• 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
Published on Friday, March 5, 2010 by the Herald Scotland
Fresh Evidence Global Warming Is Man-Made

"The new research involved drawing together evidence from more than 100 climate change studies, many of which were conducted since the last major IPCC report in 2007.

It showed that, on a global scale, predictions made about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions match actual trends seen over the past 50 years.

Since 1980, average global temperature has increased by about 0.5˚C. Currently, the Earth is getting warmer at the rate of about 0.16˚C per decade.

The study found natural forces such as volcanic eruptions and cyclical changes in the brightness of the Sun could not explain what was happening to the world's climate, said Dr Stott.

For example, solar heating would have warmed both upper and lower layers of the atmosphere, the stratosphere and troposphere. However, what was seen was that while the stratosphere had cooled, the troposphere had warmed.

Asked if the new research would help silence those who question man-made climate change, Dr Stott said: "I just hope people will make up their minds informed by the scientific evidence."
 
Published on Friday, March 5, 2010 by the Herald Scotland
Fresh Evidence Global Warming Is Man-Made

"The new research involved drawing together evidence from more than 100 climate change studies, many of which were conducted since the last major IPCC report in 2007.

It showed that, on a global scale, predictions made about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions match actual trends seen over the past 50 years.

Since 1980, average global temperature has increased by about 0.5˚C. Currently, the Earth is getting warmer at the rate of about 0.16˚C per decade.

The study found natural forces such as volcanic eruptions and cyclical changes in the brightness of the Sun could not explain what was happening to the world's climate, said Dr Stott.

For example, solar heating would have warmed both upper and lower layers of the atmosphere, the stratosphere and troposphere. However, what was seen was that while the stratosphere had cooled, the troposphere had warmed.

Asked if the new research would help silence those who question man-made climate change, Dr Stott said: "I just hope people will make up their minds informed by the scientific evidence."

That does nothing to address the corruption. It also does not address why they refuse to release information under the freedom of information act.
 
How can you deny global warming when their are pictures? :mrgreen:

globeonfire.jpg
 
Published on Friday, March 5, 2010 by the Herald Scotland
Fresh Evidence Global Warming Is Man-Made

"The new research involved drawing together evidence from more than 100 climate change studies, many of which were conducted since the last major IPCC report in 2007.

It showed that, on a global scale, predictions made about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions match actual trends seen over the past 50 years.


Oh? When did AGW predict that the first decade of the third millenium would undergo global cooling to the point where the con-men at the IPCC were forced to rename their con "global climate change"?

Oh.

That wasn't in the theory.

Because the theory is still bunk.

You people really have to stop lying to yourselves in the hopes of convincing the sane people that you're not really one of these

Seriously.

The planet is COOLING. "Cooling" is the term used to describe the opposite of "warming". Warming means the planet is getting hotter. So that means "cooling" means the planet is getting less hot. You have to address the reality of global cooling, unless you want to be known as Future Ice Age Deniers.
 
Hmmm....

01_12_2008_DvTempRank_pg.gif


Strange, for a decade that is supposed to be monotonically warming from previous years.....most of the country saw colder, sometimes much much colder temps in 2008.

Weird, isn't it? What the hell is NOAA doing here?
 
Hmmm....

01_12_2008_DvTempRank_pg.gif


Strange, for a decade that is supposed to be monotonically warming from previous years.....most of the country saw colder, sometimes much much colder temps in 2008.

Weird, isn't it? What the hell is NOAA doing here?


I realise this might be a difficult concept to grasp, but America is not the world.
 
In know this might be a difficult concept for you to grasp, but the world isn't getting warmer.

Thanks for your opinion!

"World Meteorological Organization and NOAA both report: 2000-2009 is the hottest decade on record.

2009 among 5 warmest years: "Only North America (United States and Canada) experienced conditions that were cooler than average."


World Meteorological Organization and NOAA both report: 2000-2009 is the hottest decade on record Climate Progress
 
Thanks for your opinion!

"World Meteorological Organization and NOAA both report: 2000-2009 is the hottest decade on record.


And that's true because?

Oh, it's because someone said so.


Meanwhile, the five hottest years on record all happened before 1950.

Weird warming pattern, there, when, after 70 years of warming, the 1930's show warmer years than now.
 
Earth's Climatic History

"Climatologists have used various techniques and evidence to reconstruct a history of the Earth's past climate. From this data, they have found that during most of the Earth's history global temperatures were probably 8 to 15 degrees Celsius warmer than today. In the last billion years of climatic history, warmer conditions were broken by glacial periods starting at 925, 800, 680, 450, 330, and 2 million years before present.

The period from 2,000,000 - 14,000 B.P. (before present) is known as the Pleistocene or Ice Age. During this period, large glacial ice sheets covered much of North America, Europe, and Asia for extended periods of time. The extent of the glacier ice during the Pleistocene was not static. The Pleistocene had periods when the glacier retreated (interglacial) because of warmer temperatures and advanced because of colder temperatures (glacial). During the coldest periods of the Ice Age, average global temperatures were probably 4 - 5 degrees Celsius colder than they are today.

The most recent glacial retreat is still going on. We call the temporal period of this retreat the Holocene epoch. This warming of the Earth and subsequent glacial retreat began about 14,000 years ago (12,000 BC). The warming was shortly interrupted by a sudden cooling, known as the Younger-Dryas, at about 10,000 - 8500 BC. Scientists speculate that this cooling may have been caused by the release of fresh water trapped behind ice on North America into the North Atlantic Ocean. The release altered vertical currents in the ocean which exchange heat energy with the atmosphere. The warming resumed by 8500 BC. By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. Climatologists call this period the Climatic Optimum. During the Climatic Optimum, many of the Earth's great ancient civilizations began and flourished. In Africa, the Nile River had three times its present volume, indicating a much larger tropical region.

From 3000 to 2000 BC a cooling trend occurred. This cooling caused large drops in sea level and the emergence of many islands (Bahamas) and coastal areas that are still above sea level today. A short warming trend took place from 2000 to 1500 BC, followed once again by colder conditions. Colder temperatures from 1500 - 750 BC caused renewed ice growth in continental glaciers and alpine glaciers, and a sea level drop of between 2 to 3 meters below present day levels.

The period from 750 BC - 800 AD saw warming up to 150 BC. Temperatures, however, did not get as warm as the Climatic Optimum. During the time of Roman Empire (150 BC - 300 AD) a cooling began that lasted until about 900 AD. At its height, the cooling caused the Nile River (829 AD) and the Black Sea (800-801 AD) to freeze.

The period 900 - 1200 AD has been called the Little Climatic Optimum. It represents the warmest climate since the Climatic Optimum. During this period, the Vikings established settlements on Greenland and Iceland. The snow line in the Rocky Mountains was about 370 meters above current levels. A period of cool and more extreme weather followed the Little Climatic Optimum. A great drought in the American southwest occurred between 1276 and 1299. There are records of floods, great droughts and extreme seasonal climate fluctuations up to the 1400s.

From 1550 to 1850 AD global temperatures were at their coldest since the beginning of the Holocene. Scientists call this period the Little Ice Age. During the Little Ice Age, the average annual temperature of the Northern Hemisphere was about 1.0 degree Celsius lower than today. During the period 1580 to 1600, the western United States experienced one of its longest and most severe droughts in the last 500 years. Cold weather in Iceland from 1753 and 1759 caused 25% of the population to die from crop failure and famine. Newspapers in New England were calling 1816 the year without a summer.

"The period 1850 to present is one of general warming. Figure 7x-1 describes the global temperature trends from 1880 to 2006. This graph shows the yearly temperature anomalies that have occurred from an average global temperature calculated for the period 1951-1980. The graph indicates that the anomolies for the first 60 years of the record were consistently negative. However, beginning in 1935 positive anomolies became more common, and from 1980 to 2006 most of the anomolies were between 0.20 to 0.63 degrees Celsius higher than the normal period (1951-1980) average."

In the 1930s and 1950s, the central United States experience two periods of extreme drought. In the seventeen year period from 1990 to 2006, ten of the warmest years in the last 100 years and possibly since the Little Climatic Optimum have occurred. Proxy and instrumental data indicate that 2005 was the warmest year globally in 1200 years of Earth history. Many scientists believe the warmer temperatures of the 20th and 21st centuries are being caused by the human enhancement of the Earth's greenhouse effect. "

PhysicalGeography.net
 
Auggg!!!

Wall of text!!!!

LOL! So you are prepared to figure out the whole climate change process on your own, as long as you don't have to read a few paragraphs?

That could very well explain why your research keeps coming up short.
 
The temperature readings from both, from what I know, of Russia and China are fundamentally flawed or simply made up.

Dr. Watts of "Watts up With That," also has an interesting peer-reviewed paper that talks about some of the hilarious places some temperature reading devices have been placed within America. Most famously, one was placed in the same vicinity as a waste incinerator.

Last month, additionally, Professor Phil Jones gave a candid interview. In that interview, Catawba, he disagress completely and catergorically with everything you've said. Interesting, because he was the main creator of the "hockey-stick" modle. I suggest you Google the interview and educate yourself. Because, frankly, as it is; your embarrassing everyone (like myself) who does believe in some form of Climate Change.
 
The temperature readings from both, from what I know, of Russia and China are fundamentally flawed or simply made up.

Dr. Watts of "Watts up With That," also has an interesting peer-reviewed paper that talks about some of the hilarious places some temperature reading devices have been placed within America. Most famously, one was placed in the same vicinity as a waste incinerator.

Last month, additionally, Professor Phil Jones gave a candid interview. In that interview, Catawba, he disagress completely and catergorically with everything you've said. Interesting, because he was the main creator of the "hockey-stick" modle. I suggest you Google the interview and educate yourself. Because, frankly, as it is; your embarrassing everyone (like myself) who does believe in some form of Climate Change.


I have read the interview, including the part you missed evidently:

March 2, 2010

"The committee held its only evidence session yesterday and interviewed witnesses including Phil Jones, the climate scientist at the centre of the media storm.

In a statement issued today the institute said its written submission to the committee "has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming."

It says: "That is not the case. The institute's position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing, and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change."

The institute said its critical comments were focused on the scientific process, and "should not be interpreted to mean that the institute believes that the science itself is flawed."
Institute of Physics forced to clarify submission to climate emails inquiry | Environment | guardian.co.uk
 

That's not the interview. :doh

You are so embarrassing. How could you get that confused with this? One's not an interview (your's). One is...

Mine is the right link. I'm not even sure what you thought I was talking about.

Everyone else, just ignore Catawba. I'm not sure he has any idea what he's talking about, and I'm not even completely sure he isn't merely acting the stereotypical "environmental nutjob idiot" motif in an attempt to discredit legitimate individuals who believe the science behind Climate Change.

Just to clear this up. Temperatures are in almost universal disagreement with the IPCC's idiotic papers. However, that doesn't change the fact that carbon is a greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases names' aren't coincidences. They cause a greenhouse effect. There is definitely evidence to support Climate Change, if not "AGW." Saying that current temperatures, or models, or anything else other than observable and replicable scientific hypothesis supports AGW is beyond idiotic. The legitimate evidence supports Climate Change, and a smattering of correlation between temperature and CO2. That is to say, everything that isn't in Al Gore's docudrama.
 
Last edited:
LOL! So you are prepared to figure out the whole climate change process on your own, as long as you don't have to read a few paragraphs?

That could very well explain why your research keeps coming up short.
Quite.

But, actually, I DID read it.

Which didn't prevent me in any way from complaining about the wall of text in a joking manner.
 
Last edited:
I realise this might be a difficult concept to grasp, but America is not the world.



Especially if you look at the world temps for the same period and they are the second warmest on record.

:rofl:rofl:rofl
 
What part of the word "Global" don't you understand? Are your kind really this thick headed? :roll:
WTH are you talking about?:confused:

Someone said, "America is not the world", which is obvious, as it's only a part of it, which I then pointed out, having nothing better to be doing...

Don't understand your response.

Edit: And what is "my kind"? Aren't you part of "my kind", as in "mankind"?
 
Last edited:
WTH are you talking about?:confused:

Someone said, "America is not the world", which is obvious, as it's only a part of it, which I then pointed out, having nothing better to be doing...

Don't understand your response.

Edit: And what is "my kind"? Aren't you part of "my kind", as in "mankind"?

Yes you are thick headed. :roll:
 
Yes you are thick headed. :roll:
If so, then I simply need more explanation/persuasion to understand your point. Simply repeating a statement does not make it any plainer to one who possesses the level of skull thickness that I do.
 
That's not the interview. :doh

You are so embarrassing. How could you get that confused with this? One's not an interview (your's). One is...

Mine is the right link. I'm not even sure what you thought I was talking about.

My link was to a direct quote by the Institute of Physics conducting the inquiry. I am satisfied to let the lurkers decide for themselves which one is more credible.
 
That's not the interview. :doh

You are so embarrassing. How could you get that confused with this? One's not an interview (your's). One is...

Mine is the right link. I'm not even sure what you thought I was talking about.

Everyone else, just ignore Catawba. I'm not sure he has any idea what he's talking about, and I'm not even completely sure he isn't merely acting the stereotypical "environmental nutjob idiot" motif in an attempt to discredit legitimate individuals who believe the science behind Climate Change.

Just to clear this up. Temperatures are in almost universal disagreement with the IPCC's idiotic papers. However, that doesn't change the fact that carbon is a greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases names' aren't coincidences. They cause a greenhouse effect. There is definitely evidence to support Climate Change, if not "AGW." Saying that current temperatures, or models, or anything else other than observable and replicable scientific hypothesis supports AGW is beyond idiotic. The legitimate evidence supports Climate Change, and a smattering of correlation between temperature and CO2. That is to say, everything that isn't in Al Gore's docudrama.


The Left has created, via a comprehenive campaign of terror and deceit, a new religion, and the Bible Thumpers of this new religion can't help sharing the Word of their terror of the incipient imaginary doom with the rest of us.
 
Back
Top Bottom