• 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!

Oh My God Global Warmingis Causing Snow

misterman said:
That's debatable. But so far this thread hasn't added much to that debate.
Click to expand...
I see you've been in this thread for a long time, you point is well taken.
 
misterman said:
That's debatable. But so far this thread hasn't added much to that debate.
Click to expand...

That's because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence presented to you. Gill has been spoon-feeding you information and you still remain stubborn and obtuse.

The science isn't credible - it just isn't - and your faith in the science is not based upon an actual understanding of the theory, rather, you've had the narrative given to you by the media and the government and you just accept it without scrutiny or contemplation. For anyone who bothers to look we can see the truth, that is, AGW is a complete farce.
 
Ethereal said:
That's because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence presented to you. Gill has been spoon-feeding you information and you still remain stubborn and obtuse.
Click to expand...

No I'm not.

The science isn't credible - it just isn't
Click to expand...

Prove it.

It hasn't been done on this thread. Not even close.

and your faith in the science is not based upon an actual understanding of the theory, rather, you've had the narrative given to you by the media and the government and you just accept it without scrutiny or contemplation.
Click to expand...

Far from it.

For anyone who bothers to look we can see the truth, that is, AGW is a complete farce.
Click to expand...

Show us then.
 
Councilman said:
As we brace or more more record low cold temperatures Omaba continues to pretned tha that the truth has not come out about the HOAX of global warming.

Please take your time and read the facts, and keep in mind that the facts out weigh the false BS presented by the Liberals who have forgotten how to use their brains to make their own decisions and rely on the party line.

Recent revalations should be enugh to det the Al Goer followers to" Shut the Hell Up" and go away but they ignore the truth like the Obama worshipers.
Click to expand...


Don't feel bad C-Man, the Donald recently made comments as stupid as your's... You both reveal a complete ignorance about the difference between climate and weather...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5nNbPWYHOA"]YouTube- SNOWMAGEDDON ETIQUETTE - at work[/ame]

Say it with me: Climate is different than weather.

Write this on a post-it and put it on your desk: ALL weather is a function of one thing -- heat.

It's difficult for some folks to wrap their little heads around these concepts. Perhaps they shouldn't open their mouths and speak about things they don't understand...
 
It's much colder tonight than it was at noon today. Global warming is a hoax!
 
misterman said:
Prove it.

It hasn't been done on this thread. Not even close.



Far from it.



Show us then.
Click to expand...

Explain AGW theory in your own words and I'll show you why it's wrong. That is, if you actually know anything about the theory beyond what you've been spoon-fed by the media and government...
 
Ethereal said:
Explain AGW theory in your own words and I'll show you why it's wrong. That is, if you actually know anything about the theory beyond what you've been spoon-fed by the media and government...
Click to expand...

Do you know what the greenhouse effect is? Do you know that CO2 levels have increased since 1900?
 
USA-1 said:
Do you know what the greenhouse effect is? Do you know that CO2 levels have increased since 1900?
Click to expand...

Your arrogance is astounding. Of course I know what the greenhouse effect is - I learned about it in like sixth grade.

Now, a question for you: Do you know the difference between correlation and causation?

Just because two things occur contemporaneously does not mean they are causally linked. This is probably the most basic principle of drawing conclusions from the scientific method.
 
Ethereal said:
Your arrogance is astounding. Of course I know what the greenhouse effect is - I learned about it in like sixth grade.

Now, a question for you: Do you know the difference between correlation and causation?

Just because two things occur contemporaneously does not mean they are causally linked. This is probably the most basic principle of drawing conclusions from the scientific method.
Click to expand...
So you know what the greenhouse effect is? Do you agree with the science?
Do you agree that CO2 levels have increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution? Do you agree that during that period man pumped hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere?

In your opinion what caused the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere during that period?

Arrogance? You might want to look in the mirror for that.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
Your arrogance is astounding. Of course I know what the greenhouse effect is - I learned about it in like sixth grade.

Now, a question for you: Do you know the difference between correlation and causation?

Just because two things occur contemporaneously does not mean they are causally linked. This is probably the most basic principle of drawing conclusions from the scientific method.
Click to expand...

True. But correlation is strong, if not sufficient, evidence of causation. And when you can also show a good causal link, that's when science does indeed infer that there is causation. It's not like science never figures out causation, that's what science is.
 
USA-1 said:
So you know what the greenhouse effect is?
Click to expand...

Repeat: YES!

I'm a biology major for Pete's sake...

Do you agree with the science?
Click to expand...

The greenhouse effect is not in dispute, the significance of its effects on global temperatures is.

Do you agree that CO2 levels have increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution? Do you agree that during that period man pumped hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere?
Click to expand...

Yes, but atmospheric CO2 concentration is only 0.0387% by volume.

In your opinion what caused the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere during that period?
Click to expand...

Man. Not sure why you're asking me this.
 
misterman said:
True. But correlation is strong, if not sufficient, evidence of causation. And when you can also show a good causal link, that's when science does indeed infer that there is causation. It's not like science never figures out causation, that's what science is.
Click to expand...

This is just plain wrong.

Inferences can be made in the formation of hypotheses but they should never serve as a basis for real-life application. Furthermore, the correlation between the rise in global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentration is not that strong; average temperatures have only increased by approximately 1.33 °F over the past hundred years. A recent analysis of satellite temperature data has shown no statistically significant warming in the past 16 years, a fact Phil Jones (a primary contributor to the IPCC's official climate reports on AGW) has finally admitted.

Are you going to explain AGW for me now, so that I can accommodate your earlier request to disprove it?
 
Ethereal said:
Yes, but atmospheric CO2 concentration is only 0.0387% by volume.
Click to expand...

What level is significant and likely to cause an increase in temperature, and how do you know?
 
Ethereal said:
This is just plain wrong.

Inferences can be made in the formation of hypotheses but they should never serve as a basis for real-life application.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that.

Furthermore, the correlation between the rise in global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentration is not that strong;
Click to expand...

Wrong.

A recent analysis of satellite temperature data has shown no statistically significant warming in the past 16 years, a fact Phil Jones (a primary contributor to the IPCC's official climate reports on AGW) has finally admitted.
Click to expand...

That's not the only data out there, and it's a relatively small time period.
 
misterman said:
What level is significant and likely to cause an increase in temperature, and how do you know?
Click to expand...
What level is caused by man, and what level isn't?
 
Using round numbers, present levels are 1/3 higher than they have been in the last 200,000 years, including several ice ages and interglacials. Where do you think the "extra" third might have come from?
 
Ethereal said:
This is just plain wrong.

Inferences can be made in the formation of hypotheses but they should never serve as a basis for real-life application. Furthermore, the correlation between the rise in global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentration is not that strong; average temperatures have only increased by approximately 1.33 °F over the past hundred years. A recent analysis of satellite temperature data has shown no statistically significant warming in the past 16 years, a fact Phil Jones (a primary contributor to the IPCC's official climate reports on AGW) has finally admitted.

Are you going to explain AGW for me now, so that I can accommodate your earlier request to disprove it?
Click to expand...

You are wasting your time. Your trying to explain logic to someone that has no conception of it.

I tried to already and learned my lesson. He asked for information, then promptly ignored it.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Using round numbers, present levels are 1/3 higher than they have been in the last 200,000 years, including several ice ages and interglacials. Where do you think the "extra" third might have come from?
Click to expand...

Using IPCC calculations and forcings, which are incorrect, how much warming would be expected from an increase of 1/3 in CO2??
 
American said:
What level is caused by man, and what level isn't?
Click to expand...

Uh, we have to answer my question before yours.

But if nature's CO2 is below the critical level, and man's CO2 puts the total above the critical level, you figure it out.
 
misterman said:
Uh, we have to answer my question before yours.

But if nature's CO2 is below the critical level, and man's CO2 puts the total above the critical level, you figure it out.
Click to expand...
And if nature's CO2 is above critical level and man's CO2 puts it insignificantly higher, you figure it out.
 
American said:
And if nature's CO2 is above critical level and man's CO2 puts it insignificantly higher, you figure it out.
Click to expand...

Well, then, all we need to do is find some numbers to plug in, don't we?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom