• 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:
No, not all scientists, some scientists don't believe in evolution, but all of mainstream science does. Same thing with ACC.
Click to expand...
That's what I just said...

Catawba said:
You would have to ask them.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I incorrectly phrased the question.

I wanted your opinion on what you think their reasons for such a belief are.

Are they simply misguided?

Do previous opinions cloud their judgment?

Do they actually believe that there is no ACC to worry about?

Or what?

Catawba said:
I think in the last 5 decades this has been studied, if they had a case, they would have made it to the world's Institutes of Science.
Click to expand...
I would assume that they either:
  1. Made their case, and the "Institutes of Science" did not consider it valid.
  2. Did not make their case, because they did not think the "Institutes of Science" would consider it valid.
  3. Some combination of the two.
As I understand it, number three is the more likely situation. Some made their case, some did not, and those who did had their case dismissed as invalid.
 
The Mark said:
As I understand it, number three is the more likely situation. Some made their case, some did not, and those who did had their case dismissed as invalid.
Click to expand...

A good explanation of the mainstream science acceptance process.
 
Catawba said:
A good explanation of the mainstream science acceptance process.
Click to expand...
But such has no bearing on the validity of the case made by those who disagree with the ACC theory.
Only that the people making such decisions in all those scientific institutions considered their arguments invalid.
 
The Mark said:
But such has no bearing on the validity of the case made by those who disagree with the ACC theory.
Only that the people making such decisions in all those scientific institutions considered their arguments invalid.
Click to expand...

What makes you think they were considered invalid without study? Einstien's theory of relativity required confirmation of results from other scientists in the scientific institutes before his theory was accepted into mainstream science.

Why should the scientific standard be lowered in this issue?
 
Catawba said:
What makes you think they were considered invalid without study?
Click to expand...
Never said they were.

Catawba said:
Einstein’s theory of relativity required confirmation of results from other scientists in the scientific institutes before his theory was accepted into mainstream science.
Click to expand...
Of course it did...that is part of the scientific process.

Catawba said:
Why should the scientific standard be lowered in this issue?
Click to expand...
It shouldn't.
 

US forests hold new evidence of global warming

"Scientists see a trend in longer dry spells and winter snowpacks melting earlier than in the past.

Old-growth forests in the Western United States appear to be losing ground to the regional effects of global warming.

That’s the conclusion a team of federal and university-based forest ecologists have reached after looking at long-term trends in patches of relatively pristine old-growth forests. The study sites range from northern Arizona and north central Colorado to the Olympic Peninsula and southern British Columbia.

Over the past 50 years, trees large and small in these tracts – largely untouched by wildfires or beetle infestations – have been dying at an increasing rate. And the rate at which they are being replaced has not changed. If the trend continues, researchers say, forest age, average tree size, and carbon-storing capacity of these areas will gradually fall.

After examining a range of possible causes for the region-wide pattern, the last ones standing are the West’s warming trend and warming’s effect on the amount of water these areas receive. Summer dry spells are longer. Snows melt earlier. More winter precipitation falls as rain, rather than snow, and the snow that falls has a lower water content than it once did."

"If the trends continue, they have implications for the region’s efforts to adapt to climate change, adds Thomas Veblen, a biogeographer at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Particularly when the underlying die-off is accelerated by insect infestations, wildfire managers will have to rethink their strategies for reducing wildfire risks, including current policies that encourage people to build large housing developments in wildfire-prone areas.

In addition, the changes are making wildlife conservation efforts more difficult to plan.

Often, conservationists set a target by learning what an area was like in the distant past, then they try to re-create that, says Nathan Stephenson, also with the USGS research center in Three Rivers, Calif. “As climate changes and other environmental changes happen, the past may no longer be the best model for the future. We may switch from trying to keep a snapshot of the past to efforts to help guide things into the future while sustaining old forests.”

For Franklin, even that may be too gentle. “So much of conservation is focused on going back or keeping it as it is,” he says. Faced with a warming climate, “you can’t go home.”
US forests hold new evidence of global warming / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com
 
Catawba said:

US forests hold new evidence of global warming

"Scientists see a trend in longer dry spells and winter snowpacks melting earlier than in the past.

Old-growth forests in the Western United States appear to be losing ground to the regional effects of global warming.

That’s the conclusion a team of federal and university-based forest ecologists have reached after looking at long-term trends in patches of relatively pristine old-growth forests. The study sites range from northern Arizona and north central Colorado to the Olympic Peninsula and southern British Columbia.

Over the past 50 years, trees large and small in these tracts – largely untouched by wildfires or beetle infestations – have been dying at an increasing rate. And the rate at which they are being replaced has not changed. If the trend continues, researchers say, forest age, average tree size, and carbon-storing capacity of these areas will gradually fall.

After examining a range of possible causes for the region-wide pattern, the last ones standing are the West’s warming trend and warming’s effect on the amount of water these areas receive. Summer dry spells are longer. Snows melt earlier. More winter precipitation falls as rain, rather than snow, and the snow that falls has a lower water content than it once did."

"If the trends continue, they have implications for the region’s efforts to adapt to climate change, adds Thomas Veblen, a biogeographer at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Particularly when the underlying die-off is accelerated by insect infestations, wildfire managers will have to rethink their strategies for reducing wildfire risks, including current policies that encourage people to build large housing developments in wildfire-prone areas.

In addition, the changes are making wildlife conservation efforts more difficult to plan.

Often, conservationists set a target by learning what an area was like in the distant past, then they try to re-create that, says Nathan Stephenson, also with the USGS research center in Three Rivers, Calif. “As climate changes and other environmental changes happen, the past may no longer be the best model for the future. We may switch from trying to keep a snapshot of the past to efforts to help guide things into the future while sustaining old forests.”

For Franklin, even that may be too gentle. “So much of conservation is focused on going back or keeping it as it is,” he says. Faced with a warming climate, “you can’t go home.”
US forests hold new evidence of global warming / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com
Click to expand...

Scientist have lost their credibility.

Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop

Many global warming activists have used film and photos of melting ice caps and glaciers, and the expanding reach of deserts, to drive home their point that global warming is already having alarming effects on the earth. While these efforts may have borne fruit over much of the 2000s, during the last two years, Americans' convictions about global warming's effects have waned.

A majority of Americans still agree that global warming is real, as 53% say the effects of the problem have already begun or will do so in a few years. That percentage is dwindling, however. The average American is now less convinced than at any time since 1997 that global warming's effects have already begun or will begin shortly.

Meanwhile, 35% say that the effects of global warming either will never happen (19%) or will not happen in their lifetimes (16%).

The 19% figure is more than double the number who held this view in 1997.

1997-2010 Trend: When Will the Effects of Global Warming Begin to Happen?
Fewer See Global Warming as Serious Threat

In similar fashion, the percentage of Americans who believe that global warming is going to affect them or their way of life in their lifetimes has dropped to 32% from a 40% high point in 2008. Two-thirds of Americans say global warming will not affect them in their lifetimes.

1997-2010 Trend: Do You Think Global Warming Will Pose a Serious Threat to You or Your Way of Life in Your Lifetime?

The shift in these views during the past two years has been particularly striking. The percentage who said global warming would pose a serious threat increased gradually from 1997 through 2008. The trend in these responses changed course last year, with slightly fewer Americans saying global warming would have a significant effect in their lifetimes. This year, that percentage is down even more, marking a six-point drop from 2009, and roughly similar to where it was nine years ago.

Americans Divided on Causes of Global Warming

In a sharp turnaround from what Gallup found as recently as three years ago, Americans are now almost evenly split in their views of the cause of increases in the Earth's temperature over the last century.

2003-2010 Trend: Are Increases in the Earth's Temperature Over the Last Century Due to Human Activities or Natural Changes?

In 2003, 61% of Americans said such increases were due to human activities -- in line with advocates of the global warming issue -- while 33% said they were due to natural changes in the environment. Now, a significantly diminished 50% say temperature increases are due to human activities, and 46% say they are not.

Americans Less Sure About Scientists' Beliefs

Since last fall, there have been widespread news accounts of allegations of errors in scientific reports on global warming and alleged attempts by some scientists to doctor the global warming record.

These news reports may well have caused some Americans to re-evaluate the scientific consensus on global warming. Roughly half of Americans now say that "most scientists believe that global warming is occurring," down from 65% in recent years. The dominant opposing thesis, held by 36% of Americans, is that scientists are unsure about global warming. An additional 10% say most scientists believe global warming is not occurring.

1997-2010 Trend: What Do Most Scientists Believe About Whether Global Warming Is Occurring?

The percentage of Americans who think most scientists believe global warming is occurring has dropped 13 points from two years ago, and is the lowest since the first time Gallup asked this question back in 1997.
 
ptif219 said:
Scientist have lost their credibility.

Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop

Many global warming activists have used film and photos of melting ice caps and glaciers, and the expanding reach of deserts, to drive home their point that global warming is already having alarming effects on the earth. While these efforts may have borne fruit over much of the 2000s, during the last two years, Americans' convictions about global warming's effects have waned.

A majority of Americans still agree that global warming is real, as 53% say the effects of the problem have already begun or will do so in a few years. That percentage is dwindling, however. The average American is now less convinced than at any time since 1997 that global warming's effects have already begun or will begin shortly.

Meanwhile, 35% say that the effects of global warming either will never happen (19%) or will not happen in their lifetimes (16%).

The 19% figure is more than double the number who held this view in 1997.

1997-2010 Trend: When Will the Effects of Global Warming Begin to Happen?
Fewer See Global Warming as Serious Threat

In similar fashion, the percentage of Americans who believe that global warming is going to affect them or their way of life in their lifetimes has dropped to 32% from a 40% high point in 2008. Two-thirds of Americans say global warming will not affect them in their lifetimes.

1997-2010 Trend: Do You Think Global Warming Will Pose a Serious Threat to You or Your Way of Life in Your Lifetime?

The shift in these views during the past two years has been particularly striking. The percentage who said global warming would pose a serious threat increased gradually from 1997 through 2008. The trend in these responses changed course last year, with slightly fewer Americans saying global warming would have a significant effect in their lifetimes. This year, that percentage is down even more, marking a six-point drop from 2009, and roughly similar to where it was nine years ago.

Americans Divided on Causes of Global Warming

In a sharp turnaround from what Gallup found as recently as three years ago, Americans are now almost evenly split in their views of the cause of increases in the Earth's temperature over the last century.

2003-2010 Trend: Are Increases in the Earth's Temperature Over the Last Century Due to Human Activities or Natural Changes?

In 2003, 61% of Americans said such increases were due to human activities -- in line with advocates of the global warming issue -- while 33% said they were due to natural changes in the environment. Now, a significantly diminished 50% say temperature increases are due to human activities, and 46% say they are not.

Americans Less Sure About Scientists' Beliefs

Since last fall, there have been widespread news accounts of allegations of errors in scientific reports on global warming and alleged attempts by some scientists to doctor the global warming record.

These news reports may well have caused some Americans to re-evaluate the scientific consensus on global warming. Roughly half of Americans now say that "most scientists believe that global warming is occurring," down from 65% in recent years. The dominant opposing thesis, held by 36% of Americans, is that scientists are unsure about global warming. An additional 10% say most scientists believe global warming is not occurring.

1997-2010 Trend: What Do Most Scientists Believe About Whether Global Warming Is Occurring?

The percentage of Americans who think most scientists believe global warming is occurring has dropped 13 points from two years ago, and is the lowest since the first time Gallup asked this question back in 1997.
Click to expand...

The American people have no scientific credibility.

/end thread.
 
Catawba said:
Test your knowledge of Global Warming ~

Global Warming Quiz by National Geographic
Click to expand...
Assuming they are correct about those "correct" answers. Which correctness, as you are well aware, most of the persons disagreeing with you would contest.

I also noted that a number of those answers, whether answered "correctly" or "incorrectly", contained words indicating they were not entirely sure about the truth/untruth of the answer. Having a true/false question with answers containing such ambiguity is, in my view, disingenuous.

I got a 58. Guessed wrong on some, got some correct, because I’ve heard so much about the AGW/ACC theory that even if I disagreed, I knew some of what it contained.
 
ptif219 said:
Neither do the scientist that keep getting caught in lies and corruption
Click to expand...

You're the guy who said NASA has no scientific credibility by bringing up the work of some obscure TV weatherman's beliefs. You have no credibility.

/end thread.
 
Hatuey said:
You're the guy who said NASA has no scientific credibility by bringing up the work of some obscure TV weatherman's beliefs. You have no credibility.

/end thread.
Click to expand...

Nice try but Nasa used the same data 2 months in a row and claimed the hottest month. If you do not know about it google.
 
ptif219 said:
Nice try but Nasa used the same data 2 months in a row and claimed the hottest month. If you do not know about it google.
Click to expand...

No. I'd rather see you for what you are. A person with no credibility using the work of other people with zero credibility to try and discredit the work of the people who put men on the moon. As far as conspiracy theorists and loons are concerned you are bellow nuts who claim we've never been to the moon but above truthers and birthers. Congratulations.
 
Hatuey said:
No. I'd rather see you for what you are. A person with no credibility using the work of other people with zero credibility to try and discredit the work of the people who put men on the moon. As far as conspiracy theorists and loons are concerned you are bellow nuts who claim we've never been to the moon but above truthers and birthers. Congratulations.
Click to expand...

Nice try but not true. When you have nothing you attack others.


The world has never seen such freezing heat - Telegraph


Climate researchers have discovered that NASA researchers improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD.” KUSI-TV meteorologist, Weather Channel founder, and iconic weatherman John Coleman will present these findings in a one-hour special airing on KUSI-TV on Jan.14 at 9 p.m. A related report will be made available on the Internet at 6 p.m. EST on January 14th at KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA.

In a new report, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Ashville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D’Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations. The report is available online at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf.

The report reveals that there were no actual temperatures left in the computer database when NASA/NCDC proclaimed 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD.” The NCDC deleted actual temperatures at thousands of locations throughout the world as it changed to a system of global grid points, each of which is determined by averaging the temperatures of two or more adjacent weather observation stations. So the NCDC grid map contains only averaged, not real temperatures, giving rise to significant doubt that the result is a valid representation of Earth temperatures.

The number of actual weather observation points used as a starting point for world average temperatures was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,000 now. “That leaves much of the world unaccounted for,” says D'Aleo.

The NCDC data are regularly used by the National Weather Service to declare a given month or year as setting a record for warmth. Such pronouncements are typically made in support of the global warming alarmism agenda. Researchers who support the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also regularly use the NASA/NCDC data, including researchers associated with the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that is now at the center of the “Climategate” controversy.

Hot Air Blog Archive Hottest October on record … was really a September


GISS’s computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs – run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious “hockey stick” graph – GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic – in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.
 
ptif219 said:
Nice try but not true. When you have nothing you attack others.


The world has never seen such freezing heat - Telegraph


Climate researchers have discovered that NASA researchers improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD.” KUSI-TV meteorologist, Weather Channel founder, and iconic weatherman John Coleman will present these findings in a one-hour special airing on KUSI-TV on Jan.14 at 9 p.m. A related report will be made available on the Internet at 6 p.m. EST on January 14th at KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA.

In a new report, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Ashville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D’Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations. The report is available online at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf.

The report reveals that there were no actual temperatures left in the computer database when NASA/NCDC proclaimed 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD.” The NCDC deleted actual temperatures at thousands of locations throughout the world as it changed to a system of global grid points, each of which is determined by averaging the temperatures of two or more adjacent weather observation stations. So the NCDC grid map contains only averaged, not real temperatures, giving rise to significant doubt that the result is a valid representation of Earth temperatures.

The number of actual weather observation points used as a starting point for world average temperatures was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,000 now. “That leaves much of the world unaccounted for,” says D'Aleo.

The NCDC data are regularly used by the National Weather Service to declare a given month or year as setting a record for warmth. Such pronouncements are typically made in support of the global warming alarmism agenda. Researchers who support the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also regularly use the NASA/NCDC data, including researchers associated with the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that is now at the center of the “Climategate” controversy.

Hot Air Blog Archive Hottest October on record … was really a September


GISS’s computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs – run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious “hockey stick” graph – GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic – in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.
Click to expand...

Lets look at your sources...blog, blog, local weather website, and picture.

Lets look at the sources listed against you. NASA, NOAA, IPCC (if I recall correctly), various scientific journals.

:lol: The verdicts out, you lose :lol:
 
The "canary in the coal mine" at increased risk ~

WASHINGTON — "Changes in the global climate are imposing additional stress on hundreds of species of migratory birds in the United States that are already threatened by other environmental factors, according to a new Interior Department report."

"The report said that oceanic and shore birds are among the most vulnerable to climate change because of rapidly changing marine ecosystems and rising sea levels.

The conclusions are the result of a collaboration of federal and state wildlife agencies, universities and conservation groups.

“Birds are excellent indicators of the health of our environment, and right now they are telling us an important story about climate change,” said Kenneth Rosenberg, director of conservation ccience at Cornell University’s Lab of Ornithology. “Many species of conservation concern will face heightened threats, giving us an increased sense of urgency to protect and conserve vital bird habitat.”
Climate Change Threatens Migratory Birds, Report Says - NYTimes.com
 
Catawba said:
The "canary in the coal mine" at increased risk ~

WASHINGTON — "Changes in the global climate are imposing additional stress on hundreds of species of migratory birds in the United States that are already threatened by other environmental factors, according to a new Interior Department report."

"The report said that oceanic and shore birds are among the most vulnerable to climate change because of rapidly changing marine ecosystems and rising sea levels.

The conclusions are the result of a collaboration of federal and state wildlife agencies, universities and conservation groups.

“Birds are excellent indicators of the health of our environment, and right now they are telling us an important story about climate change,” said Kenneth Rosenberg, director of conservation science at Cornell University’s Lab of Ornithology. “Many species of conservation concern will face heightened threats, giving us an increased sense of urgency to protect and conserve vital bird habitat.”
Climate Change Threatens Migratory Birds, Report Says - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...
This seems like stating the obvious to me.

The climate is changing, and such changes effect the animals living in said climate = obvious.

What was the point of posting this info?

Not that it wasn't interesting.
 
Makes me wonder if the GW wackos know the truth when their commercials are lies and scare tactics. If they would speak truth and stick to facts they might have credibility. The more they lie the more they are seen as not credible and corrupt scientists.


Government rebuked over global warming nursery rhyme adverts - Telegraph

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that the adverts – which were based on the children's poems Jack and Jill and Rub-A-Dub-Dub – made exaggerated claims about the threat to Britain from global warming.

In definitely asserting that climate change would cause flooding and drought the adverts went beyond mainstream scientific consensus, the watchdog said.

It noted that predictions about the potential global impact of global warming made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "involved uncertainties" that the adverts failed to reflect.

The two posters created on behalf of the Department of Energy and Climate Change juxtaposed adapted extracts from the nursery rhymes with prose warnings about the dangers of global warning.

One began: “Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. There was none as extreme weather due to climate change had caused a drought.” Beneath was written: “Extreme weather conditions such as flooding, heat waves and storms will become more frequent and intense.”

The second advert read: "Rub a dub dub, three men in a tub — a necessary course of action due to flash flooding caused by climate change.” It was captioned: “Climate change is happening. Temperature and sea levels are rising. Extreme weather events such as storms, floods and heat waves will become more frequent and intense. If we carry on at this rate, life in 25 years could be very different.”

Upholding complaints from members of the public, the ASA said that in both instances the text accompanying the rhymes should have been couched in softer language.
 
ptif219 said:
Makes me wonder if the GW wackos know the truth when their commercials are lies and scare tactics. If they would speak truth and stick to facts they might have credibility. The more they lie the more they are seen as not credible and corrupt scientists.


Government rebuked over global warming nursery rhyme adverts - Telegraph

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that the adverts – which were based on the children's poems Jack and Jill and Rub-A-Dub-Dub – made exaggerated claims about the threat to Britain from global warming.

In definitely asserting that climate change would cause flooding and drought the adverts went beyond mainstream scientific consensus, the watchdog said.

It noted that predictions about the potential global impact of global warming made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "involved uncertainties" that the adverts failed to reflect.

The two posters created on behalf of the Department of Energy and Climate Change juxtaposed adapted extracts from the nursery rhymes with prose warnings about the dangers of global warning.

One began: “Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. There was none as extreme weather due to climate change had caused a drought.” Beneath was written: “Extreme weather conditions such as flooding, heat waves and storms will become more frequent and intense.”

The second advert read: "Rub a dub dub, three men in a tub — a necessary course of action due to flash flooding caused by climate change.” It was captioned: “Climate change is happening. Temperature and sea levels are rising. Extreme weather events such as storms, floods and heat waves will become more frequent and intense. If we carry on at this rate, life in 25 years could be very different.”

Upholding complaints from members of the public, the ASA said that in both instances the text accompanying the rhymes should have been couched in softer language.
Click to expand...

Those are the crappiest rhymes ever...

But seriously, you talk as if we on debatepolitics.com are arguing the extreme crap in your source. Not in the 93 pages or whatever of this thread has anyone claimed we would have such extreme climate change. If you manage to in fact find someone who actually does say that climate change that extreme will happen in a timeline of 10 years, I'm not supporting them either.

Now stop wasting time. We've made our points, and you seem to be ignoring them, and fighting the foe you want to fight, rather then what you are confronted with.
 
repeter said:
Those are the crappiest rhymes ever...

But seriously, you talk as if we on debatepolitics.com are arguing the extreme crap in your source. Not in the 93 pages or whatever of this thread has anyone claimed we would have such extreme climate change. If you manage to in fact find someone who actually does say that climate change that extreme will happen in a timeline of 10 years, I'm not supporting them either.

Now stop wasting time. We've made our points, and you seem to be ignoring them, and fighting the foe you want to fight, rather then what you are confronted with.
Click to expand...

Does not matter when those in authority do it including Jones it makes the argument of GW not credible.

Can we believe anything of GW when they are putting forth corruption and lies?
 
ptif219 said:
Does not matter when those in authority do it including Jones it makes the argument of GW not credible.

Can we believe anything of GW when they are putting forth corruption and lies?
Click to expand...

Yes, because the people who spout this crap are the only people in the entire world with the ability to think on their own. Seriously, you should just go away now, you've wasted enough time with your delusions.
 
The Mark said:
This seems like stating the obvious to me.

The climate is changing, and such changes effect the animals living in said climate = obvious.
Click to expand...

If you will review back just a couple of pages in this thread, you will see it is not obvious to everyone.

What was the point of posting this info?
Click to expand...

I thought everyone was aware of the purpose of the canary in the coal mine:

"The classic example of animals serving as sentinels is the canary in the coal mine. Well into the 20th century, coal miners in the United Kingdom and the United States brought canaries into coal mines as an early-warning signal for toxic gases including methane and carbon monoxide. The birds, being more sensitive, would become sick before the miners, who would then have a chance to escape or put on protective respirators."
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sentinels]Animal sentinels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

However, it remains to be seen if we will be smart enough to heed nature's warning in addition to the warning by the scientific consensus.


Not that it wasn't interesting.
Click to expand...

That was the second reason for posting it.
 
It seems to be a battle of sources over a battle of science. AGW is clearly flawed, even some of the people working for government paid for organizations admit that. Honestly, do you think NASA and other organizations would give true and accurate climate reports? Obama is about to shell into NASA millions in funding to find out more about global warming and how we cause it. Do you think they would give up that money and tell the truth? It's essentially bribing science. Many times the popular belief was wrong. Forever people believed in spontaneous generation, and if you doubted you were an unscientific fool. Scientists also widely believed that protein was the molecule for genetic inheritance... We should learn from history.
 
digsbe said:
It seems to be a battle of sources over a battle of science. AGW is clearly flawed, even some of the people working for government paid for organizations admit that. Honestly, do you think NASA and other organizations would give true and accurate climate reports? Obama is about to shell into NASA millions in funding to find out more about global warming and how we cause it. Do you think they would give up that money and tell the truth? It's essentially bribing science. Many times the popular belief was wrong. Forever people believed in spontaneous generation, and if you doubted you were an unscientific fool. Scientists also widely believed that protein was the molecule for genetic inheritance... We should learn from history.
Click to expand...

If you believe ACC isn't occurring, address the science and logic presented.

Paleocarbons, in the form of CO2, have been released. This net increase in carbon in the atmosphere results in increased evaporation, which leads to a positive feedback loop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom