious time actually thinking about what it is you're being told and what it is you say? Hmmmm?)

Hadley CRU, a MAJOR fount of global warming hysteria, is caught with compromising e-mails, including discussion on how to "hide the decline" and plotting on how to get rid of honest reviewing peers.

The Father of the Hockey Stick is revealed to have used completely cherry picked data and a curve matching algorithm that will generate a hockey stick graph on completely random data sets.

The IPCC includes the Medieval Warming Period in one official report, and since the Medieval Warming Period is an inconvenient truth, removed that data from the calculations in the next report, to show the faked Hockey Stick in greater horrific contrast.

You yourself ignore the inconvenient truth that the whole planet was warmer in the Eemian period of the last interstadial period and don't want to discuss the irrefutable fact that the sea levels that time 'round were fifteen feet higher.

Since the top five warmest years on record actually happened before 1940, how can it be "warming" when this decade is cooler than the last one?

Care to cite any of that? Or would you prefer to continue to engage in unfounded ideas?
 
What agencies? Do you mean scientific societies? All of them from all over the world that reached a consensus years ago?

This could only occur if there was a world wide conspiracy, and you have shown no proof of that.

No, you've been providing the proof of that. You've been listing all those agencies that falsely proclaim the continued warming of the planet in the face of irrefutable cooling.

Why do you think they're lying like that?
 
Care to cite any of that? Or would you prefer to continue to engage in unfounded ideas?

No, I don't feel like citing what is commonly accessible current event news for the last four months or so. If you want to play ostrich, fine. Don't expect me to be reaching up your butt to hand you reading material.
 
No, I don't feel like citing what is commonly accessible current event news for the last four months or so. If you want to play ostrich, fine. Don't expect me to be reaching up your butt to hand you reading material.

As if I expected anything but that :lol:

If you didn't go so defensive, I might have thought the information was out there, but thanks for telling me otherwise :2wave:
 
What agencies? Do you mean scientific societies? All of them from all over the world that reached a consensus years ago?

This could only occur if there was a world wide conspiracy, and you have shown no proof of that.
On the other hand, not all scientists agree with the AGW/ACC theory.

Simply those in certain agencies, and some outside them.

Why do some of the scientists outside those agencies (Or in a few cases, inside? Don't know the particulars...) disagree with the ACC theory?

The first thought that comes to my mind is that they believe they have contrary evidence, or proof the no supporting evidence exists.

That or they believe they have found flaws in the ACC theory.

The question is, are they correct in their belief?

What are your opinions on such scientists?
 


Continuing a decade-long trend of declining global temperatures, the year 2008 was significantly colder than 2007, and global temperatures for the year were below the average over the past 30 years.

The global temperature data, reported by NASA satellite-based temperature measurements, refuted predictions 2008 would be one of the warmest on record.



Data show 2008 ranked 14th coldest of the 30 years measured by NASA satellite instruments since they were first launched in 1979. It was the coldest year since 2000. (See accompanying figure.)

Okay, so now the proof that global cooling is occuring is on the board.

Happy?

You'll have to thump your IPCC reports harder now.
 
On the other hand, not all scientists agree with the AGW/ACC theory.

No, not all scientists, some scientists don't believe in evolution, but all of mainstream science does. Same thing with ACC.

Why do some of the scientists outside those agencies (Or in a few cases, inside? Don't know the particulars...) disagree with the ACC theory?

You would have to ask them.

The first thought that comes to my mind is that they believe they have contrary evidence, or proof the no supporting evidence exists.

That or they believe they have found flaws in the ACC theory.

The question is, are they correct in their belief?

What are your opinions on such scientists?

I think in the last 5 decades this has been studied, if they had a case, they would have made it to the world's Institutes of Science.
 





Okay, so now the proof that global cooling is occuring is on the board.

Happy?

You'll have to thump your IPCC reports harder now.

This what you call proof?

Let's examine it. Let's start with the source, the Heartland Institute.

"Heartland Institute Bankrolls Dishonest Global Warming Campaign"

You say you do not trust NASA's data, but you are prepared to believe NASA's data as misrepresented by a partisan opinion by a non-scientist.

Were you under the impression this opinion piece was some type of scientific study?


Amazing.

Your opinion piece is outdated anyway.

Not only is it opinion, it is out of date opinion, as the WMO and NASA have recently announced their new findings that 2000-2009 was the warmest decade in human history.

See the March 2009 date on your opinion piece? That means they did not even look at the global temperatures during 2009.

Better luck next time!
 




Okay, so now the proof that global cooling is occuring is on the board.

Happy?

You'll have to thump your IPCC reports harder now.

I find it funny that your link points out La Nina as why the cooling occurred :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom