• 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.

bmr528 said:
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
Click to expand...

It would also show an increase under normal conditions. Air cools at a adiabatic rate.
 
mike2810 said:
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:
Click to expand...

No, you are not being very clear. .And again, the use of ad hominems, a sign of pwerlesnees isn't it?

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?
Click to expand...

Again, as long as you don't define impact it is impossible to answer.

Why can't you define it? try to be less vaguie, ok? oh and now I am at it, please also define 'human activity", ok? Are you talking about breathing, farting, transpiring, driving a car, burning coals what???

You yourself seem to be very vert very unsure about what you are talking here, right?!
 
Last edited:
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...

Although I haven't read his books, the sahara desert covered in snow, Texas having snow in winter, though very little, there was snow. I mean as I write this comment its 86 degrees
fahrenheit. A couple years ago (I believe it was 2010, or around that time) we had the most snow ever recorded in my city. That's enough proof for me that an ice age is coming. Of course it won't in a decade, maybe a century or two. Then again I don't have proof to back up my estimation of when it will occur.

I apologize for sny errors in spelling this was written on my phone.
 
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...

Depending on the amount of people willing to work for it maybe. 1,000 - 10,000, no that won't do anything. 250,000,000 - 1,000,000,000, yeah there will probably be an affect. Better be one heck of a speech to get that movement rolling.
 
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...
I did not watch all of the video, but as to the models being incorrect, it is discussed in the literature.
Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News & Comment
Stark contrast

On a chart of global atmospheric temperatures, the hiatus stands in stark contrast to the rapid warming of the two decades that preceded it. Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.
Click to expand...
The models expected warming to continue at a .021°C per decade rate, and it did not.
When people model anything without knowing all the variables, they make assumptions,
most of the time the assumptions contain some or even a lot of error.
 
Pin dÁr said:
No, you are not being very clear. .And again, the use of ad hominems, a sign of pwerlesnees isn't it?



Again, as long as you don't define impact it is impossible to answer.

Why can't you define it? try to be less vaguie, ok? oh and now I am at it, please also define 'human activity", ok? Are you talking about breathing, farting, transpiring, driving a car, burning coals what???

You yourself seem to be very vert very unsure about what you are talking here, right?!
Click to expand...

What part of "air temperature" don't you understand?

What is "vert"? :lamo
 
longview said:
I did not watch all of the video, but as to the models being incorrect, it is discussed in the literature.
Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News & Comment

The models expected warming to continue at a .021°C per decade rate, and it did not.
When people model anything without knowing all the variables, they make assumptions,
most of the time the assumptions contain some or even a lot of error.
Click to expand...

Agree. Computer models are only as good as the program and inputs.
 
DasTrev said:
I believe global warming might be a large scale version of the placebo effect, just not medical.
Definition of the placebo effect:
"a beneficial effect, produced by a placebo drug or treatment, that cannot be attributed to the properties of the placebo itself, and must therefore be due to the patient's belief in that treatment."
Although global warming isn't a drug, or a treatment, it is a belief that something is wrong with the earth and we have to do something about it. I don't believe that there is any such thing as global warming, if there is, it may just be another ice age.
I'm going to keep it simple, Antarctica melts along with the Arctic ice up north, everything floods, everything freezes, BOOM! Ice age! It's a logical reason this may be happening, there may be more theories but this is mine. After the second ice age begins a long time passes, everything repeats. Basically an ice age cycle. Plus what can us humans do to stop it. It's already in progress (if global warming is a thing that is currently happening).

Just let nature take its course.
Click to expand...

You presented the definition of placebo effect, and then proceeded to describe a situation that doesn't remotely fit that definition.

An accurate global warming placebo effect would be the planet getting warmer solely because humans believed it would get warmer, as opposed to any actual forcing.

Regarding your last couple of sentences: the fact that climate has natural, cyclical changes does not preclude human beings from being another factor that has an effect. Simply put, carbon dioxide doesn't actually care whether it came out of a tailpipe, or from some trees burning down in a forest fire, or from exhalation, or some giant "dry ice comet" hits the earth and dumps a bunch of CO2 into the environment. It's a chemical that behaves the way it behaves.
 
Pin dÁr said:
I agree with the latter. But the first part you are partly true in that it is an unstoppabl;e machine right now, but it is not only for money and jobs, but for more power over the people. With the excuse of the 'climate change' you can be more easily controlled.

If you want to know more study agenda 21 .
Click to expand...

Have you actually read agenda 21, instead of what some blogger has told you about it?
 
longview said:
I did not watch all of the video, but as to the models being incorrect, it is discussed in the literature.
Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News & Comment

The models expected warming to continue at a .021°C per decade rate, and it did not.
When people model anything without knowing all the variables, they make assumptions,
most of the time the assumptions contain some or even a lot of error.
Click to expand...

It is even simpeler, GIGO,Garbage In, Garbage Out.
 
Pin dÁr said:
Really you have to be more explicit.
Click to expand...

No I don't. I don't have to do anything.
Your posts are somewhat amusing. Your style of discussion is boring.

Since you cannot figure it out. No need to continue down with this line of questioning.
 
mike2810 said:
No I don't. I don't have to do anything.
Your posts are somewhat amusing. Your style of discussion is boring.

Since you cannot figure it out. No need to continue down with this line of questioning.
Click to expand...


I have to figure out what you can't say?????? Talking about a reverse world!

No need to....
Click to expand...
thank you! lol
 
Last edited:
Pin dÁr said:
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.





Click to expand...


Do you get a complimentary tinfoil hat if you sign up?
 
Deuce said:
You presented the definition of placebo effect, and then proceeded to describe a situation that doesn't remotely fit that definition.

An accurate global warming placebo effect would be the planet getting warmer solely because humans believed it would get warmer, as opposed to any actual forcing.

Regarding your last couple of sentences: the fact that climate has natural, cyclical changes does not preclude human beings from being another factor that has an effect. Simply put, carbon dioxide doesn't actually care whether it came out of a tailpipe, or from some trees burning down in a forest fire, or from exhalation, or some giant "dry ice comet" hits the earth and dumps a bunch of CO2 into the environment. It's a chemical that behaves the way it behaves.
Click to expand...
Global warming is a problem that was made up, and many liberal politicians are using to get more votes, by saying they're going to fix something that doesn't exist. The way I described the placebo effect is correct, I suggest you do some research before replying to something you don't know anything about.

Deuce said:
An accurate global warming placebo effect would be the planet getting warmer solely because humans believed it would get warmer, as opposed to any actual forcing.
Click to expand...
That's incorrect, the Earth is getting colder because of their efforts to fix something that doesn't exist. Humans believing global warming exists doesn't make the earth hotter. Again do your research before commenting on something you clearly know nothing about.

Deuce said:
Regarding your last couple of sentences: the fact that climate has natural, cyclical changes does not preclude human beings from being another factor that has an effect. Simply put, carbon dioxide doesn't actually care whether it came out of a tailpipe, or from some trees burning down in a forest fire, or from exhalation, or some giant "dry ice comet" hits the earth and dumps a bunch of CO2 into the environment. It's a chemical that behaves the way it behaves.
Click to expand...

Humans may be some part of the nonexistent problem, but we breath in oxygen and breath out carbon dioxide are we just going to stop breathing? How are we going to stop a comet? Launch a bunch of missiles at it? Make more pollution than the comet could produce? If you tell someone to stop driving their car, they may do it, tell 7 billion people to do it, well over half won't, a little pointless if you ask me.
 
I think it's very simple. There is human caused CO2. and there is nature caused CO2 like volcanoes, and what have you.

Guess which is the greatest source of CO2? hint: it aint't humans!

Furthermore, blaming C02 is a way of demonizing live. CO2 is life enhancing, hence the demonisation.

The people behind AGW are anti-life! Hence they are the same people behind e.g. the oil spill and fukishima and 9-11 and what have you.

Those people really have some deep issues.
 
PalmarBjarnste said:
I think it's very simple. There is human caused CO2. and there is nature caused CO2 like volcanoes, and what have you.

Guess which is the greatest source of CO2? hint: it aint't humans!

Furthermore, blaming C02 is a way of demonizing live. CO2 is life enhancing, hence the demonisation.

The people behind AGW are anti-life! Hence they are the same people behind e.g. the oil spill and fukishima and 9-11 and what have you.

Those people really have some deep issues.
Click to expand...

Which people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom