• 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
It seems the non-scientists lack the skills to preserve the data on which their claim is based. Could it be possible that the original is "lost" and irrecoverable? How shocking that they expect rumours of a "lost" report to be acceptable as evidence.
 
Oh, is that the spin the lefties put on the issue, 11 months before the fraud was uncovered?

Oh, gee, your article is dated January 2002.

I stated the incident I'm referring to was reported December 2002.

So explain how the con-men made up the excuse before they were caught with their hands in the cookie jar?

Right.

You're referring to something else.

but keep searching.

I bet you believe that Forestry people don't burn their love letters to cause major forest fires, either, right?

how many lynx hair incidents do you think there were that took place in Oregon?

I don't suppose it could have anything to do with it taking the Washington Times 13 months to get wind of the story, or to print it. The obvious answer was that there was a time machine involved and a preemptive leftist cover up. :roll:

The third-party investigation concluded in June, 2001 that a total of seven biologists, including two from WDFW, submitted unauthorized control samples to test the validity of the DNA analysis. Furthermore, the investigation resulted in the determination that there was no intent on the part of the biologists to defraud or undermine the study. According to the investigation and supported by WDFW's own review, the intent was to insure the study's scientific validity.

WDFW Fact Sheet: Submittal of unauthorized study samples during interagency lynx survey
 
It seems the non-scientists lack the skills to preserve the data on which their claim is based. Could it be possible that the original is "lost" and irrecoverable? How shocking that they expect rumours of a "lost" report to be acceptable as evidence.

No rumors.

I've read it.

That I don't print out and keep every page of evidence of the corruption of the EPA on file for your leisurely review isn't my problem. I cited source and date, and you people try to refute it with an article dated 11 months previous.

Good job!
 
how many lynx hair incidents do you think there were that took place in Oregon?

How many does it take for the EPA to steal millions of acres of territory?

That's right. Just a couple, to show that the range of the endangered lynx has expanded.

Did these "researchers" write in the "location" block some place where lynx are already known to exist?

No.

Strangely, they claimed territories vastly outside extant ranges.

How peculiar. It's almost as if the researchers were trying to forge data to expand the extent of protected territory. They could easily have wrote locations on these samples that were in-between true samples, if all they were doing was "just checking" the labs. The geeks in the labs aren't anywhere near as smart as those brilliant men working out with the trees, they'd never figure that out.

But no, the "researchers" had to claim totally new territories. Maybe those researchers weren't smart enough to record the sample serial numbers so they'd know which ones were the "tests", unless those sites were completely off the current map?

I mean, naturally when you're doing a blind check, and the guys in the lab don't actually know where the sample came from anyway, of course you write down they came from Maine, not Oregon, just to make sure you don't get them mixed up, and what the hell, if the government can "protect" all the land in between Maine and Oregon if a little boo-boo happens, then, you know, no harm done, right?

I don't suppose it could have anything to do with it taking the Washington Times 13 months to get wind of the story,

Probably didn't, since it only took the Washington Times eleven months, and in that time it would have found the "explanation" also.
 
Oh, is that the spin the lefties put on the issue, 11 months before the fraud was uncovered?

Oh, gee, your article is dated January 2002.

I stated the incident I'm referring to was reported December 2002.

So explain how the con-men made up the excuse before they were caught with their hands in the cookie jar?

Then of course there is the simpler explanation.. you are just going all far fetched to desperatly attempt to save face when you cannot even get the date of the article right GOOD JOB!

Rare lynx hairs found in forests exposed as hoax

Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Published 12/17/2001

p.s. the EPA wasn't the agency involved either.. The only time epa appears in the article you are referring to is when it is in the word "department", as in

The previously unreported Forest Service investigation found that the science of the habitat study had been skewed by seven government officials: three Forest Service employees, two U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials and two employees of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Rare lynx hairs found in forests exposed as hoax* Audrey Hudson THE WASHINGTON TIMES* Published 12 <-- there is your article despite me not finding it archived directly through The Washington Times.

Yeah yeah, I know all the lefty government agencies are all interchangeable, same thing as the EPA right?
 
Last edited:
I understand and agree with your explanation of the greenhouse effect. However, I disagree with the inferences you have made based upon that explanation. If you would like to provide some evidence to support those inferences then I welcome it.

My evidence is the fact that you agree with my explanation. My explanation included a specific set of circumstances, and I can rely on those circumstances to prove when and where my explanation comes true. Basically, I do not need to really provide data, because my inferences are vague and ambiguous enough that it is true, and at the same time we could be at any point beyond the starting point of my explanation.

Since we have been throwing paleocarbons into the atmosphere, we are undoubtedly affecting the environment. Considering we've had an increase of about 35 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere (link) I will safely assume that we have had some minor effect on the environment, somewhere in the world. This will increase the amount of evaporation, and then my explanation provides the rest of it.

So, you admit the data is not clear at this time?

After finding the source I provided, I'm sure we have started along the logic chain I outlined. I cannot say where we are along that chain, but it is irrefutable we are on it.
 
Lets take a look at the facts, all this climategate stuff aside.
Sounds like it should be an interesting endeavor.

Since 1900, we have been spewing out more and more CO2, correct?
It would seem so.

Now, I fully agree, the amount of CO2 we've thrown out cannot substantially warm the Earth, but it can cause a very small amount of warming, globally.
How does it do this? Who says it does this? How do they know this? What proof do they have of this?
I personally don’t fully understand how this works (or perhaps at all).

We've also had our ozone layer depleted in certain areas, adding to the amount of energy that reaches the surface of the Earth.
The [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone"]ozone[/ame] layer protects us from UV rays. Decreases in the layer in some areas would, indeed, seem to then cause increased amounts of UV rays. It would seem also to logically follow that an increase in UV rays, as they are a form of energy, would cause some increase in heat levels of the earth, at least to a small extent.
But ozone is also a greenhouse gas. It would then seem to follow that depletion would result in lower temperatures.

On an odd side note, all the Wiki articles I read on this bit seem to at some point link to IPCC reports or some such. IF, and I stress IF, there is some doubt as to the validity of the IPCC reports, then… Ah well.

As I've said before, the most dangerous greenhouse gas is water vapor.
I would prefer “most effective”. “Dangerous” implies danger, bad, ect. And the greenhouse effect of greenhouse gases is not a bad thing.

The amounts that naturally occur through evaporation allow enough heat to remain in the biosphere so life can be sustained.
Precisely, water vapor and the other greenhouse gases are supposed to be there. The amounts, or more precisely the increase/decrease in said amounts, is the issue.

But, when we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as we obviously have, you increase the rate of evaporation very slightly.
Assuming, of course, that CO2 has the effect you describe.

This in turn releases a tiny bit more water vapor then is the norm for our environment. Because of this, temperatures rise, because more energy is being trapped inside the biosphere. This in turn causes another small increase in evaporation, which forces another increase in temperature.
I ask for some links to prove this, as I haven’t found anything regarding it, and it sounds interesting.

This is what's known as a positive feedback loop. It’s like a human who can't sweat when exercising. Your body keeps heating up, and heating up, and it can't get rid of the heat fast enough. The checks and balances of the environment cannot stop this process.
I understand the positive feedback loop idea. What you haven’t yet proven is if it actually happens in the system (in this case, the atmosphere/climate) you are discussing.

What ends up happening, is over very long periods of time, temperature increases slowly, but surely. Given the length of time this takes, you could take any 40 year temperature interval, and you wouldn't find the slightest hint of temperature change. Regardless of what the data is saying, this is happening, because, quite frankly, the logic is too sound to be wrong.
But how do you KNOW the logic is so sound it cannot possibly be wrong?
What you are basically saying is, “it is this way because it is this way”.
What if it isn’t?
Hell, I hold the belief that anything is possible…Although not probable.
Always question.
Always wonder.

These changes won't happen fast enough for them to kill off humans, or to do anything major to effect our way of live. What will happen, however, is other animals won't be able to adapt, because natural selection cannot work at the same pace as the climate change.
How do you know this? What proof do you have?
This is another case of your stating “X will happen because of Y”, but without proving Y.

This is another problem many people don't understand. A short time for Earth means thousands and thousands of years. In relation to the time Earth has been around (4.6 billion years) humans have been around for maybe 10,000 years. So, for us, the climate change is going to take a very long time. But we have technology; we have adapted the Earth to fit our needs. Other animals, such as bears, and fish, can't change fast enough to match the pace of global warming.
Your assumptions are as follows:
  1. That AGW/ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) is happening, and will result in a change major enough to cause the effect you state.
  2. That animals cannot adapt at the pace you assume the change will occur.
  3. That the change will be permanent.

Assuming those things, your statement is logically sound.

Do you understand now? It is undoubtedly happening, but not very fast, and probably not fast enough to affect us for a long time to come. The recent snow storm on the East Coast proves this process is taking place, even as we discuss it.
I understand your argument, partially.
I don’t necessarily agree that “it is undoubtedly happening”. Nothing that exists (or doesn’t, as the case may be) is incapable of being doubted.
I assume by referring to the recent snow storm you refer to the El Niño effect and it’s affect on the weather?
I further assume that you are assuming climate change affects El Niño?
I also assume that you are assuming ACC would then further affect El Niño?

Again, assuming your assumptions are correct, then the logic makes sense.

I personally don't know what we can really do about it though. We can try to decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but that wouldn't do very much, as it has already started the reaction. We can try to decrease the amount of water vapor, and return it to normal levels, but we would have to pour trillions of dollars into that, and keep water vapor at a steady level for decades to stop this. And even then, if we are even slightly off from the original number, the process will continue, or we might start an ice age because we removed too much water vapor.
All those ideas MIGHT help, assuming there is a problem to begin with, and the earth can’t fix itself.
Better, I think, to focus those funds on aggressively pursuing ever higher technology levels.
We may find a solution, or that there wasn’t an issue to begin with. And keeping those scientists in the lab will keep em’ off the roads, producing CO2…:mrgreen:

That's my take on things, but again, I might be wrong, but that would also mean my books are wrong, and their logic, and they seem pretty solid.
But, you see, the recent events that everyone opposed to the AGW/ACC theory are excited about…If those events are as reported (by some), then the “facts” some of those books are based on might be faulty.

I don’t really understand it all myself…but I think I have a basic grasp.
 
Then of course there is the simpler explanation.. you are just going all far fetched to desperatly attempt to save face when you cannot even get the date of the article right GOOD JOB!

Nothing simpler that seeing fraud and saying fraud, I always say.

Let's see...the EPA has put air monitoring stations to collect air samples beneath freeway over passes, because we all know the cleanest air is found there. This data is used to gauge a city's air quality.

The EPA recently proclaimed that CO2 is a pollutant, and naturally all CO2 emitting objects are now under the regulatory thumb of the EPA.

The EPA, being the incredibly intelligent genius level automovite engineers they are, sets completely arbitrary CAFE standards with no regard to their feasibility or effect on costs to the consumer.

The EPA demanded MTLB(sp?) be put in the gasoline in western states....naturally, this stuff is extremely hygroscopic and thanks to the leaky underground fuel storage tanks it's contaminated many an aquifer in the western states. Oops.

The EPA sets the silliest rules for fuel oxygenation, making it impossible for fuel suppliers to send reserves between states, because the different recipes aren't compatible with what the lovely EPA wants. So fuel prices soar. Of course.

Insects are more important than farmers and commerce.

Totally useless fish can justify closing the irrigation systems for thousand of farmers. You know, the people who, among others, paid for the dam. Not that the fish were going to go extinct of the water was used, but that was just the excuse to withhold the water. Not to mention that no one would have noticed if the fish vanished, anyway.

The EPA is a totally out of control agency expanding it's power base.

Not a good thing at all if you value freedom.

Rare lynx hairs found in forests exposed as hoax* Audrey Hudson THE WASHINGTON TIMES* Published 12 <-- there is your article despite me not finding it archived directly through The Washington Times.

Ah.

You can get off the couch when you want to.

Now be careful. Walk first before you try running.

Yeah yeah, I know all the lefty government agencies are all interchangeable, same thing as the EPA right?

The only non-lefty agencies are the DoD and the CIA and the FBI, and the last two are suspect.
 
My evidence is the fact that you agree with my explanation. My explanation included a specific set of circumstances, and I can rely on those circumstances to prove when and where my explanation comes true. Basically, I do not need to really provide data, because my inferences are vague and ambiguous enough that it is true, and at the same time we could be at any point beyond the starting point of my explanation.

Since we have been throwing paleocarbons into the atmosphere, we are undoubtedly affecting the environment. Considering we've had an increase of about 35 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere (link) I will safely assume that we have had some minor effect on the environment, somewhere in the world. This will increase the amount of evaporation, and then my explanation provides the rest of it.

After finding the source I provided, I'm sure we have started along the logic chain I outlined. I cannot say where we are along that chain, but it is irrefutable we are on it.

So, the net effect of human CO2 emissions on global temperatures over the next hundred years could be anywhere between 0.00000000001 degrees and 10 degrees Fahrenheit? Or do you have some precise figures based upon sound modeling and data?
 
Last edited:
Yes, it's a very nice theory. One I've heard a million times already and understand perfectly. I'm just waiting for him (or anyone else) to provide some evidence that human CO2 emissions are having a measurable effect on this process. Since there is no credible evidence to support that inference, he just regurgitates AGW theory from his textbook and pretends he's proven something.

Then give me a study which has proven human CO2 emissions are having a measurable impact on global climate and temperatures. One will suffice...

There are no absolutes in science. You are asking for the impossible. There is however a preponderance of consensus in the scientific community throughout 180 countries.

Given no absolute certainty requires us to weigh risks of action versus risk of no action.

If we take action and despite the preponderance of consensus, it turns out the scientists were wrong, we have reduced our dependence on fossil fuels and are better able to deal with the future oil shock when it comes, and therefore are not hurt as badly economically.

If we do nothing and the scientists were right, we make it harder on all future life on the planet, just to satisfy our short-term greed.
 
But which ones do they use the most? I would say when it comes to the environment the EPA would hold the IPCC in high standard.

Thanks for your opinion!
 
Then why has the hurricane seasons in Florida been non-existent the last couple of years.

2004 was the last major problems here.

What part of climate change do you not understand?
 
There are no absolutes in science. You are asking for the impossible. There is however a preponderance of consensus in the scientific community throughout 180 countries.

Given no absolute certainty requires us to weigh risks of action versus risk of no action.

If we take action and despite the preponderance of consensus, it turns out the scientists were wrong, we have reduced our dependence on fossil fuels and are better able to deal with the future oil shock when it comes, and therefore are not hurt as badly economically.

If we do nothing and the scientists were right, we make it harder on all future life on the planet, just to satisfy our short-term greed.

Your alarmism does not scare me. Come back when you have some credible evidence to support your wild speculation.
 
There are no absolutes in science.

Yes there are.

The mean annual temperature of the globe either is, or it is not, increasing.

If the science is so unclear that this simple fact cannot be determined absolutely, then there's no reason to destroy the economy of the United States in reaction.

One should only react when an event to react to happens.

There is however a preponderance of consensus in the scientific community throughout 180 countries.

Completely irrelevant.

Science isn't an election, it's a process.

The science of Plate Tectonics was accepted by geologists at an international conference. There was one more "aye" than "nay".

They guessed right.

That doesn't mean all scientists guess right.

Given the stench of fraud and plain bad science permeating the field of Global Warming Chicken Littlism, and it's clear that the one thing that needs doing is ...

...nothing.

Nothing at all until the research is established and the facts are irrefutable.

One of the irrefutable facts currently at hand is the fact that the world was distinctly warmer in the past....and lived.

Given no absolute certainty requires us to weigh risks of action versus risk of no action.

The risks of "action" are destroyed economies.

The risks of inaction are longer growing seasons, lower heating bills, and a Northwest Passage.

If we take action and despite the preponderance of consensus, it turns out the scientists were wrong, we have reduced our dependence on fossil fuels and are better able to deal with the future oil shock when it comes, and therefore are not hurt as badly economically.

Except, of course, that shifting to socialist energy...er "green" energy, is costing money we can't afford. If some schmuck wants to put solar energy panels on his hut, fine for him. If he can't put them up without my tax dollars, he should go back to burning oxen turds to keep warm.

If we do nothing and the scientists were right, we make it harder on all future life on the planet, just to satisfy our short-term greed.

The scientists are right.

The scientists are saying there's no urgency about this global warming stuff.

The CON-MEN, who aren't scientists, are the ones pushing the panic buttons.
 
What part of climate change do you not understand?

The part where the change hasn't happened,

You know, the part where the statistical variation in hurricane intensity isn't being violated?

That change?
 
Your alarmism does not scare me. Come back when you have some credible evidence to support your wild speculation.

Nah, the scientists have already made their case and we are taking action despite the deniers.
 
Last edited:
Nah, the scientists have already made their case and we are taking action despite the deniers.

You mean the con-men have made their case using falsified data, flawed analysis, collusion, and deceit, and governments are taking action because they've got the excuse they need to forge chains and tax, which is all they ever wanted.
 
Nah, the scientists have already made their case...

...using suspect data or manipulating it to achieve desired outcomes in their climate models. Funny how you're able to overlook that little fact over and over again.

...and we are taking action despite the deniers.

And despite all evidence to the contrary.
 
You mean the con-men have made their case using falsified data, flawed analysis, collusion, and deceit, and governments are taking action because they've got the excuse they need to forge chains and tax, which is all they ever wanted.

...using suspect data or manipulating it to achieve desired outcomes in their climate models. Funny how you're able to overlook that little fact over and over again.
And despite all evidence to the contrary.

Yeah, yeah, take it to the conspiracy section. The world is moving forward despite the deniers.

I'll tell you what you guys put up a candidate for president denying AGW in 2012 and make all of us happy!

Palin fits the bill!!!

"Sarah Palin | Facebook.

The response to my op-ed by global warming alarmists has been interesting. Former Vice President Al Gore has called me a “denier” and informs us that climate change is “a principle in physics. It’s like gravity. It exists.”

Perhaps he’s right. Climate change is like gravity – a naturally occurring phenomenon that existed long before, and will exist long after, any governmental attempts to affect it."

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35323_Palin_Doubles_Down_on_Climate_Denial_Denies_Being_a_Denier


Go Palin!!!!!
 
Yeah, yeah, take it to the conspiracy section. The world is moving forward despite the deniers.

Mike's nature trick...

Avoiding Freedom of Information requests...

Trying to undermine the peer-review process...

US climate monitoring stations are unreliable...

IPCC using anecdotal evidence from a magazine article in their climate report...

NASA miscalculating the highest temperature in the instrumental record (it was 1934, not 1998)...

Hockey stick graph is garbage...

Just pretend like none of this ever happened, Cat. Maybe you can wish all these pesky facts away if you try hard enough.
 
We are having record cold temperatures and snowfall in history across the United States so the question begs to be asked...



In fact the question does not beg to be asked. The weather in one country out of hundreds is not a very compelling case against global warming. There is no debate that global warming has happened. The earth has gotten warmer over the last 100 years. The question is, what causes global warming? Is global warming caused by man, or is it simply natural climatic shifts? That I do not know.
 
Nah, the scientists have already made their case and we are taking action despite the deniers.

The problem is the lies and corruption and fraud is what the science is based on. That means the science is false.
 
Back
Top Bottom