• 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
Hatuey said:
NASA has no credibility? lol :lol:
Click to expand...

Not really, it doesn't.

Where's it's bread buttered?

Selling spacecraft to monitor "global warming".
Providing data consistent with what the politicians cutting NASA's budget want to see.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Its the first time that man has been a factor in the warming.
Click to expand...

And, amazingly enough, the warming cycles aren't affected when compared to other historical interstadial periods.

Or do you just want to ignore the established fact that the Eemian period sea levels were some fifteen feet higher than today?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
And, amazingly enough, the warming cycles aren't affected when compared to other historical interstadial periods.

Or do you just want to ignore the established fact that the Eemian period sea levels were some fifteen feet higher than today?
Click to expand...

No I prefer the scientific explanation:

"Today’s global warming is unique among the Earth’s warm periods. The rise in average world-wide temperature (0.7°C over the past 100 years) is much faster-paced than the warming after an ice age (4 – 7°C over 5000 years).90 And the rise of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere (80 parts per million (ppm) — up 27% — over the past 100 years) is much, much faster-paced than the rise of CO2 after an ice age (about 80 ppm in 5000 years). Since CO2 is the main greenhouse gas, and since there has not been much rise in solar radiation over the past 100 years, we are left with the greenhouse effect as the only explanation for today’s warming."
Eemian | Antemedius
 
Catawba said:
No I prefer the scientific explanation:

"Today’s global warming is unique among the Earth’s warm periods. The rise in average world-wide temperature (0.7°C over the past 100 years) is much faster-paced than the warming after an ice age (4 – 7°C over 5000 years).90 And the rise of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere (80 parts per million (ppm) — up 27% — over the past 100 years) is much, much faster-paced than the rise of CO2 after an ice age (about 80 ppm in 5000 years). Since CO2 is the main greenhouse gas, and since there has not been much rise in solar radiation over the past 100 years, we are left with the greenhouse effect as the only explanation for today’s warming."
Eemian | Antemedius
Click to expand...

The scientific explanation is that current climate behavior is consistent with past climate behavior and not indicative of any anthropogenic influences.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
What do you think the chances are of boosting global CO2 concentrations to 10,000 ppm?
Click to expand...

You are comparing oranges to apples. A contaminate level for oxygen among humans versus a contaminant level for the atmosphere.

Why would you think they would be the same?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The scientific explanation is that current climate behavior is consistent with past climate behavior and not indicative of any anthropogenic influences.
Click to expand...

There is no scientific basis for your opinion, but thanks just the same!
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
When nearly half the scientists disagree with what you call the "consensus" opinion, where's the consensus?
Click to expand...

The difference is in the scientific standards required by the major Scientific Societies.

All of them concur with ACC, and none concur with your position.

But hey, don't let that stop you! ;)
 
Catawba said:
You are comparing oranges to apples. A contaminate level for oxygen among humans versus a contaminant level for the atmosphere.

Why would you think they would be the same?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. Some people, notably the one I quoted, thinks the toxicity of CO2 is an issue.

I was merely pointing out that CO2 isn't a pollutant, as the Gaia Worshippers are wont to claim.
 
Catawba said:
The difference is in the scientific standards required by the major Scientific Societies.

All of them concur with ACC, and none concur with your position.

But hey, don't let that stop you! ;)
Click to expand...


No, there's no difference.

When those Scientific Societies begin embracing bunkum, they have no standards.
 
Catawba said:
Let's see your proof where they embrace it?
Click to expand...

You yourself say they have a magical consensus on the bunkum called Anthropogenic Global Warming, a theory that's made no successful predictions and which has failed all tests made on it.

You see, science is nothing but a method for reducing bunkum until the truth is found. It's not a matter of "consensus", it's not a matter of how many internationally funded committees and councils go along with a particular theory. Science is a matter of rejecting that which does not fit.

AGW does not fit the observed facts. The hysteria of it's blind followers has no rationale behind it, it's just raw emotion. The cupidity of it's promoters is obvious and does not add to AGW's attractiveness as a description of the physical world. The KNOWN frauds associated with AGW, perpetrated by some of those very same Scientific Societies, further hammers home the conclusion that AGW is bunkum.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You yourself say they have a magical consensus on the bunkum called Anthropogenic Global Warming, a theory that's made no successful predictions and which has failed all tests made on it.

You see, science is nothing but a method for reducing bunkum until the truth is found. It's not a matter of "consensus", it's not a matter of how many internationally funded committees and councils go along with a particular theory. Science is a matter of rejecting that which does not fit.

AGW does not fit the observed facts. The hysteria of it's blind followers has no rationale behind it, it's just raw emotion. The cupidity of it's promoters is obvious and does not add to AGW's attractiveness as a description of the physical world. The KNOWN frauds associated with AGW, perpetrated by some of those very same Scientific Societies, further hammers home the conclusion that AGW is bunkum.
Click to expand...

Once again no proof to back up your claims. Nice bold font though!;)
 
The poll should be defined better as the goal posts change from time to time.

Controversial new climate change results -Universisty of BristolPress release issued 9 November 2009

"New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

"The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models. "

emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent. This would agree with results published last week in Nature Geoscience by a team led by Guido van der Werf from VU University Amsterdam. They re-visited deforestation data and concluded that emissions have been overestimated by at least a factor of two.
"


The "science" is definitely not "settled"


There is a lot of investigation to do and the monetary concerns pushing global warming media and industry should be monitored closely.
 
Catawba said:
Once again no proof to back up your claims. Nice bold font though!;)
Click to expand...

The proof for my claims is in the world around you. You've already decided that this last decade, measurably cooler than the preceding one, is by your definition "warmer", so it's not like there's any point in my wasting time providing even more evidence.

And if you're going to capitalize the phrase "scientific societies" don't bitch when people make fun of them.

I don't generally waste time trying to refute someone's religion, I merely show them their logical errors and wait to see if they have the maturity and ability to admit the falsities of their positions. You've chosen to have a religious faith in con men. My only objection to your practice of your new religion is your insistence that your religion be treated as fact and that this religion's prescriptions for life be codified in the laws of the nation I live in.

Explain why you value the destruction of the economy of the United States so highly.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Explain why you value the destruction of the economy of the United States so highly.
Click to expand...

Without a habitable environment, there can be no economy, good bad or otherwise.
 
Catawba said:
Without a habitable environment, there can be no economy, good bad or otherwise.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. People currently habitate all over the world. Where exactly are you that you must walk around carrying an oxygen tank?

California? Houston? Those are the smoggiest areas in the US and I have lived both places. I do not recall it ever being that bad.
 
akyron said:
The poll should be defined better as the goal posts change from time to time.

Controversial new climate change results -Universisty of BristolPress release issued 9 November 2009

"New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

"The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models. "

emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent. This would agree with results published last week in Nature Geoscience by a team led by Guido van der Werf from VU University Amsterdam. They re-visited deforestation data and concluded that emissions have been overestimated by at least a factor of two.
"
The "science" is definitely not "settled"

There is a lot of investigation to do and the monetary concerns pushing global warming media and industry should be monitored closely.
Click to expand...

This does not jive with this:

Carbon Dioxide and Atmosphere

We will see what becomes of this theory once submitted for peer review.
 
akyron said:
That makes no sense. People currently habitate all over the world. Where exactly are you that you must walk around carrying an oxygen tank?

California? Houston? Those are the smoggiest areas in the US and I have lived both places. I do not recall it ever being that bad.
Click to expand...

Its not a question of smog, it is about water rising, the people it will displace, as well as heat and the effect that will have on plants and animals necessary for human survival.

National Geographic has an excellent presentation of what global warming will entail.
Six Degrees Could Change the World | National Geographic Channel
 
Catawba said:
Without a habitable environment, there can be no economy, good bad or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Since the environment is doing just fine, explain why you're willing to destroy the economy of the United States for the sake of your religion. Other people live here, too.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Since the environment is doing just fine, explain why you're willing to destroy the economy of the United States for the sake of your religion. Other people live here, too.
Click to expand...

You've completely missed the point of 92 pages of dialogue...congratulations, you've epically failed. :sarcasticclap
 
repeter said:
You've completely missed the point of 92 pages of dialogue...congratulations, you've epically failed. :sarcasticclap
Click to expand...

No, I've deliberately rejected the failed theory and religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

You've failed to reject your religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom