• 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!

Are the Effects of Global Warming Really that Bad?

Not arguing about warming, just pointing out it's not as drastic as scare mongers are claiming. Look at the graft in your link. It shows a gain of ! degree Celsius in over 60 years.

Graph.
 
The key thing is that climate and climate change occurs over spans of decades or more. And when data that documents temps, storms, hurricane intensities, and forest fires show very little increases over those time frames.

Says who? Can you show this to be true, or are you just blowing smoke again?
 
You’ll have to ask them.
No I am asking you.


It boils down to 2 things


1.They all got it wrong

2. They are all part of an international conspiracy


So which is it?
 
Expand. That's not what the mainstream climate scientists say, so show me that they are wrong besides just claiming that they are. As far as deaths, as the Earth continues to get warmer, they will shift from cold exposure to heat-related. In fact, it's already happening.
Most of that most is a compilation of several climatology books, blo. gs and websites. The problem with climate science unlike most sciences is that it's essentially impossible to conduct experiments to verify hypotheses so most study is done with past records and massive computer models. What all this means is that different scientists can look and manipulate the data as the wish. The other problem is even with the most powerful computers in the world the climate models can deal in fine enough detail to be precise. And they fail miserable trying to reproduce known climate behavior.
 
Most of that most is a compilation of several climatology books, blo. gs and websites. The problem with climate science unlike most sciences is that it's essentially impossible to conduct experiments to verify hypotheses so most study is done with past records and massive computer models. What all this means is that different scientists can look and manipulate the data as the wish. The other problem is even with the most powerful computers in the world the climate models can deal in fine enough detail to be precise. And they fail miserable trying to reproduce known climate behavior.
Yes yes.....a giant conspiracy. Lol
 
No I am asking you.


It boils down to 2 things


1.They all got it wrong

2. They are all part of an international conspiracy


So which is it?
You’re asking me why someone else didn’t do their due diligence? I don’t answer for them.
 
You’re asking me why someone else didn’t do their due diligence? I don’t answer for them.
I will accept their scientific opinions over yours


Come on dude. Lol
 
Climate change is going to happen regardless of what we do or don't do. Also it's not like man can't adapt to whatever happens. Early man actually lived though the trailing edge of the ice age and that's without all our modern convinces.

Remember how people freaked the hell out and had complete meltdowns because they had to wear a mask outside or couldn't get their nails done?

Humans have apparently lost the ability to adapt.
 
Most of that most is a compilation of several climatology books, blo. gs and websites. The problem with climate science unlike most sciences is that it's essentially impossible to conduct experiments to verify hypotheses so most study is done with past records and massive computer models. What all this means is that different scientists can look and manipulate the data as the wish. The other problem is even with the most powerful computers in the world the climate models can deal in fine enough detail to be precise. And they fail miserable trying to reproduce known climate behavior.

That's just denier blather. You clearly haven't a clue as to what you are talking about, you're just blowing the standard denier smoke.
Here is what you said previously; " human activity is a relatively small contribution to climate change at this point. . A few percentage points at most. "
That is what I am asking you to expand by showing some sort of citation that it is true, not just more blather. Find me a citation from an actual climate scientist that makes that claim. You can't because it is an outright lie. Sorry about that. Try to be more factual in the future.
 
Says climatologies; it's their M.O.

Here is what I asked you to back up: "And when data that documents temps, storms, hurricane intensities, and forest fires show very little increases over those time frames."
Again, find me a citation from an actual climate scientists that says that. Or did you just make it up, like you're doing with everything that you post here?
 
What makes you think that they're not? Do you have even the slightest idea of what you are talking about?
Because hyperthermals have no known cause. You can’t rule out a cause you know nothing about.
 
Because hyperthermals have no known cause. You can’t rule out a cause you know nothing about.

It is quite clear that you haven't the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Congrats for being able to parrot a talking point that you heard somewhere along the way.
 
It is quite clear that you haven't the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Congrats for being able to parrot a talking point that you heard somewhere along the way.
Translation: you need ad hominems because you don’t understand the topic.
 
Back
Top Bottom