• 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
Oozlefinch said:
That is not proof of "Man Caused Global Warming". What you give is some statistics, the belief that it is causing climate change, and that man is the cause of this change.

This is why so many reject the "theory", because it is more "belief" then "fact". Because while they explain a possible theory for what causes the change, in reality nobody knows what is causing it.

And the largest problem with the "Man Made Global Warming" pushers is that they have a belief ("Man is causing it"), and then some statistics. And they are constantly shifting the theories to mesh the belief with the statistics. This is piss-poor science.

If you can even call it "Science", because I do not.

So what are we left with? A lot of double-talk. You hear things like "This may have ended the ice age", or "This may cause a mini ice age", but then on the next breath claims like "Man does cause global warming".

And there are so many side-steps in the "Theory" that all of the scientists might as well go to Radio City Music Hall and try out for the Rockettes.
Click to expand...
Hopefully their legs aren't too painful to look at...
 
Last edited:
And for those that believe in "Man Made Global Warming", answer me this:

Did humans put out more or less CO2 in the 2000's then they did in the 1990's?

Is CO2 causing or not causing "Global Warming"?

If we pushed out more in the 2000's, then why was it cooler then the 1990's? Because that makes absolutely no sense to me. You might as well tell me "You turn the thermostat on the stove to 200. You then turn it up to 220 and it will drop the stove to 190".

Like I said, junk science.
 
Oozlefinch said:
And for those that believe in "Man Made Global Warming", answer me this:

Did humans put out more or less CO2 in the 2000's then they did in the 1990's?

Is CO2 causing or not causing "Global Warming"?

If we pushed out more in the 2000's, then why was it cooler then the 1990's? Because that makes absolutely no sense to me. You might as well tell me "You turn the thermostat on the stove to 200. You then turn it up to 220 and it will drop the stove to 190".

Like I said, junk science.
Click to expand...

CO2 is indirectly causing global warming. Because it increases rate of evaporation, it increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, therefore a hotter environment. The CO2 content of the atmosphere is about 380 ppm or so.

Because the CO2 is indirectly causing the climate change, and because it is so sparse in the atmosphere, vastly increasing the amount of CO2 increases the temperature in a minor way.

Could you also cite the decrease in temperature?
 
Oozlefinch said:
So what are we left with?
Click to expand...

We are left with the consensus by mainstream science that man is contributing to global warming.

The only debate is from those that believe it is all just a conspiracy on a world wide scale over the decades.

I expect that debate will last until we have billions of homeless refugees due to climate changes, who knows possibly beyond that! ;)

The leaders of the world have moved on to action to reduce our contribution to global warming.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
The only debate is from those that believe it is all just a conspiracy on a world wide scale over the decades.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard me say I thought it was a conspiracy?

Remember, 70 years ago eugenics was considered a legitimate science. Science was once sure the Earth was the center of the Solar System (if not the Universe). And they had elaborate graphs and charts and formulas to prove this was true.

My debate is many things. Not enough is known, not enough is understood, and the samples are of much to short of a period of time to even try to claim they know "the truth".

Not to mention that the correct term is "theory", not "fact". Because for most things that is the real term.

The "Big Bang" is just a theory, so is Evolution. And so is "Man Made Global Warming". And remember, most people do believe in Global Warming, they just dispute the cause.
 
Oozlefinch said:
The "Big Bang" is just a theory, so is Evolution. And so is "Man Made Global Warming". And remember, most people do believe in Global Warming, they just dispute the cause.
Click to expand...

What do you attribute the recent climate change to then?
 
Oozlefinch said:
Have you ever heard me say I thought it was a conspiracy?
Click to expand...
If you think all of mainstream science is wrong, the only conclusion is that you think it is a conspiracy.

Remember, 70 years ago eugenics was considered a legitimate science. Science was once sure the Earth was the center of the Solar System (if not the Universe). And they had elaborate graphs and charts and formulas to prove this was true.
Click to expand...

Eugenics was never an accepted theory by all of the world's scientific organizations of National and International standing.

My debate is many things. Not enough is known, not enough is understood, and the samples are of much to short of a period of time to even try to claim they know "the truth".

Not to mention that the correct term is "theory", not "fact". Because for most things that is the real term.

The "Big Bang" is just a theory, so is Evolution. And so is "Man Made Global Warming". And remember, most people do believe in Global Warming, they just dispute the cause.
Click to expand...

The Big Bang has not received concurrence by all of mainstream science as AGW has been.

What reason do you have to believe that all of mainstream science is wrong, other than its a conspiracy?
 
The Mark said:
Natural changes in the climate.
Click to expand...

There have been no natural changes that could cause it that have not been scientifically ruled out in this case.
 
Catawba said:
There have been no natural changes that could cause it that have not been scientifically ruled out in this case.
Click to expand...

You have no proof there have been so many lies nothing is believable and the GW scientist have no credibility.
 
Oozlefinch said:
And for those that believe in "Man Made Global Warming", answer me this:

Did humans put out more or less CO2 in the 2000's then they did in the 1990's?

Is CO2 causing or not causing "Global Warming"?

If we pushed out more in the 2000's, then why was it cooler then the 1990's? Because that makes absolutely no sense to me. You might as well tell me "You turn the thermostat on the stove to 200. You then turn it up to 220 and it will drop the stove to 190".

Like I said, junk science.
Click to expand...

It wasn't cooler in the 1990's, it was warmer.

The question is "since CO2 concentrations have increased, why have temperatures decreased?"

They can't answer that one, so they've been lying, first by babbling about "climate change" not "global warming", then about how the planet hasn't cooled, which is a lie.

I personally am too honest to accept theories based on falsifified data and Climbing Magazine articles. AGW people aren't.
 
Not a myth, it's measured. The cold can also be explained by global warming. There are measurements, the measurements do so an upward trend in global. All the controversy is over cause, do humans cause it all or is it normal global trends? Much of that isn't well known at this point.
 
Ikari said:
Not a myth, it's measured. The cold can also be explained by global warming. There are measurements, the measurements do so an upward trend in global. All the controversy is over cause, do humans cause it all or is it normal global trends? Much of that isn't well known at this point.
Click to expand...

Thats right no matter what the weather does it is GW, what crap.

There is no GW just natural climate change that has been happening since the beginning of time.
 
ptif219 said:
Thats right no matter what the weather does it is GW, what crap.

There is no GW just natural climate change that has been happening since the beginning of time.
Click to expand...

Global Warming is part of natural trends as well. There have been several cooling and warming cycles in earth's history. And there's a difference between weather and climate, which is why people without degrees should hold their tongues. People want to spout off at the mouth that they are somehow smarter and better than scientists who measure these things, but you can't even get bias rejection right so there's no reason to listen to anyone on the subject who does not understand the measurements and fundamental problem at hand.
 
Ikari said:
Global Warming is part of natural trends as well. There have been several cooling and warming cycles in earth's history. And there's a difference between weather and climate, which is why people without degrees should hold their tongues. People want to spout off at the mouth that they are somehow smarter and better than scientists who measure these things, but you can't even get bias rejection right so there's no reason to listen to anyone on the subject who does not understand the measurements and fundamental problem at hand.
Click to expand...

Looking at all the corruption and lies revealed in the last few months I would say the IPCC and NASA no longer are credible or believable.
 
ptif219 said:
Looking at all the corruption and lies revealed in the last few months I would say the IPCC and NASA no longer are credible or believable.
Click to expand...

But complete outsiders with no knowledge on the subject are credible eh? That's the point you're trying to make? I'm still taking the scientists over opinionated, biased folk with no training in and little understanding of science.
 
Ikari said:
But complete outsiders with no knowledge on the subject are credible eh? That's the point you're trying to make? I'm still taking the scientists over opinionated, biased folk with no training in and little understanding of science.
Click to expand...

No.

You're taking the scientists that are basing their conclusions on fraudulent data.

You must be specific when you say you're "taking the scientists", since many reject the theory of AGW, and rightfully so, since AGW has been proven to be a fraud.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No.

You're taking the scientists that are basing their conclusions on fraudulent data.

You must be specific when you say you're "taking the scientists", since many reject the theory of AGW, and rightfully so, since AGW has been proven to be a fraud.
Click to expand...

I'm still going to go with the professional over the ignorant on this one. There are a lot of questions which go along with global warming, but measured data is measured data. Is there enough to fully understand the system and constrain all the variables? No, there is not. Does that mean we can say nothing about the system? No, it does not. There's plenty to still understand, and much to learn. If you want to talk about causes of global warming, be it natural or human caused; then there is a lot left to learn and I don't think anything can be said definitely on that front. But temps were recorded overall higher, the fact is that there are warming trends. Fact is, those warming trends can cause an overall affect on the extremes, i.e. cause colder winters/warmer summers. Pointing to local weather doesn't prove overall climate.
 
ptif219 said:
Looking at all the corruption and lies revealed in the last few months I would say the IPCC and NASA no longer are credible or believable.
Click to expand...

If you are not going to believe nasa, then who are you going to believe, Matt Drudge or Glen Beck?
 
I think these two reports considered together are very compelling for the political debate around climate change ~


"One degree Fahrenheit might not sound like a lot, but picture the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of a cup of water that amount. Multiply that for a swimming pool. Do so again for a planet, say Earth.

For biology and environmental studies professor Dan Perlman of Brandeis University in Waltham, that's the import of a new report citing the past decade as the globe's warmest on record, by nearly one degree.

"That, along with all the other evidence, continues to support the idea that we're in store for something really big here," Perlman said this past week, citing his belief that man-made emissions are artificially warming the Earth. "It's like it's another few bricks in our certainty."

The report, issued Tuesday by the National Climatic Data Center, found that the decade 2000 to 2009 had the highest average temperature dating back to the start of record-keeping in 1880. The decade was 0.96 degree warmer than the 129-year average, breaking the record of 0.56 degree warmer set by the '90s and continuing a trend from the '60s.

Also, while 0.96 degree represents a significant amount of energy, Perlman said, that number is an average for the globe, with some places staying flat or cooling and others, like the polar north, spiking.

"There are some places that are really getting hammered," he said.
Scientists like Perlman and many others attribute most of the warming since the mid-20th century to human activities such as the release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning. They say the evidence and causal relationships are well-established.

"How certain do you want to be?" asked Larry McKenna, a professor in Framingham State College's department of physics and earth sciences. "We're getting up to the 99 percent level."

But scientists from other well-regarded institutions, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, question the amount of warming that can be tied to human sources and how much impact might be in the pipeline. They also point to natural climate cycles like El Nino occurring over decades, centuries and millenia.

While McKenna acknowledged the impact of natural oscillations, he said climate history-preserving ice samples from the planet's polar regions show no evidence of a similar past warming cycle, making for an unprecedented trend."
Evidence for climate change caused by man mounts - Framingham, MA - The MetroWest Daily News


" According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

Human Emissions Also Dwarf Volcanoes in Carbon Dioxide Production
Another indication that human emissions dwarf those of volcanoes is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels, as measured by sampling stations around the world set up by the federally funded Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, have gone up consistently year after year regardless of whether or not there have been major volcanic eruptions in specific years. “If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in carbon dioxide concentrations, then these carbon dioxide records would be full of spikes—one for each eruption,” says Coby Beck, a journalist writing for online environmental news portal Grist.org. “Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend.”
Volcanoes and Greenhouse Gases - Do Volcanoes Generate More Greenhouse Gas Than Humans?
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
There have been no natural changes that could cause it that have not been scientifically ruled out in this case.
Click to expand...
Actually, no, that's where the debate lies.

Some persons believe there is conclusive proof that natural changes cannot account for the current climate changes. You are one of these.

Some persons, like myself, have yet to be convinced.

Some never will be.
 
....Why are we still debating in the thread of somebody who clearly doesn't understand what Global Warming is or how it works?
 
Hatuey said:
....Why are we still debating in the thread of somebody who clearly doesn't understand what Global Warming is or how it works?
Click to expand...
Because we never really cared about what he thought?
 
repeter said:
Could you also cite the decrease in temperature?
Click to expand...

Trend Analysis of Satellite Global Temperature Data

Global satellite data is analyzed for temperature trends for the period January 1979 through June 2009. Beginning and ending segments show a cooling trend, while the middle segment evinces a warming trend. The past 12 to 13 years show cooling using both satellite data sets, with lower confidence limits that do not exclude a negative trend until 16 years. It is shown that several published studies have predicted cooling in this time frame. One of these models is extrapolated from its 2000 calibration end date and shows a good match to the satellite data, with a projection of continued cooling for several more decades.

NCASI Health Monitor

loehle_fig6_uah.png


loehle_fig6_rss.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom