• 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!

Global warming should be called global heating, says key scientist

Middleground said:
I do agree that population has gotten way out of hand.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying we should give up on going green, but population control should be part of the process. They aren't mutually exclusive ideas. Perhaps we could research and determine an optimum global population and make that a big part of climate agreements. We should also develop a sustainable economic system, not one based on constant growth. That should also be a part of the discussion. Just focusing on fossil fuels and renewables isn't going to be successful. If that's all we do we're doomed. By doomed I mean the system will eventually crash, and people will probably be living like cave men. Or something close to it.

The global economy will double probably twice during this century. Population will probably reach 10 billion. Even if we cut fossil energy usage, develop renewables, energy demands will soar, our carbon footprint will still grow, finite resources will be used up, food and water will be big problems, and eventually we will be fighting over it all.

So yeah, population and sustainable economics are the key to the whole thing.
 
Conservative said:
Zero legislative victories? LOL, I am sure glad Obama is out of office generating the incredible economic results by eliminating his negative growth EO's, promoting an American first economic policy, and of course giving us that tax cut that is in place now. Not sure where you get your information but I will never understand people like you who always buy what they want to hear and do no research to verify the accuracy of it.
Click to expand...

This thread is about Global Heating. To summarize, you started pointing fingers at the rest of the world, and touting Trump's performance as the reason CO2 emissions are down slightly in the US. I said that was more due to the use of substantially more wind and solar energy. I also said that it's counterproductive to lay blame around the world. Climate change is a global problem. I then stated that Trump is not a Uniter that will work with other countries.

Next thing, you're going off on Obama. Obama is not the current president, and will never be the president again. Now if you think Trump is a Uniter, and that he will work with other countries on Climate Change, state your case. At least that will be somewhat On-Topic.
 
Waddy said:
I'm not saying we should give up on going green, but population control should be part of the process. They aren't mutually exclusive ideas. Perhaps we could research and determine an optimum global population and make that a big part of climate agreements. We should also develop a sustainable economic system, not one based on constant growth. That should also be a part of the discussion. Just focusing on fossil fuels and renewables isn't going to be successful. If that's all we do we're doomed. By doomed I mean the system will eventually crash, and people will probably be living like cave men. Or something close to it.

The global economy will double probably twice during this century. Population will probably reach 10 billion. Even if we cut fossil energy usage, develop renewables, energy demands will soar, our carbon footprint will still grow, finite resources will be used up, food and water will be big problems, and eventually we will be fighting over it all.

So yeah, population and sustainable economics are the key to the whole thing.
Click to expand...

The irony is Global Warming will cause so many people to die.
 
Media_Truth said:
This thread is about Global Heating. To summarize, you started pointing fingers at the rest of the world, and touting Trump's performance as the reason CO2 emissions are down slightly in the US. I said that was more due to the use of substantially more wind and solar energy. I also said that it's counterproductive to lay blame around the world. Climate change is a global problem. I then stated that Trump is not a Uniter that will work with other countries.

Next thing, you're going off on Obama. Obama is not the current president, and will never be the president again. Now if you think Trump is a Uniter, and that he will work with other countries on Climate Change, state your case. At least that will be somewhat On-Topic.
Click to expand...

Until you recognize actual fiscal results and admit you are wrong when proven wrong No President will ever be someone to unite radicals into the real world. America first drives you people crazy which is why you refuse to post actual economic results as they all refute your opinions.
 
longview said:
Which emission scenario are we on vs which model matches the observations?
Click to expand...

Hey, you said the "models are running hot". I asked you to provide a reputable source.
 
Media_Truth said:
He posts the same Gibberish every day.
Click to expand...

It's not worth the effort of diving down his rabbit hole. He never listens and just keeps repeating the same old nonsense over and over again.

With climate truthers, it's like a version of Groundhog Day where Bill Murray never learns anything.
 
Last edited:
longview said:
If you think IPCC AR4 and AR5 show empirical evidence of CO2 caused energy imbalance, you need to cite the exact section.
Click to expand...


They don't know which is why they gave you the links in hopes it was covered in there.


You already know this but I wanted to make sure to point it out.
 
dobieg said:
They don't know which is why they gave you the links in hopes it was covered in there.


You already know this but I wanted to make sure to point it out.
Click to expand...

Both AR4 and AR5 would cover this aptly.
 
Media_Truth said:
This is just for the Central US. And it's only talking about 0.2-0.4 deg K (or C). That's not off very much, expecially when one considers that Western US and Alaska are about twice as warm (2 deg C anomaly insead of 1 deg C) as the rest of the world.
Click to expand...
Do you think they use a different model for the central US than the rest of the world?
No! the same model is used everywhere, and any systematic errors would carry through everywhere.
A systematic error of between .2 and .4 C would be large.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom