• 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
Yet Jones says no significant rise since 1995

That may be what the right wing blogs purport but I'm more interested in scientific confirmation by organizations like NASA that was the warmest decade on record.

Are you actually saying you deny the earth is warming?
 
Last edited:
LOL! Let's see do I believe NASA or a youtube video? Yeah, that's a hard one but I think I will go with NASA. :rofl

NASA is a government organization, it is subject to bias and can be flawed. The IPCC is flawed, and NASA could be too. The government wants there to be AGW, they pay the scientists to support their opinions, not to come up with the truth or facts. What about the phds and other studies that point to AGW being false?
 
That may be what the right wing blogs purport but I'm more interested in scientific confirmation by organizations like NASA that was the warmest decade on record.

Are you actually saying you deny the earth is warming?

It's been cooling for the last decade.

Funny, isn't it, that NASA Goddard won't release the raw data as required by a FOIA request?

Just like Hadley CRU.

Must be a coincidence. After all, Hadley CRU was discovered to be falsifying science. NASA would never do that, right?
 
That may be what the right wing blogs purport but I'm more interested in scientific confirmation by organizations like NASA that was the warmest decade on record.

Are you actually saying you deny the earth is warming?

The same NASA that has been caught lying
 
NASA is a government organization, it is subject to bias and can be flawed. The IPCC is flawed, and NASA could be too. The government wants there to be AGW, they pay the scientists to support their opinions, not to come up with the truth or facts. What about the phds and other studies that point to AGW being false?

Let me see if I have your position correct, you think that every major scientific organization throughout the world has, for decades, been in on a world wide conspiracy for profit and power?
 
Let me see if I have your position correct, you think that every major scientific organization throughout the world has, for decades, been in on a world wide conspiracy for profit and power?

Honestly I do believe that. I don't trust those organizations, and when I see them manipulating data, pushing for policy, acting arrogant, and trying to silence any other scientific opinion only strengthens my belief that they are corrupt and in it for money. Do you think the government wants truth or wants AGW? Obama plans on cutting funding to NASA space programs, but increasing funding to the global warming department. Do you think that if NASA came to the conclusion that AGW is false and warming/cooling is 100% natural that the government would believe it and be satisfied with it?
 
It's been cooling for the last decade.

Funny, isn't it, that NASA Goddard won't release the raw data as required by a FOIA request?

Just like Hadley CRU.

Must be a coincidence. After all, Hadley CRU was discovered to be falsifying science. NASA would never do that, right?


Hadley centre and the CRU are separate sections of different organisations, as I have pointed out before. Please inform your soundbite supplier in order to not look even more foolish by repeating this error yet again. :rofl
 
Honestly I do believe that. I don't trust those organizations, and when I see them manipulating data, pushing for policy, acting arrogant, and trying to silence any other scientific opinion only strengthens my belief that they are corrupt and in it for money. Do you think the government wants truth or wants AGW? Obama plans on cutting funding to NASA space programs, but increasing funding to the global warming department. Do you think that if NASA came to the conclusion that AGW is false and warming/cooling is 100% natural that the government would believe it and be satisfied with it?

if you think the whole world is conspiring against you there is nothing I can do for you son.
 
if you think the whole world is conspiring against you there is nothing I can do for you son.

I don't think the whole world is, as wee see many in the world discovering the true nature of climate science and some of the falsehoods in it. The scientific community is corrupt like politicians are. Governments fund organizations that give them the answers they want. It would be different if skeptics and AGW disbelievers were allowed to have an opinion or received funding, but sadly they are made fun of in an arrogant way and dismissed as being against the "overwhelming consensus."
 
LOL! Let's see do I believe NASA or a youtube video? Yeah, that's a hard one but I think I will go with NASA. :rofl


This Nasa?


Australiagate: Now NASA caught in trick over Aussie climate data | CLIMATEGATE


In this article we look at the findings of two independent climate researchers who analyse climatic data used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to show warming of two degrees per century for Australia without explanation. We find that an earlier study by Willis Eschenbach in an article on What’s up with That (WUWT) is wholly substantiated by Kens Kingdom’slatest analysis of Ken Stewart at his ‘kenskingdom’ blog. As a consequence, absent any other justification from NASA, we must conclude that the NASA data has been fraudulently cooked.


Classical Values :: NASA Caught Cooking The Books

Climate researchers have discovered that NASA researchers improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." KUSI-TV meteorologist, Weather Channel founder, and iconic weatherman John Coleman will present these findings in a one-hour special airing on KUSI-TV on Jan.14 at 9 p.m. A related report will be made available on the Internet at 6 p.m. EST on January 14th at KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA.

In a new report, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Ashville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D'Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations. The report is available online at Icecap US [pdf]

The report reveals that there were no actual temperatures left in the computer database when NASA/NCDC proclaimed 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." The NCDC deleted actual temperatures at thousands of locations throughout the world as it changed to a system of global grid points, each of which is determined by averaging the temperatures of two or more adjacent weather observation stations. So the NCDC grid map contains only averaged, not real temperatures, giving rise to significant doubt that the result is a valid representation of Earth temperatures.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/


A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
Read more from Christopher Booker
This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.
So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
EU facing revolt over climate change target enforcement
EU plans new energy deals
Himalayan glaciers 'could disappear completely by 2035'
The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.
A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.
 
I don't think the whole world is, as wee see many in the world discovering the true nature of climate science and some of the falsehoods in it. The scientific community is corrupt like politicians are. Governments fund organizations that give them the answers they want. It would be different if skeptics and AGW disbelievers were allowed to have an opinion or received funding, but sadly they are made fun of in an arrogant way and dismissed as being against the "overwhelming consensus."

There are indeed those prepared to believe that all the world's governments and scientific organizations are in a world wide conspiracy based on some right wing blogs.

For them I would suggest a religion to provide a false sense of security.
A big teat in the sky that will make everything alright no matter how stupid and wasteful humans are.
 
There are indeed those prepared to believe that all the world's governments and scientific organizations are in a world wide conspiracy based on some right wing blogs.

For them I would suggest a religion to provide a false sense of security.
A big teat in the sky that will make everything alright no matter how stupid and wasteful humans are.

My opinion isn't based on a few right wing blogs, but on the scientific evidence against AGW and the facts emerging about these government organizations.
 
There are indeed those prepared to believe that all the world's governments and scientific organizations are in a world wide conspiracy based on some right wing blogs.

What about "Climategate"? Is that some kind of paranoid fantasy?

Climate Emails Stoke Debate - WSJ.com

Gotta love some of those awesome quotes that were released. They are still trying to find a way to spin them into something they are not. I particularly love these:

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." Phil Jones

"And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind" Phil Jones

""Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise…Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address." Phil Jones

"I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal." Michael Mann, PSU

And it goes on and on, but the above should show that these scientists were not as honest as they tried to claim they were.
 
There are indeed those prepared to believe that all the world's governments and scientific organizations are in a world wide conspiracy based on some right wing blogs.

And there those who drink any brand of kool-aid, especially the watermelon kool-aid that's green on the outside and pinko on the inside.

Explain the global cooling over the last decade.

Don't say it isn't happening, explain the observed event using AGW.
 
My opinion isn't based on a few right wing blogs, but on the scientific evidence against AGW and the facts emerging about these government organizations.

What scientific evidence?
The scientific community is corrupt like politicians are.

The bloggers then?
 
Last edited:
What about "Climategate"? Is that some kind of paranoid fantasy?

What about it? Some hacked emails that puts a small amount of methodology by one organization into question, where no wrongdoing has been charged, does not disprove all the other scientific work done all over the world by the planets major scientific organizations.
 
Last edited:
If it were just a single year record it would not be significant. This is what makes this global warming period significant:

Past Decade Warmest on Record, NASA Data Shows

You're wasting your time. You can produce all the facts you want but these people will just say nanny nanny boo.

Don't be to hard on them though. The overpaid pundants they listen to are very good at convincing people with no scientific background.

GW is all a conspiracy perpetrated by Al Gore, that NASA and NOAA are in on don't you know? :wink2:
 
And there those who drink any brand of kool-aid, especially the watermelon kool-aid that's green on the outside and pinko on the inside.

Explain the global cooling over the last decade.

Don't say it isn't happening, explain the observed event using AGW.

Repeat after me. There has not been any global cooling in the last decade no matter how many times you tap your slippers together and wish it so. What is it with you people? :argue
 
Repeat after me. There has not been any global cooling in the last decade no matter how many times you tap your slippers together and wish it so. What is it with you people? :argue

But he has blogs and a youtube video that says that it has cooled! ;)
 
What about it? Some hacked emails that puts a small amount of methodology by one organization into question, where no wrongdoing has been charged, does not disprove all the other scientific work done all over the world by the planets major scientific organizations.

That "one organization" being the IPCC, among others, since there's several, not one involved.

don't forget to account for the IPCC's use of well reviewed climbing magazines as source material for it's Doomsday Himalaya Scenarios, too.
 
Explain the global cooling over the last decade.

Still sticking with the cooling theory huh?

Then how do you explain this?

"Preliminary mass balance values for the observation period 2007/08 have been reported now from more than 90 glaciers worldwide. The mass balance statistics (Table 1) are calculated based on all reported values as well as on the data from the 30 reference glaciers in 9 mountain ranges (Table 2) with continuous observation series back to 1980.

The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to decrease, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 0.5 metres water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological year 2007/08. The new data continues the global trend in strong ice loss over the past few decades and brings the cumulative average thickness loss of the reference glaciers since 1980 at about 12 m w.e. (see Figures 1 and 2). All so far reported mass balance values, given in Table 3, are tentative.

World Glacier Monitoring Service
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom