• 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
Glad to see the EPA is not waiting for cap and trade and moved forward to support the biggest reduction in greenhouse gases in US history:


"WASHINGTON – After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. EPA also finds that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat.

GHGs are the primary driver of climate change, which can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, poor or elderly; increases in ground-level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses; as well as other threats to the health and welfare of Americans.

“These long-overdue findings cement 2009’s place in history as the year when the United States Government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Business leaders, security experts, government officials, concerned citizens and the United States Supreme Court have called for enduring, pragmatic solutions to reduce the greenhouse gas pollution that is causing climate change. This continues our work towards clean energy reform that will cut GHGs and reduce the dependence on foreign oil that threatens our national security and our economy.”

12/07/2009: EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment / Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity

I'm very excited to finally see the realization by officials that the section in bold is key to our long-term sustainabilty. These are the new priorities I voted for!!!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syVJiiXoSSU"]YouTube- EPA Press Conference, Lisa Jackson[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Glad to see the EPA is not waiting for cap and trade and moved forward to support the biggest reduction in greenhouse gases in US history:

Who needs democracy when you have beurocracy? :roll:


Not that it matters, the EPA has done nothing since that December 2009 article, nor will they, hopefully.
 
I like the fact that there is an "other" option on this po- oh wait a second ...
 
Here's a question for those coming across all defensive about the right to drive the car you want and protecting the right of car manufacturers to build the cars they want.

Why do cars sold in the US all guzzle much more gas than their equivalents elsewhere? I just did some research. The best possible consumption you can get in a VW Passat sold in the US is 22 MPG (in a 1.9L gas burner). The worst possible consumption you can get on a European spec Passat is 28.5 MPG (in a 1.8L gas burner). The best available is 52.3 MPG (in a 1.6L diesel). Why should it be that US motorists aren't even given the option of buying a more economical, environment-friendly car?

Check the stats and tell me why you think this is?
Passat - Complete Specs
The Official Website for Volkswagen UK : Volkswagen UK

If you worry that saving energy erodes your personal freedom, why not ask the car manufacturers why you aren't being given the freedom to choose a greener car if you want one?
 
Who needs democracy when you have beurocracy? :roll:


Not that it matters, the EPA has done nothing since that December 2009 article, nor will they, hopefully.

They are doing what we put them in office to do. Hard to get a handle on that huh?

Yeah, it has been two whole months. I guess you don't have worry about the air getting cleaner, our dependence on oil decreasing, our need for Middle East wars decreasing, and our economy improving. Why spoil the good recession that started in 2007, right? ;)
 
Last edited:
Here's a question for those coming across all defensive about the right to drive the car you want and protecting the right of car manufacturers to build the cars they want.

Why do cars sold in the US all guzzle much more gas than their equivalents elsewhere? I just did some research. The best possible consumption you can get in a VW Passat sold in the US is 22 MPG (in a 1.9L gas burner). The worst possible consumption you can get on a European spec Passat is 28.5 MPG (in a 1.8L gas burner). The best available is 52.3 MPG (in a 1.6L diesel). Why should it be that US motorists aren't even given the option of buying a more economical, environment-friendly car?

Check the stats and tell me why you think this is?
Passat - Complete Specs
The Official Website for Volkswagen UK : Volkswagen UK

If you worry that saving energy erodes your personal freedom, why not ask the car manufacturers why you aren't being given the freedom to choose a greener car if you want one?

The US Gallon is different from the Imperial gallon by about 3/4 of a liter less.
 
US consumers ARE given those options, they are just to stupid and self-absorbed with their 5 ton SUVs to take any notice.

People complain at the very last minute in the country.
 
The US Gallon is different from the Imperial gallon by about 3/4 of a liter less.

That doesn't really answer the question. I just did the conversion. That means that the best US Passat does 22 MPG and the worst European now does 24 MPG. It really doesn't explain why a US driver can't choose a version that does 44 MPG (53 European MPG).
 
Here's a question for those coming across all defensive about the right to drive the car you want and protecting the right of car manufacturers to build the cars they want.

Why do cars sold in the US all guzzle much more gas than their equivalents elsewhere? I just did some research. The best possible consumption you can get in a VW Passat sold in the US is 22 MPG (in a 1.9L gas burner). The worst possible consumption you can get on a European spec Passat is 28.5 MPG (in a 1.8L gas burner). The best available is 52.3 MPG (in a 1.6L diesel). Why should it be that US motorists aren't even given the option of buying a more economical, environment-friendly car?

Check the stats and tell me why you think this is?
Passat - Complete Specs
The Official Website for Volkswagen UK : Volkswagen UK

If you worry that saving energy erodes your personal freedom, why not ask the car manufacturers why you aren't being given the freedom to choose a greener car if you want one?

Because our politicians have been receiving their marching orders from their corporate oil backers and car manufactures here that make more money from big gas guzzlers and they have a public here willing to buy them because they have convinced them that it would infringe on our liberty to invade and occupy countries to supply the oil needed so that we have the liberty to be wasteful to the detriment of future generations.

Does it all make sense now? ;)
 
Last edited:
US consumers ARE given those options, they are just to stupid and self-absorbed with their 5 ton SUVs to take any notice.

People complain at the very last minute in the country.

Check out the URLs, US buyers are NOT being offered more fuel efficient versions. Perhaps they wouldn't buy them even if they were, but that's not really the point.
 
Because our politicians have been receiving their marching orders from their corporate backers and car manufactures here that make more money from big gas guzzlers and they have a public here willing to buy them because they have convinced them that it would infringe on our liberty to invade and occupy countries to supply the oil needed so that we have the liberty to be wasteful to the detriment of future generations.

Does it all make sense now? ;)

Kinda. In a kinda, "How ****ed up is that" kinda way, yeah.
 
Yes, yes I am.



I then asked you:



You have since only dodged those questions.

And you still are taking what I am saying, and changing it into something I have not said. Your argument in it's generic and specific form is stupid, for the reasons I explained.
 
Kinda. In a kinda, "How ****ed up is that" kinda way, yeah.

Yep, you understand it correctly than! Its one of the reasons we replaced many of the bad actors in our government in 2006 and 2008.
 
That doesn't really answer the question. I just did the conversion. That means that the best US Passat does 22 MPG and the worst European now does 24 MPG. It really doesn't explain why a US driver can't choose a version that does 44 MPG (53 European MPG).

One's diesel and one's petrol. Our petrol vehicles are comparable to the European petrol vehicles. People out here have a thing against Diesel for some reason I'm not sure of, so it's basic supply and demand for why we don't get the Diesels. I owned a diesel work van for years and it was way better than a petrol van)

Also, the way MPG are calculated was recently changed in the US. I'm not sure if they adopted a standard similar to the European standard or not. I do know that the changes caused a downward shift in MPG ratings for all vehicles.
 
Last edited:
They are doing what we put them in office to do. Hard to get a handle on that huh?

Well, since we didn't put the EPA people in office, no, they're not. They're bypassing democracy and the Constitution to regulate a concern that was on hardly anyone's minds when they voted in 2008. So no matter how you look at it, they're not "doing what we put them in office to do".
 
One's diesel and one's petrol. Our petrol vehicles are comparable to the European petrol vehicles. People out here have a thing against Diesel for some reason I'm not sure of, so it's basic supply and demand for why we don't get the Diesels. I owned a diesel work van for years and it was way better than a petrol van)

Also, the way MPG are calculated was recently changed in the US. I'm not sure if they adopted a standard similar to the European standard or not. I do know that the changes caused a downward shift in MPG ratings for all vehicles.

Wow. I didn't know US drivers don't like diesels. Here they comprise about 40% of the private car market and about 95% of the commercial vehicle market. Also, diesel's cheaper than gas. Here in Andalucia (one of the poorest, hence cheapest regions of Spain) 95 octane gas is $1.50 per litre ($5.68 per gallon), 98 octane is $1.70 a litre. Diesel is $1.35.

I guess you can understand now how come Europe has reduced its fossil fuel consumption and chooses more economical engines.
 
Well, since we didn't put the EPA people in office, no, they're not. They're bypassing democracy and the Constitution to regulate a concern that was on hardly anyone's minds when they voted in 2008. So no matter how you look at it, they're not "doing what we put them in office to do".

We elect the president to carry out our priorities, and he appoints the head of the EPA and other departments to get it done, that's how it works.

That is what the Republicans did as well. They just had different priorities.
 
I hope that the IPCC dissolves so prosperity can thrive... Drill for oil on US soil, use natural gas, and use coal. It would revive the economically depressed areas of PN, OH, and WV. We would be less Dependant on foreign oil, we could sell our surplus oil to make money and pay back our debts too. It's a win win win situation. But oh no, some lying bunch of scientists need to lobby in favor of a global hoax in order to control the world's governments and put more power in the hands of the UN.
 
I hope that the IPCC dissolves so prosperity can thrive... Drill for oil on US soil, use natural gas, and use coal. It would revive the economically depressed areas of PN, OH, and WV. We would be less Dependant on foreign oil, we could sell our surplus oil to make money and pay back our debts too. It's a win win win situation. But oh no, some lying bunch of scientists need to lobby in favor of a global hoax in order to control the world's governments and put more power in the hands of the UN.

When in doubt, stick with conspiracy theories, eh? So much more comfortable than considering you might have to change your behaviour for the good of others.
 
Wow. I didn't know US drivers don't like diesels. Here they comprise about 40% of the private car market and about 95% of the commercial vehicle market. Also, diesel's cheaper than gas. Here in Andalucia (one of the poorest, hence cheapest regions of Spain) 95 octane gas is $1.50 per litre ($5.68 per gallon), 98 octane is $1.70 a litre. Diesel is $1.35.

I guess you can understand now how come Europe has reduced its fossil fuel consumption and chooses more economical engines.

We were warned about it 35 years ago too. We are slow learners! In our defense, we had a movie star for president who said screw energy independence, party like its 1949!
 
When in doubt, stick with conspiracy theories, eh? So much more comfortable than considering you might have to change your behaviour for the good of others.

The conspiracy is AGW, it was started by conspiracy theorist scientists and politicians found it to be a great supporter for their agenda. AGW is a lie, as far as I see it having an energy independent nation opens up the door for prosperity, which leads to less poverty and less money/power in foreign Arab regimes. Why can't the IPCC stop pushing their bias lie for the good of others?
 
I hope that the IPCC dissolves so prosperity can thrive... Drill for oil on US soil, use natural gas, and use coal. It would revive the economically depressed areas of PN, OH, and WV. We would be less Dependant on foreign oil, we could sell our surplus oil to make money and pay back our debts too. It's a win win win situation. But oh no, some lying bunch of scientists need to lobby in favor of a global hoax in order to control the world's governments and put more power in the hands of the UN.

If we had not passed peak oil in the 70's, and were not faced with future consequences of Climate change, that would be a good plan!
 
If we had not passed peak oil in the 70's, and were not faced with future consequences of Climate change, that would be a good plan!

We aren't faced with future consequences of climate change though... However we do face consequences by being dependent on foreign oil and by listening and implementing the policies that the UN wants to push.
 
Last edited:
We aren't faced with future consequences of climate change though... However we do face consequences by being dependent on foreign oil and by listening and implementing the policies that the UN wants to push.

That is your opinion completely without facts to back it up. Even the EPA appointed under Bush made that determination.

The effects of greenhouse gases were first discovered in 1824, and now includes a consensus of scientists from 180 countries. So in your opinion did the world wide conspiracy begin then, or was time travel involved?
 
That is your opinion completely without facts to back it up. Even the EPA appointed under Bush made that determination.

The effects of greenhouse gases were first discovered in 1824, and now includes a consensus of scientists from 180 countries. So in your opinion did the world wide conspiracy begin then, or was time travel involved?

There isn't a consensus though 31,000 Signatures Prove ‘No Consensus’ About Global Warming
Robinson spoke about his petition signed by 31,000 U.S. scientists who reject the claims that “human release of greenhouse gases is damaging our climate.

We also know that AGW is false, climate tends to revolve around the solar cycles and natural phenomenon.
 
Back
Top Bottom