• 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!

Climate Change/Evolution Denial

Do you deny:

  • Climate change and evolution

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Climate change but not evolution

    Votes: 6 8.0%

  • Evolution but not climate change

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Neither

    Votes: 69 92.0%
  • Total voters
    75
Bodhisattva said:
Mars has rising ocean levels too?
Click to expand...
Mars has melting ice caps at its poles. Im not sure if that translates to rising oveans but i suppose it does. I do know their has been discussion of creating a seasonsal station at the polar caps because of the availability of water there. Water is one of the bigger obsticals we face in colonizing places other than earth.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Mars has shrinking polar caps just like the earths. It is in a warming cycle according to climatologists.

I dont pretend to be some kind of expert on climatology but it seems kind of foolish to dismiss such an amazing coincidence in the absence of being able to prove ones own theory.

Man most definitely is not causing it to happen artificially on mars. Maybe we are here, im not arrogant enough to say definitively that we are not. What i will say is fair is to say that if its true that man is capable of changing the enviroment in a meaningful way than its likely that we can change the climate for the better just as easily as we can turn it for the worse.

I think the alarmism is exagerated. Reducing energy production and artifically raising the cost to produce energy should be greeted with a lot of caution and skeptism.

Imo there should be one goal for mankind. That is to be able to colonize space and live independent from not just the planet but the solar system and possibly the galaxy. Convert matter into energy is an essential element in accomplishing that goal. If we fail to learn this task we as a species are destined for extinction. While i really dont care if we go extinct or not, i perferr not to be the generation that ensures it by preventing people from using energy to do its work for them.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Mars isn't in a warming cycle- we don't have solid evidence.

We barely understand long term climactic changes on other planets.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27234-swiss-cheese-is-not-a-sign-of-martian-climate-change/

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars-intermediate.htm

Funny how deniers can say Mars is warming, but pretend the science is uncertain on Earths climate when the data is magnitudes greater.
 
trouble13 said:
Mars has shrinking polar caps just like the earths. It is in a warming cycle according to climatologists.

I dont pretend to be some kind of expert on climatology but it seems kind of foolish to dismiss such an amazing coincidence in the absence of being able to prove ones own theory.

Man most definitely is not causing it to happen artificially on mars. Maybe we are here, im not arrogant enough to say definitively that we are not. What i will say is fair is to say that if its true that man is capable of changing the enviroment in a meaningful way than its likely that we can change the climate for the better just as easily as we can turn it for the worse.

I think the alarmism is exagerated. Reducing energy production and artifically raising the cost to produce energy should be greeted with a lot of caution and skeptism.

Imo there should be one goal for mankind. That is to be able to colonize space and live independent from not just the planet but the solar system and possibly the galaxy. Convert matter into energy is an essential element in accomplishing that goal. If we fail to learn this task we as a species are destined for extinction. While i really dont care if we go extinct or not, i perferr not to be the generation that ensures it by preventing people from using energy to do its work for them.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There is no comparison between Mars and Earths climates. It is a silly comparison. Obviously confirmation bias is bad in any field of science. Naive assumptions about Mars comparing to Earth is just as bad. Politically injecting beliefs into science is bad as well. Both the Democrat's and the Republicans are guilty of politicizing science for ideological goals. And further religions reject the entire field of biology for religious beliefs. There is a stark difference between skeptical of a political message and outright refusal of science.

I agree that we should push out into space.
 
trouble13 said:
Mars has melting ice caps at its poles. Im not sure if that translates to rising oveans but i suppose it does. I do know their has been discussion of creating a seasonsal station at the polar caps because of the availability of water there. Water is one of the bigger obsticals we face in colonizing places other than earth.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I am not sure comparing atmospheric conditions ON ANOTHER PLANET is really the best course of action.
 
Jack Hays said:
Here's his blog. Judge for yourself.

[h=3]ScienceBits | A random walk in science[/h]www.sciencebits.com/



A random (and subjective) walk in science and physics in particular. In the blog and bits sections, you'll find various interesting science related anecdotes you'll ...
Click to expand...

I see lots of bias in his blog. But then he does point out that he doesnt deny that c02 causes global warming, just that it doesnt do it as much as the alarmists say. I actually do respect the guy more now that I have looked into him. He seems to be mostly saying that not only does c02 cause warming but other factors as well. He seems mostly to be rebuking the political (and media) concentration on just one element of the equation. I tend to agree with that notion. I do not agree with all of his conclusions though. He seems to hypocritically trying to say that the c02 doesnt matter as much as cosmic rays. Probably because his research has greatly centered around his cosmic ray hypothesis. That is where his bias seems to shine the most. Its a shame that he cant see the forest for the trees.
 
Quaestio said:
I'm curious, what was the title of the last University textbook you read on Atmospheric Physics?
Click to expand...

I have never claimed to have done so. Have you ever done so?

I have studied physics to the age of 18. I thus can do basic stuff like understand what impact heat energy going into the world's oceans will do.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
There is no comparison between Mars and Earths climates. It is a silly comparison. Obviously confirmation bias is bad in any field of science. Naive assumptions about Mars comparing to Earth is just as bad. Politically injecting beliefs into science is bad as well. Both the Democrat's and the Republicans are guilty of politicizing science for ideological goals. And further religions reject the entire field of biology for religious beliefs. There is a stark difference between skeptical of a political message and outright refusal of science.

I agree that we should push out into space.
Click to expand...
Im not comparing the composite make up of the two planets enviroments. I am pointing out that they both are experiencing melting polar caps and their is a common denomimator that could explain it, which is the Sun.

As i recall scientists are claiming that the Sun is going through a period of increased solar activity that is also resulting in a hotter surface tempature. If this is true than it would stand to reason that all of the planets that the Suns heat reaches would by affected by this.

Isnt ot possible that everyone is partially correct about the cause of the warming trend we are in.

Maybe its

1. Mankinds methods of living
2. Increased solar activity
3. A cyclical phenomena of the environment

Im not really willing to close the door on any of those opinions. One of the problems i have is that nobody can prove they are right by recreating the conditions in a closed enviroment and reproducing the results.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Threegoofs said:
Mars isn't in a warming cycle- we don't have solid evidence.

We barely understand long term climactic changes on other planets.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27234-swiss-cheese-is-not-a-sign-of-martian-climate-change/

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars-intermediate.htm

Funny how deniers can say Mars is warming, but pretend the science is uncertain on Earths climate when the data is magnitudes greater.
Click to expand...
Im not sure what you think im denying by raising questions?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Im not comparing the composite make up of the two planets enviroments. I am pointing out that they both are experiencing melting polar caps and their is a common denomimator that could explain it, which is the Sun.

As i recall scientists are claiming that the Sun is going through a period of increased solar activity that is also resulting in a hotter surface tempature. If this is true than it would stand to reason that all of the planets that the Suns heat reaches would by affected by this.

Isnt ot possible that everyone is partially correct about the cause of the warming trend we are in.

Maybe its

1. Mankinds methods of living
2. Increased solar activity
3. A cyclical phenomena of the environment

Im not really willing to close the door on any of those opinions. One of the problems i have is that nobody can prove they are right by recreating the conditions in a closed enviroment and reproducing the results.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I can remember when the alarmists said that CO2 levels must not be allowed to reach 400-ppm as that would be disastrous. But according to scientists at Mauna Loa we reached that mark in 2013.

And according to the linked National Geographical article, the last time that happened, seas were 30 feet higher and horses and camels were wandering around the high arctic.

Climate Milestone: Earth's CO2 Level Nears 400 ppm

Now I am a lover and student of science, but I am not a scientist professionally trained in any of the various disciplines. So I'm just speculating based on simple logic and reason here.

But if seas 30 feet higher than now and balmy weather in the high arctic existed the last time CO2 levels were at 400-ppm, and such conditions do not exist now with CO2 levels at 400-ppm, does that not leave room to think warmer climates are not necessarily driven by CO2 levels or that CO2 levels are likely far less important than other factors?
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
I can remember when the alarmists said that CO2 levels must not be allowed to reach 400-ppm as that would be disastrous. But according to scientists at Mauna Loa we reached that mark in 2013.

And according to the linked National Geographical article, the last time that happened, seas were 30 feet higher and horses and camels were wandering around the high arctic.
The last time the concentration of Earth's main greenhouse gas reached this mark, horses and camels lived in the high Arctic. Seas were at least 30 feet higher—at a level that today would inundate major cities around the world.

Climate Milestone: Earth's CO2 Level Nears 400 ppm

Now I am a lover and student of science, but I am not a science professionally trained in any of the various disciplines.

But if seas 30 feet higher than now and balmy weather in the high arctic existed the last time CO2 levels were at 400-ppm, and such conditions do not exist now with CO2 levels at 400-ppm, does not not leave room to think warmer climates are not necessarily driven by CO2 levels or that CO2 levels are likely far less important than other factors?
Click to expand...

Please link to the story that tells us it will be disastrous when co2 gets to 400.

And learn about the lag it takes for warming to be fully realized for a given CO2 concentration.

Then we can hear how you 'know' all the scientists are wrong.
 
Threegoofs said:
Please link to the story that tells us it will be disastrous when co2 gets to 400.

And learn about the lag it takes for warming to be fully realized for a given CO2 concentration.

Then we can hear how you 'know' all the scientists are wrong.
Click to expand...

I'll try to do that when you can show how I have ever said that I 'know' all the scientists are wrong.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I am not sure comparing atmospheric conditions ON ANOTHER PLANET is really the best course of action.
Click to expand...
Maybe its not, but im not sure it isnt not worth looking at common factors, like shrinking caps and increased solar activity. (I know i know lots of double negatives going on there, lol)

Climatology is a complex science with many influential factors affecting the end results. I dont think its unreasonable to believe billions of people living on the Earth, chopping down forests, mining ores from underneath the surafacing and pumping things into the air, impacts climatology. The likelihood or unliklihood of mankinds influence does not preclude that other things may also be unfluencing our enviroment. What i question is not if the enviroment is being influenced but how much.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
AlbqOwl said:
I can remember when the alarmists said that CO2 levels must not be allowed to reach 400-ppm as that would be disastrous. But according to scientists at Mauna Loa we reached that mark in 2013.

And according to the linked National Geographical article, the last time that happened, seas were 30 feet higher and horses and camels were wandering around the high arctic.

Climate Milestone: Earth's CO2 Level Nears 400 ppm

Now I am a lover and student of science, but I am not a scientist professionally trained in any of the various disciplines. So I'm just speculating based on simple logic and reason here.

But if seas 30 feet higher than now and balmy weather in the high arctic existed the last time CO2 levels were at 400-ppm, and such conditions do not exist now with CO2 levels at 400-ppm, does that not leave room to think warmer climates are not necessarily driven by CO2 levels or that CO2 levels are likely far less important than other factors?
Click to expand...
Sounds reasonable to me

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Im not comparing the composite make up of the two planets enviroments. I am pointing out that they both are experiencing melting polar caps and their is a common denomimator that could explain it, which is the Sun.

As i recall scientists are claiming that the Sun is going through a period of increased solar activity that is also resulting in a hotter surface tempature. If this is true than it would stand to reason that all of the planets that the Suns heat reaches would by affected by this.

Isnt ot possible that everyone is partially correct about the cause of the warming trend we are in.

Maybe its

1. Mankinds methods of living
2. Increased solar activity
3. A cyclical phenomena of the environment

Im not really willing to close the door on any of those opinions. One of the problems i have is that nobody can prove they are right by recreating the conditions in a closed enviroment and reproducing the results.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Um seasonal polar caps are made of dry ice. Mars atmosphere is made of about 95% c02.

And well this is where it shows that its always a good idea to research a subject instead of parroting certain non science sites.

Red Planet Heats Up: Ice Age Ending on Mars

"The orbit of Mars regularly undergoes changes that greatly affect how much sunlight reaches the planet's surface, which in turn can strongly alter the Red Planet's climate. Similar orbital variations called Milankovitch cycles are known to happen on Earth.

Previous Martian climate models suggested that such orbital changes could lead to ice ages on Mars, when ice would cover most of the planet. Now, researchers said they have found evidence of these ice ages on Mars. [Flowing Water on Mars: A Discovery in Photos]

Whereas ice ages on Earth involve polar ice caps growing in size, prior work suggested that Martian ice ages would involve shrinking polar ice caps. Meanwhile, on the Red Planet, glaciers at midlatitudes away from the poles would grow; during the interglacial periods between ice ages, ice would rapidly accumulate at the poles, while midlatitude glaciers eroded away.

This is because Mars can tilt more than Earth, causing the Red Planet's poles to receive more direct sunlight than its midlatitudes, making for longer summer days with higher temperatures, said study lead author Isaac Smith, a planetary scientist who did this work at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, and who is now at the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson, Arizona."

In case you missed that it said that the orbit/tilt change causes the warming not the Sun but Mars getting closer to the Sun. Tell me again how this compares with Earth? Is our orbit/tilt changing? No of course not.
 
Geoist said:
Yeah, okay, using statistics to back up a claim is a "red herring." :roll:
Click to expand...

Not generally but in your case... yes.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Um seasonal polar caps are made of dry ice. Mars atmosphere is made of about 95% c02.

And well this is where it shows that its always a good idea to research a subject instead of parroting certain non science sites.

Red Planet Heats Up: Ice Age Ending on Mars

"The orbit of Mars regularly undergoes changes that greatly affect how much sunlight reaches the planet's surface, which in turn can strongly alter the Red Planet's climate. Similar orbital variations called Milankovitch cycles are known to happen on Earth.

Previous Martian climate models suggested that such orbital changes could lead to ice ages on Mars, when ice would cover most of the planet. Now, researchers said they have found evidence of these ice ages on Mars. [Flowing Water on Mars: A Discovery in Photos]

Whereas ice ages on Earth involve polar ice caps growing in size, prior work suggested that Martian ice ages would involve shrinking polar ice caps. Meanwhile, on the Red Planet, glaciers at midlatitudes away from the poles would grow; during the interglacial periods between ice ages, ice would rapidly accumulate at the poles, while midlatitude glaciers eroded away.

This is because Mars can tilt more than Earth, causing the Red Planet's poles to receive more direct sunlight than its midlatitudes, making for longer summer days with higher temperatures, said study lead author Isaac Smith, a planetary scientist who did this work at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, and who is now at the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson, Arizona."

In case you missed that it said that the orbit/tilt change causes the warming not the Sun but Mars getting closer to the Sun. Tell me again how this compares with Earth? Is our orbit/tilt changing? No of course not.
Click to expand...
Im perfectly aware of the CO2 content in the polar caps and the different axis angle. It seems like your putting a lot effort into trying to validate your preferred theroy as if its the only plausable one.

I have not said anything to dispute the theory you believe. I have only pointed out that there are alternate theories that compete with manmade viewpoint.

One of which is that regardless of the axis of mars and the CO2 at its poles. The polar caps do in fact appear to be shrinking while the suns surface tempature has increased.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Im perfectly aware of the CO2 content in the polar caps and the different axis angle. It seems like your putting a lot effort into trying to validate your preferred theroy as if its the only plausable one.

I have not said anything to dispute the theory you believe. I have only pointed out that there are alternate theories that compete with manmade viewpoint.

One of which is that regardless of the axis of mars and the CO2 at its poles. The polar caps do in fact appear to be shrinking while the suns surface tempature has increased.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...




Mars climate change has to do with the orbit of mars and the tilting of the axis exposing one pole to more sunlight. And to boot The polar ice on Mars is almost all C02. Whe Mars warms up the polar ice melts and turns back into the atmosphere of Mars.

You just simply have not a ****ing clue wth you are talking about. Admit it, you dont know. If you did you wouldnt be making up this crap about the Sun getting warming and melting the polar ice on Mars when that is in fact not whats happening. In a word you are busted, lying and pretending to know **** whe you obviously do not. ALl you had to do was read the damn link that I gave you. SO with that I see no reason to debate with your uneducated ass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom