• 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
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.
There's your conspiracy theory again. AGW is debateable in its degree, not in its entirety. There is more firm scintific evidence that is exists than that it does not. A few isolated examples of exaggerations and false statistics does not destroy the collected evidence of the vast majority of scientific sources.
 
There's your conspiracy theory again. AGW is debateable in its degree, not in its entirety. There is more firm scintific evidence that is exists than that it does not. A few isolated examples of exaggerations and false statistics does not destroy the collected evidence of the vast majority of scientific sources.

What if the evidence is bias and was produced to fit a desired result? We know that climate science is corrupt and serves political interests. The fact that the UN and IPCC pretty much refuse to think that they may be wrong or acknowledge other opinions shows me that they are trying to repress the truth. The climate gate stuff gives us an inside peak at what really goes on with the data and their calculations. AGW is a conspiracy theory, it was started by conspiracy theorist scientists and the theory was made popular because it serves political interests of several world governments and organizations (and political parties). Have you ever looked at the evidence against AGW?
 
There's your conspiracy theory again. AGW is debateable in its degree, not in its entirety. There is more firm scintific evidence that is exists than that it does not. A few isolated examples of exaggerations and false statistics does not destroy the collected evidence of the vast majority of scientific sources.

Yes, the greenhouse effect is real, problem is, there's very little scientific evidence to suggest the human element has anything but a negligible impact on global temperatures; not to mention the fact that a number of top climate "scientists" have been manipulating data and trying to undermine the peer review process. That last fact should immediately disqualify AGW as being credible.

Did you know that 9 out of 10 temperature monitoring stations in the United States (purportedly the best system in the world) do not meet national siting standards?

Is that a problem for you?
 
0209davies.jpg
 

As convincing as a right wing blog with a list of unverified signatures is, I think I'll go with the the consensus of scientists from 180 countries, as well as our own EPA under the last two administrations.

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

The solar effect has been minimum throughout the warming period, and there has been no significant volcano activity or any other natural phenomenon that can account for the increase.

And I do not believe in world wide conspiracies dependent on time travel.

But that's just me!
 
this is still not known to be factual, yet you present as if it were, ...
Well, hey, if Al Gore's fantasy slide show can be presented as factual why not?

edit: and you gave a link to some random book for sale at Amazon, that does little to bolster your case.
It's hardly a random book. Ruddiman taught climatology for 30 years until he retired, and has better credentials than Jim Hansen at NASA. He also has no ax to grind or grant funding to renew, unlike the suspects at Penn State and CRU.
 
What if the evidence is bias and was produced to fit a desired result? We know that climate science is corrupt and serves political interests. The fact that the UN and IPCC pretty much refuse to think that they may be wrong or acknowledge other opinions shows me that they are trying to repress the truth. The climate gate stuff gives us an inside peak at what really goes on with the data and their calculations. AGW is a conspiracy theory, it was started by conspiracy theorist scientists and the theory was made popular because it serves political interests of several world governments and organizations (and political parties). Have you ever looked at the evidence against AGW?

You misunderstand. AGW is a sound scientific argument. No one can argue that human CO2 emissions do not contribute to the green house effect; that's just physics; it's proven. The problem arises when certain people start overstating the significance of that effect, as Al Gore has done.

There is no strong scientific reason to believe that human CO2 emissions have had anything but a negligible effect on global temperatures. Negligible does not mean "no effect at all" but it certainly doesn't mean "primary factor in global temperatures" either.

The scientific position is to say "we don't know".
 
Yes, the greenhouse effect is real, problem is, there's very little scientific evidence to suggest the human element has anything but a negligible impact on global temperatures; not to mention the fact that a number of top climate "scientists" have been manipulating data and trying to undermine the peer review process. That last fact should immediately disqualify AGW as being credible.

Did you know that 9 out of 10 temperature monitoring stations in the United States (purportedly the best system in the world) do not meet national siting standards?

Is that a problem for you?

I am not promoting the idea that human activity is the cause of all, some or any climate change. I'm not a scientist but I know plenty who do believe and have evidence to support their beliefs. That a handful of over-zealous/deceitful (delete where applicable) scientists have exaggerated or falsified data has no bearing whatsoever on whether the accumulated evidence of scientists from 180 countries is to be believed or rejected.

As far as temperature monitoring stations in the US are badly sited, what the f***? How would I know whether that's true? How would I know whether that's relevant? I'm not claiming expertise that I don't possess nor claiming to know something is a scientific, empirically proven fact. Unlike our friend in Nashville.
 
Last edited:
I am not promoting the idea that human activity is the cause of all, some or any climate change. I'm not a scientist but I know plenty who do believe and have evidence to support their beliefs.

What evidence is that? Just curious...

That a handful of over-zealous/deceitful (delete where applicable) scientists have exaggerated or falsified data has no bearing whatsoever on whether the accumulated evidence of scientists from 180 countries is to be believed or rejected.

Except this "handful" of "scientists" are the top climate researchers on the planet, and are the most authoritative propagators of AGW hysteria. Many of the methods and data other climate researchers use comes from this cabal of falsifiers.

As far as temperature monitoring stations in the US are badly sited, what the f***? How would I know whether that's true? How would I know whether that's relevant? I'm not claiming expertise that I don't possess nor claiming to know something is a scientific, empirically proven fact. Unlike our friend in Nashville.

Settle down. It was just a question.
 
I am not promoting the idea that human activity is the cause of all, some or any climate change. I'm not a scientist but I know plenty who do believe and have evidence to support their beliefs. That a handful of over-zealous/deceitful (delete where applicable) scientists have exaggerated or falsified data has no bearing whatsoever on whether the accumulated evidence of scientists from 180 countries is to be believed or rejected.

As far as temperature monitoring stations in the US are badly sited, what the f***? How would I know whether that's true? How would I know whether that's relevant? I'm not claiming expertise that I don't possess nor claiming to know something is a scientific, empirically proven fact. Unlike our friend in Nashville.


So you believe the lies of those who claim to be scientist even though it is proven their facts were wrong?
 
What evidence is that? Just curious...
Please refer to IPCC.


Except this "handful" of "scientists" are the top climate researchers on the planet, and are the most authoritative propagators of AGW hysteria. Many of the methods and data other climate researchers use comes from this cabal of falsifiers.
Not true. Simple as.


Settle down. It was just a question.
Just not a very relevant one.
 
Last edited:
So you believe the lies of those who claim to be scientist even though it is proven their facts were wrong?
If it's proven that all the evidence of AGW is wrong I'm sure you can provide us all with that evidence.
 
Please refer to IPCC.

Ah, a lame appeal to authority. How stimulating!

By the way, I already referred to the IPCC, and because I have, I can tell you that in 2007 they used anecdotal speculation from a magazine in their official climate report. Not exactly confidence inspiring...

Not true. Simple as.

Then you simply have no idea what you're talking about. The hacked emails prove that a number of top climate "scientists" were manipulating data and trying to circumvent the peer-review process.

Another one of those crooks was Michael Mann, who's famous "Hockey Stick Graph" (as prominently displayed in Inconvenient Truth) was shown to be pure rubbish.

Just not a very relevant one.

Well, now that you know, does it bother you?
 
If it's proven that all the evidence of AGW is wrong I'm sure you can provide us all with that evidence.

That's not how science works. The onus falls upon the AGW proponents to substantiate their own theory; it is not anyone's obligation to disprove an assertion that hasn't been proven.
 
So you believe the lies of those who claim to be scientist even though it is proven their facts were wrong?

It has not been proven they were wrong. How do you think such a world wide conspiracy came about starting in 1824?

Do you reckon Al Gore traveled back in time to get the ball rolling?
 
Ah, a lame appeal to authority. How stimulating!

Yeah, why go with authoritative science right?

You can believe what ever you want to believe, while we move on to get the job done.
 
More importantly, it hasn't been proven that they are right...

If you go in for world conspiracy theories and time travel I suppose.
 
I think an interesting question to ask would be...Why would some scientests support AGW, and others oppose it? If the evidence for or against is conclusive, why would there be any disagreement?
 
That's not how science works. The onus falls upon the AGW proponents to substantiate their own theory; it is not anyone's obligation to disprove an assertion that hasn't been proven.

They have substantiated it, even Bush's EPA confirmed it, though he ignored their message as long as he could.
 
Yeah, why go with authoritative science right?

Tell me, Mr. Expert, what do you think the science tells us?

You can believe what ever you want to believe, while we move on to get the job done.

I'm simply looking at the facts, and they tell me there is no reason to believe human CO2 emissions have anything but a negligible effect global temperatures.

Not sure what "job" you're talking about either...
 
If you go in for world conspiracy theories and time travel I suppose.

They haven't been proven right. Apparently, you don't know what that word means...
 
They have substantiated it, even Bush's EPA confirmed it, though he ignored their message as long as he could.

So, if Bush's EPA said something, then it must be true? Glad to hear it...:roll:
 
I think an interesting question to ask would be...Why would some scientests support AGW, and others oppose it? If the evidence for or against is conclusive, why would there be any disagreement?

Payola by the oil companies! They don't want anything to spoil their record profits made from selling a dwindling supply to people that have got to have their fix.
 
They haven't been proven right. Apparently, you don't know what that word means...

Their is more consensus on this by the preeminent scientists of the world than most scientific assessments. That is about as close as you can get to proof in science.
 
Back
Top Bottom