• 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
The IPCC leaves out any scientific evidence that would hurt their view on GW



FOXNews.com - New Climate Agency Head Tried to Suppress Data, Critics Charge

But Roger Pielke Sr., a climatologist affiliated with the University of Colorado who has crossed horns with Karl in the past, says his appointment was a mistake. He accused Karl of suppressing data he submitted for the IPCC's most recent report on climate change and having a very narrow view of its causes.

The IPCC is charged with reviewing scientific data on climate change and providing policy makers and others with an assessment of current knowledge.

Pielke said he agrees that global warming is happening and that man plays a significant role in it, but he said there are many factors in addition to the release of carbon into the atmosphere that need to be studied to fully understand the phenomenon. He said he resigned from the IPCC in August 2005 because his data, and the work of numerous other scientists, were not included in its most recent report.

In his resignation letter, Pielke wrote that he had completed the assessment of current knowledge for his chapter of the report, when Karl abruptly took control of the final draft. He said the chapter he had nearly completed was then rewritten with a too-narrow focus.

One of the key areas of dispute, he said, was in describing "recent regional trends in surface and tropospheric temperatures," and the impact of land use on temperatures. It is the interpretation of this data on which the intellectual basis of the idea of global warming hangs.

In an interview, Pielke reiterated that Karl "has actively opposed views different from his own." And on his Web site last week, he said Karl's appointment "assures that policy makers will continue to receive an inappropriately narrow view of our actual knowledge with respect to climate science."

He said the people who run the agencies in charge of climate monitoring are too narrowly focused, and he worries that the creation of the new office "would give the same small group of people the chance to speak on the issue and exclude others" whose views might diverge from theirs.

Responding to the criticism, Karl told the Washington Post, "the literature doesn't show [Pielke's] ideas about the importance of land use are correct."

Calls to The Commerce Department and to Karl's office went unanswered.

The IPCC in recent weeks has come under severe criticism after e-mails, hacked from a prestigious climate center, revealed some of the political infighting that occurred as its assessments were being put together and called into question its impartiality.
 
You realize that you cited FoxNews?

Your source is unacceptable, as it is fox news.

Obviously.

Up yours prove it wrong. Fox news is more trustworthy than CNN or NBC or CBS or ABC or MSNBC or THE NYT should I go on.
 
I was aware the world was warming.

This is a good thing, for some areas, and a negative thing for others.

Humans will adapt, or die.

Such is the natural progression of things.

I still have not seen enough proof to convince me that it is AGW.

Just GW.

As you can see in this thread, many think we are in a cooling period. (They'll be back around shortly)

Your statement that humans will adapt or die, is only a natural progression when it is caused by natural sources. The preponderance of scientific evidence points to human contribution of C02.

Nevertheless, I found a way you can reasonably analyze for yourself the various possible causes of global warming which you agree is happening:


"This is a brief note on how to evaluate the causes of global warming, without the assistance of super-computers running advanced three-dimensional geophysical models of atmospheric and oceanic dynamics. The latter style of modeling has provoked quite a substantial controversy around the world, as it is based on methods that are nearly impossible for ordinary citizens to use and evaluate.

Instead of joining this rhetorical debate, my goal in this essay is to show a simple way to evaluate the major hypothetical causes of global warming, such as solar sunspot activity and greenhouse gases produced by the use of fossil fuels (coal, petroleum, and natural gas)."

The Quaker Economist #158 - Global Warming: A Graphical Approach

Temp&FossilFuelRev.png
 
Up yours prove it wrong. Fox news is more trustworthy than CNN or NBC or CBS or ABC or MSNBC or THE NYT should I go on.
That was sarcasm...

Or is this sarcasm too?

AUGGG my head!!!
 
As you can see in this thread, many think we are in a cooling period. (They'll be back around shortly)

Your statement that humans will adapt or die, is only a natural progression when it is caused by natural sources. The preponderance of scientific evidence points to human contribution of C02.

Nevertheless, I found a way you can reasonably analyze for yourself the various possible causes of global warming which you agree is happening:


"This is a brief note on how to evaluate the causes of global warming, without the assistance of super-computers running advanced three-dimensional geophysical models of atmospheric and oceanic dynamics. The latter style of modeling has provoked quite a substantial controversy around the world, as it is based on methods that are nearly impossible for ordinary citizens to use and evaluate.

Instead of joining this rhetorical debate, my goal in this essay is to show a simple way to evaluate the major hypothetical causes of global warming, such as solar sunspot activity and greenhouse gases produced by the use of fossil fuels (coal, petroleum, and natural gas)."

The Quaker Economist #158 - Global Warming: A Graphical Approach

Temp&FossilFuelRev.png

Read my link the IPCC is corrupt and unbelievable. Thay have no credibility.
 
Read my link the IPCC is corrupt and unbelievable. Thay have no credibility.

Than don't use their data if you do not believe them. Virtually every scientific organization with national or international standing has confirmed the general findings of the IPCC, that we are in an accelerated warming period due to man's contribution of CO2.
 
Than don't use their data if you do not believe them. Virtually every scientific organization with national or international standing has confirmed the general findings of the IPCC, that we are in an accelerated warming period due to man's contribution of CO2.

They support the lies and corruption of the IPCC.

Notice in the article this came from a former IPCC scientist whose report was thrown out.

As I said if the report does not support their lies it is thrown out.
 
They support the lies and corruption of the IPCC.

Notice in the article this came from a former IPCC scientist whose report was thrown out.

As I said if the report does not support their lies it is thrown out.


World conspiracy theory is on aisle #9.
 
Up yours prove it wrong. Fox news is more trustworthy than CNN or NBC or CBS or ABC or MSNBC or THE NYT should I go on.

So when are they launching fox international? Since its the most trustworthy?
 
In technical terms, no. The Earth's climate has changed throughout its history. We will always have global warming and cooling. Get used to it.

As far as a serious danger from man-made CO2 is concerned, it is a myth. Sure, there has been an increase in recent years, but my worry is politicians' overreaction to it and the resulting catastrophic economic consequences.

I'll bet Al Gore, Obama and all the rest never learned that during the Pensylvanian time frame, CO2 was much higher than it is today. This helped the lush plants grow better (it's where our coal came from). And ALSO, get this--oxygen was also much more abundant in the atmosphere.

More CO2 -- More trees -- More oxygen.

Not so bad after all, is it.
 
350,000,000 Live down river of the Ganges.
The Gangroti Glacier that is it's source, is Melting an an Increasing rate.
What will happen in 20 years when it slows to a trickle and 30 when it dies?

Or similary, in 20 years, when Glacier National Park, has NO Glaciers. (!)

Retreat of the Gangotri Glacier : Image of the Day

And once again, how does this prove that man is causing it?

Portage Glacier in Alaska was first sighted by Captain Cook in the 1700's, when it entered the Turnagain Arm off of the Kenai Peninsula. When it was "rediscovered" in the mid 1800's, it had retreated several miles inland, and had created Portage Lake. It is now even further inland.

Look, nobody is seriously disputing that Global Warming exists, we only question the cause.
 
Look, nobody is seriously disputing that Global Warming exists, we only question the cause.
We also all know that the left's reaction to the 'cause' has nothing to do with the environment.
 
HellOOO?

The Ice Age ended.

Actually, it has not ended yet.

There is ample geologic proof that polar ice caps are an abberation, and that during the height of an interstatial, there are no ice caps at all. Therefore, the very existance of such caps is proof that the Ice Age is not over yet.

We are talking about cycles that take place over hundreds of thousands of years.
 
Lets have an investigation since our tax dollars help pay for it.


http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climat...al-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive/

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate Files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.

“In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.

Just prior to a hearing at 10:00 a.m. EST, Senator Inhofe released a minority staff report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which he is ranking member. Senator Inhofe is asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether there has been research misconduct or criminal actions by the scientists involved, including Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Science.

This report, obtained exclusively by Pajamas Media before today’s hearing, alleges:

[The] Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works believe the scientists involved may have violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, federal laws. In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC -backed “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.

As has been reported here at Pajamas Media over the last several months, the exposure of the Climategate Files has led to a re-examination of the IPCC Assessment Reports, especially the fourth report (AR4), published in 2007. The IPCC AR4 report was named by Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson as one of the major sources of scientific support for the agency’s Endangerment Finding, the first step towards allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Since the Climategate Files were released, the IPCC has been forced to retract a number of specific conclusions — such as a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — and has been forced to confirm that the report was based in large part on reports from environmental activist groups instead of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Dr. Murari Lal, an editor of the IPCC AR4 report, admitted to the London Daily Mail that he had known the 2035 date was false, but was included in the report anyway “purely to put political pressure on world leaders.”
 
I dont know what you mean because I have no idea what you think.
 
Back
Top Bottom