• 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!

Do you believe in global warming, and If so, what is causing it?

Do you believe in global warming, and if so, what is causing it.

  • I believe in global warming, and that it is caused by man.

    Votes: 26 52.0%

  • I believe in global warming, but I don't think humankind has anything to do with it.

    Votes: 3 6.0%

  • I don't believe in global warming.

    Votes: 4 8.0%

  • Other - Explain

    Votes: 17 34.0%
  • Total voters
    50
Lakeside said:
Weather has only been recorded for a little over 100 years. The Earth is 4.5 BILLION years old. Global warming is FOLKLORE. Who is to blame for the second ice age?
Click to expand...

Gravity has only been known about for a little over 200 years. The Earth is 4.5 BILLION years old. Gravity is FOLKLORE. Who is to blame for floating in water?
Click to expand...

That is how much sense your post makes. Scientific knowledge is not measured as correct/incorrect because of how long of a period we've known about a particular occurrence. We've had computers for less than 80 years and yet, it's easier for scientists to explain how a computer works than for archeologists to explain how the pyramids were built. The funny thing is that the pyramids were around for 3000 years. What that says is that whether we've recorded weather for 100 years or even 4000 years is irrelevant. We know more about it today than we've ever known about it. Actually, science has become so advanced at establishing weather patterns/conditions that it can tell us what the weather is like on other planets. We can tell what the temperature is like on those planets on any given day. We can tell it'll never rain on Mars. We can even say just how thick the ice will be on other planets and we've never even been past the moon. So yeah, how long we've known about a particular event/phenomenon is pretty much irrelevant in today's world and has been for a while. Hell, we've only known about DNA for 50-60 years and we've already cloned animals. So if that doesn't tell you how flawed your argument is, nothing does.
 
Last edited:
As far as the thread goes, I don't believe in global warming. Believing is something people who don't care about facts do. I've read the documents made by scientists all over the world. Examined the facts provided and have aligned myself with the group of people who acknowledge that global warming is a fact. As far as whether man is causing it or not, you have to take a look around you and consider whether a few hundred million CO2 producing chimneys wouldn't in any way harm the environment.
 
To get back to the question, I do believe Climate Change is caused by natural events as well as human CO2 emission. I also believe that it happens at an accelerating speed, for example: when ice caps melt they uncover large black surfaces of water which in turn absorb more energy from the sun, heating up the ocean. Also, A lot of methane is released from these caps which also is also a green house gas, exacerbating the problem in it's turn.

I think that if these quick changes have occured in the past, we would be able to find traces of these changes. Fast changes in climate means that many animals will go extinct, as they have to adept to changes in decades instead of the centuries it naturally takes. The dinosaurs would be a good example, although the cause was different, the outcome is comparable.
 
Last edited:
We, humanity, are the reason global warming is happening at the current scale and we will be among its victims.

The main offenders are China and India though the west isn't that far behind, we are at comparable levels to them ,but the difference is, we're reducing or making effort to have this addressed while the other 2 nations aren't.

And yes, I know that China's solar industry is booming, but it's for show.
 
`
As a proponent of the Gaia hypothesis, I believe global warming is happening but is a mix of a naturally occurring event which is exacerbated by the pollution humankind is creating.
 
Hatuey said:
That is how much sense your post makes. Scientific knowledge is not measured as correct/incorrect because of how long of a period we've known about a particular occurrence. We've had computers for less than 80 years and yet, it's easier for scientists to explain how a computer works than for archeologists to explain how the pyramids were built. The funny thing is that the pyramids were around for 3000 years. What that says is that whether we've recorded weather for 100 years or even 4000 years is irrelevant. We know more about it today than we've ever known about it. Actually, science has become so advanced at establishing weather patterns/conditions that it can tell us what the weather is like on other planets. We can tell what the temperature is like on those planets on any given day. We can tell it'll never rain on Mars. We can even say just how thick the ice will be on other planets and we've never even been past the moon. So yeah, how long we've known about a particular event/phenomenon is pretty much irrelevant in today's world and has been for a while. Hell, we've only known about DNA for 50-60 years and we've already cloned animals. So if that doesn't tell you how flawed your argument is, nothing does.
Click to expand...

Did you even read what you wrote before you hit "enter"? You are all over the place and proving my point and disproven your point. Rough night?
 
From what Ive read so far there just doesnt seem to be an conclusive evidence that there is a catastrophic occurrence of global warming so Im very skeptical about it.
 
jamesrage said:
So someone can tell you the high and low temperature, humidity and whether or not you got any rain in Redland's California on August 19 a couple hundred years ago?
Click to expand...

If someone in Redlands was writing it down, sure. We can get general planetary data through ice cores and other means going back many, many thousands of years. The idea that nobody had any clue what was going on weather-wise more than a century ago is absurd, otherwise how would we have any clue that the Little Ice Age happened, just a few hundred years ago?

HoloceneTemperatures.png
 
PoS said:
From what Ive read so far there just doesnt seem to be an conclusive evidence that there is a catastrophic occurrence of global warming so Im very skeptical about it.
Click to expand...

Back in 2008, Al Gore was claiming that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013, which just so happened to be the year where the ice pack increased by 50% over previous year levels. Go figure.
 
Lakeside said:
Did you even read what you wrote before you hit "enter"? You are all over the place and proving my point and disproven your point. Rough night?
Click to expand...

Your Libertarian label is in full display. How do I know? You're either being intentionally obtuse or you refuse to read what is being said. What is being stated is that whether a scientific field is 100 years old or 300 is irrelevant in today's world. Scientific knowledge as we know it today is growing at a rate where most people can only discuss it in layman terms and there is very little room for unchallenged interpretations/claim. The minute a scientist publishes his findings, it's scrutinized by people globally. To this day, there hasn't been a single study of any sort that challenges global warming (man made or otherwise) as a fact. As such, it's not folklore as you erroneously stated. It's happening.

With that said, the claim that weather has only been recorded for 100 years is irrelevant. Actually, it's blatantly false to begin with. Meteorology has been around in different forms and in different places for at least 2,500 years. However, that is beside the point.
 
Cephus said:
Back in 2008, Al Gore was claiming that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013, which just so happened to be the year where the ice pack increased by 50% over previous year levels. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Al Gore got the message out that global warming was a fact, however, I doubt that he wouldn't admit that he's been a terrible spokesperson. If he had focused on the more imminent and threatening implications of rising pollution levels and industrialization, I'm sure he would have made a better impact with the Libertarian crowds. However, he stuck with the doom and gloom side and it definitely made it unattractive to people. If you tell people that melting ice caps will make water levels flood, the evangelicals start getting their panties wet and think about building an arc. If you tell them that rising pollution levels mean that eventually more illegal immigrants are gonna be standing at the borders or trying to get into the US on ships, the same crowd suddenly switches into an environmentalist gear. It's a shame.
 
Hatuey said:
Your Libertarian label is in full display. How do I know? You're either being intentionally obtuse or you refuse to read what is being said. What is being stated is that whether a scientific field is 100 years old or 300 is irrelevant in today's world. Scientific knowledge as we know it today is growing at a rate where most people can only discuss it in layman terms and there is very little room for unchallenged interpretations/claim. The minute a scientist publishes his findings, it's scrutinized by people globally. To this day, there hasn't been a single study of any sort that challenges global warming (man made or otherwise) as a fact. As such, it's not folklore as you erroneously stated. It's happening.

With that said, the claim that weather has only been recorded for 100 years is irrelevant. Actually, it's blatantly false to begin with. Meteorology has been around in different forms and in different places for at least 2,500 years. However, that is beside the point.
Click to expand...

Can you name some of those meteorologist from 2500 years ago and who did they blame global warming on back then?
 
Gee, maybe I should be grateful for "global warming". Just imagine how cold it would have been this past winter w/o "global warming".
 
Lakeside said:
Can you name some of those meteorologist from 2500 years ago and
Click to expand...

Sigh. Well, here are a few minor characters..

Meteorology - A brief history

First discussed by Aristotle, 340 B.C.

wrote a book entitled Meteorologica - summarized meteorological knowledge to date
Click to expand...

Timeline of meteorology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

600 BC – Thales may qualify as the first Greek meteorologist. He described the water cycle in a fairly accurate way. He also issued the first seasonal crop forecast.[2]
400 BC – There is some evidence that Democritus predicted changes in the weather, and that he used this ability to convince people that he could predict other future events.[3]
400 BC – Hippocrates writes a treatise called Airs, Waters and Places, the earliest known work to include a discussion of weather. More generally, he wrote about common diseases that occur in particular locations, seasons, winds and air.[3]
350 BC – Aristotle writes Meteorology.
Click to expand...

A few civilizations which did the same..

Weather Forecasting Through the Ages : Feature Articles

Around 650 B.C., the Babylonians tried to predict short-term weather changes based on the appearance of clouds and optical phenomena such as haloes. By 300 B.C., Chinese astronomers had developed a calendar that divided the year into 24 festivals, each festival associated with a different type of weather.
Click to expand...

who did they blame global warming on back then?
Click to expand...

Hmmm interesting approach considering global warming wasn't known about until recently. Wait... is electricity folklore too? What about gravity? :lol: You're digging yourself way deeper and are way out of your league. Go home, Libertarian. This is no place for those who can't debate.
 
Lakeside said:
Gee, maybe I should be grateful for "global warming". Just imagine how cold it would have been this past winter w/o "global warming".
Click to expand...

You're proving that you really have no clue what it is you're discussing. If it's cooler in your bathroom than your bedroom, do you think there are two weather systems at work inside your house? :lol:
 
Hatuey said:
You're proving that you really have no clue what it is you're discussing. If it's cooler in your bathroom than your bedroom, do you think there are two weather systems at work inside your house? :lol:
Click to expand...

I find it very hard that you don't believe that there have been MANY weather cycles over the last 4.5 billion years. I am still waiting for you to show me any of those meteorologist from 2500 years ago or before who blamed humans for the weather cycles.
 
Lakeside said:
I find it very hard that you don't believe that there have been MANY weather cycles over the last 4.5 billion years.
Click to expand...

Hey! You're learning how to debate, only you're going the wrong way. What you've done is called a strawman argument. You've created a fictitious position that I myself never endorsed. As a matter of fact, I think my arguments in this thread have proven quite the opposite and I do acknowledge that weather cycles are an intrinsic part of meteorology. Heck, without them, there's not much of a point for meteorology is there? However, that literally has nothing to do with global warming. Summers tend to be hotter than winters, winters tend to have snow outside of the equatorial zone, animals migrate (another weather cycle), vegetation grows. Actually, it's pretty evident that weather cycles do happen. What is being discussed is whether this recent rise in temperatures is caused by man's activity or natural causes. As of right now, a good chunk of the evidence points to it being in part caused by man. Those are facts. Now that we have that out of the way...

I am still waiting for you to show me any of those meteorologist from 2500 years ago
Click to expand...

I've actually shown you quite a few. That you've ignored them is your problem, not mine.

or before who blamed humans for the weather cycles.
Click to expand...

Well, considering they blamed weather cycles on how happy/angry the gods were, that's not possible. However, why would I prove an statement that you made up? Actually, what does that have to do with your erroneous statement about weather only having been recorded for 100 years? Lmao. Nothing. Go home Lakeside, this isn't the place for second rate debating tactics.
 
Last edited:
It's happening, it's our fault, and there's nothing we can do about it so governments should stop using it as a means to control people.
 
Hatuey said:
Hey! You're learning how to debate, only you're going the wrong way. What you've done is called a strawman argument. You've created a fictitious position that I myself never endorsed. As a matter of fact, I think my arguments in this thread have proven quite the opposite and I do believe that weather cycles are an intrinsic part of meteorology. Heck, without them, there's not much of a point for meteorology is there? Now that we have that out of the way...



I've actually shown you quite a few. That you've ignored them is your problem, not mine.



Well, considering they blamed weather cycles on how happy/angry the gods were, that's not possible. However, why would I prove an statement you yourself made up? Actually, what does that have to do with your erroneous statement about weather only having been recorded for 100 years? Lmao. Nothing. Go home Lakeside, this isn't the place for second rate debating tactics.
Click to expand...

You are struggling now. From your first reply to my post you have been all over the place. You have proved me right and disproved yourself. Now you are just struggling.
 
Lakeside said:
You are struggling now. From your first reply to my post you have been all over the place. You have proved me right and disproved yourself. Now you are just struggling.
Click to expand...

1. You claimed that weather has only been recorded for 100 years. Status of the claim: False
2. You asked for meteorologists from 2500 years ago (i.e. people who study the atmosphere) to be presented. Shown as evidence: Aristotle, Thales, Democritus, Hippocrates.
3. You casted doubt on my acknowledgement of weather patter. Status of the claim: Unfounded as weather and the study of the weather are dependent on cycles of all sorts.

I got a chuckle out of debating you. I really did. I usually stay out of these arguments unless people try to go the historical route on them. You decided to do that and were proven to not only be wrong but borderline ignorant of the science and what it entails even from a layman's perspective. Cut your losses and disappear from the thread.
 
Hatuey said:
1. You claimed that weather has only been recorded for 100 years. Status of the claim: False
2. You asked for meteorologists from 2500 years ago (i.e. people who study the atmosphere) to be presented. Shown as evidence: Aristotle, Thales, Democritus, Hippocrates.
3. You casted doubt on my acknowledgement of weather patter. Status of the claim: Unfounded as weather and the study of the weather are dependent on cycles of all sorts.

I got a chuckle out of debating you. I really did. I usually stay out of these arguments unless people try to go the historical route on them. You decided to do that and were proven to not only be wrong but borderline ignorant of the science and what it entails even from a layman's perspective. Cut your losses and disappear from the thread.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for YOUR recorded weather cycles of the past 2500 years. Can you show those recorded weather cycles?
 
Lakeside said:
Maybe I should have used the "instrumental" approach for my 100 years comment. But I do stick to my comment of Global Warming being Folklore.
Click to expand...

The fact that there is a global warming trend is not in question, it is undeniable. Whether or not it's human-caused, that's another matter entirely and to what degree it might be true, and whether we can actually do anything about it. The graph I posted earlier clearly shows the upward trend in recent history. You can believe it or not but your belief doesn't change the demonstrable reality.
 
Lakeside said:
Still waiting for YOUR recorded weather cycles of the past 2500 years.
Click to expand...

Good grief, it's like you're asking to be destroyed. This was written by Aristotle in the 4th century BC

The Internet Classics Archive | Meteorology by Aristotle

Everywhere, except in Pontus, dew is found with south winds and not with north winds. There the opposite is the case and it is found with north winds and not with south. The reason is the same as that which explains why dew is found in warm weather and not in cold. For the south wind brings warm, and the north, wintry weather. For the north wind is cold and so quenches the heat of the evaporation. But in Pontus the south wind does not bring warmth enough to cause evaporation, whereas the coldness of the north wind concentrates the heat by a sort of recoil, so that there is more evaporation and not less. This is a thing which we can often observe in other places too. Wells, for instance, give off more vapour in a north than in a south wind. Only the north winds quench the heat before any considerable quantity of vapour has gathered, while in a south wind the evaporation is allowed to accumulate.

Water, once formed, does not freeze on the surface of the earth, in the way that it does in the region of the clouds.
Click to expand...

Hell, he even goes as far as discrediting celestial objects as the cause for weather patterns:

For instance the great comet we mentioned before appeared to the west in winter in frosty weather when the sky was clear, in the archonship of Asteius. On the first day it set before the sun and was then not seen. On the next day it was seen, being ever so little behind the sun and immediately setting. But its light extended over a third part of the sky like a leap, so that people called it a 'path'. This comet receded as far as Orion's belt and there dissolved. Democritus however, insists upon the truth of his view and affirms that certain stars have been seen when comets dissolve. But on his theory this ought not to occur occasionally but always.
Click to expand...

He actually goes into pretty fine detail about it all:

The exhalation of water is vapour: air condensing into water is cloud. Mist is what is left over when a cloud condenses into water, and is therefore rather a sign of fine weather than of rain; for mist might be called a barren cloud. So we get a circular process that follows the course of the sun. For according as the sun moves to this side or that, the moisture in this process rises or falls. We must think of it as a river flowing up and down in a circle and made up partly of air, partly of water. When the sun is near, the stream of vapour flows upwards; when it recedes, the stream of water flows down: and the order of sequence, at all events, in this process always remains the same. So if 'Oceanus' had some secret meaning in early writers, perhaps they may have meant this river that flows in a circle about the earth.
Click to expand...

That is man describing weather and weather cycles 24 centuries ago and in his own limited understanding of them. He's going as far as attacking other theories for what does and doesn't cause weather cycles. He goes even further and puts the notion of the gods as a cause for weather patterns as nothing more than allegory. You're way out of your league here. Go home, Lakeside.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom