• 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
Man's part in global warming was ridiculously exaggerated.

The world is aging, and just like the animal's body is weakened with time, so is the planet.
The weather is becoming more and more unbalanced, more and more extreme, and it would only become worse.
Nothing we can do about it with current technology, really.
 
Man's part in global warming was ridiculously exaggerated.

The world is aging, and just like the animal's body is weakened with time, so is the planet.
The weather is becoming more and more unbalanced, more and more extreme, and it would only become worse.
Nothing we can do about it with current technology, really.

But the point behind anthropogenic sources of climate change, is that we are the only things that have changed (dramatically) over the past few centuries.
 
But the point behind anthropogenic sources of climate change, is that we are the only things that have changed (dramatically) over the past few centuries.
There are quite a lot of people who would tell you that global warming as a whole is a myth.

That I disagree with.
 
Man's part in global warming was ridiculously exaggerated.

The world is aging, and just like the animal's body is weakened with time, so is the planet.
The weather is becoming more and more unbalanced, more and more extreme, and it would only become worse.
Nothing we can do about it with current technology, really.

And your documentation for this is what???
 
And your documentation for this is what???
That the weather is becoming more and more extreme, that the world is aging, or that we lack the technology to pull a drastic change on the planet's path?

:2wave:
 
That the weather is becoming more and more extreme, that the world is aging, or that we lack the technology to pull a drastic change on the planet's path?

:2wave:

Provide evidence to back up your claims that:

"Man's part in global warming was ridiculously exaggerated."


and,

"Nothing we can do about it with current technology, really."
 
I'm not drawing conclusions. I'm asking the question: what would it mean to US society and politics to be energy independent?

Less fretting over the daily happenings in the Middle East, less chance of future foolish wars involving US troops, and less funding for terrorists in the Middle East.

Andalublue said:
I don't get your Saudi comment. US en.ind. has nothing to do with whether the Saudis still have oil or not. As you can see from the link I posted earlier, if you remain dependent on oil, US reserves will run out long before Saudi reserves.

Energy independence isn't limited to US oil reserves. There are other forms of energy too. Relying on US oil reserves would have virtually no effect anyway, because oil is a commodity and so it doesn't matter where it comes from.

Andalublue said:
Which raises another question. Can you explain to me how en.ind. could be achieved? Is it just about improved exploitation of remaining reserves of oil, gas and coal? Or is it also about massive investment in alternative energy sources such as wind, wave, solar and nuclear?

Of course.

Andalublue said:
If the latter, then converting motoring habits from gas guzzlers to electric or hydrogen-driven vehicles must also be on the agenda, no?

Of course.
 
Provide evidence to back up your claims that:

"Man's part in global warming was ridiculously exaggerated."


and,

"Nothing we can do about it with current technology, really."
That's easy.

Both of my claims quoted by you will be wrong if and only if humanity is able to pull a dramatic change on Earth's defense system, and cause the change in the environment of the planet that is the global warming phenomena.

In other words, my claims will not be true if and only if man's role in global warming is not minimal and is drastic.

So, in order for my statements to hold legitimacy, the claim that man's part in global warming is not minimal and is drastic needs to be an unsupported claim.

Since that is the case, and since the claim that man's involvement in global warming was never based and evidence was never presented, my statements are completely legitimate.
 
Last edited:
Hey next can we ask random people about the merits, or lack thereof, of canards on aircraft aerodynamic performance?
 
That's easy.

Both of my claims quoted by you will be wrong if and only if humanity is able to pull a dramatic change on Earth's defense system, and cause the change in the environment of the planet that is the global warming phenomena.

In other words, my claims will not be true if and only if man's role in global warming is not minimal and is drastic.

So, in order for my statements to hold legitimacy, the claim that man's part in global warming is not minimal and is drastic needs to be an unsupported claim.

Since that is the case, and since the claim that man's involvement in global warming was never based and evidence was never presented, my statements are completely legitimate.

What is the definition, in this case, of the words minimal and drastic?
 
What is the definition, in this case, of the words minimal and drastic?
Minimal means that humanity's intervention in planet Earth's environment is not drastic, and does not bring a major change, and hence global warming is not man-made.

Drastic would mean the opposite.
 
Minimal means that humanity's intervention in planet Earth's environment is not drastic, and does not bring a major change, and hence global warming is not man-made.

Drastic would mean the opposite.

Could you please explain a bit more? Something quantitative perhaps, rather then qualitative...
 
The scientist are admitting the data is flawed and that warming is natural. It was warmer in mid evil times.


Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online


Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.


World may not be warming, say scientists - Times Online

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.

Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic.

His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment.

Some are next to air- conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most infamous shows a weather station next to a waste incinerator.

Watts has also found examples overseas, such as the weather station at Rome airport, which catches the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets.

In Britain, a weather station at Manchester airport was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields but is now surrounded by heat-generating buildings.

Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal.

“The earth has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last 1,000 years,” he said.
 
That's easy.

Both of my claims quoted by you will be wrong if and only if humanity is able to pull a dramatic change on Earth's defense system, and cause the change in the environment of the planet that is the global warming phenomena.

In other words, my claims will not be true if and only if man's role in global warming is not minimal and is drastic.

So, in order for my statements to hold legitimacy, the claim that man's part in global warming is not minimal and is drastic needs to be an unsupported claim.

Since that is the case, and since the claim that man's involvement in global warming was never based and evidence was never presented, my statements are completely legitimate.

Translation please. :confused:
 
Bush Administration tries to silence confimation from EPA of the threats to human health from GW~

"But Burnett says that the White House asked him not to send the endangerment findings, after he had already e-mailed them to the White House Office of Management and Budget. Upon realising the document had already been sent, Burnett says he received a "phone call from the White House" asking him to send a follow-up email saying that the document "had been sent in error". Burnett says he "explained I could not do this because it was not true". The White House decided not to open the e-mail, and it's since been hanging out in the ether while the EPA and the White House continue to battle over whether their official rulemaking notice should reflect the scientific findings of experts or the White House's ideological desires.

But Burnett spilled about more than just this recent scuffle. He also noted that in the fall of 2007, the Council on Environmental Quality and the Cheney's office asked him to work with the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to remove portions of a report detailing the threats that climate change poses to human health."


Kate Sheppard: White House censored scientific reports on climate change | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

EPA links health endangerment to AGW ~

"WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday issued a final ruling that greenhouse gases posed a danger to human health and the environment, paving the way for regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles, power plants, factories, refineries and other major sources.

The announcement was timed to coincide with the opening of the United Nations conference on climate change in Copenhagen, strengthening President Obama’s hand as more than 190 nations struggle to reach a global accord.

The E.P.A.’s administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, said that a 2007 decision by the Supreme Court required the agency to weigh whether carbon dioxide and five other climate-altering gases threatened human health and welfare and, if so, to take steps to regulate them.

She said Monday that the finding was driven by the weight of scientific evidence that the planet was warming and that human activity was largely responsible."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/science/earth/08epa.html
 
Bush Administration tries to silence confimation from EPA of the threats to human health from GW~

"But Burnett says that the White House asked him not to send the endangerment findings, after he had already e-mailed them to the White House Office of Management and Budget. Upon realising the document had already been sent, Burnett says he received a "phone call from the White House" asking him to send a follow-up email saying that the document "had been sent in error". Burnett says he "explained I could not do this because it was not true". The White House decided not to open the e-mail, and it's since been hanging out in the ether while the EPA and the White House continue to battle over whether their official rulemaking notice should reflect the scientific findings of experts or the White House's ideological desires.

But Burnett spilled about more than just this recent scuffle. He also noted that in the fall of 2007, the Council on Environmental Quality and the Cheney's office asked him to work with the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to remove portions of a report detailing the threats that climate change poses to human health."


Kate Sheppard: White House censored scientific reports on climate change | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

EPA links health endangerment to AGW ~

"WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday issued a final ruling that greenhouse gases posed a danger to human health and the environment, paving the way for regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles, power plants, factories, refineries and other major sources.

The announcement was timed to coincide with the opening of the United Nations conference on climate change in Copenhagen, strengthening President Obama’s hand as more than 190 nations struggle to reach a global accord.

The E.P.A.’s administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, said that a 2007 decision by the Supreme Court required the agency to weigh whether carbon dioxide and five other climate-altering gases threatened human health and welfare and, if so, to take steps to regulate them.

She said Monday that the finding was driven by the weight of scientific evidence that the planet was warming and that human activity was largely responsible."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/science/earth/08epa.html



No response on my 2 articles of scientist back tracking and admitting GW is natural?
 
No response on my 2 articles of scientist back tracking and admitting GW is natural?

I submitted confirmation from our own EPA's findings (under both parties), that in addition to the findings of scientists from 180 countries trumps everything presented in your articles from my perspective.

Those EPA findings are the basis of new CAFE requirements and will soon be used to regulate C02 emissions from industry just like other air pollutants, which will not require Congressional approval.

This will represent the biggest reduction in C02 emissions in the history of the US.
 
I submitted confirmation from our own EPA's findings (under both parties), that in addition to the findings of scientists from 180 countries trumps everything presented in your articles from my perspective.

Those EPA findings are the basis of new CAFE requirements and will soon be used to regulate C02 emissions from industry just like other air pollutants, which will not require Congressional approval.

This will represent the biggest reduction in C02 emissions in the history of the US.

These articles show the findings are false and use bad data. These are IPCC scientist stating this.

You don't care about facts I can't help you.
 
These articles show the findings are false and use bad data. These are IPCC scientist stating this.

You don't care about facts I can't help you.

Exactly the same can be said about you.
 
I disregarded facts

There, fixed it for you. While I admit Catawba didn't address your points, you also failed to address his. Therefore, you were both in fault. Catawba later addressed it, indirectly. You maintin your position, and have as of yet, failed to address the points brought up by Catawba.
 
There, fixed it for you. While I admit Catawba didn't address your points, you also failed to address his. Therefore, you were both in fault. Catawba later addressed it, indirectly. You maintin your position, and have as of yet, failed to address the points brought up by Catawba.

What that the EPA used the false data my articles admit to.

This makes GW a lie. There is no rush. No need for cap and trade. Pollution can be addressed in a way that will not hurt our economy at this bad economic time.


You can not claim fact on things that the scientist are saying was based on false and bad data.
 
What that the EPA used the false data my articles admit to.

Prove the EPA used the false data your article refers to in making their determination.

You can not claim fact on things that the scientist are saying was based on false and bad data.

If you have not provided any evidence regarding EPA's determinations. I did not see the EPA discussed anywhere in your articles.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom