• 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
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!!!!!

Problem is many of the deniers are former GW scientist.
 
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.

Well, the Earth has been warmer in the past, and long before the industrial revolution, so...
 
Well, the Earth has been warmer in the past, and long before the industrial revolution, so...

In fact, the warmest period we have records of happened around 1100 B.C., far before human industrialization. These things happen all the time, climate change is cyclical and has nothing to do with us.
 
The debate among the "rational" about man's role in global warming was put to rest in 2005:

"The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world’s oceans.

The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new research has revealed.

The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday.

"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."

In the study, Dr Barnett’s team examined more than seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are predicted by computer models of various potential causes of climate change.

It found that natural variation in the Earth’s climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely."

New proof that man has caused global warming - Times Online
 
The debate among the "rational" about man's role in global warming was put to rest in 2005:

"The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world’s oceans.

The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new research has revealed.

The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday.

"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."

In the study, Dr Barnett’s team examined more than seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are predicted by computer models of various potential causes of climate change.

It found that natural variation in the Earth’s climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely."

New proof that man has caused global warming - Times Online

Thats great one scientist says it so it is fact.
MG_119.gif



You want to avoid all the lies and fraud and corruption that is being revealed. This new evidence shows no GW promoters have any credibility.
 
Thats great one scientist says it so it is fact.
MG_119.gif


You want to avoid all the lies and fraud and corruption that is being revealed. This new evidence shows no GW promoters have any credibility.

Thanks for your opinion!
 
Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely."[/B][/I]

Except when the models don't match, like the last decade.

Would you fly in an airplane if you knew the dynamic model said applying the engine thrust reversers would make the airplane go faster?

No?

But you're willing to stake the economies of nations on a computer model that says "hotter" when nature is saying "colder"?
 
Thats great one scientist says it so it is fact.
MG_119.gif

You want to avoid all the lies and fraud and corruption that is being revealed. This new evidence shows no GW promoters have any credibility.
Recall that the zealots will cling to their religion, no matter what.
 
...Quotes and a
link.
Problem is, I checked the article in that link, and found no links to the actual study.
If one model can be tweaked to produce the conclusions desired (as some have claimed certain ACC models have been), then any could be.
Thus all are suspect, and, ergo, cannot be trusted unless you see the study/model yourself and understand it and how it was built.

In short, you have to do that damn study yourself if you want to be sure of the validity.
 
Last edited:
Except when the models don't match, like the last decade.

Your opinion is the opposite of what the evidence shows, Global warming is happening faster than the models predicted:

But Daniel Fagre, a U.S. Geological Survey ecologist who works at Glacier, says the park’s namesakes will be gone about ten years ahead of schedule, endangering the region’s plants and animals.

The 2030 date, he said, was based on a 2003 USGS study, along with 1992 temperature predictions by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“Temperature rise in our area was twice as great as what we put into the [1992] model,” Fagre said. “What we’ve been saying now is 2020.”


Yet another climate impact occurring faster than the models had projected.
Another climate impact coming faster than predicted: Glacier National Park to go glacier-free a decade early Climate Progress

Oceans rising faster than expected as climate change exceeds grimmest models


Climate Changing Faster Than Expected

"As climate change exceeds the worst projections, scientists underscore the urgency of reducing emissions."
 
Your opinion is the opposite of what the evidence shows, Global warming is happening faster than the models predicted:
Not significantly since 1995.
But, keep quoting the bible.
 
Thanks for your opinion!
Funny that you say that as if you have offered anything different.

If there has been no significant warming for the last 15 years, how can the actual warming be faster than predicted?

Was no warming predicted from 1995-2010?
 
Last edited:
Problem is, I checked the article in that link, and found no links to the actual study.
If one model can be tweaked to produce the conclusions desired (as some have claimed certain ACC models have been), then any could be.
Thus all are suspect, and, ergo, cannot be trusted unless you see the study/model yourself and understand it and how it was built.

The report was not based on models, it was based on actual "in the field" data. Then the actual data was compared with models:

"In the study, Dr Barnett’s team examined more than seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are predicted by computer models of various potential causes of climate change."

In short, you have to do that damn study yourself if you want to be sure of the validity.

I could not find a link to the actual 2005 study, but I did find a link to a 2001 report by the Scripps Institute in Science Magazine ~

Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans

Tim P. Barnett,* David W. Pierce, Reiner Schnur

"Large-scale increases in the heat content of the world's oceans have been observed to occur over the last 45 years. The horizontal and temporal character of these changes has been closely replicated by the state-of-the-art Parallel Climate Model (PCM) forced by observed and estimated anthropogenic gases. Application of optimal detection methodology shows that the model-produced signals are indistinguishable from the observations at the 0.05 confidence level. Further, the chances of either the anthropogenic or observed signals being produced by the PCM as a result of natural, internal forcing alone are less than 5%. This suggests that the observed ocean heat-content changes are consistent with those expected from anthropogenic forcing, which broadens the basis for claims that an anthropogenic signal has been detected in the global climate system. Additionally, the requirement that modeled ocean heat uptakes match observations puts a strong, new constraint on anthropogenically forced climate models. It is unknown if the current generation of climate models, other than the PCM, meet this constraint."


Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans -- Barnett et al. 292 (5515): 270 -- Science

An email address is there for Barnett, if you would like to request further documentation.
 
...More quotes and links...
I tried to check all those links for links to reports, but got lost in one of them which appeared to be a blog linking to other blog articles in the same blog...

However, most appear to be "X says...Y1, Y2, Y3." But no links to studies/data that proves what "X" is saying to be true.

I did find this, but haven't perused it to check for potential errors.
 
Funny that you say that as if you have offered anything different.

If there has been no significant warming for the last 15 years, how can the actual warming be faster than predicted?

Was no warming predicted from 1995-2010?

I again thank you for your opinion, but I will go with the reports by the experts I have posted above.
 
I again thank you for your opinion, but I will go with the reports by the experts I have posted above.
Well, of course - your zeal for your faith dictates that you ignore anything that runs contrary to same.

Having said that, you can now answer the questions.
 
I tried to check all those links for links to reports, but got lost in one of them which appeared to be a blog linking to other blog articles in the same blog...

However, most appear to be "X says...Y1, Y2, Y3." But no links to studies/data that proves what "X" is saying to be true.

I did find this, but haven't perused it to check for potential errors.

What I posted from the Science Magazine was a report written by the actual authors themselves rather than a story about the author's findings. You might also try contacting Barnett himself via the email address listed there for further information about their methods used in the 2005 report.
 
Well, of course - your zeal for your faith dictates that you ignore anything that runs contrary to same.

Having said that, you can now answer the questions.

What makes your opinion more valuable than the experts I have posted.
 
I again thank you for your opinion, but I will go with the reports by the experts I have posted above.
The problem I have with the current process for proving ACC is that far to much political influence is involved.

The opportunities for political power gain seem obvious to me, if you take as a given some of the claims that ACC supporters maintain.

Thus, the fact that politics and ACC seem very closely intertwined leads me to the conclusion that I can’t trust ACC (as I already didn’t trust politics).

The opportunities for ACC science (or pseudo-science, as some claim) to be corrupted by politics is massive.

I suppose that ACC science would somehow have to be divorced from political connections to eliminate that issue I have.

But the thing is, in the current scientific climate, you must have money to do science, and politics/politicians have control over a lot of money they can throw at things. The opportunities for corruption, again, seem obvious to me.
 
What makes your opinion more valuable than the experts I have posted.
I'm sorry - I asked you two questions regarung your opinion:

If there has been no significant warming for the last 15 years, how can the actual warming be faster than predicted?

Was no warming predicted from 1995-2010?

You haven't answered them.

And, the fact that you ignore anything that runs contrary to your opinion speaks volumes.
 
The problem I have with the current process for proving ACC is that far to much political influence is involved.

I agree, that is why I have not posted any political opinion.

The opportunities for political power gain seem obvious to me, if you take as a given some of the claims that ACC supporters maintain.

Thus, the fact that politics and ACC seem very closely intertwined leads me to the conclusion that I can’t trust ACC (as I already didn’t trust politics).

The opportunities for ACC science (or pseudo-science, as some claim) to be corrupted by politics is massive.

I suppose that ACC science would somehow have to be divorced from political connections to eliminate that issue I have.

But the thing is, in the current scientific climate, you must have money to do science, and politics/politicians have control over a lot of money they can throw at things. The opportunities for corruption, again, seem obvious to me.

The consensus is among 180 countries around the world. I fail to see how they would have colluded to try to scam, or why. It would be the biggest conspiracy in the history of the planet. It does not seem logical to me.

If we are going to err, I prefer it to be in a direction that does not risk future life on the planet as we know it.
 
Back
Top Bottom