• 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:
Let's take a look at your source that says man is not affecting this warming period?

All of the world's science Academies have concurred with AGW.
Click to expand...

The thing is that not all of the world's academics support AGW. In fact a petition was signed and over 30,000 scientists disagree with AGW. Global Warming Petition Project

And what about one of AGW leading scientists admitting to fraud and saying there may have not been any significant warming? I believe a poster somewhere here as already provided a link to the article. Besides, consensus doesn't automatically make something true. Science has disproved global warming, and it has been exposed for the fraud that it is. AGw isn't so much scientific as much as it is political.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
The thing is that not all of the world's academics support AGW.
Click to expand...

See below:

"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.[25] With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007[26], no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change."
Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Catawba said:
See below:

"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.[25] With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007[26], no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change."
Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Quoting liberally biased wikipedia isn't very credible. The facts are that science supports that AGW is false, many of the scientists who worked on it have admitted their fraud and their beliefs that there has been no warming. Plus that quote is old and it doesn't matter what societies push. They are funded to push certain things and if they don't they lose funding or are fired. The scientific community is very corrupt, and the truth about that is all coming out now. And what about what Phil Jones said from the link above your post? And what about my petition signed by scientists who don't support AGW?
 
Catawba said:
See below:

"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.[25] With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007[26], no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change."
Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Disappearing the Medieval Warm Period in Wikipedia
Sunday, December 20th, 2009 | Environment | Permalink | 4 Comments | ShareThis
“If a consensus of the majority is all it takes to determine what is right, then having and controlling information becomes extraordinarily important.”
– Masamune Shirow

Financial Post - Wikipedia’s climate doctor:

All told, (U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William) Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear.

This isn’t a criticism of Wikipedia, by the way. The same thing can happen elsewhere. If anything Wikipedia makes it possible to track the numbers you see above for silenced contributors and deleted articles. This does, however, point to the need for Wikipedia to make their editorial process less vulnerable to a rogue censor.
Click to expand...


Gee, it's not surprising the faithful in the AGW religion rely on Wikipedia.
 
digsbe said:
Quoting liberally biased wikipedia isn't very credible. The facts are that science supports that AGW is false, many of the scientists who worked on it have admitted their fraud and their beliefs that there has been no warming. Plus that quote is old and it doesn't matter what societies push. They are funded to push certain things and if they don't they lose funding or are fired. The scientific community is very corrupt, and the truth about that is all coming out now. And what about what Phil Jones said from the link above your post? And what about my petition signed by scientists who don't support AGW?
Click to expand...

You are aware are you not that Wikipedia requires sourcing for each entry:

"Brigham-Grette, Julie; et al. "Petroleum Geologist' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate". EOS 87 (36): 364. http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf. Retrieved 2009-12-10. "AAPG...stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming".

If you have evidence that refutes the claim present it. Document the scientific societies that deny the human induced effects of global warming.
 
Catawba said:
You are aware are you not that Wikipedia requires sourcing for each entry:

"Brigham-Grette, Julie; et al. "Petroleum Geologist' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate". EOS 87 (36): 364. http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf. Retrieved 2009-12-10. "AAPG...stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming".

If you have evidence that refutes the claim present it. Document the scientific societies that deny the human induced effects of global warming.
Click to expand...

How do you know the source is accurate? It clearly has a bias, plus it's old "5 September 2006." Things have changed in the past four years (and especially recently). And myself and others have posted evidence against global warming and have exposed the fraud that it is. Please respond to my previous posts and others regarding that. What about Phil Jones? Or the petition by scientists? Or the facts that IPCC is corrupt and admits to using fraudulent data? Or the climate-gate scandals?
 
digsbe said:
How do you know the source is accurate? It clearly has a bias, plus it's old "5 September 2006." Things have changed in the past four years (and especially recently). And myself and others have posted evidence against global warming and have exposed the fraud that it is. Please respond to my previous posts and others regarding that. What about Phil Jones? Or the petition by scientists? Or the facts that IPCC is corrupt and admits to using fraudulent data? Or the climate-gate scandals?
Click to expand...

Do you have more updated evidence that any of the Academies of Science have taken a dissenting opinion of AGW? If not, my source referenced stands.
 
Catawba said:
Do you have more updated evidence that any of the Academies of Science have taken a dissenting opinion of AGW? If not, my source referenced stands.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what stances are, they are all corrupt. Do you honestly think the IPCC would hire a skeptic? Or Nasa? Do you think the government would still fund organizations if they admitted the truth that AGW isn't true? Obama is planning on funding NASA billions in order for them to find out how humans are causing warming... Do you think they would give that money up and push what is true? What about the scientists that are part of those organizations but now admit to fraud and believe there hasn't been warming? There are many academics who don't believe in AGW as my petition states. You still haven't responded to my and others content though.
 
digsbe said:
It doesn't matter what stances are, they are all corrupt.
Click to expand...

I don't buy into the world conspiracy theory. You may find others that interested in discussing this on aisle 9.
 
Catawba said:
I don't buy into the world conspiracy theory. You may find others that interested in discussing this on aisle 9.
Click to expand...

So you reject the truth? And what about the rest of my post? You have yet to respond to any of my arguments and other's arguments. You talk about consensus and all the organizations that push a lie. What about their blatant lies and their admitting to fraud and corrupting data? It's not a conspiracy when there is proof. There is proof that the IPCC lied, we have proof from the climate-gate emails, and we have more proof from scientists who have come out and admitted to lying and even say warming probably isn't happening at all.
 
digsbe said:
So you reject the truth? And what about the rest of my post? You have yet to respond to any of my arguments and other's arguments. You talk about consensus and all the organizations that push a lie. What about their blatant lies and their admitting to fraud and corrupting data? It's not a conspiracy when there is proof. There is proof that the IPCC lied, we have proof from the climate-gate emails, and we have more proof from scientists who have come out and admitted to lying and even say warming probably isn't happening at all.
Click to expand...

A few people in IPCC do not disprove the overwhelming scientific evidence from all of the planet's major scientific organizations. I am a believer in science and the mainstream scientific consensus is that man is contributing to our global warming.

To deny the credibility of all of the world's scientific organization requires one to think there is a world wide conspiracy that spanned decades. Some can make that leap if they wish.

I've got to go with the mainstream science.
 
Catawba said:
A few people in IPCC do not disprove the overwhelming scientific evidence from all of the planet's major scientific organizations. I am a believer in science and the mainstream scientific consensus is that man is contributing to our global warming.

To deny the credibility of all of the world's scientific organization requires one to think there is a world wide conspiracy that spanned decades. Some can make that leap if they wish.

I've got to go with the mainstream science.
Click to expand...

It's not a few people in the IPCC, it's the IPCC report that has been exposed as fraudulent, the stuff the IPCC created was a lie and based off of manipulated data and incorrect facts. Main stream science isn't always right. Main stream science is funded by politics, and politicians want global warming to be true so they can implement policies giving them more power. Looking at main stream science we see that it is increasingly corrupt. The IPCC is wrong, climate-gate emails have been released, and many of these scientists are coming out and admitting their faults. What about Phil Jones? He is a leading main stream scientist and now is saying that there has been fraudulent data, manipulation, and that warming probably isn't happening. Is he wrong? He is part of main stream science and up until a little while ago supported AGW. Lies are being exposed in the machine, main stream science is corrupt, and it's not a conspiracy to hold this view when there is physical proof and scientists actually admitting that it's fraudulent. The credibility of politically funded "scientific" organizations is nil, and the facts are that much of the AGW community is corrupt and has admitted that. Btw, I am still waiting for you to respond to previous posts, facts against AGW, and the corruption within main stream science. Look past the "consensus" and address the facts yourself.
 
digsbe said:
It's not a few people in the IPCC, it's the IPCC report that has been exposed as fraudulent, the stuff the IPCC created was a lie and based off of manipulated data and incorrect facts.
Click to expand...

According to the right wing blogs you forgot to add to the above.

I still gotta go with the scientists consensus from all over the world that are connected in no way with the IPCC.

Main stream science isn't always right. Main stream science is funded by politics, and politicians want global warming to be true so they can implement policies giving them more power. Looking at main stream science we see that it is increasingly corrupt. The IPCC is wrong, climate-gate emails have been released, and many of these scientists are coming out and admitting their faults. What about Phil Jones? He is a leading main stream scientist and now is saying that there has been fraudulent data, manipulation, and that warming probably isn't happening. Is he wrong? He is part of main stream science and up until a little while ago supported AGW. Lies are being exposed in the machine, main stream science is corrupt, and it's not a conspiracy to hold this view when there is physical proof and scientists actually admitting that it's fraudulent. The credibility of politically funded "scientific" organizations is nil, and the facts are that much of the AGW community is corrupt and has admitted that. Btw, I am still waiting for you to respond to previous posts, facts against AGW, and the corruption within main stream science. Look past the "consensus" and address the facts yourself.
Click to expand...

Like I said I don't buy into the conspiracy theories espoused by the right wing blogs.

What the scientists have concluded is inline with my own reasoning.

I side with science. But to each their own!!
 
Catawba said:
See below:

"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.[25] With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007[26], no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change."
Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...



From post#824

Scientists at the heart of the Climategate row were yesterday accused by a leading academic body of undermining science's credibility.

The Institute of Physics said 'worrying implications' had been raised after it was revealed the University of East Anglia had manipulated data on global warming.

The rebuke - the strongest yet from the scientific community - came as Professor Phil Jones, the researcher at the heart of the scandal, told MPs he had written 'some pretty awful emails' - but denied trying to suppress data.
Professor Phil Jones


The Climategate row, which was first revealed by the Daily Mail in November, was triggered when a hacker stole hundreds of emails sent from East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.

They revealed scientists plotting how to avoid responding to Freedom of Information requests from climate change sceptics.

Some even appeared to show the researchers discussing how to manipulate raw data from tree rings about historical temperatures.

In one, Professor Jones talks about using a 'trick' to massage figures and 'hide the decline'.




Giving evidence to a Science and Technology Committee inquiry, the Institute of Physics said: 'Unless the disclosed emails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research and for the credibility of the scientific method.

'The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital.'

Last month, the Information Commissioner ruled the CRU had broken Freedom of Information rules by refusing to hand over raw data.

But yesterday Professor Jones - in his first public appearance since the scandal broke - denied manipulating the figures.

Looking pale and clasping his shaking hands in front of him, he told MPs: 'I have obviously written some pretty awful emails.'

He admitted withholding data about global temperatures but said the information was publicly available from American websites.

And he claimed it was not 'standard practice' to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.
 
Hmmmm...for some reason Catawba doesn't want to adress the fact that Wiki was infiltrated by a Global Warming Kook who took it upon himself to edit and delete articles countering the AGW religion and banning folks who persisted in challenging his delusions.
 
"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:
"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...

No, that's too logical, the ACC deniers will just discard it as junk science :roll:
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Hmmmm...for some reason Catawba doesn't want to adress the fact that Wiki was infiltrated by a Global Warming Kook who took it upon himself to edit and delete articles countering the AGW religion and banning folks who persisted in challenging his delusions.
Click to expand...

Could you clarify your argument for me real quick so I make sure I address your points rather then what I think your points are?

From what I can tell, you are arguing that the amount of CO2 we've put out hasn't been enough to affect the climate as a whole, and that the climate trend has been ongoing since pre-medieval times.
 
repeter said:
Could you clarify your argument for me real quick so I make sure I address your points rather then what I think your points are?
Click to expand...

Don't worry about it. We wouldn't want to interrupt the AGW circle-jerk between you and Cat...
 
I notice Catawaba does not want to address Dr Jones being rebuked by other scientist for his hiding facts and his making science not credible.
 
ptif219 said:
I notice Catawaba does not want to address Dr Jones being rebuked by other scientist for his hiding facts and his making science not credible.
Click to expand...

I've read about it. What's your point? Dr. Jones does not make "science not credible!" None of the world's scientific societies have changed their positions because of Dr. Jones. He is only a sensation in the right wing blogger world.
 
repeter said:
Could you clarify your argument for me real quick so I make sure I address your points rather then what I think your points are?
Click to expand...

My point is that AGW is bunk. Hookum. A snow-job. heh heh a snow-job.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
That you're referencing biased sources.
Click to expand...

I don't happen to buy that all of mainstream science throughout the world has been conspiring against us.

I'll still go with the science over the bloggers.

But to each their own!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom