• 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
Goobieman said:
And, the fact that you ignore anything that runs contrary to your opinion speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

You have provided no proof of your claims, only your opinion. If you have some evidence to back up your opinion, please post it, so we might review it.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
What I posted from the Science Magazine was a report written by the actual authors themselves rather than a story about the author's findings. You might also try contacting Barnett himself via the email address listed there for further information about their methods used in the 2005 report.
Click to expand...
You mean this?

From this link:
Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans
Tim P. Barnett,* David W. Pierce, Reiner Schnur
Large-scale increases in the heat content of the world's oceans have been observed to occur over the last 45 years. The horizontal and temporal character of these changes has been closely replicated by the state-of-the-art Parallel Climate Model (PCM) forced by observed and estimated anthropogenic gases. Application of optimal detection methodology shows that the model-produced signals are indistinguishable from the observations at the 0.05 confidence level. Further, the chances of either the anthropogenic or observed signals being produced by the PCM as a result of natural, internal forcing alone are less than 5%. This suggests that the observed ocean heat-content changes are consistent with those expected from anthropogenic forcing, which broadens the basis for claims that an anthropogenic signal has been detected in the global climate system. Additionally, the requirement that modeled ocean heat uptakes match observations puts a strong, new constraint on anthropogenically forced climate models. It is unknown if the current generation of climate models, other than the PCM, meet this constraint.
Climate Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California
Click to expand...
I can't read the whole thing, even via the Read the Full Text link, because said link requires a userid/passwd. I could sign up, but I don't want to atm. Maybe later.

Further there is another issue that I have. In many cases, I see references to a "model" of some sort. In this case, the "state-of-the-art Parallel Climate Model (PCM)".
Link to that by the way: Parallel Climate Model

As I am far from understanding the math and physics involved in those models, another potential point of validity failure appears to me.

If enough pressure (as in, peer/political/supervisor/monetary) is placed upon scientists doing this modeling, what is to stop them from tweaking the model to cause an outcome that is in line with what they wish?
And since few outside the science involved understand the math and physics involved (the physics itself being a theory as well, and thus subject to being disproved, although unlikely), it seems possible that no one would call them on it.

Which, according to some, is what happened.
 
Catawba said:
The consensus is among 180 countries around the world. I fail to see how they would have colluded to try to scam, or why. It would be the biggest conspiracy in the history of the planet. It does not seem logical to me.
Click to expand...
It does seem unlikely that 180 separate countries would plan a campaign to convince the entire world of something.
But it's not 180 countries, it's a small portion of the population of each country, notably those who support the ACC theory.

Still, it would seem unlikely.

It might be that collections of politicians in each country signed onto the theory because it would allow them to promote their political views with an added "we all gonna die if ya don't do this".

It might be that they are all correct, and all the change they predict will happen.

The key point for me, is that I don't know. Of course, that's the case with everything.

Catawba said:
If we are going to err, I prefer it to be in a direction that does not risk future life on the planet as we know it.
Click to expand...
But as I understand it, BOTH routes (or general pathways) proposed MIGHT cause what you don't want to risk.

Bla.
 
The Mark said:
You mean this?
Click to expand...

Yes.

From this link:I can't read the whole thing, even via the Read the Full Text link, because said link requires a userid/passwd. I could sign up, but I don't want to atm. Maybe later.
Click to expand...
Further there is another issue that I have. In many cases, I see references to a "model" of some sort. In this case, the "state-of-the-art Parallel Climate Model (PCM)".
Link to that by the way: Parallel Climate Model

As I am far from understanding the math and physics involved in those models, another potential point of validity failure appears to me.

If enough pressure (as in, peer/political/supervisor/monetary) is placed upon scientists doing this modeling, what is to stop them from tweaking the model to cause an outcome that is in line with what they wish?
And since few outside the science involved understand the math and physics involved (the physics itself being a theory as well, and thus subject to being disproved, although unlikely), it seems possible that no one would call them on it.

Which, according to some, is what happened.
Click to expand...

All the evidence based on real world observations and analysis I have seen points to the opposite conclusion, that the models have been too conservative, and GW is happening more quickly than predicted by the models, as I tried to show here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/66084-global-warming-myth-42.html#post1058566336
 
Catawba said:
Yes.
Click to expand...
Excellent.
Catawba said:
All the evidence based on real world observations and analysis I have seen points to the opposite conclusion, that the models have been too conservative, and GW is happening more quickly than predicted by the models, as I tried to show here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/66084-global-warming-myth-42.html#post1058566336
Click to expand...
Yes, I read a little bit of those links.

What some have contended, or likely will contend if they haven't yet, is that, as more negative info (as in, proving the "untruth" of the ACC theory) shows up each month or so, the ACC supporters are attempting to force the issue by predicting that the threat is greater or closer than ever thought.

Again, I just don't know.

But, unlike you, I tend to err on the other side.
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
Excellent.
Yes, I read a little bit of those links.

What some have contended, or likely will contend if they haven't yet, is that, as more negative info (as in, proving the "untruth" of the ACC theory) shows up each month or so, the ACC supporters are attempting to force the issue by predicting that the threat is greater or closer than ever thought.

Again, I just don't know.

But, unlike you, I tend to err on the other side.
Click to expand...

I think as time passes, the real world evidence will be more and more apparent to all. My only concern is that we will have waited too long to be able to lower our contribution of greenhouse gasses so that we no longer have the capability to stop it due to the biofeedback loop.

The good news is we won't have long to wait to find out who was right and who was wrong. The bad news is if the scientists are right, and we have not acted in time, all other concerns become moot and so will much of the life on the planet, before the earth can self correct by ridding itself of the source of extra pollution, mankind.

I don't see that kind of risk on the side of simply lowering our CO2 levels.
 
Catawba said:
I think as time passes, the real world evidence will be more and more apparent to all. My only concern is that we will have waited too long to be able to lower our contribution of greenhouse gasses so that we no longer have the capability to stop it due to the biofeedback loop.

The good news is we won't have long to wait to find out who was right and who was wrong. The bad news is if the scientists are right, and we have not acted in time, all other concerns become moot and so will much of the life on the planet, before the earth can self correct by ridding itself of the source of extra pollution, mankind.

I don't see that kind of risk on the side of simply lowering our CO2 levels.
Click to expand...

The real evidence is there is climate change has been since the beginning and man is NOT the reason.
 
ptif219 said:
The real evidence is there is climate change has been since the beginning and man is NOT the reason.
Click to expand...

They only occurred then due to natural events such as big volcano, eruptions or maximum solar activity. Scientists have already ruled out those possibilities because there have been no significant volcano or solar activity during this warming period.

That is the difference.

Tell me something, what makes you so sure of your claim of a world conspiracy, that you are willing to risk future life on the planet as we know it?
 
Catawba said:
They only occurred then due to natural events such as big volcano, eruptions or maximum solar activity. Scientists have already ruled out those possibilities because there have been no significant volcano or solar activity during this warming period.

That is the difference.

Tell me something, what makes you so sure of your claim of a world conspiracy, that you are willing to risk future life on the planet as we know it?
Click to expand...

Care to address 1000 to 1400
 
ptif219 said:
Care to address 1000 to 1400
Click to expand...

I will, but answer my previous question first please:

"What makes you so sure of your claim of a world conspiracy, that you are willing to risk future life on the planet as we know it?
 
Catawba said:
I think as time passes, the real world evidence will be more and more apparent to all.
Click to expand...

No.

New religions are incredibly hard to snuff out. So the AGW Freaker Outers will be with us a long long time.

Catawba said:
The good news is we won't have long to wait to find out who was right and who was wrong.
Click to expand...

Don't have to wait at all. The news is already in, and your side, the Dark Side, the Dishonest Side, the Corrupt Side, failed to keep it's con hidden.

Catawba said:
The bad news is if the scientists are right,
Click to expand...

The scientists are right.

The scientists are the people who've been skeptical of all this pointless hysteria.

The con-men promoting your views aren't scientists. They lost that title when they began to lie and hide data.

Catawba said:
and we have not acted in time, all other concerns become moot and so will much of the life on the planet, before the earth can self correct by ridding itself of the source of extra pollution, mankind.
Click to expand...

OHMYGOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ITSSS DIP!

Sigh. Jessica Rabbit does that so much better than I can.
 
Catawba said:
Tell me something, what makes you so sure of your claim of a world conspiracy, that you are willing to risk future life on the planet as we know it?
Click to expand...

Because the Malthusians have been predicting Doomsday since Malthus (funny how that works, isn't it?). And they've not only never been right, what usually happens is the opposite of what they predict.

The Earth is a big planet. All grown up. It can take care of itself. Have faith in your Mother.
 
Catawba said:
I will, but answer my previous question first please:

"What makes you so sure of your claim of a world conspiracy, that you are willing to risk future life on the planet as we know it?
Click to expand...

Because the sun is the source and GW promoters seldom take into consideration the changes in the sun or the earth axis ETC..


Man has little to do with climate change. It is much more than volcanoes.
 
ptif219 said:
Because the sun is the source and GW promoters seldom take into consideration the changes in the sun or the earth axis ETC..

Man has little to do with climate change. It is much more than volcanoes.
Click to expand...

I said earlier that volcanoes and solar activity could be a factor, but the scientists have noted volcano and solar activity to be at minimum during this warming period, but let's see your documentation that says it was changes in the sun that are causing this warming period.

I'm willing to take a look at new evidence.
 
Catawba said:
I said earlier that volcanoes and solar activity could be a factor, but the scientists have noted volcano and solar activity to be at minimum during this warming period, but let's see your documentation that says it was changes in the sun that are causing this warming period.

I'm willing to take a look at new evidence.
Click to expand...

What warming?
Climategate Scientist Admits There's Been No Global Warming Since 1995

Using the term loosely, the scientist at the center of the Climategate email scandal, Phil Jones, conceded in an interview with the BBC that there has been no statistically significant data in the past 15 years
 
Navy Pride said:
We are having record cold temperatures and snowfall in history across the United States so the question begs to be asked...
Click to expand...

Hey genius. Do you know what the word "global" means? :screwy

Last year was second warmest global high temp in a decade.

What is it with you people? Flunk grade school science or never took a science class? :roll:

The lower 48 states account for a very small percentage of the earth's surface and a bend in the jet stream sends polar air screaming south creating snow out of what would normally be rain, and you f'ing genius's scream foul on global warming. For God's sake do some reading on meteorology so you don't look so f'ing stupid.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Hey genius. Do you know what the word "global" means? :screwy

Last year was second warmest global high temp in a decade.

What is it with you people? Flunk grade school science or never took a science class? :roll:

The lower 48 states account for a very small percentage of the earth's surface and a bend in the jet stream sends polar air screaming south creating snow out of what would normally be rain, and you f'ing genius's scream foul on global warming. For God's sake do some reading on meteorology so you don't look so f'ing stupid.
Click to expand...

Funny thats not what Jones says.

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: The great climate change retreat

THERE has been no global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted yesterday in a major U-turn.

Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.
 
I'd sooner believe this ...
The Global Warming Overview - Global Warming Statistics
Than this "global warming myths", or anything from this site(s).
We must remember that it takes a certain intellectual level to accept these things. The smart ones realize this and accept the data from the scientists . I guess the not-so-smart ones prefer Rush and Glen.
 
ptif219 said:
Funny thats not what Jones says.

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: The great climate change retreat

THERE has been no global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted yesterday in a major U-turn.

Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.
Click to expand...

The author of your article is misrepresenting what Jones actually said.
Here from an interview with Jones, anyone can see that he is not denying the science behind GW is valid:

"The climate expert at the centre of a media storm over the release of emails onto the internet has admitted that he did not follow correct procedures over a key scientific paper.

In an interview with the science journal Nature, Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University East Anglia, admitted it was "not acceptable" that records underpinning a 1990 global warming study have been lost.

The missing records make it impossible to verify claims that rural weather stations in developing China were not significantly moved, as it states in the 1990 paper, which was published in Nature. "It's not acceptable ... [it's] not best practice," Jones said.

He acknowledged that the stations "probably did move" but insisted he did not know this when he wrote the 1990 paper.

"I thought it was the right way to get the data. I was specifically trying to get more rural station data that wasn't routinely available in real time from [meteorological] services."

He said he would consider submitting a correction to the journal. "I will give that some thought. It's worthy of consideration."

But he said that "the science still holds up". A subsequent study confirmed the original conclusion - that the global warming trend was not significantly affected by urbanisation - and showed that the precise location of the weather stations was not important.

Jones said critics were "trying to pick out minor things in the data and blow them out of all proportion".

He said: "I don't think we should be taking much notice of what's on blogs because they seem to be hijacking the peer-review process."
Hacked climate emails: Phil Jones admits loss of weather data was 'not acceptable' | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Now back your claim that increased sun activity caused this global warming, I'm still waiting for your evidence to back it up.
 
Catawba said:
The author of your article is misrepresenting what Jones actually said.
Here from an interview with Jones, anyone can see that he is not denying the science behind GW is valid:

"The climate expert at the centre of a media storm over the release of emails onto the internet has admitted that he did not follow correct procedures over a key scientific paper.

In an interview with the science journal Nature, Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University East Anglia, admitted it was "not acceptable" that records underpinning a 1990 global warming study have been lost.

The missing records make it impossible to verify claims that rural weather stations in developing China were not significantly moved, as it states in the 1990 paper, which was published in Nature. "It's not acceptable ... [it's] not best practice," Jones said.

He acknowledged that the stations "probably did move" but insisted he did not know this when he wrote the 1990 paper.

"I thought it was the right way to get the data. I was specifically trying to get more rural station data that wasn't routinely available in real time from [meteorological] services."

He said he would consider submitting a correction to the journal. "I will give that some thought. It's worthy of consideration."

But he said that "the science still holds up". A subsequent study confirmed the original conclusion - that the global warming trend was not significantly affected by urbanisation - and showed that the precise location of the weather stations was not important.

Jones said critics were "trying to pick out minor things in the data and blow them out of all proportion".

He said: "I don't think we should be taking much notice of what's on blogs because they seem to be hijacking the peer-review process."
Hacked climate emails: Phil Jones admits loss of weather data was 'not acceptable' | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Now back your claim that increased sun activity caused this global warming, I'm still waiting for your evidence to back it up.
Click to expand...

Two different interviews your is an interview with the science journal Nature,


Mine was an interview with the BBC.

For you to say that is not what he said is a deception on your part.
 
ptif219 said:
Two different interviews your is an interview with the science journal Nature,


Mine was an interview with the BBC.

For you to say that is not what he said is a deception on your part.
Click to expand...

I call BS! You linked to a right wing blog with an admitted bias:

"The Daily Express has led the way in exposing flaws in the arguments supporting global warming."

It was not an interview. It was a misrepresentation of the actual interview I linked. Its the kind of blog Jones said to avoid in the interview I linked:

"I don't think we should be taking much notice of what's on blogs because they seem to be hijacking the peer-review process."

No where in your biased article does it mention it was an interview. If I am wrong, quote where it says that it is!

And I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that increased solar activity is causing global warming!
 
Ice caps are melting and polar bears are dying. I will keep repeating this til people understand this fact!

It is NOT some frigging normal cycle the Earth takes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom