• 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.

DasTrev said:
If anything the earth is cooling. As I stated in an earlier reply with an image of snow in the Sahara desert.
Click to expand...

Anecdotal evidence fallacy.
 
Geoist said:
Anecdotal evidence fallacy.
Click to expand...
I find it interesting that is what you choose to point out, considering my initial thought was the climate change activists called it global warming due to the overall temperature increase but have all fully acknowledged the affects cause cooling in many climate regions. It was this argument that lead from the change of language from global warming to climate change. Climate is a system seeking equilibration so whenever you have areas of increased heating inevitably lead to regions of increased cooling.

I find it interesting since challenging one reasoning in this offhanded manner tends to be more at the person as it comes with an implication of being stupid and irrational. Instead of clarifying, what makes you say that? OR do individual events of cooling change the overall trends?

Food for thought.
 
Conaeolos said:
I find it interesting that is what you choose to point out, considering my initial thought was the climate change activists called it global warming due to the overall temperature increase but have all fully acknowledged the affects cause cooling in many climate regions. It was this argument that lead from the change of language from global warming to climate change. Climate is a system seeking equilibration so whenever you have areas of increased heating inevitably lead to regions of increased cooling.
Click to expand...

My point was that cherry-picking an event does not prove one's point, whether it is the AGW or anti-AGW side. We must look at the information available to us before coming to a conclusion. I was once a climate change-skeptic. I was not swayed by swimming polar bears and disappearing beaches, but by the overwhelming wealth of statistics/studies.
 
Geoist said:
My point was that cherry-picking an event does not prove one's point, whether it is the AGW or anti-AGW side. We must look at the information available to us before coming to a conclusion. I was once a climate change-skeptic. I was not swayed by swimming polar bears and disappearing beaches, but by the overwhelming wealth of statistics/studies.
Click to expand...
I can respect that; however, I strongly disagree that is a reasonable exception of others.

Some reasons as to why?
1. Most people are not convinced by rational argumentation but a combination of rationality, emotionality and humour
2. Most people couldn’t read the research even if they want to, as there is a style and format to science the someway there is a style and format to legal matters and its not for everyone…so most matters of science(including scientist outside their field) really comes down to your trust in different sources, even if say your source is lets say Fox News/church which even if you feel lies to people has earned those people’s trust(for their own reasons) and does not imply they are stupid or ignorant. It proves they are humans with lives to lead and real life choices to make and trust is a huge part of that.
3. Just because you do read the research or even do the research doesn’t make you right, that is to prove it to yourself. If you get a good grasp you may be an authority on the subject; but even then, you still need to prove your trustworthiness and universal correctness if you are to convince others. Dismissing them or their questions or natural skepticism or subjective truth based on experience is never a way to do that.
4. There is a lot of agendas at play when in comes to Climate Change so really its one of those “trust no one” scenarios - *cough* Politics *cough*
5. People are entitled to base their political beliefs on any subjective experience and still be considered rational people. It's not an argument but its not wrong. See emotional arguments. In fact the whole thing is the religious/science debate in a nutshell. Should ones beliefs in the supernatural bar them from a having a materialistic scientific authority? Those who argue that dismiss 99% of the scientific visionaries of human history and the modern world. The merits of subjective truth over the objective is a debate not a given. Objective is just the one with the ability to convert the other.
 
Nickyjo said:
Because your post seemed a bit (ahem) paranoid, reminding me of flouridation fears of a generation ago, or the voter fraud fantasies of today, conspiracies so vast they make the mind reel.
Click to expand...

But you see, my fellow man, there IS a big, huge conspiracy at work,wether you like it, believe it or not.

And it is huge, hence 'global conspiracy'.


But it is fascinating.And very dangerous,
 
Geoist said:
Anecdotal evidence fallacy.
Click to expand...

You kinda of right. But when this whole 'thing' started they tried to scare us with there is no winter and snow anymore, it will disappear, BUT the reverse happened!. And if it was only one place, but it is not, it is getting colder on many many , and odd, places.
 
Geoist said:
I was not swayed by swimming polar bears and disappearing beaches, but by the overwhelming wealth of statistics/studies.
Click to expand...


Well, isn't that the whole point of propaganda? Because those studies are nothing more that.


This world is getting so crazy, that if someone is standing it the pouring rain,and listens to scientist that it is dry and sunny, that someone might start doubting it's own perception.

That is EXACTLY what narcissist/psychopaths do.It is called 'gaslighting' and you fell for it.

But don't blame yourself for it, it is very cleverly done and I once fell for it too.
 
Last edited:
And what about this?

 
This sums it all up!!
Untitled-440-2.jpg
 
Pin dÁr said:
But you see, my fellow man, there IS a big, huge conspiracy at work,wether you like it, believe it or not.

And it is huge, hence 'global conspiracy'.


But it is fascinating.And very dangerous,
Click to expand...

How were you chosen to know about something we other mortals can't see?
 
Nickyjo said:
How were you chosen to know about something we other mortals can't see?
Click to expand...

I am not 'chosen'. Anybody can find this out, but you have to do a lot of research.(And in the meantime stay away from anything 'mainstream', because you will find out is all LIES, hence te-LIE-vison. ;) )
 
Last edited:
Pin dÁr said:
I am not 'chosen'. Anybody can find this out, but you have to do a lot of research.(And in the meantime stay away from anything 'mainstream', because you will find out is all LIES, hence te-LIE-vison. ;) )
Click to expand...

Provide links to the research instead of DavidIcke images from his website.
 
mike2810 said:
Provide links to the research instead of DavidIcke images from his website.
Click to expand...

I do recommend his books. You can't put some 'research' here up, because you have to connect a lot of dots to be able to see it all.

Hence that his lectures are more then 10 hours.

But here is a part of his lecture with regards to Climate Change.





 
Last edited:
David Icke states the models are wrong due to "garbage" data used. My question then is how is his data correct? Isn't he using the same climate data to come up with his conclusions?
 
mike2810 said:
David Icke states the models are wrong due to "garbage" data used. My question then is how is his data correct? Isn't he using the same climate data to come up with his conclusions?
Click to expand...

It is very clear that the whole basis is wrong from the start. it is ALL propaganda.

Furgermore, I also stated that I recommend his books, because you have to connect a lot of dots, BUT if you do it will become very very clear how and why and by whom this is done. But there is a much larger context you need to look at. So, people have to start researching this for themselves, there is no other way.
 
Last edited:
Pin dÁr said:
It is very clear that the whole basis is wrong from the start. it is ALL propaganda.

Furgermore, I also stated that I recommend his books, because you have to connect a lot of dots, BUT if you do it will become very very clear how and why and by whom this is done. But there is a much larger context you need to look it. So, people have to start researching this for themselves, there is no other way.
Click to expand...

I am not saying GW is real or made up. The earth has gone through climate cycles. My point is Ickes could be just as wrong as the scientist who claim GW is real.

Seems the most reasonable approach is to say. "we don't know for sure" GW.
 
mike2810 said:
I am not saying GW is real or made up. The earth has gone through climate cycles. My point is Ickes could be just as wrong as the scientist who claim GW is real.

Seems the most reasonable approach is to say. "we don't know for sure" GW.
Click to expand...

If you read his books and the researcj in it is very clear that first, Global Warming is one huge hoas, and secondly that an ice-age is coming. I am pretty sure it is, the sign are all there. But, again, you have to do the research and connect the dots, nobody can do that for someone else.
 
Pin dÁr said:
If you read his books and the researcj in it is very clear that first, Global Warming is one huge hoas, and secondly that an ice-age is coming. I am pretty sure it is, the sign are all there. But, again, you have to do the research and connect the dots, nobody can do that for someone else.
Click to expand...

Yep. going to be 114 to 115 the next few days in Phoenix , AZ. People can feel the cold breeze just days away.:lamo

I agree, that is why I have stated Ickes has not proven this explanation anymore than some other person saying they can prove GW.

Do you believe humans have an impact on the environment? Yes or No will do.
 
mike2810 said:
Yep. going to be 114 to 115 the next few days in Phoenix , AZ. People can feel the cold breeze just days away.:lamo

I agree, that is why I have stated Ickes has not proven this explanation anymore than some other person saying they can prove GW.

Do you believe humans have an impact on the environment? Yes or No will do.
Click to expand...

You have to define the impact first, before I can answer that.
 
Pin dÁr said:
You have to define the impact first, before I can answer that.
Click to expand...

Funny how you would make such a statement since the OP discussion is on Global Warming. What impact would be discussed in such a thread?

playing coy are we.:mrgreen:

do you believe human activity has an impact on air temperature on a local level (10 square mile or less)?
do you believe human activity has an impact on air temperature on a regional level (average county size?
 
mike2810 said:
Yep. going to be 114 to 115 the next few days in Phoenix , AZ. People can feel the cold breeze just days away.:lamo

I agree, that is why I have stated Ickes has not proven this explanation anymore than some other person saying they can prove GW.

Do you believe humans have an impact on the environment? Yes or No will do.
Click to expand...



I used to live in Phoenix... It's always 100+ in that freeking place. Also there is a heatwave coming for most of California ( and that includes PHX ) so yea extreme's happen..

djl
 
bmr528 said:
I used to live in Phoenix... It's always 100+ in that freeking place. Also there is a heatwave coming for most of California ( and that includes PHX ) so yea extreme's happen..

djl
Click to expand...

So did I. I still live in AZ.
Do you believe the amount of concreate and asphalt that now exists in the Phoenix metro area have an impact on the trend of increased temps?

Past weather Phoenix - july 2007
Average high temperature:
106.8°F (normal: 106°F)
Average low temperature:
84.8°F (normal: 83°F)
Average temperature:
95.8°F (normal: 95°F)

Average high temperature:
108.3°F (normal: 106°F)
Average low temperature:
86.0°F (normal: 83°F)
Average temperature:
97.15°F (normal: 95°F)

Phx area grew a bunch between 07 and today.
 
mike2810 said:
So did I. I still live in AZ.
Do you believe the amount of concreate and asphalt that now exists in the Phoenix metro area have an impact on the trend of increased temps?

Phx area grew a bunch between 07 and today.
Click to expand...

At ground level, you bet... But I wonder what the averages were say,, on top of south mountain for the same period.

I left in 85.. PHX has grown a TON since then.. I loved the city but just could not stand the heat..

djl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom