• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

You did not read my link. Other scientist are coming against him. Post 824
 
ptif219 said:
You did not read my link. Other scientist are coming against him. Post 824
Click to expand...

Other scientists are questioning him. That is part of the scientific process. The important point is that none of the major scientific societies have offered dissenting opinions in light of their findings in the hacked emails and questioning of Dr. Jones.

In short, mainstream science is still in concurrence on man's role in climate change, including the Institute of Physics that you referenced.

"In a statement issued today the institute said its written submission to the committee "has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming."

It says: "That is not the case. The institute's position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing, and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change."

The institute said its critical comments were focused on the scientific process, and "should not be interpreted to mean that the institute believes that the science itself is flawed."

Institute of Physics forced to clarify submission to climate emails inquiry | Environment | guardian.co.uk
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Other scientists are questioning him. That is part of the scientific process. The important point is that none of the major scientific societies have offered dissenting opinions in light of their findings in the hacked emails and questioning of Dr. Jones.

In short, mainstream science is still in concurrence on man's role in climate change, including the Institute of Physics that you referenced.

"In a statement issued today the institute said its written submission to the committee "has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming."

It says: "That is not the case. The institute's position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing, and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change."

The institute said its critical comments were focused on the scientific process, and "should not be interpreted to mean that the institute believes that the science itself is flawed."

Institute of Physics forced to clarify submission to climate emails inquiry | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Click to expand...

From my post that you don't want to address.

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
 
ptif219 said:
From my post that you don't want to address.

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
Click to expand...

I addressed your post with a refutation by the very Institute of Physics you misinterpreted. They issued this specifically because of misinterpretations like yours when they said:

"In a statement issued today the institute said its written submission to the committee "has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming."

It says: "That is not the case. The institute's position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing, and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change."

The institute said its critical comments were focused on the scientific process, and "should not be interpreted to mean that the institute believes that the science itself is flawed."

I don't know how they could make it much clearer that your interpretation doesn't hold water.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
My point is that AGW is bunk. Hookum. A snow-job. heh heh a snow-job.
Click to expand...

Based off of what? You attempted to hide behind data, which can be interpreted any thousand different ways.

I've presented logic, and a logic train which leads to the irrefutable conclusion that there is ACC, the only question is the rate at which it is occurring, and where along the train we are.
 
repeter said:
Based off of what? You attempted to hide behind data, which can be interpreted any thousand different ways.

I've presented logic, and a logic train which leads to the irrefutable conclusion that there is ACC, the only question is the rate at which it is occurring, and where along the train we are.
Click to expand...

No duh it's about the rate!!! That's what we've been saying over and over and over again. Nobody can accurately quantify the significance of the process you continually describe. For all we know, human CO2 emissions have only accounted for 0.000000000000000001% of the observed warming. There's absolutely nothing to suggest it's had a statistically significant impact on global temperatures.

Quantify.

Effect.

Significance.

Negligible.

These are science words and they actually mean something.
 
Ethereal said:
No duh it's about the rate!!! That's what we've been saying over and over and over again. Nobody can accurately quantify the significance of the process you continually describe.
Click to expand...

Accurate enough for the world's joint science academies ~

Joint science academies’ statement:
Global response to climate change


"Climate change is real
There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system
as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now
strong evidence that significant global warming is
occurring1. The evidence comes from direct measurements
of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in
average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes
to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that
most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed
to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already
led to changes in the Earth's climate.
The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is
vital to life on Earth – in their absence average
temperatures would be about 30 centigrade degrees lower
than they are today. But human activities are now causing
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases –
including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone,
and nitrous oxide – to rise well above pre-industrial levels.
Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in
1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous
levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000
years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing
temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by
approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth
century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) projected that the average global surface
temperatures will continue to increase to between 1.4
centigrade degrees and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990
levels, by 2100.

Reduce the causes of climate change

The scientific understanding of climate change is now
sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It
is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they
can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term
reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."
 
Ethereal said:
No duh it's about the rate!!! That's what we've been saying over and over and over again. Nobody can accurately quantify the significance of the process you continually describe. For all we know, human CO2 emissions have only accounted for 0.000000000000000001% of the observed warming. There's absolutely nothing to suggest it's had a statistically significant impact on global temperatures.

Quantify.

Effect.

Significance.

Negligible.

These are science words and they actually mean something.
Click to expand...

You're ignoring something though. Its nice and obvious, right in front of your face, and you look pretty stupid when you miss it. Want me to tell you what it is, or do you think you can figure it out for yourself?
 
Catawba said:
I addressed your post with a refutation by the very Institute of Physics you misinterpreted. They issued this specifically because of misinterpretations like yours when they said:

"In a statement issued today the institute said its written submission to the committee "has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming."

It says: "That is not the case. The institute's position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing, and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change."

The institute said its critical comments were focused on the scientific process, and "should not be interpreted to mean that the institute believes that the science itself is flawed."

I don't know how they could make it much clearer that your interpretation doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...

They admit the credibility is now less thanks to what scientist like Jones have done. Nice how you ignore their rebuke.
 
ptif219 said:
They admit the credibility is now less thanks to what scientist like Jones have done. Nice how you ignore their rebuke.
Click to expand...

Yes, they say their credibility is less (a political consideration), but then stressed that it, "should not be interpreted to mean that the institute believes that the science itself is flawed."

See the distinction?
 
Catawba said:
Yes, they say their credibility is less (a political consideration), but then stressed that it, "should not be interpreted to mean that the institute believes that the science itself is flawed."

See the distinction?
Click to expand...

It is flawed since the figures have been manipulated.
 
ptif219 said:
It is flawed since the figures have been manipulated.
Click to expand...


Why should we believe you over the Institute of Physics that is conducting the inquiry?
 
ptif219 said:
It is in the e-mails
Click to expand...

What is "in the e-mails," that you are privy to that the Institute of Physics missed in their inquiry?
 
Revealed: the secret evidence of global warming Bush tried to hide

"Photos from US spy satellites declassified by the Obama White House provide the first graphic images of how the polar ice sheets are retreating in the summer. The effects on the world's weather, environments and wildlife could be devastating"


"The pictures, kept secret by Washington during the presidency of George W Bush, were declassified by the White House last week. President Barack Obama is currently trying to galvanise Congress and the American public to take action to halt catastrophic climate change caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

One particularly striking set of images - selected from the 1,000 photographs released - includes views of the Alaskan port of Barrow. One, taken in July 2006, shows sea ice still nestling close to the shore. A second image shows that by the following July the coastal waters were entirely ice-free.

The photographs demonstrate starkly how global warming is changing the Arctic. More than a million square kilometres of sea ice - a record loss - were missing in the summer of 2007 compared with the previous year.

Nor has this loss shown any sign of recovery. Ice cover for 2008 was almost as bad as for 2007, and this year levels look equally sparse."
 
The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

DAVID ROSE: The mini ice age starts here | Mail Online
 
Ethereal said:
The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

DAVID ROSE: The mini ice age starts here | Mail Online
Click to expand...

David Rose has been accused of misrepresenting scientists. Do you have a link to the this "proof" from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center?

This is in direct contradiction with NASA and Spy satellite pictures just released. What is your source for this other than the right wing blog you linked?
 
LAKE FOREST, Ill. – Just like coach Lovie Smith, Bears general manager Jerry Angelo also has high expectations for veteran defensive tackle Tommie Harris.

Dominant at times but more inconsistent than the Bears would have liked, Harris recorded 27 tackles, 2½ sacks, one fumble recovery and his first career interception in 2009.

“When you looked at his flashes, you saw the same player that went to three Pro Bowls. What you didn’t see was the consistency of play throughout the season, and that was probably the most disappointing [thing],” Angelo said, echoing Smith’s assessment of Harris last Friday at the NFL Combine.

The Bears hope that Harris picks up in 2010 where he left off in 2009, when he registered seven of his career-high 10 tackles-for-loss over the final eight games.

“We feel that all that he can be and what we need him to be he still can be,” Angelo said. “We’re optimistic. He’s not had any surgeries in the offseason. That’s a first probably in the last few years. He’s still 26. There’s no reason that we can’t get that kind of play from him.”

Harris is capable of playing at top level
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Because you didn't refute his claim that the data has been manipulated.
Click to expand...

Who's claim? The Institute of Physics, who is conducting the inquiry has stated that nothing found indicates the science behind ACC is not sound.
 
Eemian InterstadialThe Eemian climate is believed to have been about as stable as, but probably warmer than, that of the Holocene. The warmest peak of the Eemian was around 125,000 years ago, when forests reached as far north as North Cape (which is now tundra) in northern Norway well above the Arctic Circle at 71°10′21″N 25°47′40″E / 71.1725°N 25.79444°E / 71.1725; 25.79444. Hardwood trees like hazel and oak grew as far north as Oulu, Finland. Sea levels at that time were 4-6 meters (13 to 20 feet) higher than they are now, indicating greater deglaciation than today (mostly from partial melting of the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica).
Click to expand...

It goes on and one, but the Eemian was apparently a geological epoch warmer than today's.

How could it be warmer 125000 years ago when the AGW cult insists that this last decade, which btw was cooler than the 1990's, was the warmest decade ever?

Also, since the mean global temps were 1-2 degress K warmer than today, why aren't the AGW folks out there searching for Atlantis, since only an Atlantean Industrial Revolution could have poured that much CO2 into the air to accomplish this feat.

Or, maybe, just maybe, the AGW Cult has it's head up it's religious politically motivated collectivist ass and and there's more to normal climate shifts than they're claiming.
 
Catawba said:
Who's claim? The Institute of Physics, who is conducting the inquiry has stated that nothing found indicates the science behind ACC is not sound.
Click to expand...

The use of basic english rules will guide you in the discovery of who I was referring to.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
It goes on and one, but the Eemian was apparently a geological epoch warmer than today's.

How could it be warmer 125000 years ago when the AGW cult insists that this last decade, which btw was cooler than the 1990's, was the warmest decade ever?

Also, since the mean global temps were 1-2 degress K warmer than today, why aren't the AGW folks out there searching for Atlantis, since only an Atlantean Industrial Revolution could have poured that much CO2 into the air to accomplish this feat.

Or, maybe, just maybe, the AGW Cult has it's head up it's religious politically motivated collectivist ass and and there's more to normal climate shifts than they're claiming.
Click to expand...

The Eemian period peaked in warmth 125,000 years ago, was caused by natural sources and did not increase global temperatures to what they have been during the last 2 decades under man's contribution of greenhouse gasses.

World Meteorological Organization and NOAA both report: 2000-2009 is the hottest decade on record!
 
Catawba said:
The Eemian period peaked in warmth 125,000 years ago, was caused by natural sources and did not increase global temperatures to what they have been during the last 2 decades under man's contribution of greenhouse gasses.
Click to expand...

Oh, so when it says that the Eemian was 1-2 degrees warmer what it means it that it was some special kind of warmer, not what we call "warmer" today, and that sometimes "warmer" means "cooler", which begs the question of what it is you mean when you say this decade is "warmer" than the last one when it was measurably "cooler".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom