• 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
There is no need to "believe" in global warming, the evidence is overwhelming and it speaks for itself. The good thing about facts is that they are true whether one believes in them or not.
 
Crovax said:
Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Well then! Thanks for proving me on two different fields. Whether it's through visual descriptions or instrumental recording, weather has been recorded for well over 100 years. Remember, for his statement to be true, recording of weather patterns would only go back to 1914. However, we know that is laughable. So, thanks to your link we now know that weather records using instruments has been around for 160+ years and basic visual descriptions of the weather go back over 2400 years AT LEAST.
 
Hatuey said:
Well then! Thanks for proving me on two different fields. Whether it's through visual descriptions or instrumental recording, weather has been recorded for well over 100 years. Remember, for his statement to be true, recording of weather patterns would only go back to 1914. However, we know that is laughable. So, thanks to your link we now know that weather records using instruments has been around for 160+ years and basic visual descriptions of the weather go back over 2400 years AT LEAST.
Click to expand...

So we agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and has gone thru many weather cycles and will go thru many more weather cycles once humans are no longer on this planet. Maybe I misunderstood your stand on man being responsible for the so called global warming. My point was that man is NOT responsible for the so called folklore of global warming.

\
 
Lakeside said:
So we agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old
Click to expand...

That was never in question.

and has gone thru many weather cycles and will go thru many more weather cycles once humans are no longer on this planet.
Click to expand...

You're not really sure what you're debating are you? Global warming is a fact that is not disputed by anyone who passed their 7th grade science class. The debate centers around whether it's man made or natural. I'm starting to think that you're being deliberately obtuse.

Maybe I misunderstood your stand on man being responsible for the so called global warming.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't. However, you have completely misunderstood every post which I've made. You lack even a basic knowledge of meteorological history or what it's used for. You seem to not even understand the relevance of your statements on whatever it is you're discussing. I'll give you a clue, there is none. As a matter of fact, what you've just said in this thread can be collectively construed as some of the most laughably ignorant things posted on the subject. To paraphrase Billy Madison:

At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

The fact that you ever thought I was struggling is by far the most baffling thing in this entire discussion.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
That was never in question.



You're not really sure what you're debating are you? Global warming is a fact that is not disputed by anyone who passed their 7th grade science class. The debate centers around whether it's man made or natural. I'm starting to think that you're being deliberately obtuse.



No, you didn't. However, you have completely misunderstood every post which I've made. You lack even a basic knowledge of meteorological history or what it's used for. You seem to not even understand the relevance of your statements on whatever it is you're discussing. I'll give you a clue, there is none. As a matter of fact, what you've just said in this thread can be collectively construed as some of the most laughably ignorant things posted on the subject. To paraphrase Billy Madison:

At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

The fact that you ever thought I was struggling is by far the most baffling thing in this entire discussion.
Click to expand...

Now you really are struggling. Once again you prove my point. "the debate centers around whether it's man made or natural".
Duh, my whole point is that it is NOT man made. My whole point was that it is natural. You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows. Are you really that dense?
 
Lakeside said:
Now you really are struggling. Once again you prove my point. "the debate centers around whether it's man made or natural".
Duh, my whole point is that it is NOT man made. My whole point was that it is natural. You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's nice, honey. However, scientific data seems to point to the fact that recent rises in temperature have been caused in part by man. To what degree is still being discussed.

Are you really that dense?
Click to expand...

From the person who thought the first records of the weather were from 1914.
 
Hatuey said:
Yes, that's nice, honey. However, scientific data seems to point to the fact that recent rises in temperature have been caused in part by man. To what degree is still being discussed.



From the person who thought the first records of the weather were from 1914.
Click to expand...

You really are that dense. You have shown some "opinions" and "when to grow crops" data. As I said earlier you are really struggling, you are all over the place and make no sense at all.
 
Lakeside said:
You have shown some "opinions" and "when to grow crops" data. As I said earlier you are really struggling, you are all over the place and make no sense at all.
Click to expand...

Lmao. You're not sure what a weather cycle is ...are you? I'll give you a clue: Weather cycles and records have around for well over 100 years. They've been measured through instruments for over 100 years and they've been visually observed for 2400 years. You were proven false. Get over it.
 
Hatuey said:
Lmao. You're not sure what a weather cycle is ...are you? I'll give you a clue: Weather cycles and records have around for well over 100 years. They've been measured through instruments for over 100 years and they've been visually observed for 2400 years. You were proven false. Get over it.
Click to expand...

"Proven false. ROTFLMMFAO. You are really struggling again. Don't relook at what you wrote, you will have nightmares.
 
The earth is warming up, that's clear. It's also clear that greenhouse gas emissions can contribute to the warming effect, but I think it's less clear exactly how much they're causing the current warming trend, and how much of it is natural. That shouldn't be a reason not to take steps to mitigate the effects of climate change and lower greenhouse gas emissions though.
 
Lakeside said:
"Proven false. ROTFLMMFAO. You are really struggling again. Don't relook at what you wrote, you will have nightmares.
Click to expand...

You sound desperate. When people write in capitals halfways through a sentence, it's a sign of anxiety and stress. Look, you made an uneducated statement. You claimed weather has only been recorded since 1914. That's not only patently false, it's laughable. First of all, instrumental recording of weather patterns has been around for 160 years. That alone makes your statement false. Second, it would mean that somehow, without records of any sort, humans had to memorize for centuries weather patterns for things like agriculture, herding and hunting. Are you serious about this discussion or are you trying to parody what uneducated buffoons sound like when discussing GW?
 
Well, we might not know what the weather was like in the past exactly, but we have a pretty good handle on the climate. And for those of you who don't 'believe' that man may be responsible for the vast majority of the present warming spike, you might want to reconsider your position as more religious than scientific.

ja9edusy.jpg


Science is good at this stuff.
 
Hatuey said:
You sound desperate. When people write in capitals halfways through a sentence, it's a sign of anxiety and stress. Look, you made an uneducated statement. You claimed weather has only been recorded since 1914. That's not only patently false, it's laughable. First of all, instrumental recording of weather patterns has been around for 160 years. That alone makes your statement false. Second, it would mean that somehow, without records of any sort, humans had to memorize for centuries weather patterns for things like agriculture, herding and hunting. Are you serious about this discussion or are you trying to parody what uneducated buffoons sound like when discussing GW?
Click to expand...

Hey Struggler, you ever going to answer the question of your claim of recorded global warming 2500 years ago and who man blamed for that. Since you are so smart how about explaining who was to blame for all the ice ages.
 
Lakeside said:
Hey Struggler, you ever going to answer the question of your claim of recorded global warming 2500 years ago
Click to expand...

Really... I claimed that there was recorded global warming 2500 years ago? Where? What is the post number? K thanks.
 
I would have chosen the first answer (I believe global warming is happening and that human beings are causing it) but for how it was worded. I believe that human beings contribute to global warming, and that the current warming trend is more severe than it otherwise would be (note that this is not the same as saying that the current trend is completely without precedent) due to human activity.

Climate change is something of a distraction from a much more major issue: environmental destruction. There's no question that rain forests are disappearing, that the oceans have been fished out, that bee colonies are dying, that temperate forests are dying, that droughts are increasing, and so on. And there's no question that human beings are almost entirely responsible for these occurrences.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I would have chosen the first answer (I believe global warming is happening and that human beings are causing it) but for how it was worded. I believe that human beings contribute to global warming, and that the current warming trend is more severe than it otherwise would be (note that this is not the same as saying that the current trend is completely without precedent) due to human activity.

Climate change is something of a distraction from a much more major issue: environmental destruction. There's no question that rain forests are disappearing, that the oceans have been fished out, that bee colonies are dying, that temperate forests are dying, that droughts are increasing, and so on. And there's no question that human beings are almost entirely responsible for these occurrences.
Click to expand...

Yer wrong! The rain forests are disappearing because they naturally disappear by 50% or more every century. Now excuse me while I light a cigarette with a match made from baoba.
 
Yeah. I, ah, put up a stop sign in the front yard in an attempt to mitigate any adverse events that might occur climate wise. It may be more effective than any mitigation otherwise proposed. In the end, I believe I don't care.
 
Hatuey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right, it's not about "belief" or "faith", it's about understanding and not dismissing natural occurrences because of religious or political affilliation. It's more about being objective and open mindedness....

Which is difficult for many to do it seems.
 
I think the question should be refined somewhat.
The globe warms and cools, no one contests that.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has a somewhat accepted direct response.
Human activity has caused the CO2 levels to increase, (% of increase from Human activity? unknown)
Perhaps the question should be,
Is the addition amplification of the direct response warming as defined by the IPCC occurring?
But this is not a believe question, but a data one.
If we go by Hanson's GISS data, we have warmed .8 C in the last 133 years.
The IPCC's direct response for CO2 number is 1.2 C for a doubling of CO2,
which means our current level of CO2 should produce .6 C of warming.
If there is any additional amplification from direct response increase,
it would have to be within the .2 C, of unaccounted for warming.
Let's see how the empirical data stacks up to the IPCC predictions.
The IPCC predicted the temperature increase from doubling CO2 levels
would be between 1.5 and 4.5 C.
At roughly half way through the effects of doubling CO2, we are at .8 C.
If we could complete the doubling, the observed data shows we would net out just under
1.6 C of warming over 200 years.
(NOTE: CO2 level at 401 ppm, results in 51% of the effects of doubling CO2)
4*log(560)-4*log(401)= .580, 1.2 C -.580 C= .62 C= 51.6%
 
longview said:
I think the question should be refined somewhat.
The globe warms and cools, no one contests that.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has a somewhat accepted direct response.
Human activity has caused the CO2 levels to increase, (% of increase from Human activity? unknown)
Perhaps the question should be,
Is the addition amplification of the direct response warming as defined by the IPCC occurring?
But this is not a believe question, but a data one.
If we go by Hanson's GISS data, we have warmed .8 C in the last 133 years.
The IPCC's direct response for CO2 number is 1.2 C for a doubling of CO2,
which means our current level of CO2 should produce .6 C of warming.
If there is any additional amplification from direct response increase,
it would have to be within the .2 C, of unaccounted for warming.
Let's see how the empirical data stacks up to the IPCC predictions.
The IPCC predicted the temperature increase from doubling CO2 levels
would be between 1.5 and 4.5 C.
At roughly half way through the effects of doubling CO2, we are at .8 C.
If we could complete the doubling, the observed data shows we would net out just under
1.6 C of warming over 200 years.
(NOTE: CO2 level at 401 ppm, results in 51% of the effects of doubling CO2)
4*log(560)-4*log(401)= .580, 1.2 C -.580 C= .62 C= 51.6%
Click to expand...

I don't agree with everything posted here (mostly because I haven't slept - been working all night and I'm grumpy) but I do thank you for this post. It's the first attempt by a right winger other than Cephus to at a minimum consider that humans may be contributing to GW.
 
Hatuey said:
I don't agree with everything posted here (mostly because I haven't slept - been working all night and I'm grumpy) but I do thank you for this post. It's the first attempt by a right winger other than Cephus to at a minimum consider that humans may be contributing to GW.
Click to expand...
What do you disagree with? I am pulling the numbers from PRO AGW sites.
Get some rest and look it over, I will be interested is an actual critique.
 
Paschendale said:
That global warming, its causes, and its effects are considered subject to belief is a huge problem to start with. The same as evolution, vaccines, or any other part of science. It's not up to a vote. It's just the facts.
Click to expand...

This is my problem with the wording as well. When you use the word "belief" it seems to imply that my uneducated opinions on the topic have any relevance on whether global warming is happening or not.
 
Global Warming isn't something you believe, it's a reality you choose whether or not to recognize.
 
longview;1063658250 said:
If we go by Hanson's GISS data, we have warmed .8 C in the last 133 years.
The IPCC's direct response for CO2 number is 1.2 C for a doubling of CO2,
which means our current level of CO2 should produce .6 C of warming.
Click to expand...

Actually, if we go by NASA's GISS data (I know you love to pretend its a single guy you can then demonize), we have warmed .8 degrees in about 40 years. And the direct response to CO2 is only a fraction of the actual warming that will result....which has pretty much been validated by the fact that IT HAS WARMED THAT MUCH IN THE PAST 40 YEARS.

Fig.A.gif


Thats just the air, of course. Most of that heat is being absorbed by the oceans, which will cause issues with ocean warming, climate changes, higher sea levels from thermal expansion, and massive disruption of an already stressed ecosystem.

So given that your numbers are off at the intial baseline, you're scratchy calculations are inherently dismissed by actual NON-AMATEUR scientists, who understand that the warming phenomenon by greenhouse gases is real, a problem, and potentially one that we have underestimated.
 
Lakeside said:
You really are that dense. You have shown some "opinions" and "when to grow crops" data. As I said earlier you are really struggling, you are all over the place and make no sense at all.
Click to expand...

Actually, his posts are perfectly coherent. And the evidence for man's impact on climate change is real.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom