• 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!

Is Man Made Climate Change Contributing to Extreme Tropical Storms?

Is Man Made Climate Change Contributing to Extreme Tropical Storms?

  • Yes

    Votes: 49 61.3%

  • No

    Votes: 25 31.3%

  • JOHN CENA IS CONTRIBUTING AN A** WHOOPING

    Votes: 6 7.5%
  • Total voters
    80
bubbabgone said:
It's been over a day now. I guess I shouldn't be expecting an on-point answer, huh.
Click to expand...

All that proves is that since 1930 global temperatures have been rising. There could be a thousand different reasons for it. For instance, the production of M&M's candies has been rising steadily at the same time as global temperatures have been rising. So, if we ban M&M's, global temperatures will hopefully return to their previous levels.
 
Moderate Right said:
All that proves is that since 1930 global temperatures have been rising. There could be a thousand different reasons for it. For instance, the production of M&M's candies has been rising steadily at the same time as global temperatures have been rising. So, if we ban M&M's, global temperatures will hopefully return to their previous levels.
Click to expand...

The real problem here is that they are confusing correlation with causation without proving that one thing is actually the cause of another. And the second anyone points out the same scenario without that cause, they just make excuses. Apparently, global climate change between 1645–1715, the "little ice age" had nothing to do with human activity, but they don't want to talk about that, do they?
 
Cephus said:
The real problem here is that they are confusing correlation with causation without proving that one thing is actually the cause of another. And the second anyone points out the same scenario without that cause, they just make excuses. Apparently, global climate change between 1645–1715, the "little ice age" had nothing to do with human activity, but they don't want to talk about that, do they?
Click to expand...

It's an inconvenient truth that nature has such natural cycles.

They ignore what doesn't fit their narrative.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It's an inconvenient truth that nature has such natural cycles.

They ignore what doesn't fit their narrative.
Click to expand...

True, although to be fair, lots of people on the right do the same thing. It's a form of confirmation bias, they really want it to be true so they play up the hits and ignore the misses and pretend that they've somehow proven their point.
 
Cephus said:
True, although to be fair, lots of people on the right do the same thing. It's a form of confirmation bias, they really want it to be true so they play up the hits and ignore the misses and pretend that they've somehow proven their point.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I even catch myself doing it rarely. Thing to do is be aware, and verify. It's worse with the climate sciences because of how deep politics is involved. Seldom see such political science in the other sciences.
 
Moderate Right said:
All that proves is that since 1930 global temperatures have been rising. There could be a thousand different reasons for it. For instance, the production of M&M's candies has been rising steadily at the same time as global temperatures have been rising. So, if we ban M&M's, global temperatures will hopefully return to their previous levels.
Click to expand...

Of course. But the only rule in working the AGW narrative is that there ... are ... no ... rules.

The core problem with that particular graph is that it doesn't address the warming pause after 2000 but it was presented as though the poster thought it did.
It may very well be accurate but it's not relevant.
I'd bet there are a great many amateur alarmists fooled by things like that, and the use of terms like "on record", and carefully selected dates like "1880".
It's very possible that they just don't care that it's BS.
Since that poster still hasn't replied maybe he realized his impetuous mistake ... but I'd wager it won't be his last.
 
bubbabgone said:
Of course. But the only rule in working the AGW narrative is that there ... are ... no ... rules.

The core problem with that particular graph is that it doesn't address the warming pause after 2000 but it was presented as though the poster thought it did.
It may very well be accurate but it's not relevant.
I'd bet there are a great many amateur alarmists fooled by things like that, and the use of terms like "on record", and carefully selected dates like "1880".
It's very possible that they just don't care that it's BS.
Since that poster still hasn't replied maybe he realized his impetuous mistake ... but I'd wager it won't be his last.
Click to expand...

Of course they don't care, because the majority of the AGW crowd are operating on emotion, not intellect. They want it to be true so their confirmation bias makes everything look like it is. And when people point out the clear and absurdly obvious problems with it, they run around like mentally handicapped children, screaming that it's all a conspiracy to take down their emotionally-held truth.

Just watch them. It's all they can do.
 
Cephus said:
Of course they don't care, because the majority of the AGW crowd are operating on emotion, not intellect. They want it to be true so their confirmation bias makes everything look like it is. And when people point out the clear and absurdly obvious problems with it, they run around like mentally handicapped children, screaming that it's all a conspiracy to take down their emotionally-held truth.

Just watch them. It's all they can do.
Click to expand...

... nothing to argue with there.
 
jet57 said:
Google this: climate change is very threatening

and watch how many links you get.
Click to expand...

Oh please. You can get thousands or millions of hits no matter what you search for, including global warming is a hoax. Is that really the best argument you've got?
 
Moderate Right said:
Oh please. You can get thousands or millions of hits no matter what you search for, including global warming is a hoax. Is that really the best argument you've got?
Click to expand...

The science is over; global warming is real.

Ask yourself why 1/3 of Bangladesh is under water?
 
jet57 said:
The science is over; global warming is real.

Ask yourself why 1/3 of Bangladesh is under water?
Click to expand...

What is it with you guys? Is English not your first language? Why post if you don't understand English? I never once said global warming was not real. In fact, I have said the opposite, that global warming IS real. What I have said is that man has very little to do with global warming and even less to do in fixing it. I haven't seen one bit of proof anywhere that if liberals got absolutely everything they wanted that there would no longer be any global warming. Do you have proof of this, or are you just going to give me some cherry picked graphs that show global warming has been getting worse as CO2 emissions have risen and call that proof that there is not only a proven correlation but that (like I have asked) proves that the drastic cutback of carbon emissions will eliminate global warming. If you can't read English then please don't respond.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom