• 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!

Copenhagen climate summit negotiations 'suspended'


Does global warming equate to cold weather no longer existing? I would think it would be called "global warm" at that point as the world would no longer be warmING.

The black and white nature that opponents of global warming interpret weather is quite ludicrous.

"OMG it's cold today that means that global warming is false!"
 
Does global warming equate to cold weather no longer existing? I would think it would be called "global warm" at that point as the world would no longer be warmING.

The black and white nature that opponents of global warming interpret weather is quite ludicrous.

"OMG it's cold today that means that global warming is false!"


Why are the data sets used to formulate this hypothesis that the earth is warming due to man's emission of CO2 now not available?


j-mac
 
And, let me guess, you think 'cold weather' means no global warming?

Those PR firms working for big energy and coal companies sure earn their fees.


Let me guess, you think that a theory based on manipulated data sets, and trotted out there as some doomsday scenario, when in reality it is nothing more than a political, Marxist take over of the world is all true don't you?


j-mac
 
It's the whole redistribution of wealth thing. It's what global warming is erally all about.

I concur. I fail to see how throwing money at poor, overpopulated, resource deficent countries will in any way alleviate atmospheric warming. If the developed nations reduce their economies productivity by ceasing energy intensive processes like mining, manufacturing, smelting etc and deliberately throw themselves into a recession where is the money that teh underdeveloped nations are clamouring for going to come from? Heck, we already have a precarious global economy and the West is haemorraging jobs to India and China already.
 
I concur. I fail to see how throwing money at poor, overpopulated, resource deficent countries will in any way alleviate atmospheric warming. If the developed nations reduce their economies productivity by ceasing energy intensive processes like mining, manufacturing, smelting etc and deliberately throw themselves into a recession where is the money that teh underdeveloped nations are clamouring for going to come from?


US


j-mac
 
And, let me guess, you think 'cold weather' means no global warming?

Those PR firms working for big energy and coal companies sure earn their fees.

Name one....
 
You see there is the loop hole.



Total crap. Developing countries don't have nukes.

Possession of nuclear weapons is not a criteria for whether or not a nation is developing or not. But in a magical universe apart from reality I guess India and China aren't developing countries and aren't mostly poor and agrarian.

Let me guess, you think that a theory based on manipulated data sets, and trotted out there as some doomsday scenario, when in reality it is nothing more than a political, Marxist take over of the world is all true don't you?

You mean the entire scientific community of planet earth was swayed by bad data and, there is in fact a communist plot behind this.

Very american of you. Don't wake up.

Why are the data sets used to formulate this hypothesis that the earth is warming due to man's emission of CO2 now not available?

You mean all the evidence for global warming comes from one source? The communist source thats been manipulated right?


you guys make me rofl:rofl
 
What I don't get in all of this is the insistance that "developing" countries are immune from the standards. Rather the industrialized countries are hit hard with regulation while "developing" countries are left off the hook. If it's a global problem, then it's a global problem and all countries have to do something about it. As it currently stands, none of this actually addresses the "problem" of global warming or environmental effects. But rather pushes jobs and manufacturing out of countries held to tight standards and into countries whom are exempt. The result would be more pollution, not less; and thus nothing is accomplished. If we view this as a global problem which must be addressed, then the standards need to be applied equally to all.

Wrong..... the agenda is to spread the wealth from those countries that have made a success of themselves, to countries that have done nothing, that's what Global Warming is all about.
 
Does global warming equate to cold weather no longer existing? I would think it would be called "global warm" at that point as the world would no longer be warmING.

The black and white nature that opponents of global warming interpret weather is quite ludicrous.

"OMG it's cold today that means that global warming is false!"

Of course if it's really hot today, that just validates the argument. :roll:
 
Did you ever think because of the asymmetric nature of the economic benefit that the globalism and the free market provide to nations tends to favor the already developed nations explaining the conservative or authoritarian economic tendencies of these countries: see: Chavez. Maybe the developing nations would be able to develop properly if the developed nations didn't exist? for themselves? Don't you think the nature of trade between developed and undeveloped nations causes a form of dependancy?

Am I just too neo-marxist?:rofl
 
The Kyoto Treaty was formed using junk science, it needs to be recinded....
It should have never been signed in the first place....;)

ok, show us the science that disproves the global warming data

something credible

until then you may as well try to convince us the earth is flat
 
ok, show us the science that disproves the global warming data

something credible

until then you may as well try to convince us the earth is flat


It is not for anyone else to "dis" prove your claims, but the onus is on you to prove your own claims.


j-mac
 
Possession of nuclear weapons is not a criteria for whether or not a nation is developing or not. But in a magical universe apart from reality I guess India and China aren't developing countries and aren't mostly poor and agrarian.



You mean the entire scientific community of planet earth was swayed by bad data and, there is in fact a communist plot behind this.

Very american of you. Don't wake up.
All of them?.... the entire scientific community?.... Really?
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.

Home - Global Warming Petition Project



Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,714 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

Global Warming Petition Project

Hmmmmm..... seems there is a few sceptics still out there.
You mean all the evidence for global warming comes from one source? The communist source thats been manipulated right?


you guys make me rofl:rofl
 
Last edited:
Why are the data sets used to formulate this hypothesis that the earth is warming due to man's emission of CO2 now not available?


j-mac

I don't know and don't care. I don't believe in the apocalyptic theories spewed by Global Waring supporters. I haven't seen any strong evidence to show that C02 increase will have any significant impact. I do however believe in lowering C02 levels since we are able to to advert any possible risk. I see no negative effects of making things more energy efficient where we can. Why not do it if we are capable of doing it and avoid any theorized risks?

All of this though doesn't stop me from understanding that global warming can create temporary cold climates. Keep in mind in terms of the Earth and climate change temporary could be centuries long.
 
And the developing nations reply that "you guys did it to on your way to being rich but you say we can't do it because you wrecked the environment?"

It is the developed nations removing the path to development from the countries trying to become developed. It is hypocritical, elitism, and overbearing. Without the developed nations taking the lead and at least showing some effort to cut their emissions, then why should the developing nations go a higher cost route to become developed nations? It is just one more barrier to become a developed nation. And when you through in the growing evidence that this is "fake science" then it becomes a tool to keep the little guys down while continuing to grab it all for the big guys.

So look at it from their perspective and see that it sure seems like another way to keep the poor nations in the dirt and under the heels of the rich nations.

No. It's product of circumstance and nothing more. Many of the currently "developed" nations came up in a time when we didn't know the impact as well. Now we know, and we want to say this is a time sensitive, global problem. Well if that's true, then it is as it is. Sorry, but we learned some more information and now know better repercussions. As such, everyone must be held to similar standards if it truly is this time sensitive, global problem. If we understand pollution as a global problem which must be addressed, it makes no sense for less developed countries to be exempted since they will be polluting much more. The overall effect will be to shift manufacturing to the less controlled areas and you'll net out more pollution than you would have if you kept manufacturing in the more tightly controlled countries. It's either a problem which must be addressed globally, or it's not. If it's not, let's not sugar coat things and try to purposefully attack industrialized nations while subsidizing less industrialized nations. If it is, then we must get to solution/regulation and hold everyone on the globe to the same standards.
 
It is not for anyone else to "dis" prove your claims, but the onus is on you to prove your own claims.


j-mac

it is your claim that junk science is being used

it is noted that you are unable to provide anything* showing junk science is behind the global warming concerns

*nothing other than your backward, flat-earth opinion
 
ok, show us the science that disproves the global warming data

something credible

until then you may as well try to convince us the earth is flat

There is 'credible' evidence for both sides, except the only problem is most of the 'controversy' is coming from the Global Warming camp because it always seems that they're doing something wrong or using fear mongering. Whereas the non-global warming community is like...eh...**** you Al Gore. And the Carbon Tax horse you rode in on.
 
There is 'credible' evidence for both sides, except the only problem is most of the 'controversy' is coming from the Global Warming camp because it always seems that they're doing something wrong or using fear mongering. Whereas the non-global warming community is like...eh...**** you Al Gore. And the Carbon Tax horse you rode in on.

then identify for us the science which provides proof that there is no global warming
 
then identify for us the science which provides proof that there is no global warming

Alright it was too much to copy and paste so do this. And you have to follow these steps precisely or it won't work.

Step 1. Go to google.

Step 2. Search "Global Warming" and a combination of the words: refuted, wrong, against, negates, etc.

Step 3. Go through the results until you find .gov .edu .org (in that order) as these sometimes are the most objective. Check their credibility, then read what they have to say.

Step 4. Go back through your results and search for scholarly articles and journals, once again checking the author and credibility, and then reading the information contained within.

Step 5. ????????

Step 6. PROFIT!!!!


Here is an example:

After searching: "Global Warming" and "Debunked" I came across a .gov link

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming – Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics

An excerpt:

...Claude Allegre, a former government official and an active member of France’s Socialist Party, wrote an editorial on September 21, 2006 in the French newspaper L'Express titled “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” (For English Translation, click here: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works ) detailing his newfound skepticism about manmade global warming. See: http://www.lexpress.fr/idees/tribunes/dossier/allegre/dossier.asp?ida=451670 Allegre wrote that the “cause of climate change remains unknown” and pointed out that Kilimanjaro is not losing snow due to global warming, but to local land use and precipitation changes. Allegre also pointed out that studies show that Antarctic snowfall rate has been stable over the past 30 years and the continent is actually gaining ice.

“Following the month of August experienced by the northern half of France, the prophets of doom of global warming will have a lot on their plate in order to make our fellow countrymen swallow their certitudes,” Allegre wrote. He also accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”

Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.” See: Warning to Humanity

Allegre has authored more than 100 scientific articles, written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States...

And conveniently enough, it has links to his article. And more than enough info on him for you to Google HIM and go from there.

Translated Article
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works


This link doesn't work, But I'm searching for the article, problem is I don't speak french and can't find an English version of the site. I did just go to the main page and search his name, and it came back with a few articles, so I think it's just a typo in the link.
http://www.lexpress.fr/idees/tribunes/dossier/allegre/dossier.asp?ida=451670

Here's the search page for that paper:
Actualité en ligne : L'Express - votre recherche sur LExpress.fr


Overall, It's [Google] pretty easy if you know what you want to find. of course someone like you might just search "Global Warming Facts" and take the National Geographic's ten 'facts' about Global Warming...or what are they calling it now? Climate Change (Yeah, the 3rd name's a charm.) I know it's easier if everyone brings their own facts to the table but sometimes you'd do better to DISPROVE someone when they don't give you facts because you can go out and refute, refute, refute them much easier if they have no facts to back it up. OR You may find that you were wrong or didn't have the whole story.
 
"Even if you don't live in Florida please understand that we need less career politicians and more academics running things.

You missed spelled a word. I think you mean "Americans", ie, real Americans who believe in freedom, not government.

I seriously do not think we need more pointy-headed academics like ex-Hahvahd Law Perfesser Messiah in government.
 
THAT statement right there, says it all.

From the True Believers of the house of Gore to the so called scientist that run this.

Did Albert Einstein demand consensus for his Theories? No, he laid down the gauntlet and said "Find what's wrong here".

That's what science is.

People who don't want their theories examined for flaws aren't scientists.
 
By what criteria are China and South Korea still developing countries? South Korea possibly has the most developed economy in the world.
 
Last edited:
The Kyoto Treaty was formed using junk science, it needs to be recinded....
It should have never been signed in the first place....;)


No no no. I completely disagree. ALL nations that signed and ratified Kyoto should be forced to meet their obligations.

Fortunately, the United States never ratified Kyoto.

What a shame, we don't have to comply with it.
 
Back
Top Bottom