• 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
It seems to be a battle of sources over a battle of science. AGW is clearly flawed, even some of the people working for government paid for organizations admit that. Honestly, do you think NASA and other organizations would give true and accurate climate reports? Obama is about to shell into NASA millions in funding to find out more about global warming and how we cause it. Do you think they would give up that money and tell the truth? It's essentially bribing science. Many times the popular belief was wrong. Forever people believed in spontaneous generation, and if you doubted you were an unscientific fool. Scientists also widely believed that protein was the molecule for genetic inheritance... We should learn from history.

There are many that concur with with your conspiracy theories. What blows that for me is that ALL of the world's credible scientific institutions have been in general consensus on ACC for years, with evidence growing stronger each year.

I just don't think its possible that all of these scientific organizations have been conspiring for decades.

And the conspiracy would have to go back to all of our science instructors that taught us about the effect of greenhouse gases.

That's more than I can swallow.
 
Last edited:
If you believe ACC isn't occurring, address the science and logic presented.

Paleocarbons, in the form of CO2, have been released. This net increase in carbon in the atmosphere results in increased evaporation, which leads to a positive feedback loop.

So now its ACC and not AGW? How about instead of arguing that humanity causes this we should look at nature. the solar cycles change and this affects the temperature. We know that there was a Medieval Warm Period and we also know that an ice age happened. CO2 has been rising very mildly, but the temperature increase (or lack thereof) has not corresponded with this. We know that scientists have been lying, in fact one of the leading AGW scientists said there was no statistically important warming (Phil Jones). Corruption has been exposed within the AGW believing scientific community, and we can see how the worlds governments will benefit from this theory being true. Scientists are now predicting a 20-30 year cool period, not an increase in temperature.

There are many that concur with with your conspiracy theories. What blows that for me is that ALL of the world's credible scientific institutions have been in general consensus on ACC for years, with evidence growing stronger each year.

I just don't think its possible that all of these scientific organizations have been conspiring for decades.

This year the evidence grew much much weaker and fraud was exposed. It doesn't matter what the government run organizations believe, all that matters is truth and real science which points away from AGW. AGW started as a conspiracy, and then through political interest and fear tactics it became a dogmatically propagated theory for political purposes.
 
Last edited:
This year the evidence grew much much weaker and fraud was exposed.

Cite your sources that show any major scientific institute has changed its positions on AGW due to the alleged fraud you refer to.

It doesn't matter what the government run organizations believe, all that matters is truth and real science which points away from AGW. AGW started as a conspiracy, and then through political interest and fear tactics it became a dogmatically propagated theory for political purposes.

Where does this "real science" come from that denies AGW? Cite your sources.

Where is your proof of the decades long conspiracy that must date all the way back to our science instruction on the effects of greenhouse gases.

How do you feel about evolution? Is that another conspiracy by the scientists?
 
Last edited:
If you will review back just a couple of pages in this thread, you will see it is not obvious to everyone.
I think every reasonable person would agree that there is at least some constantly occurring change in climate. As to the reasons for it, that is where the debate lies.

I thought everyone was aware of the purpose of the canary in the coal mine:

"The classic example of animals serving as sentinels is the canary in the coal mine. Well into the 20th century, coal miners in the United Kingdom and the United States brought canaries into coal mines as an early-warning signal for toxic gases including methane and carbon monoxide. The birds, being more sensitive, would become sick before the miners, who would then have a chance to escape or put on protective respirators."
Animal sentinels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, it remains to be seen if we will be smart enough to heed nature's warning in addition to the warning by the scientific consensus.
Nature is only warning pointing out the obvious to us, that the climate is changing. Nature did not specify as to the cause(s).
The "scientific consensus" is noting the obvious signs of climate change, and pointing out what they believe to be specific causes.

As you likely are aware, I am not convinced of the AGW/ACC theory's validity as of yet.

That was the second reason for posting it.
Excellent.

Note: My post was an attempt to point out that I did not see any info in that link supporting your position of belief in the AGW/ACC theory.
 
Nature is only warning pointing out the obvious to us, that the climate is changing. Nature did not specify as to the cause(s).
The "scientific consensus" is noting the obvious signs of climate change, and pointing out what they believe to be specific causes.

The finding is in response to the scientific consensus on AGW ~

“Birds are excellent indicators of the health of our environment, and right now they are telling us an important story about climate change,” said Kenneth Rosenberg, director of conservation ccience at Cornell University’s Lab of Ornithology. “Many species of conservation concern will face heightened threats, giving us an increased sense of urgency to protect and conserve vital bird habitat.”


As you likely are aware, I am not convinced of the AGW/ACC theory's validity as of yet.

Fortunately, a scientific consensus on AGW does not require your being convinced.

Note: My post was an attempt to point out that I did not see any info in that link supporting your position of belief in the AGW/ACC theory.

I appreciate your opinion but my post was for those that accept the scientific consensus and are interested in steps being made to address our situation.
 
So now its ACC and not AGW? How about instead of arguing that humanity causes this we should look at nature. the solar cycles change and this affects the temperature. We know that there was a Medieval Warm Period and we also know that an ice age happened. CO2 has been rising very mildly, but the temperature increase (or lack thereof) has not corresponded with this. We know that scientists have been lying, in fact one of the leading AGW scientists said there was no statistically important warming (Phil Jones). Corruption has been exposed within the AGW believing scientific community, and we can see how the worlds governments will benefit from this theory being true. Scientists are now predicting a 20-30 year cool period, not an increase in temperature.

I never said Anthropogenic Global Warming. I am advocating the science, and that is all. What I have argued, and will continue to argue without fail, is that the effect of CO2 will be limited, but it will be the indirect effect caused by increased evaporation that will cause ACC. This is happening. The only question is how much time we have before we start seeing noticable changes. Up to now, we have not had very many changes by ACC, but the effect is going to be logarithmic. As more evaporation occurs, there will be an increased pace of temperature hikes, which leads to proportionately more evaporation. I have yet to see someone address that logic, perhaps you'll be the first?

This year the evidence grew much much weaker and fraud was exposed. It doesn't matter what the government run organizations believe, all that matters is truth and real science which points away from AGW. AGW started as a conspiracy, and then through political interest and fear tactics it became a dogmatically propagated theory for political purposes.

You're assuming that my argument is the same as that of the IPCC, and the extreme liberals. Please don't waste my time by making that mistake.
 
Hottest January in UAH satellite record
Human-caused global warming easily overwhelms much-hyped "cold snap"

"The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record….

Note the global-average warmth is approaching the warmth reached during the 1997-98 El Nino, which peaked in February of 1998.

Of course, right now we’re only in a moderate El Nino. In 97-98, we had a monster El Nino. And Spencer doesn’t mention that this record is especially impressive because we’re at “the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century.”

The point is, notwithstanding the all-too-effective disinformation campaign of the anti-science crowd, it’s getting hotter — thanks primarily to human emissions.

The satellite record itself clearly shows the long-term warming trend, especially when you remove the stratospheric cooling influences."

"Even the supposed record “cold snap” in early January was so localized that the Earth as a whole was relatively quite hot that first week.

While the El Niño has started to weaken, it is still “expected to continue at least into the Northern Hemisphere spring 2010,” according to NOAA. Barring a major volcano, 2010 remains likely to be the hottest year on record."
 
Global warming is clearly a myth. It's been a fun ride, but the ClimateGate data is out and truth is in.

Let's look at some global warming facts.
* Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing :badpc:

* There has been no global warming since 1995 :wow:

* Warming periods have happened before - but not due to man-made changes :applaud

Professor Phil Jones admitted these facts. It's hard to fathom how people can still believe in this man-made hoax called anthropogenic global warming.
 
I never said Anthropogenic Global Warming. I am advocating the science, and that is all. What I have argued, and will continue to argue without fail, is that the effect of CO2 will be limited, but it will be the indirect effect caused by increased evaporation that will cause ACC. This is happening.

But to what degree? What is its net effect on the climate? At this time, that is impossible to accurately quantify because we have absolutely no idea how strong or weak other climate signals such as solar, geothermal, oceanic, magnetic, cosmic, etc. are as it concerns the overall state of the climate.

You're assuming that my argument is the same as that of the IPCC, and the extreme liberals. Please don't waste my time by making that mistake.

I don't see how it's any different. You're making the exact same arguments and using the exact same flawed reasoning. By the way, I'm glad you admit that the IPCC is not worth referencing.
 
But to what degree? What is its net effect on the climate?

We know it is happening much quicker than the models predicted and "that it has impacts on everything else that goes on in this system":

"The research project involved more than 370 scientists from 27 countries who collectively spent 15 months, starting in June 2007, aboard a research vessel above the Arctic Circle. It marked the first time a ship has stayed mobile in Canada's high Arctic for an entire winter.

"(Climate change) is happening much faster than our most pessimistic models expected," said David Barber, a professor at the University of Manitoba and the study's lead investigator, at a news conference in Winnipeg.

Models predicted only a few years ago that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by the year 2100, but the increasing pace of climate change now suggests it could happen between 2013 and 2030, Barber said."

"The Arctic is considered a type of early-warning system of climate change for the rest of the world.

"We know we're losing sea ice -- the world is all aware of that," Barber said. "What you're not aware of is that it has impacts on everything else that goes on in this system."

The loss of the sea ice is taking away areas for the region's mammals to reproduce, find food and elude predators, said Steve Ferguson, a scientist with the Canadian government who took part in the study."

Arctic climate changing faster than expected | Reuters
 
But to what degree? What is its net effect on the climate? At this time, that is impossible to accurately quantify because we have absolutely no idea how strong or weak other climate signals such as solar, geothermal, oceanic, magnetic, cosmic, etc. are as it concerns the overall state of the climate.

It's above the pay grades of everyone on debatepolitics to try to quantify (except a few I suppose, but thats the exception rather then the rule). I know I certainly cannot even attempt to quantify the net effect, but I can point out there is not necessarily a need to quantify the net shift/change. My reasoning is that if this effect is taking place, then other variables would have to also change in relation to this change to keep the climate constant as well. But, due to the unreasonable chance of that happening, the only remaining possibility is a very slow (to humans) climate change, over the course of hundreds of years. Eventually, the ocean might rise a few inches, and weather will become more erratic, but there will be no change beyond that. In the super-long term, however, we cannot hope to even hypothesize what might happen because of all the different variables you listed.

I don't see how it's any different. You're making the exact same arguments and using the exact same flawed reasoning. By the way, I'm glad you admit that the IPCC is not worth referencing.

It is different because I have no sources, save my environmental science textbook, and my view is rather moderate. And a bit pessimistic as well, I admit. And the only reason I find the IPCC not worth referencing is because people exaggerate the mistakes it has made, therefore it is not credible because people wouldn't believe it, rather then it is truly at fault.
 
Global warming is clearly a myth. It's been a fun ride, but the ClimateGate data is out and truth is in.

Let's look at some global warming facts.


Professor Phil Jones admitted these facts. It's hard to fathom how people can still believe in this man-made hoax called anthropogenic global warming.

Okay...go back about 50 pages, and read the explanations I provided about how the greenhouse effect is going to become more apparent due to the release of paleocarbons. If you can't find it, or don't want to go back and look for it, take my word that climate is going to change because of CO2 emissions, albeit very slowly.
 
If this thread lasts too much longer it is agoing to cause global warming from the gas from the BS :fart
 
Arctic melt to cost up to $24 trillion by 2050: report
WASHINGTON
Fri Feb 5, 2010 6:08pm EST


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - "Arctic ice melting could cost global agriculture, real estate and insurance anywhere from $2.4 trillion to $24 trillion by 2050 in damage from rising sea levels, floods and heat waves, according to a report released on Friday.

"Everybody around the world is going to bear these costs," said Eban Goodstein, a resource economist at Bard College in New York state who co-authored the report, called "Arctic Treasure, Global Assets Melting Away."

He said the report, reviewed by more than a dozen scientists and economists and funded by the Pew Environment Group, an arm of the Pew Charitable Trusts, provides a first attempt to monetize the cost of the loss of one of the world's great weather makers.

"The Arctic is the planet's air conditioner and it's starting to break down," he said.

The loss of Arctic Sea ice and snow cover is already costing the world about $61 billion to $371 billion annually from costs associated with heat waves, flooding and other factors, the report said.

The losses could grow as a warmer Arctic unlocks vast stores of methane in the permafrost. The gas has about 21 times the global warming impact of carbon dioxide.

Melting of Arctic sea ice is already triggering a feedback of more warming as dark water revealed by the receding ice absorbs more of the sun's energy, he said. That could lead to more melting of glaciers on land and raise global sea levels."

Arctic melt to cost up to $24 trillion by 2050: report | Reuters
 
I stopped reading your inane copy and paste a long time ago.
 
We know it is happening much quicker than the models predicted and "that it has impacts on everything else that goes on in this system":

"The research project involved more than 370 scientists from 27 countries who collectively spent 15 months, starting in June 2007, aboard a research vessel above the Arctic Circle. It marked the first time a ship has stayed mobile in Canada's high Arctic for an entire winter.

"(Climate change) is happening much faster than our most pessimistic models expected," said David Barber, a professor at the University of Manitoba and the study's lead investigator, at a news conference in Winnipeg.

Models predicted only a few years ago that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by the year 2100, but the increasing pace of climate change now suggests it could happen between 2013 and 2030, Barber said."

"The Arctic is considered a type of early-warning system of climate change for the rest of the world.

"We know we're losing sea ice -- the world is all aware of that," Barber said. "What you're not aware of is that it has impacts on everything else that goes on in this system."

The loss of the sea ice is taking away areas for the region's mammals to reproduce, find food and elude predators, said Steve Ferguson, a scientist with the Canadian government who took part in the study."

Arctic climate changing faster than expected | Reuters

OOPS. I take it you didn't hear that the Greenpeace leader admitted his organization put out fake global warming data, and that the IPCC "...exaggerated information when it claimed that Arctic ice would disappear completely by 2030 [...] was hundreds of years off..."

Back to the drawing board. :Oopsie
 
Last edited:
OOPS. I take it you didn't hear that the Greenpeace leader admitted his organization put out fake global warming data, and that the IPCC "...exaggerated information when it claimed that Arctic ice would disappear completely by 2030 [...] was hundreds of years off..."

Back to the drawing board. :Oopsie


What does that have to do with the study I referenced?

"Models predicted only a few years ago that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by the year 2100, but the increasing pace of climate change now suggests it could happen between 2013 and 2030, Barber said."
 
What does that have to do with the study I referenced?

"Models predicted only a few years ago that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by the year 2100, but the increasing pace of climate change now suggests it could happen between 2013 and 2030, Barber said."

It has everything to do with the study you referenced. A few years ago, the models that were predicting doom by 2030, that the Arctic glaciers would be gone by then, have recently been admitted by the "scientists" who made the claim as nothing more than exaggerated lies. They admitted that the notion that the Arctic would be ice free by 2030 was "...hundreds of years off."

What you posted is nothing more than a lie based on junk science.
 
It has everything to do with the study you referenced. A few years ago, the models that were predicting doom by 2030, that the Arctic glaciers would be gone by then, have recently been admitted by the "scientists" who made the claim as nothing more than exaggerated lies. They admitted that the notion that the Arctic would be ice free by 2030 was "...hundreds of years off."

What you posted is nothing more than a lie based on junk science.

This is what you call junk science???

"The research project involved more than 370 scientists from 27 countries who collectively spent 15 months, starting in June 2007, aboard a research vessel above the Arctic Circle. It marked the first time a ship has stayed mobile in Canada's high Arctic for an entire winter."

Still, if you want to go with the opinion of a blogger, have at it man.
 
Back
Top Bottom