• 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
Catawba said:
Temp&FossilFuelRev.png
Click to expand...

Hint!

Take a hint!

Free hint!

Get your Free Hint HERE!

correlation is not proof of causation.

Get two hints for the price of one:

(the rise in temperatures leads the rise in fuel use. and as fuel use begins to rise, the derivative of the temperature curve flattens out. that means there's no correlation between fuel use and temperature.)
 
Last edited:
Global warming is not a myth.

I only say so because I believe that those that believe it is not suffer from a mild form of political insanity, in that they tend to imply a global conspiracy.

There I answered it.
 
Last edited:
Not a myth. The ice shelf that covered about half of N. America has been receding for about 12K years now and that's how long the planet has been warming this time. If it wasn't warming we wouldn't be here in the numbers we are. Our effect on the planet is just as natural as any other part of the ecology, i.e., volcanic eruption, el nino, viral pandemics, bovine methane production.

It has nothing to do with industrialization. It has to do with a bunch of greedy hysterical chicken littles trying to make a buck and get big bad USA to fund the third world through the UN. We should close the doors on the UN and evict the idiots.
 
LowRevs said:
It has nothing to do with industrialization. It has to do with a bunch of greedy hysterical chicken littles trying to make a buck and get big bad USA to fund the third world through the UN. We should close the doors on the UN and evict the idiots.
Click to expand...
Oh, it goes much further than that -- AGW is the means thru which the left hopes to cripple capitalism, end 'affluenza' and criminalize wealth.
 
Criminalize wealth?

Is that in the imaginary leftist manifesto you've written in your head.
 
2007, the date mainstream science debate ended on the causes of global warming, and the methods to reduce it.

"National Academy of Sciences: 2007 Joint science academies’ statement on growth and responsibility: sustainability, energy efficiency and climate protection:

The problem is not yet insoluble, but becomes more difficult with each passing day. A goal of confining global warming to an average of 2 centigrade degrees above pre-industrial levels would be very challenging, and even this amount of warming would be likely to have some severe impacts. . . .

We call on world leaders, especially those meeting at the G8 Summit in June 2007, to:
• Set standards and promote economic instruments for efficiency, and commit to promoting energy efficiency for buildings, devices, motors, transportation systems
and in the energy sector itself.
• Promote understanding of climate and energy issues and encourage necessary behavioural changes within our societies.
• Define and implement measures to reduce global deforestation.
• Strengthen economic and technological exchange with developing countries, in order to leapfrog to cleaner and more efficient modern technologies.
• Invest strongly in science and technology related to energy efficiency, zero-carbon energy resources and carbon-removing technologies.

1. Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias,Brazil
2. Académie des Sciences, France
3. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
4. Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
5. National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
6. Royal Society of Canada, Canada
7. Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany
8. Science Council of Japan, Japan
9. Academy of Science of South Africa, South Africa
10. Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
11. Indian National Science Academy, India
12. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Mexico
13. Royal Society, United Kingdom

Joint Statement I

Here is a press release from the National Academy of Sciences (USA) which opens with the words “Climate Change is real”. It’s conclusion begins with “We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies.” It recognizes the international consensus of the IPCC (2001), IEA (2004), and UNFCCC. It is signed by:



1. National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
2. Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
3. Royal Society, United Kingdom
4. Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
5. Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
6. Royal Society of Canada, Canada
7. Academié des Sciences, France
8. Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
9. Indian National Science Academy, India
10. Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
11. Science Council of Japan, Japan



Joint Statement II

Here is another press release from the Royal Society (UK) which says “The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise* IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes”. It is signed by:



1. Australian Academy of Sciences
2. Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
3. Brazilian Academy of Sciences
4. Royal Society of Canada
5. Caribbean Academy of Sciences
6. Chinese Academy of Sciences
7. French Academy of Sciences
8. German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
9. Indian National Science Academy
10. Indonesian Academy of Sciences
11. Royal Irish Academy
12. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
13. Academy of Sciences Malaysia
14. Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
15. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
16. Royal Society (UK)

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion
 
Catawba said:
2007, the date mainstream science debate ended on the causes of global warming, and the methods to reduce it.

"National Academy of Sciences: 2007 Joint science academies’ statement on growth and responsibility: sustainability, energy efficiency and climate protection:

The problem is not yet insoluble, but becomes more difficult with each passing day. A goal of confining global warming to an average of 2 centigrade degrees above pre-industrial levels would be very challenging, and even this amount of warming would be likely to have some severe impacts. . . .

We call on world leaders, especially those meeting at the G8 Summit in June 2007, to:
• Set standards and promote economic instruments for efficiency, and commit to promoting energy efficiency for buildings, devices, motors, transportation systems
and in the energy sector itself.
• Promote understanding of climate and energy issues and encourage necessary behavioural changes within our societies.
• Define and implement measures to reduce global deforestation.
• Strengthen economic and technological exchange with developing countries, in order to leapfrog to cleaner and more efficient modern technologies.
• Invest strongly in science and technology related to energy efficiency, zero-carbon energy resources and carbon-removing technologies.

1. Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias,Brazil
2. Académie des Sciences, France
3. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
4. Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
5. National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
6. Royal Society of Canada, Canada
7. Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany
8. Science Council of Japan, Japan
9. Academy of Science of South Africa, South Africa
10. Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
11. Indian National Science Academy, India
12. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Mexico
13. Royal Society, United Kingdom

Joint Statement I

Here is a press release from the National Academy of Sciences (USA) which opens with the words “Climate Change is real”. It’s conclusion begins with “We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies.” It recognizes the international consensus of the IPCC (2001), IEA (2004), and UNFCCC. It is signed by:



1. National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
2. Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
3. Royal Society, United Kingdom
4. Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
5. Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
6. Royal Society of Canada, Canada
7. Academié des Sciences, France
8. Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
9. Indian National Science Academy, India
10. Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
11. Science Council of Japan, Japan



Joint Statement II

Here is another press release from the Royal Society (UK) which says “The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise* IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes”. It is signed by:



1. Australian Academy of Sciences
2. Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
3. Brazilian Academy of Sciences
4. Royal Society of Canada
5. Caribbean Academy of Sciences
6. Chinese Academy of Sciences
7. French Academy of Sciences
8. German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
9. Indian National Science Academy
10. Indonesian Academy of Sciences
11. Royal Irish Academy
12. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
13. Academy of Sciences Malaysia
14. Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
15. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
16. Royal Society (UK)

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion
Click to expand...

The problem is it is being proven to be lies and corruption.
 
ptif219 said:
The problem is it is being proven to be lies and corruption.
Click to expand...

Which scientific organization do you regard more highly than the National Academy of Science in concurrence with all the other major country's science academies?
 
ptif219 said:
The problem is it is being proven to be lies and corruption.
Click to expand...

Which scientific organization do you regard more highly than the National Academy of Science in concurrence with all the other major country's science academies?
 
ptif219 said:
The problem is it is being proven to be lies and corruption.
Click to expand...

When someone posts something as extensive as what Catawba posted, and then someone like you responds with some lacksidasical 1 liner whine, you look really stupid.
 
repeter said:
When someone posts something as extensive as what Catawba posted, and then someone like you responds with some lacksidasical 1 liner whine, you look really stupid.
Click to expand...
How do you suppose your lacksidasical ad-hom makes you look?
 
I would hardly call it a myth. I'm not so sure I would call it "global warming" either as a LOT of people get confused, as it is snowing in Texas and Florida, how the Earth could possibly be warmer.

But who can deny that the weather patterns are all topsy turvy these days?

Here's a graph. Sure looks like a warming trend to me.

Fig.A.lrg.gif
 
Captain America said:
I would hardly call it a myth. I'm not so sure I would call it "global warming" either as a LOT of people get confused, as it is snowing in Texas and Florida, how the Earth could possibly be warmer.

But who can deny that the weather patterns are all topsy turvy these days?

Here's a graph. Sure looks like a warming trend to me.

Fig.A.lrg.gif
Click to expand...

Sure does.

Of course, it's only a century or so, and since it was warmer in the past any one can create any trend line showing any degree of warming/cooling/stasis they want.

Curious, not really, but it's a word, that your graph, as is always the case with you religiously devout Chicken Global Warming Little types, all your "ohmygodwe'regonnadie" charts never show the last decade of cooling.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Sure does.

Of course, it's only a century or so, and since it was warmer in the past any one can create any trend line showing any degree of warming/cooling/stasis they want.

Curious, not really, but it's a word, that your graph, as is always the case with you religiously devout Chicken Global Warming Little types, all your "ohmygodwe'regonnadie" charts never show the last decade of cooling.
Click to expand...

What are you smoking Scarecrow? Did you bring enough for the whole class?

This current warming trend might be just a natural warming cycle that comes and goes across the milliniums as far as I know. Have I ever said any different? Do facts threaten you that much that you have to resort, time and time again, to vile rhetoric as you do?

Is it something about me personally or can you just not pass up a chance to be a dickhead when the oppertunity presents itself? What do you get out of that? Enjoyment? :confused:

Different strokes for different folks I suppose.
 
The IPCC was caught in lies now they are trying to fix it after making themselves not believable or credible.

UN weather meeting agrees to refine climate data - Yahoo! News


World weather agencies have agreed to collect more precise temperature data to improve climate change science, officials said Wednesday, as U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged environment ministers to reject efforts by skeptics to derail a global climate deal.

Britain's Met Office proposed that climate scientists around the world undertake the "grand challenge" of measuring land surface temperatures as often as several times a day, and allow independent scrutiny of the data — a move that would go some way toward answering demands by skeptics for access to the raw figures used to predict climate change.

"This effort will ensure that the datasets are completely robust and that all methods are transparent," the Met Office said. The agency added that "any such analysis does not undermine the existing independent datasets that all reflect a warming trend."

The proposal was approved in principle by some 150 delegates meeting under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization this week in Antalya, Turkey. It comes after e-mails stolen from a British university and several mistakes made in a 2007 report issued by the U.N.-affiliated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change prompted public debate over the reliability of climate change predictions.

Skeptics claim scientists have secretly manipulated climate data and suppressed contrary views — allegations that have been denied by researchers and the climate change panel.

Nevertheless, the Met Office said current measurements were "fundamentally ill-conditioned to answer 21st century questions such as how extremes are changing and therefore what adaptation and mitigation decisions should be taken."
 
ptif219 said:
"The agency added that "any such analysis does not undermine the existing independent datasets that all reflect a warming trend."
Click to expand...

I agree! Good point!
 
Goobieman said:
Of course you do -- to do otherwise would force you to question your faith.
Click to expand...

You mean do I have more faith in the National Academy of Sciences and all the world's major science academies than I do an internet blog? Yes I do.
 
Catawba said:
You mean do I have more faith in the National Academy of Sciences and all the world's major science academies than I do an internet blog? Yes I do.
Click to expand...
Only because the former says tells you want to hear and the latter does not. Reverse the situation, and you will reverse your preference.

What you refuse to accept is that the science that supports AGW is tainted and thus, to anyone with any degree of intellectual integrity, circumspect. You refuse to question the science because it reports what you want to hear, and nothing else.

Your faith, thus described.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom