• 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
Even companies are giving up on being green after the lies prove GW is a scam.


BP, ConocoPhillips and Caterpillar Pull Out of Climate Partnership - WSJ.com


hree big companies quit an influential lobbying group that had focused on shaping climate-change legislation, in the latest sign that support for an ambitious bill is melting away.



Several companies are quitting an influential lobbying group focusing in on legislation, despite the administratin's push to use the budget to pass greenhouse gas legistlation. WSJ's Grainne McCarthy reports in the News Hub.

Oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. said Tuesday they won't renew their membership in the three-year-old U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a broad business-environmental coalition that had been instrumental in building support in Washington for capping emissions of greenhouse gases.

The move comes as debate over climate change intensifies and concerns mount about the cost of capping greenhouse-gas emissions.

On a range of issues, from climate change to health care, skepticism is growing in Washington that Congress will pass any major legislation in a contentious election year in which Republicans are expected to gain seats. For companies, the shifting winds have reduced pressure to find common ground, leading them to pursue their own, sometimes conflicting interests.

Oh wow, since we know corporations know everything :roll:

Care to debate the science of climate change?
 
Ice caps are not melting, and polar bears are just fine. Stop spreading lies.

It is true and I seen a documentary about this stuff. I saw it with my own eyes what is happening to the Polar Bears. :(

It was on Animal Planet and National Geographic. Also seals are at a very big risk too. :(
 
NOT! I have seen it on Animal Planet about the polarbears dying:(

So another GW friendly sight.


Polar Bear Baby Boom Occurring in Eastern Arctic, Will Media Notice? | NewsBusters.org

Polar bears are the poster animals of global warming. The image of a polar bear floating on an ice floe is one of the most dramatic visual statements in the fight against rising temperatures in the Arctic.

But global warming is not killing the polar bears of Canada's eastern Arctic, according to one ongoing study. Scheduled for release next year, it says the number of polar bears in the Davis Strait area of Canada's eastern Arctic – one of 19 polar bear populations worldwide – has grown to 2,100, up from 850 in the mid-1980s.

For those keeping score, that’s an almost 150 percent increase in two decades.

The article continued:

"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a ... lot more bears," biologist Mitchell Taylor told the Nunatsiaq News of Iqaluit in the Arctic territory of Nunavut. Earlier, in a long telephone conversation, Dr. Taylor explained his conviction that threats to polar bears from global warming are exaggerated and that their numbers are increasing. He has studied the animals for the Nunavut government for two decades.

Hmmm. So, a local biologist that has studied polar bears for two decades says their population is increasing. How marvelous.

Read more: Polar Bear Baby Boom Occurring in Eastern Arctic, Will Media Notice? | NewsBusters.org
 
Oh wow, since we know corporations know everything :roll:

Care to debate the science of climate change?

It shows the new revelations of lies and corruption by GW scientist has shown they are no longer credible and companies will no longer back Obama on environmental issues.
 
So another GW friendly sight.


Polar Bear Baby Boom Occurring in Eastern Arctic, Will Media Notice? | NewsBusters.org

Polar bears are the poster animals of global warming. The image of a polar bear floating on an ice floe is one of the most dramatic visual statements in the fight against rising temperatures in the Arctic.

But global warming is not killing the polar bears of Canada's eastern Arctic, according to one ongoing study. Scheduled for release next year, it says the number of polar bears in the Davis Strait area of Canada's eastern Arctic – one of 19 polar bear populations worldwide – has grown to 2,100, up from 850 in the mid-1980s.

For those keeping score, that’s an almost 150 percent increase in two decades.

The article continued:

"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a ... lot more bears," biologist Mitchell Taylor told the Nunatsiaq News of Iqaluit in the Arctic territory of Nunavut. Earlier, in a long telephone conversation, Dr. Taylor explained his conviction that threats to polar bears from global warming are exaggerated and that their numbers are increasing. He has studied the animals for the Nunavut government for two decades.

Hmmm. So, a local biologist that has studied polar bears for two decades says their population is increasing. How marvelous.

Read more: Polar Bear Baby Boom Occurring in Eastern Arctic, Will Media Notice? | NewsBusters.org

Could you get another source for that data? The article was quite obviously bias against global warming, and I would like to see the Doctor's full statement, not paraphrased and shortened.

Then of course, is the problem about births vs. fully grown. How many polar bears of the 2,100 born survive to adulthood to reproduce?
 
It shows the new revelations of lies and corruption by GW scientist has shown they are no longer credible and companies will no longer back Obama on environmental issues.

Or they could be wrong. Corporations quite often are. And corporations always act on their own interests (and that of their stock holders). Considering what is being considered in terms of a cap and trade system, they might very well want to leave the group that they did.
 
Care to debate the science of climate change?

Care to provide some evidence that human CO2 emissions are having a significant effect on global temperatures? All you have offered thus far is theorizing and speculation; I'd like some hard data to support your inferences.
 
The problem is that in this kind of case, figures and facts can be twisted and distorted to show whatever they want to claim.

I can show you some great statistics that claim that blacks are inferior to whites, but that certainly does not mean it is true. It is all in how you can make figures lie, depending on how you present them.

The difference is this not just some statistics this the conclusion of every major science organization on the planet, with measurable visible proof.

And answer me this, if "Global Warming" is primarily human-induced, what caused the end of the ice age? Humans? And since we are still technically in an ice age, what will it mean when the polar ice cap finally disolves?


And that alone is something I highly question. I am actually seeing dates of 2013 as to when the North Polar Ice Cap will no longer exist!

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

You need to go back to GW 101. There are several natural causes of global warming before man including Volcanoes and maximum solar activity. The difference now through records kept, we know there was no significant volcanic or solar activity during this warming period. If the ice caps melt we are in big trouble as about half the animal species on the planet will become extinct, many of which are food species for billions of people.

So when we revisit this in a few years, can those of us that do not believe in "Man Made Global Warming" then laugh at those that make such claims?

Sure, I'm just hoping your grandchildren don't have to come you one day and say why did you not try to stop this.
 
Care to provide some evidence that human CO2 emissions are having a significant effect on global temperatures? All you have offered thus far is theorizing and speculation; I'd like some hard data to support your inferences.

Have you missed everything I've said?

The CO2 emissions do not have the significant effect on climate, it is the increase in water vapor that has it. CO2 simply has to start this reaction, and then it keeps going.
 
Care to provide some evidence that human CO2 emissions are having a significant effect on global temperatures? All you have offered thus far is theorizing and speculation; I'd like some hard data to support your inferences.

At least I give you credit for recognizing that global warming is happening. That puts you a step up from the dolts in this country that think its not, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence and visual proof that is.

Here is the science behind man's contribution to global warming:

"The skeptic argument...

"There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence." (David Evans)


What the science says...

Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

The line of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows:
We're raising CO2 levels

Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).

Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites. For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year."

CO2 traps heat

According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 GigaWatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans. Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 GigaWatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans. What about after 2003? A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep (von Schuckmann 2009). Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm−2, consistent with other determinations of the planet's energy imbalance (Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009). The planet continues to accumulate heat.

So we see a direct line of evidence that we're causing global warming. Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels. The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The planet's energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the planet's total heat content and ocean heat measurements."
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
 
Then there's no need to regulate CO2 emissions.

You're just arguing now because you have too much pride to say you were wrong. This debate is over, unless you have something real to contribute.
 
You're just arguing now because you have too much pride to say you were wrong. This debate is over, unless you have something real to contribute.

Companies that were willing to help with climate bills are now bowing out.


BP, ConocoPhillips and Caterpillar Pull Out of Climate Partnership - WSJ.com

Three big companies quit an influential lobbying group that had focused on shaping climate-change legislation, in the latest sign that support for an ambitious bill is melting away.

Several companies are quitting an influential lobbying group focusing in on legislation, despite the administratin's push to use the budget to pass greenhouse gas legistlation. WSJ's Grainne McCarthy reports in the News Hub.

Oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. said Tuesday they won't renew their membership in the three-year-old U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a broad business-environmental coalition that had been instrumental in building support in Washington for capping emissions of greenhouse gases.

The move comes as debate over climate change intensifies and concerns mount about the cost of capping greenhouse-gas emissions.
 
You're just arguing now because you have too much pride to say you were wrong. This debate is over, unless you have something real to contribute.

You said human CO2 emissions do not have a significant effect on climate. That's what you said. Have you forgotten what you said already? It was like ten minutes ago.

So, if...

...CO2 emissions do not have the significant effect on climate...

...then there is no need to regulate CO2 emissions. I'm just using your words. Do you have something against your own words?

...

Let's try this again - maybe this time you'll avoid falling face-first into a big pile of fail...

You said human CO2 emissions caused the increase in water vapor which in turn caused the Earth to heat up significantly via the greenhouse effect.

I asked you to provide some evidence that this was the case. You failed to provide any such evidence and instead speculated and theorized and attempted to pass a rudimentary description of a well-known process off as evidence.

Regurgitating Al Gore's AGW talking points is not the same thing as providing evidence to support your conclusions. As soon as you learn the difference, you'll cease being a snide and smug teenager who presumes to educate his elders about basic science...
 
Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

Just because two things happen at the same time does not mean they are causally linked. This is a basic principle of science.
 
Just because two things happen at the same time does not mean they are causally linked. This is a basic principle of science.

This is not coincidental, this cause and effect, as the report above shows:

"According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space."

Let's see your science that refutes radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements.
 
This is not coincidental, this cause and effect, as the report above shows:

"According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space."

Let's see your science that refutes radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements.

Just because two things happen at the same time does not mean they are causally linked. This is a basic principle of science.

In order to establish causation you must control for any and all confounding variables; this means holding them constant and observing the relationship between the two variables you suspect are causally linked.

Show me some hard data to support your speculation, otherwise, stop regurgitating the same Al Gore talking points that repeter is so fond of...
 
In order to establish causation you must control for any and all confounding variables; this means holding them constant and observing the relationship between the two variables you suspect are causally linked.

They did that, the have eliminated the other sources of significant natural sources of C02, such as volcanic action or solar activity. They were at a minimum during this warming period.

Show me some hard data to support your speculation, otherwise, stop regurgitating the same Al Gore talking points that repeter is so fond of...

I did above, and you have provided nothing to refute it except your opinion. Show me your studies that refutes radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements.
 
They did that, the have eliminated the other sources of significant natural sources of C02, such as volcanic action or solar activity. They were at a minimum during this warming period.

That doesn't even make any sense. How can solar activity be at a minimum during one-hundred years of warming when the typical solar cycle is only eleven years long?

I did above, and you have provided nothing to refute it except your opinion. Show me your studies that refutes radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements.

How do you explain the Medieval Warm Period?
 
That doesn't even make any sense. How can solar activity be at a minimum during one-hundred years of warming when the typical solar cycle is only eleven years long?

My meaning was there has been no unusual solar activity measured to account for the warming during this warming period. If you nave proof to dispute that, present it.


How do you explain the Medieval Warm Period?

Scientists have concluded there is no evidence to prove the Medieval warm period was a global event. They further found it was caused by frequent volcanic eruptions during that period.
Medieval Climate Not So Hot

If you have proof it was a global event, present it.
 
That doesn't even make any sense. How can solar activity be at a minimum during one-hundred years of warming when the typical solar cycle is only eleven years long?



How do you explain the Medieval Warm Period?

Because there are cycles within cycles - as with everything.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation]Solar variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
The difference is this not just some statistics this the conclusion of every major science organization on the planet, with measurable visible proof.

And most major science organizations once believed in eugenics. That does not mean it was true. And they have also believed in things like Earth at the center of the universe, the universe consisting of only our galaxy, and a great many other things.

At one time, mathmaticians thought that negative numbers were impossible. So throwing out the concept that every organization accepts it is not proof.

And not every organization does accept it. It is that those that reject it are ostracized, as we have been seeing in the press the last few months.

You need to go back to GW 101. There are several natural causes of global warming before man including Volcanoes and maximum solar activity. The difference now through records kept, we know there was no significant volcanic or solar activity during this warming period. If the ice caps melt we are in big trouble as about half the animal species on the planet will become extinct, many of which are food species for billions of people.

Go back to what, Global Warming 101? Sounds more like you need to go back to some basic Earth Science (and not the sham that is being paraded out as that today).

For one, I keep looking at all of these statistics that show the earth warming each and every year for decades. Yet I also remember several major volcanos erupting, and the ash produced cooling the planet for a year or so afterwards. But these "blips" never seem to appear in the statistics.

And going back to other "Junk Science", many of the Global Warming theories are based on the work of Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist that in 1901 talked about the Greenhouse Effect and how CO2 affected it. His writings have been the basis of such work for over a century.

Of course, he was also one of the founders of the State Institute for Racial Biology, an organization that conceived of Compulsory sterilization. When I find a "scientist" who believed in such disgusting topics as eugenics and the like, it makes me question all of his or her works.

Of course, Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood) also believed in such things, and her organization was founded to persue such goals. But that is another topic entirely.

And yes, the ice caps will melt, that always happens in an interglacial period. The fact that they have not melted yet means little, because it will happen. And it will get hotter, that also happens in an interglacial.

At the peak of the Eemian, the northern hemisphere winters were generally warmer and wetter than now, though some areas were actually slightly cooler than today. The Hippopotamus was distributed as far north as the rivers Rhine and Thames. Trees grew as far north as southern Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago instead of only as far north as Kuujjuaq in northern Quebec, and the prairie-forest boundary in the Great Plains of the United States lay further west — near Lubbock, Texas, instead of near Dallas, Texas, where the boundary now exists.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian_Stage]Eemian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Now think about that. Hippos in the Thames. Prairie and forest in Northern Quebec, where tundra and permafrost exist today. So get ready, because things are going to get a lot hotter. A lot hotter.
 
That doesn't even make any sense. How can solar activity be at a minimum during one-hundred years of warming when the typical solar cycle is only eleven years long?

Don't baffle them with facts. It's unfair.

How do you explain the Medieval Warm Period?

They don't, so the IPCC simply made it vanish.
 
Back
Top Bottom