• 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
.......while simultaneously destroying the competitiveness of our economy and burdening our lower classes with increased energy costs...no.

You don't think that our lower classes would benefit from being engaged in producing technologically advanced sustainable products, such as wind and solar, versus sending their money (and them) overseas to middle eastern countries?

You presume that sustainable energy would destroy the competitiveness of our economy. I would suggest that America should be leading the way through innovation and development of alternative energy designs...as we always have done in almost every field.
 
That's like saying we ought to be buying "asteroid credits" or some stupid sham like that because if a giant asteroid hit the planet, it would drastically alter life for everyone. Falling for a sham is bad no matter what the potential consequences of it being true might be.

While the Himalayan glacier isn't melting as fast as was stated by the scientist you mentioned, the artic ice is melting faster.

Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
 
I think that, as a Floridian, I do have to think about the possibility of global warming because if it happened, it would drastically alter life for us, at least.

You also have to worry about; crime, deforestation, loss of habitat, illegal immigration, and fashion disasters. It's a matter of priorities. Having the average temperature of the planet increase by, what is it now, 1/2 of a degree over one century now, maybe, shouldn't be that high on this list.
 
.......while simultaneously destroying the competitiveness of our economy and burdening our lower classes with increased energy costs...no.

Right! Just like how we shouldn't have switched from horseback to cars, which were much more expensive to the lower classes.

Remember -- always look backwards! That's the American way!
 
You also have to worry about; crime, deforestation, loss of habitat, illegal immigration, and fashion disasters. It's a matter of priorities. Having the average temperature of the planet increase by, what is it now, 1/2 of a degree over one century now, maybe, shouldn't be that high on this list.

I tend to focus my energies on deforestation, loss of habitat, illegal immigration, and crime, and leave the fashion emergencies to other people.

Global warming will not impact me in the South as much as it would someone in the breadbasket of America.
 
Right! Just like how we shouldn't have switched from horseback to cars, which were much more expensive to the lower classes.

Remember -- always look backwards! That's the American way!

Relying on industry to take advantage of technological advances as opposed to "five year plans" advanced by a central committee is the american approach. Just ask the chinese communists, they scrapped marx decades ago.
 
Relying on industry to take advantage of technological advances as opposed to "five year plans" advanced by a central committee is the american approach. Just ask the chinese communists, they scrapped marx decades ago.

I agree. And the government should be involved in pushing those advances, just like we are involved in propelling advances in weapons technologies, computers, and medicine.
 
I tend to focus my energies on deforestation, loss of habitat, illegal immigration, and crime, and leave the fashion emergencies to other people.

Global warming will not impact me in the South as much as it would someone in the breadbasket of America.

....assuming it happens.....at all.
 
....assuming it happens.....at all.

It seems to me to be expedient to consider the possibility when there are so many other reasons that also support the use of clean and sustainable energy technology.
 
I agree. And the government should be involved in pushing those advances, just like we are involved in propelling advances in weapons technologies, computers, and medicine.

No, it shouldn't. At least other than an occational tax advantage. The proper role of government is defence of the nation and treaties, at least that's what the founding fathers felt. I might add some reasonable regulations concerning corporations, that's just about all.
 
Warm weather continues to keep Vancouver organizers scrambling | PennLive.com


OMG!!!111!!!! It are teh apocalypse!!!!1111!! Global warming be proven!!!!111!!!



This is essentially what the "lookit all dis snow" argument boils down to, only in reverse.
This is the same logic Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert tackled on their shows on wednesday night. Following the logic proof that its hot in australia would mean global warming exists. The sun disappearing at night means its the end of the world.
 
This is the same logic Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert tackled on their shows on wednesday night. Following the logic proof that its hot in australia would mean global warming exists. The sun disappearing at night means its the end of the world.

Damn that Stewart and Colbert! Always beating me to the punchline! :(
 
Warm weather continues to keep Vancouver organizers scrambling | PennLive.com


OMG!!!111!!!! It are teh apocalypse!!!!1111!! Global warming be proven!!!!111!!!



This is essentially what the "lookit all dis snow" argument boils down to, only in reverse.

When I lived down here in the Carolinas 3-4 years ago, the water levels were really low. It was a sure-fire sign of global warming/climate change. Now with a very wet year this year and parts of last year, and increased snow amounts, the levels are back to whatever they consider normal or very close to it. And the "extreme"(I lightly mock this because there has not been any real extreme weather here from my perspective) percipitation is considered to be a part of climate change too.

I pretty much grew up around farmers for a good part of my youth. Farmers bitched about the weather no matter what it did. Sunny day outside, they need the rain. If its raining, they can't get work done. Not enough snow, they bitch about how it will affect their crops, too much snow and they bitch about late planting seasons. This line of thinking seems to be prevalent in AGW discussions.
 
When I lived down here in the Carolinas 3-4 years ago, the water levels were really low. It was a sure-fire sign of global warming/climate change. Now with a very wet year this year and parts of last year, and increased snow amounts, the levels are back to whatever they consider normal or very close to it. And the "extreme"(I lightly mock this because there has not been any real extreme weather here from my perspective) percipitation is considered to be a part of climate change too.

I pretty much grew up around farmers for a good part of my youth. Farmers bitched about the weather no matter what it did. Sunny day outside, they need the rain. If its raining, they can't get work done. Not enough snow, they bitch about how it will affect their crops, too much snow and they bitch about late planting seasons. This line of thinking seems to be prevalent in AGW discussions.

Both sides seem to only look at the data that supports their side and ignore the other data entirely.

In reality, Vancouver's warm whether doesn't prove Global warming any more than Washington's snow disproves it.

Generally, I'm in favor of a separation of Science and State because politicians have not evolved enough (or been intelligently designed enough) to really comprehend scientific data. I don't care which side of the debate they are on, it always gets twisted to fit an agenda of some sort.
 
Real or not real, the way global warming was presented to the world created massive political divisions. Ya really can't blame anybody for how they feel about this. The topic is in the hands of amateurs.
 
It depends on what time of the year it is on whether or not I believe in global warming. I tend to be a denier Dec.- Feb, on the fence Mar-May, a believer June-Aug, and on the fence again Sept-Oct. There are exceptions on occasion, but overall this seems to be the trend for me.
 
Real or not real, the way global warming was presented to the world created massive political divisions. Ya really can't blame anybody for how they feel about this. The topic is in the hands of amateurs.

No, it is just promoted and publicized by amateurs.
 
No.

Since the question is so poorly worded it can't be answered simply.

Is the theory of anthropogenic global warming bull****?

Yes, of course.

Is the planet warming as part of some natural cycle?

Kinda depends on what era you're using as a baseline, doesn't it? Compared to 1998, no, compared to 1776, yes. Compared to 1200 AD, no. Compared to 30,000 BC, yes.
 
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?
 
Yes, if you are referring to the AGW hysteria.

The earth has been cooling for the last 4+ billion years, but it certainly has not been a smooth or uniform trip. There was no permanent ice cap anywhere until one formed in the Antarctic about 15 million years ago (link). Ice ages occur only in the northern hemisphere (too much open water in the south) and began about 3.5 million years ago, repeating every 40-50 thousand years with no permanent northern ice cap during the warm intervals.

Over the last 900,000 years the earth has gone through ten ice ages spaced at about 90,000 years, which can be correlated to astronomical cycles of the axial tilt, precession, and changes in the eccentricity of the earth's orbit; these cycles have been known since the mid-nineteenth century, and are all explainable by the gravitational effect of other planets. On this cycle, we hit the "first day of summer" about 12,000 years ago, and we are now heading into the next ice age; continuing the "annual" analogy, where summer starts in June but the real hot period comes in late July and August, we can reasonably expect a few more thousand years before the ice starts to advance again and makes the northern latitudes uninhabitable.

On a shorter time scale: there was a warm period in the first few centuries BC when the Norse folk were able to discover and colonize Iceland, followed by a few centuries of cold weather during the period we know as the Dark Ages, followed by a few centuries of Medieval Warm Period when the Norse discovered and colonized Greenland a thousand years ago, followed by a few centuries of Little Ice Age which started to lift in the early nineteenth century.

AGW mythology is based on guesswork about temperatures and climate when the "researchers" go back more than a hundred years or so, and much of the estimated temperature data is based on tree rings which are at least as dependent on moisture as temperature. (See, for example, the current concerns about not enough moisture in Vancouver while too much moisture on the East Coast).

The AGW mythology that humans caused the warming via the industrial age which began around 1800 uses a time span that is far too short; it's a lot like looking at the last couple of months and concluding "OMG!! If we don't do something right now, New York will be under a mile of ice by June of 2013!!!" - completely ignoring the fact that this happens every winter, and resolves itself every summer.

And the AGW mythology relies much too heavily on computer models which use questionable assumptions on the suspect data. These models have (so far) been total failures at predicting 20th century climate from 19th century data, or 21st century climate from 20th century data; it's all hypothetical guesswork with none of the successful predictions which characterize acceptable scientific theories.

I have to admit, though, that AlGore and his acolytes have been extremely successful pitchmen for their Chicken Little theories; they've made a bundle on their doom and gloom nonsense.
 
Given that the issue with global warming is that scientists are alarmed that the global average temperature might raise 1 or 2 degrees celsius over 100 years, a little snow is not enough to prove or disprove anything.

Then again, warmer climates are more beneficial, and who elected the IPCC to say that 1950 was the Best Year Ever, since the climate was warmer in the Medieval Warming Period, and so was the productivity of the land.

Oh, and yeah, that was a more than a degree warmer than the present era.
 
Yes, if you are referring to the AGW hysteria.

The earth has been cooling for the last 4+ billion years, but it certainly has not been a smooth or uniform trip. There was no permanent ice cap anywhere until one formed in the Antarctic about 15 million years ago

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth]Snowball Earth[/ame] says otherwise.
 
Back
Top Bottom