• 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 Global Warming a myth?

Is Global Warming a myth?


  • Total voters
    115

I was just about to bring that up -unfortunately that no ice caps prior to 15 million years ago bit stole every drop of potential credibility his post may have had and I merely skimmed the post from there.
 
Last edited:
there was a warm period in the first few centuries BC when the Norse folk were able to discover and colonize Iceland
Sorry to be pedantic, but the very earliest settlement of Iceland took place at the earliest during the mid-7th century.

Interesting post although much evidence does exist that shows late-20th century trends to be far more significant and rapid than any natural cycle theory can explain.

The anti-Gore demonisation campaign seems a little too convenient, allowing the "feathering their nest" argument to divert attention away from the scientific validity of the AGW argument. Over here in Europe no one takes much notice of Al Gore, he's certainly not seen as the leading proponent of the AGW case. Nevertheless, the debate continues over the science.

Forget about Gore, make the scientific case.
 
Tap … tap … tap …

Excerpted from “2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade,” NASA, 01.21.10
[SIZE="+2"]2[/SIZE]009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880. …

January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. Since 1880, the year that modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, though there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s. …
 
The general balance of scientific opinion is in favour of global warming being real (although not meaning that everywhere will get warmer) and that human activity does contribute to it to some extent. If this is true then a lot of work needs to be done to reduce the production of greenhouse gases and reduce the use of fossil fuels.

If by any chance climate change is NOT created or exacerbated by human activity then the reduction of the use of fossil fuels will not have damaged the climate in any way, it will have created a more balanced way of securing fuels for use domestically and industrially. In itself this would be a positive development. It would reduce our dependency on some less than savoury regimes (Saudi, Russia, Iran) and it would extend the life of the fossil resources that remain underground.

I don't understand the antagonism towards developing alternatives to fossil fuels and towards reducing our dependence on the internal combustion engine... unless this antagonism is being driven by the oil and gas industry and the motor industry. Am I being paranoid, or am I missing some terrible consequences that these developments might bring?
Because this isn't about energy, it's about socialism. It's called green socialism.
 
Because this isn't about energy, it's about socialism. It's called green socialism.

That post is about up to your normal level of argument. It's not about science, it's not about energy policy, it's about reds under rednecks' beds.

At least have the decency to explain your paranoid theories.

...actually, on second thoughts, don't.
 
Last edited:
From the first paragraph of your link:
Snowball Earth refers to the hypothesis that the Earth's surface became nearly or entirely frozen over at least once during three periods between 650 and 750 million years ago. The geological community generally accepts this hypothesis because it best explains sedimentary deposits generally regarded as of glacial origin at tropical paleolatitudes and other enigmatic features in the geological record. Opponents to the hypothesis contest the implications of the geological evidence for global glaciation, the geophysical feasibility of an ice- or slush-covered ocean,[1][2] and the difficulty of escaping an all-frozen condition. There are a number of unanswered questions, including whether the Earth was a full snowball, or whether it was a "slushball" with a thin equatorial band of open (or seasonally open) water.
As noted in your link, it is only hypothetical and is challenged by others who raise legitimate questions about the hypothesis. I wouldn't completely dismiss the possibility of a series of massive volcanic eruptions putting enough dust in the atmosphere to lower the temperature drastically for several centuries, but I do question whether such an event disproves my statement about general cooling.

In your opinion, was The Year Without A Summer a climate event or a weather event?
 
From the first paragraph of your link:

As noted in your link, it is only hypothetical and is challenged by others who raise legitimate questions about the hypothesis. I wouldn't completely dismiss the possibility of a series of massive volcanic eruptions putting enough dust in the atmosphere to lower the temperature drastically for several centuries, but I do question whether such an event disproves my statement about general cooling.

In your opinion, was The Year Without A Summer a climate event or a weather event?

You see the difference is that he did not present this hypothesis as factual and completely indisputable, while you did with your "no icecaps until 15 million years ago" claim.
 
Last edited:
I think there is global warming.

I think man has a small impact on it.

I think this impact came from centuries and centuries of mans actions.

I don't think a few decades of "fixing" things is going to make any real difference.

I don't believe the extremely large lengths we would theoritically need to go, the amount of economic damage we'll do, and the amount of damage we'll do to our freedoms, is worth the minisucle likely impact it would have in the large scope of things.

This does not mean I don't believe that individuals should strive when possible to, in more general ways, help keep our environment cleaner and safer or that its BAD to do such. More simply that we should not be legislating it, especially in the more extreme ways as have been proposed or suggested.

I do not believe that "warming" is necessarily "catastrophic" or even "bad", but simply potentially a change.

I do think the major movement pushing Global Warmin is rooted at least 50% in political theory for many of the most ardent supporters of the movement, as it provides a potential reason to push political ideology they would have had regardless of global warming or not.

I do think that completely denying its there, or acting so ridiculous partisan and hysterical to it the OPPOSITE direction that people degrade or insult the notion of actually attempting to conserve, to recycle, to choose INDIVIDUALLY to opt for cleaner energy or better fuel effeciency simply for fear that if you acknowledge those things are okay that you're somehow agreeing with the more extreme ends of it.
 
Also, whenever ANYTHING weather related happens, if you immedietely start going "GLOBAL WARMING" it doesn't convince people you're right, it just makes you look stupid.

"We didn't get a lot of snow, its global warming!"

"We got a lot of snow, its global warming!"

"Its a really hot summer, its global warming!"

"Its a cool summer, its global warming!"

"Its was a heavy hurricane season, its global warming!"

"It was a light hurricane season, its global warming!"

"Its a normal temperature season after two really cool ones, its global warming!"

Seriously, just stop...please, stop.
 
I do think that completely denying its there, or acting so ridiculous partisan and hysterical to it the OPPOSITE direction that people degrade or insult the notion of actually attempting to conserve, to recycle, to choose INDIVIDUALLY to opt for cleaner energy or better fuel effeciency simply for fear that if you acknowledge those things are okay that you're somehow agreeing with the more extreme ends of it.

I think you and I agree on a lot. Except for the whole tea-party thing. ;)
 
Also, whenever ANYTHING weather related happens, if you immedietely start going "GLOBAL WARMING" it doesn't convince people you're right, it just makes you look stupid.

"We didn't get a lot of snow, its global warming!"

"We got a lot of snow, its global warming!"

"Its a really hot summer, its global warming!"

"Its a cool summer, its global warming!"

"Its was a heavy hurricane season, its global warming!"

"It was a light hurricane season, its global warming!"

"Its a normal temperature season after two really cool ones, its global warming!"

Seriously, just stop...please, stop.

In all fairness, recently it has been much more heavily stacked towards "global warming is bull**** because it is snowing", but this does go on for both sides of the argument, and both are equally idiotic. Perhaps it is seasonal, and in 4 or 5 months the ratio of "weather events prove my case" will tilt back in favor of the "its global warming!!" camp.
 
In all fairness, recently it has been much more heavily stacked towards "global warming is bull**** because it is snowing", but this does go on for both sides of the argument, and both are equally idiotic. Perhaps it is seasonal, and in 4 or 5 months the ratio of "weather events prove my case" will tilt back in favor of the "its global warming!!" camp.

It does happen on both sides, my issue is just slightly more with the global warming folks.

I've never heard the "no global warming" folks going "There's a hurricane, its not global warming" or "its unseasonbly hot, its not global warming" as if those things are proof.

Yet I hear that from the GW crowd. It seems like ANYTHING that is weather related, somehow, someway, is proof global warming exists. No snow? that's proof. Lots of snow? That's proof. Hot temperatures? That's proof. Cold temperatures? That's proof. Heavy bad weather times? That's proof. Really light bad weather times? That's not proof. Normal weather or average temperatures....that's just an anomaly
 
damn peekaboo-ologists.

[ame=http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/264085/february-10-2010/we-re-off-to-see-the-blizzard]We're Off to See the Blizzard | February 10, 2010 - Claire Danes | ColbertNation.com[/ame]

I am just glad they keep making new suns to replace the ones that get destroyed, but I fear any night that when the sun goes away there will not be a new one the next day :2razz:
 
Last edited:
It does happen on both sides, my issue is just slightly more with the global warming folks.

I've never heard the "no global warming" folks going "There's a hurricane, its not global warming" or "its unseasonbly hot, its not global warming" as if those things are proof.

Yet I hear that from the GW crowd. It seems like ANYTHING that is weather related, somehow, someway, is proof global warming exists. No snow? that's proof. Lots of snow? That's proof. Hot temperatures? That's proof. Cold temperatures? That's proof. Heavy bad weather times? That's proof. Really light bad weather times? That's not proof. Normal weather or average temperatures....that's just an anomaly

I forget, 2 or three years ago, the NWS stated that it was likely to be a very bad hurricane year due to warmer waters. Halfway through the hurricane season, no hurricanes, and of course, some anti-GW types used that as evidence that climate people are clueless. Needless to say, the lat half of that year was really bad for hurricanes.

People on both sides use the whole "it's hot/cold right now" to prove their point, and it's stupid either way. It does need to be pointed out for both, not just the side you like least.
 
It does happen on both sides, my issue is just slightly more with the global warming folks.

I've never heard the "no global warming" folks going "There's a hurricane, its not global warming" or "its unseasonbly hot, its not global warming" as if those things are proof.

Yet I hear that from the GW crowd. It seems like ANYTHING that is weather related, somehow, someway, is proof global warming exists. No snow? that's proof. Lots of snow? That's proof. Hot temperatures? That's proof. Cold temperatures? That's proof. Heavy bad weather times? That's proof. Really light bad weather times? That's not proof. Normal weather or average temperatures....that's just an anomaly

This is what happens when scienctific theory becomes the providence of politicians and village idiots.
 
You see the difference is that he did not present this hypothesis as factual and completely indisputable, while you did with your "no icecaps until 15 million years ago" claim.
What I actually posted was "no PERMANENT icecaps until 15 million years ago" and I gave you a link to my source. Shall we discuss the meaning of "permanent"?
 
What I actually posted was "no PERMANENT icecaps until 15 million years ago" and I gave you a link to my source. Shall we discuss the meaning of "permanent"?

this is still not known to be factual, yet you present as if it were, and if you want to play semantics, yes, let's discuss permanent.

Permanent
1. existing perpetually; everlasting, esp. without significant change.

The icecaps are not permanent, they will disappear in the future..

edit: and you gave a link to some random book for sale at Amazon, that does little to bolster your case.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe the extremely large lengths we would theoritically need to go, the amount of economic damage we'll do, and the amount of damage we'll do to our freedoms, is worth the minisucle likely impact it would have in the large scope of things.

What are these "extremely large lengths" we might go to? Driving more economical cars? Heating only the rooms we actually use? Investing in alternative energy sources? How would these do any amount of economic damage? How might they damage our freedoms?

Just what are the potentially damaging effects of altering our energy consumption behaviour?
 
What are these "extremely large lengths" we might go to? Driving more economical cars? Heating only the rooms we actually use? Investing in alternative energy sources? How would these do any amount of economic damage? How might they damage our freedoms?

I think people should CHOOSE to do all those things.

I don't believe the government should be mandating what I buy. If they can tell me what kind of car I can drive, they can tell me what kind of house I can live. If they can tell me what kind of house i can live they can tell me where I should live. If they can tell me I can't buy a sports car they can tell me I can't pay to go skiing cause its leisure and if they can tell me i can't go skiing they can tell me i can't go shooting and if they can tell me i can't go shooting they can tell me i can't go buying a gun, and on and on. The government has no business getting into the legislation of what kind of things I can buy unless there is some SEVERE state interest imho.

However those are not the extreme type things. However telling businesses they must spend thousands to millions of dollars to make their business "Greener", causing them to diverge money and profits towards that rather than improving a product, research and design, or employee's is bad. Taking peoples hard earned money away from them in a form of a tax or a fine for not being "Green enough" in the additions or changes to their home is basically the government forcing them to spend money one way or another that is not of their choosing. Telling car companies they must spend money on research for "greener" cars instead of spending that money on other things that may increase the likelihood of making their cars attractive to consumers is bad.

I think people should recycle, I commend people that CHOOSE for THEMSELVES to purchase a car with good fuel economy, I think its simply smart to not turn on the AC or the heat in my house or apartment until its actually needed. Nothing wrong with these thigns.

I don't think the government should be mandating anyone do these things. Especially for as flimsy as a reason as Global Warming of which our affect on it may be large or small, whose affects may hurt us in decades or in centuries, of which our changes may or may not actually do anything to stop. Those pushing for such gigantic changes are either those who are simply using the theory as a means of pushing a political agenda, or those that are being decieved by them into thinking that this is simply wholey a benevolent cause to "save the earth".
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom