• 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
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.

Man is not the only source of C02. If there were a large release from a volcano, or increased solar activity, that could also cause global warming, which undoubtedly has happened in the past. The distinction during this warming period, is there are no known volcano or solar events of significance that caused it this time, only man's C02 contribution in addition to the ambient natural sources that have overwhelmed the earth's capacity to sequester it.
 
Last edited:
Lets take a look at the facts, all this climategate stuff aside.

Since 1900, we have been spewing out more and more CO2, correct?

Now, I fully agree, the amount of CO2 we've thrown out cannot substantially warm the Earth, but it can cause a very small amount of warming, globally. We've also had our ozone layer depleted in certain areas, adding to the amount of energy that reaches the surface of the Earth.

As I've said before, the most dangerous greenhouse gas is water vapor. The amounts that naturally occur through evaporation allow enough heat to remain in the biosphere so live can be sustained. But, when we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as we obviously have, you increase the rate of evaporation very slightly. This in turn releases a tiny bit more water vapor then is the norm for our environment. Because of this, temperatures rise, because more energy is being trapped inside the biosphere. This in turn causes another small increase in evaporation, which forces another increase in temperature.

This is what's known as a positive feedback loop. Its like a human who can't sweat when exercising. Your body keeps heating up, and heating up, and it can't get rid of the heat fast enough. The checks and balances of the environment cannot stop this process.

What ends up happening, is over very long periods of time, temperature increases slowly, but surely. Given the length of time this takes, you could take any 40 year temperature interval, and you wouldn't find the slightest hint of temperature change. Regardless of what the data is saying, this is happening, because, quite frankly, the logic is too sound to be wrong.

These changes won't happen fast enough for them to kill off humans, or to do anything major to effect our way of live. What will happen, however, is other animals won't be able to adapt, because natural selection cannot work at the same pace as the climate change.

This is another problem many people don't understand. A short time for Earth means thousands and thousands of years. In relation to the tim Earth has been around (4.6 billion years) humans have been around for maybe 10,000 years. So, for us, the climate change is going to take a very long time. but we have technology, we have adapted the Earth to fit our needs. Other animals, such as bears, and fish, can't change fast enough to match the pace of global warming.

Do you understand now? It is undoubtedly happening, but not very fast, and probably not fast enough to effect us for a long time to come. The recent snow storm on the East Coast proves this process is taking place, even as we discuss it.

I personally don't know what we can really do about it though. We can try to decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but that wouldn't do very much, as it has already started the reaction. We can try to decrease the amount of water vapor, and return it to normal levels, but we would have to pour trillions of dollars into that, and keep water vapor at a steady level for decades to stop this. And even then, if we are even slightly off from the original number, the process will continue, or we might start an ice age because we removed too much water vapor.

That's my take on things, but again, I might be wrong, but that would also mean my books are wrong, and their logic, and they seem pretty solid.

Excellent post!!!!
 
There's your problem. You assume its a linear process. Thats one of the hard things in terms of understanding the problem in environmental studies. There are so many variables which have various input into the equation.

If you understand my explanation, then you obviously would know that the process is in fact taking place. And if you read my explanation, you would have seen how I pointed out this process would take hundreds of years to become truly apparent. The recent snow storm is just a small part of an incredibly complex biosphere.

And don't waste your time playing the inexperience card on me, it just makes you look like you are desperate to prove yourself smarter then a high schooler.

Okay, you've totally misunderstood something. Let's start over...

1. You described what was basically the greenhouse effect.

2. You inferred that human CO2 emissions are demonstrably enhancing this effect and causing monsoons.

3. I asked you to provide evidence of this.

4. You failed.
 
Smug teenager,

I understand your explanation perfectly. What you don't seem to understand is that there is currently no way to determine if the process you describe has had a measurable effect on global climate or temperatures. I understand the theoretical implications of your explanation (assuming a linear progression), but there is no real world data to support your inferences.

From,

A person who actually understands science.

He is trying, very politely I think, to explain the science, to those that do not understand, how man-made sources of C02, according to scientific methodology, which have no bearing on hacked emails from some other scientists, combine with natural sources to overwhelm the earth's natural ability to sequester it. The effects are measurable now and actionable, which is why action has been taken.
 
Lets take a look at the facts, all this climategate stuff aside.

Since 1900, we have been spewing out more and more CO2, correct?

Now, I fully agree, the amount of CO2 we've thrown out cannot substantially warm the Earth, but it can cause a very small amount of warming, globally. We've also had our ozone layer depleted in certain areas, adding to the amount of energy that reaches the surface of the Earth.

As I've said before, the most dangerous greenhouse gas is water vapor. The amounts that naturally occur through evaporation allow enough heat to remain in the biosphere so live can be sustained. But, when we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as we obviously have, you increase the rate of evaporation very slightly. This in turn releases a tiny bit more water vapor then is the norm for our environment. Because of this, temperatures rise, because more energy is being trapped inside the biosphere. This in turn causes another small increase in evaporation, which forces another increase in temperature.

This is what's known as a positive feedback loop. Its like a human who can't sweat when exercising. Your body keeps heating up, and heating up, and it can't get rid of the heat fast enough. The checks and balances of the environment cannot stop this process.

What ends up happening, is over very long periods of time, temperature increases slowly, but surely. Given the length of time this takes, you could take any 40 year temperature interval, and you wouldn't find the slightest hint of temperature change. Regardless of what the data is saying, this is happening, because, quite frankly, the logic is too sound to be wrong.

These changes won't happen fast enough for them to kill off humans, or to do anything major to effect our way of live. What will happen, however, is other animals won't be able to adapt, because natural selection cannot work at the same pace as the climate change.

This is another problem many people don't understand. A short time for Earth means thousands and thousands of years. In relation to the tim Earth has been around (4.6 billion years) humans have been around for maybe 10,000 years. So, for us, the climate change is going to take a very long time. but we have technology, we have adapted the Earth to fit our needs. Other animals, such as bears, and fish, can't change fast enough to match the pace of global warming.

Do you understand now? It is undoubtedly happening, but not very fast, and probably not fast enough to effect us for a long time to come. The recent snow storm on the East Coast proves this process is taking place, even as we discuss it.

I personally don't know what we can really do about it though. We can try to decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but that wouldn't do very much, as it has already started the reaction. We can try to decrease the amount of water vapor, and return it to normal levels, but we would have to pour trillions of dollars into that, and keep water vapor at a steady level for decades to stop this. And even then, if we are even slightly off from the original number, the process will continue, or we might start an ice age because we removed too much water vapor.

That's my take on things, but again, I might be wrong, but that would also mean my books are wrong, and their logic, and they seem pretty solid.

Dude, I've already heard Al Gore explain this a million times. You're just repeating the same tired AGW mantra over and over again. I'm glad you just learned about the greenhouse effect in high-school, but it's old news to me...
 
He is trying, very politely I think, to explain the science, to those that do not understand, how man-made sources of C02, according to scientific methodology, which have no bearing on hacked emails from some other scientists, combine with natural sources to overwhelm the earth's natural ability to sequester it.

Yes, it's a very nice theory. One I've heard a million times already and understand perfectly. I'm just waiting for him (or anyone else) to provide some evidence that human CO2 emissions are having a measurable effect on this process. Since there is no credible evidence to support that inference, he just regurgitates AGW theory from his textbook and pretends he's proven something.

The effects are measurable now and actionable, which is why action has been taken.

Then give me a study which has proven human CO2 emissions are having a measurable impact on global climate and temperatures. One will suffice...
 
I'm sorry, but I gave as thorough an explanation as I possibly could. You just ignored all of it. How about you address my post, and then I'll address yours? Because, infalliable logic trumps any source providable.

So you know more than this GW scientist?
 
No, what we have is a consensus in the scientific world that is being acted on.

The ones that think the whole world is conspiring with Al Gore is where the conspiracy theories come into play. But hey, some people still do not believe in evolution. So what you are you gonna do!

I say it is conspiracy for co2 will not kill us all.
 
Man is not the only source of C02. If there were a large release from a volcano, or increased solar activity, that could also cause global warming, which undoubtedly has happened in the past. The distinction during this warming period, is there are no known volcano or solar events of significance that caused it this time, only man's C02 contribution in addition to the ambient natural sources that have overwhelmed the earth's capacity to sequester it.

Thats not what this man says and he was one of the scientist involved in the climategate E-mails.

Now you know more than these GW scientists?
 
He is trying, very politely I think, to explain the science, to those that do not understand, how man-made sources of C02, according to scientific methodology, which have no bearing on hacked emails from some other scientists, combine with natural sources to overwhelm the earth's natural ability to sequester it. The effects are measurable now and actionable, which is why action has been taken.

Then why has the hurricane seasons in Florida been non-existent the last couple of years.

2004 was the last major problems here.
 
Man is not the only source of C02. If there were a large release from a volcano, or increased solar activity, that could also cause global warming, which undoubtedly has happened in the past. The distinction during this warming period, is there are no known volcano or solar events of significance that caused it this time, only man's C02 contribution in addition to the ambient natural sources that have overwhelmed the earth's capacity to sequester it.

Yes.

Especially since any discussion of THIS warming period has to recognize that it began in 1650, roughly 150 years BEFORE the Industrial Revolution.

That's if you want to be honest about the event, that is.
 
But which ones do they use the most? I would say when it comes to the environment the EPA would hold the IPCC in high standard.

You are, of course, referring to the very IPCC that referenced thorougly peer reviewed articles in Climbing Magazine to measure the rate of glacial retreat in the Himilaya Mountains, correct?
 
You are, of course, referring to the very IPCC that referenced thorougly peer reviewed articles in Climbing Magazine to measure the rate of glacial retreat in the Himilaya Mountains, correct?

The ones proven to be lies yes.
 
When they start eliminating organizations in the gov. the first to go after the DOE should be thr EPA.....talk about a corrupt organization that will do or say anything to get money.........

Remember the forged lynx reports? Where the EPA was caught planting lynx hair in places lacking lynxes to expand their map of the lynx territory and hence their control over those formerly lynx-less lands?

(Reported in Washington Times, 17 Dec 2002.)
 
The ones proven to be lies yes.

Well, really they don't need to be proven as lies, they merely have to be shown as lacking scientific merit.

Anectdotal evidence in a hobbyist magazine lacks any merit, period.

That a body as influential as the IPCC and supposedly responsible to the nations of the world would stoop to using unreviewed anecdotal evidence to promote it's agenda....while decrying the lack of "peer reviewers" for anti-AGW papers, while it controls who the reviewers are, is a complete corruption of the scientific method.

BTW, why does the IPCC have a pro-global warming agenda, anyway? Would not the world be best served by a panel that seeks the truth rather than promote a cause?
 
Well, really they don't need to be proven as lies, they merely have to be shown as lacking scientific merit.

Anectdotal evidence in a hobbyist magazine lacks any merit, period.

That a body as influential as the IPCC and supposedly responsible to the nations of the world would stoop to using unreviewed anecdotal evidence to promote it's agenda....while decrying the lack of "peer reviewers" for anti-AGW papers, while it controls who the reviewers are, is a complete corruption of the scientific method.

BTW, why does the IPCC have a pro-global warming agenda, anyway? Would not the world be best served by a panel that seeks the truth rather than promote a cause?

A world tax to the UN
 
A world tax to the UN

Well, that's their goal, the imposition of a 100% tax on everyone who isn't their buddy. We all know this.

The question is why do so many nations (all of them) tolerate the arrogance of these people when their goals are so obviously damaging in both the short and long runs?
 
Remember the forged lynx reports? Where the EPA was caught planting lynx hair in places lacking lynxes to expand their map of the lynx territory and hence their control over those formerly lynx-less lands?

(Reported in Washington Times, 17 Dec 2002.)

Is there a link to the original report, or are there only "reports" of the report?
 
The influences I've made? Do you perhaps mean inferences?

Yes, I meant inferences, which is why I said inferences.

If you do, you've already stated that you understand my explanation, and to understand is hardly a far cry from agreeing with.

I understand and agree with your explanation of the greenhouse effect. However, I disagree with the inferences you have made based upon that explanation. If you would like to provide some evidence to support those inferences then I welcome it.

Already, you agree with my logic in this situation. Therefore, as pointed out in my logic previously, this is in fact taking place, rate and casuality chain aside. It is merely a matter of time before the data becomes clear.

So, you admit the data is not clear at this time?
 
Remember the forged lynx reports? Where the EPA was caught planting lynx hair in places lacking lynxes to expand their map of the lynx territory and hence their control over those formerly lynx-less lands?

(Reported in Washington Times, 17 Dec 2002.)

Next to the DOE who wastes millions they are the most crooked office in the government........
 
Is there a link to the original report, or are there only "reports" of the report?

I was even nice enough to provide a date and a source.

Some people are never satisfied.

I think they want to live the swell life of the paraplegic, I really do.
 
Is there a link to the original report, or are there only "reports" of the report?

No link on the report but there is this:

AmeriScan: January 22, 2002

The USFS and other experts have now determined that the biologists did not plant lynx hairs in the field, but did send samples that were not collected in the field to a laboratory.

According to the USFS, the control samples were submitted to test the accuracy of the lab. A number of biologists familiar with the survey had expressed concern that the lab was not set up to handle hundreds of hair samples without contamination, making errors and false positives possible.

The biologists did not try to hide the fact that they had submitted control samples. In each situation, the scientists noted in their station or field notes that so called "blind control samples" had been sent to the labs

Just another case of non-scientists screaming foul over nothing but their ignorance to simple scientific "tricks" such as a blind control.
 
No link on the report but there is this:

AmeriScan: January 22, 2002



Just another case of non-scientists screaming foul over nothing but their ignorance to simple scientific "tricks" such as a blind control.

Oh, is that the spin the lefties put on the issue, 11 months before the fraud was uncovered?

Oh, gee, your article is dated January 2002.

I stated the incident I'm referring to was reported December 2002.

So explain how the con-men made up the excuse before they were caught with their hands in the cookie jar?

Right.

You're referring to something else.

but keep searching.

I bet you believe that Forestry people don't burn their love letters to cause major forest fires, either, right?

Then again, since the EPA WAS counting the magical lynx hairs as real lynxes, the argument that it was part of a blind control doesn't fly very well.

And, naturally, I have a bachelor's in science, have studied the history of science extensively, and know full well the frauds so-called scientists are willing to perpetuate to promote their causes, power, and purse.

Not only that, I'm fully cognizant of the fact that many people disagreeing with me have to whip out their Acme Strawman Replicator because that's the only way they can feel that they've won something.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom