• 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!

Climate Change

RedAkston

Master of Shenanigans
Administrator
Moderator
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
53,923
Reaction score
39,715
Location
MS Gulf Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You have 5,000 characters to state your opinion if you choose. The rules of this forum are found here.
 
The planet Earth’s climate has changed in the past, is currently changing and will likely change in the future. The exponential and relatively recent (post industrial) growth (both in numbers and longevity) of the human population has had a noticeable impact and will continue to do so as ever more humans desire increasing their personal longevity, wealth and consumption.

 
The planet Earth’s climate has changed in the past, is currently changing and will likely change in the future. The exponential and relatively recent (post industrial) growth (both in numbers and longevity) of the human population has had a noticeable impact and will continue to do so as ever more humans desire increasing their personal longevity, wealth and consumption.

On this here Climate Change thread the only time the word "climate" was mentioned was by you.
You need a different link.
One that demonstrates that climate wasn't going to change if it wasn't for humans causing it.
 
We should ecofarm.
 
OK, I'll give this a try:

First off, the term “climate change” is a complete misnomer. Climate has always been changing, even since before human beings began walking the earth. To proclaim that world temperatures were somehow “normal” before the climate change movement began is pure silliness. To somehow believe that we can control climate through our production of carbon dioxide is equally silly.

The factors that affect temperatures are varied and complex, and science cannot measure and predict them all. With carbon, for example, only a fraction of this lies in the atmosphere, the vast majority of it resides in plants on the surface of the planet. To somehow focus purely on the CO2 in the atmosphere while ignoring the complex relationship on the ground (tilling during farming, for example, produces a huge amount of CO2, moreso than anything else) means keeping blinders on with regards to how the whole system relates with one another.

Accurate world temperatures only came about after weather satellites were placed in orbit, around the 1970’s. Any temperature readings prior to this is suspect. Any claims of temperature readings dating back to hundreds and thousands of years is done purely by proxy data, which are merely estimates, and are not at all accurate.

Most climate predictions are based on computer modeling, which are nothing more than just fluid dynamics. These “readings” are based purely on the data one inputs into the system. Modeling cannot predict when clouds form, solar flares, or volcanic eruptions happen—and these factors are extremely important with determining temperature. These models are always manipulated to suit an agenda and will tell you what you want to hear since they are based on pure estimates and assumptions of whoever runs them.

The fact is that the world’s average temperature has gone up by 1 degree in the past 50 years. Whether this is purely the result of human beings, there is no definitive proof. While it is certainly possible that human beings may have been the cause, it may also be a purely natural occurrence, and falls within the margin of error.

And this brings us to the alarmist belief that if temperatures keep increasing by a mere 2 degrees, it will somehow trigger a worldwide catastrophe, is pure nonsense. There is no proof that increasing temperatures will do this. Average world temperatures increase by more than this during summer cycles, and no catastrophe has occurred.

The environmental movement that is focused on climate change is now a billion dollar industry, with media outlets blaming every single instance of extreme weather occurrences on climate change, despite the fact that these links are tenuous at best.

Also, the claim that there is a consensus amongst scientists that humans are causing climate change is also dubious. The 97% claim is based on a 2013 study by John Cook, of which only 34% of the papers that he surveyed held a position on climate change, and out of that only 1% disagreed. Cook therefore deducted the negative papers from the positive and came out with his 97% consensus number, completely ignoring that fact that 66% of the participants did not respond to his initial requests.

So in the end, here are the facts: climate is changing, and humans may be affecting this change, but to what extent and as to whether it can be predicted is not known.

The climate change movement is sowing fear amongst the world population by making all sorts of bogus apocalyptic claims of worldwide catastrophes, none of which have come true. In 1989, the UN predicted that the Maldives would have been underwater if something wasn’t done by the year 2000. In 2007 Al Gore predicted that all the arctic sea ice would have melted by 2014. None of these things happened.

Climate concerns have affected world governments too, with countries mandating the use of green energy like solar power, wind farms, and electric vehicles. While everyone wants a cleaner environment, the problem is that these green energy alternatives are more costly and less efficient, and to build them would make the environment even more toxic than compared to fossil fuels.

So what’s to be done? More practical solutions against natural disasters would be to build better infrastructure, like more robust buildings against earthquakes, and stronger dikes around flood-prone cities. With regards to energy, nuclear power is statistically safer and more reliable than any other alternative that’s out there.

And with regards to reducing CO2, just plant more trees, and practice no-till farming techniques. These simple adjustments provide better solutions to what’s happening right now.
 
Works cited:


 
The entire world of science today agrees that climate change is due to human activity.
  • Geological surveys have shown that the last time the concentration of carbon dioxide was higher than today was probably about 20 million years ago.
  • About three quarters of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions over the past 20 years come from the burning of fossil fuels.
  • Despite this, there are those who believe that climate change is caused by solar activity, but: Over the past three decades, solar activity has decreased, which is perfectly normal as this is constantly going on cycles, but global warming has instead accelerated.


Of course you can find the odd scientist who says the opposite, just as there were scientists for a long time who said that nicotine was not addictive and even though the ancient Greeks had already established that the earth was round and the evidence was accumulating, it was believed in Europe that it was flat. until the 16th century. The church was strong and although more and more scholars knew it was round, some scholars continued to follow the church's line, saying it was flat. Thats how it is. It can be faith or what is often the case today, money that makes them do as they do.

Factual residence is the same as conspiracy theorists.
 
Having read the rules of this particular thread quote removed.


£100 give away;

I will give £100 to the first person to cite a single bad aspect of a warmer world as per the IPCC's climate predictions, and a single place, a local authority or some such, which has traffic lights, which will expect to spend more than its' traffic light budget on countering, sorting out, the impact of that bad thing. By 2100.

2 exceptions;

1, Venice, just gets over the line but only has a problem in the first place because they have dredged the channels into the lagoon too deep to allow the cruise ships in.

2, Permafrost melting causing foundations to fail. Surely such places getting warmer is a good thing?

P.S. Is Debate Politics now a safe place where ideas cannot be challenged? How eak is that???!!!??
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
OK, I'll give this a try:

First off, the term “climate change” is a complete misnomer. Climate has always been changing, even since before human beings began walking the earth. To proclaim that world temperatures were somehow “normal” before the climate change movement began is pure silliness.

No one is that stupid. The change referred to is from the status quo. What kind of an idiot can't see that.

OP is Truthing.
 
OK, I'll give this a try:

First off, the term “climate change” is a complete misnomer. Climate has always been changing, even since before human beings began walking the earth. To proclaim that world temperatures were somehow “normal” before the climate change movement began is pure silliness. To somehow believe that we can control climate through our production of carbon dioxide is equally silly.

Forests have always caught fire, even since before human beings began walking the earth... To somehow believe that we can start a forest fire is equally silly...

That is the kind of logic you are employing there.
 
Forests have always caught fire, even since before human beings began walking the earth... To somehow believe that we can start a forest fire is equally silly...

That is the kind of logic you are employing there.
Given we have mechanism for starting a forest fire that has been tested, that is reality has shown it to work, but no such tested mechanism for human induced climate change through increased CO2 it is clear you have no clue about the scientific method.
 
I don't believe the issue is "climate change" I believe the issue is pollution. Whether it affects climate, I don't know. What I do know is that pollution affects the air, water, and soil. What we've allowed companies like Bayer, Monsanto, DuPont, and others do is poison our soil and water. As a result, we're ingesting insecticides, herbacides, and pesticides in addition to engineered seed.

We currently have a garbage patch the size of Rhode Island floating out in the pacific.

We have dozens (or more) of "forever chemicals" in our water, soil, and bodies.

We spray gmo soy beans, feed them to livestock, and eat the tainted meat.

Our rivers and streams are polluted with fertilizers and livestock runoff.

We still use more fossil fuels than ever before.

Recycling isn't really happening; we're just shipping it off in bulk to the third world. The problem is pollution.
 
We may or may not be affecting the climate. I really don't know.

I don't think we'll do much to change that.

While I don't buy into the panic, I have thought we shouldn't be good stewards of the earth. Even if AGW wasn't a thing, I believe we should be caring for her in avery special way.

I need to plant some more trees.
 
Back
Top Bottom