• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

Cold Dirt

Banned
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
370
Reaction score
18
Location
GA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
bal Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.” . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.


What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

cont....
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

So Doomdays Chicken Littles....it seem your global warming is just the natural cycle of the earth.............here's a little more of your so called, junk science, global warming....

http://vortex.plymouth.edu/uschill.gif

Hawaii Cold Spell

Honolulu, Hawaii (96801) Conditions & Forecast : Weather Underground

BREITBART.COM - Below-Zero Temps Close Schools

AccuWeather.com - Weather Blogs - Weather News

http://www.wunderground.com/US/IL/Chicago-O'Hare_International.html

Record lows in Hawaii....record snow in Alaska.....northeast and mid west seeing - degrees for weeks....the southern polar caps getting thicker......the ice caps in Greenland getting thicker...........yet we are to be just a gullible as the rest of you to fall for this kool aid drinking global warming junk science.........just like lames being lead to slaughter..............fools........
 
I'm praying for some global warming. It's down right freezing here. Brr.
 
Hey Dirt... let's start with this.

Do you agree that the average world temperature has gone up in the last 25 years or so? At this point, I don't care the reason behind it. I just want to know your opinion on whether the world temperature has gone up in the last 25 years or so. Yes or no?
 
After being debunked in another thread, this immediately pops up from another one of the flat earth conspiracy ppl.
Timothy Ball
Yep, it's just one big conspiracy. I think you guys forgot your tin foil hats.
 
Cold Dirt is just proud that he finally found someone who shares his opinion about global warming. About time, I mean you and CA can't be the only wackoes out there!

I'm not even going to respond because no matter what I try you either ignore the thread or disregard any evidence presented to you.

This is for you CurrentAffairs:
1000yr_change.jpg
 
Cold Dirt is just proud that he finally found someone who shares his opinion about global warming. About time, I mean you and CA can't be the only wackoes out there!

I'm not even going to respond because no matter what I try you either ignore the thread or disregard any evidence presented to you.

This is for you CurrentAffairs:
1000yr_change.jpg
You forgot about stinger.
 
Hey Dirt... let's start with this.

Do you agree that the average world temperature has gone up in the last 25 years or so? At this point, I don't care the reason behind it. I just want to know your opinion on whether the world temperature has gone up in the last 25 years or so. Yes or no?


Yes I agree the temp has changed.....but its from the sun getting hotter not man made.......

funny how quickly you environmental nuts dismiss someone that has a different outlook on this junk science called global warming......yet cannot explain why the southern ice caps are getting thicker..............
 
Last edited:
Cold Dirt is just proud that he finally found someone who shares his opinion about global warming. About time, I mean you and CA can't be the only wackoes out there!

Moderator's Warning:
Just a little preemtive strike, guys, in recognition that global warming threads have been rather intense of late. Calling other posters 'wackos' is unnecessary. Debate the topic, not the poster.
 
OH NO! the sky is falling!!!! no wait thats rain...

oh well off the store, hope I dont fall off the earth.
 
Cold Dirt, I have a several questions for you.

If Global warming is real, and you seem to agree that it is, please answer the following:

  1. Will it cause us any major problems?
  2. Can we do anything to prevent those major problems?
  3. Is the world flat?:mrgreen:
 
Yes I agree the temp has changed.....but its from the sun getting hotter not man made.......

funny how quickly you environmental nuts dismiss someone that has a different outlook on this junk science called global warming......yet cannot explain why the southern ice caps are getting thicker..............

Ok, great. We both agree that the planet is warming.

So my next question is why did you feel value in posting this:

Record lows in Hawaii....record snow in Alaska.....northeast and mid west seeing - degrees for weeks

What does this have to do with the debate? So what if it's cold in certain parts of the world right now... the median world temperate has risen over the last 25 years or so. it would be equally stupid of me to post that global warming is happening because of a heat wave in Alaska or wherever.

The important fact is that yes, the planet's median temperature is warming, no? So your links and comments about certain parts of the world being cold right now should NOT even be mentioned as part of any argument, right?
 
This is out of my area of "expertise," but why can't it be both? From what I know about it, it appears that the normal cycle of the earth is also being accompanied by man made global warming. Why does something like this always have to come down to an either/or?
 
Hey Dirt... let's start with this.

Do you agree that the average world temperature has gone up in the last 25 years or so? At this point, I don't care the reason behind it. I just want to know your opinion on whether the world temperature has gone up in the last 25 years or so. Yes or no?

Actually over the last century it has gone up about .7 C. So what? It has been hotter, it has been colder.

Tell me this were we better when the northern states were under ice? Were we better when the people of Greenland were able to farm their land? What is the exact precise temperature that is best for the earth? How do you know it is? How do you know it won't be better if we warm up another .5 C? Would the cost of trying to prevent that .5C increase be commensurate with the benefits, if we even know that it wouldn't be better if we did increase .5C?
 
The important fact is that yes, the planet's median temperature is warming, no?

Has warmed, we have no way of knowing what it will do next year. So what is the exact precise temp the Earth's median temperature should be and what scientific data supports it?
 
From the article presented by Cold Dirt:
The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

This was one of only a couple claims that he made that could be tested by science. He says that it is assumed that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas, and indicates that it is the basis for global warming science. He seems to be questioning whether CO2 is relatively more capable of absorbing heat than Nitrogen and Oxygen. This is verified by science. Another tack he could be taking is that it is capable of doing so in a laboratory, but that in the atmosphere it is not. This has also been verified by science.

These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun.

My understanding is that this would be a possible explanation. If only it were actually happening. Science has debunked this hypothesis.

All this has been presented in other threads on this subject.

I believe I have covered the only claims he has made concerning global warming itself. The rest of his article is mostly given over to bellyaching about persecution. While that may be true, the article presents nothing we can examine to talk about climatology.
 
Actually over the last century it has gone up about .7 C. So what?

Link please.

It has been hotter, it has been colder.

What is "it"? The median temperature? And are you denying that the median temperature has consistantly risen in the last 25 years or so? Weather measurements have been recorded since 1861. Take a guess at what is the hottest decade.

Sure temps fluctuate. There are other factors at play during certain years. For instance, before this current cold snap, we were experiencing the warmest winter on record. El Nino takes most of the blame for that, from what I've read. So yeah, fluctuations do happen. But if you look at the at the median temp from the time of when they were first recorded, what do you see? A steady increase? Decrease? Same?

mongraph.gif


Tell me this were we better when the northern states were under ice? Were we better when the people of Greenland were able to farm their land? What is the exact precise temperature that is best for the earth? How do you know it is? How do you know it won't be better if we warm up another .5 C? Would the cost of trying to prevent that .5C increase be commensurate with the benefits, if we even know that it wouldn't be better if we did increase .5C?


This is just too damn rediculous to even reply. You can't be serious.
 
Link please.

:rofl look at your own chart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



What is "it"? The median temperature?

The so-called Global Temperature measurments.

And are you denying that the median temperature has consistantly risen in the last 25 years or so?

Absolutely look at your own chart, It has risen it has fallen.

Weather measurements have been recorded since 1861. Take a guess at what is the hottest decade.

How about 100 years ago, how about 2000 years ago, how about 4000 years ago?

Sure temps fluctuate.

Hmmmm so there is a natural fluctuation that has occoured ever since there was climate.


This is just too damn rediculous to even reply. You can't be serious.

:spin:nope, it is a very reasoned response and logical inquirey. It just stumps you that's all. What is the perfect median temperature of the Earth? Is it right now? Prove to me that an additional .5C would be harmful and not in fact benificial.

Try again

Tell me this were we better when the northern states were under ice? Were we better when the people of Greenland were able to farm their land? What is the exact precise temperature that is best for the earth? How do you know it is? How do you know it won't be better if we warm up another .5 C? Would the cost of trying to prevent that .5C increase be commensurate with the benefits, if we even know that it wouldn't be better if we did increase .5C?
 
:rofl look at your own chart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I want you to provide me with a link. You have a tendency to blow stuff out of your a$$... I want you to provide back-up for what you write.


The so-called Global Temperature measurments.

Why do you call them "so-called"? Do you think they are made up?

Absolutely look at your own chart, It has risen it has fallen.

I did. I'm not sure what you're seeing, but you might need glasses. In the last 25 years or so, it looks like the average global temperature has risen by 0.3.

How about 100 years ago, how about 2000 years ago, how about 4000 years ago?

Well, according to the chart, it was -2.5 100 years ago. Doesn't take Einstein to figure out that it wasn't the warmest period. As for 2000 and 4000, how the hell am I supposed to know? Take a look at the chart and tell me that the weather has not steadily increased over the last 100 years. Even global warming naysayers agree that this is a FACT.

Hmmmm so there is a natural fluctuation that has occoured ever since there was climate.

Sometimes, yes. El Nino, for example. Happens in roughly 5 year cycles, as far as I know. And?
 
I want you to provide me with a link. You have a tendency to blow stuff out of your a$$... I want you to provide back-up for what you write.

Your own chart showed it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Why do you call them "so-called"? Do you think they are made up?
Because they are simply the uncontrolled recordings from a mass variety of sources. To believe that until very recently we had an accurate, within a few tenths of a degree, median global temperature is folly.

I did. I'm not sure what you're seeing, but you might need glasses. In the last 25 years or so, it looks like the average global temperature has risen by 0.3.
And the 25 years before that?


Well, according to the chart, it was -2.5 100 years ago. Doesn't take Einstein to figure out that it wasn't the warmest period. As for 2000 and 4000, how the hell am I supposed to know?
So this may not be the warmest period the Earth has ever experienced.

Take a look at the chart and tell me that the weather has not steadily increased over the last 100 years. Even global warming naysayers agree that this is a FACT.
It rose then it fell then it rose again.

So tell me what is the temperature the Earth is suppose to maintain and how much is it suppose to swing? A simple question you must be able to answer if you believe we are too warm now?

And again

Tell me this were we better when the northern states were under ice? Were we better when the people of Greenland were able to farm their land? What is the exact precise temperature that is best for the earth? How do you know it is? How do you know it won't be better if we warm up another .5 C? Would the cost of trying to prevent that .5C increase be commensurate with the benefits, if we even know that it wouldn't be better if we did increase .5C?

I am answering your question, please reciprocate.
 
This is out of my area of "expertise," but why can't it be both? From what I know about it, it appears that the normal cycle of the earth is also being accompanied by man made global warming. Why does something like this always have to come down to an either/or?
Partially true I think this graph is self explanatory. There's a divergence
emanuelgraph.jpg

There's no warming trend currently, yet what we see is a continued rise in global temperature anomalies. Additionally we plug in the anthropogenic cause and it's a fairly good match.
Here's the issue at hand. There are those that claim the current trend is nothing but a natural cycle the earth goes through. Yet as we can clearly see in this chart there's nothing at all natural about it.
Obviously, without the natural sources there would probably not be such a rise, however with the rise in the concentrations as is input by humans, it's clear that the current warming is caused by us.
 
Stinger is raising good points that should be considered: Whether or not global warming is natural or human caused, he questions the undesirability of it.

Suppose we verified his claim that it is all natural. Would it be undesirable? Should we, if it is natural, seek to reverse the effect anyway?

There are many claims made as to the eventual effects of warming. But, I would contend that these are mostly speculation rather than confirmed predictions. Is there some hidden benefit that is possible? After all, the earth has been alot warmer than it is today, and it survived nicely.

One of the best arguments I can see for a truly conservative approach is that we do know what the earth is like when the temperatures are slightly cooler than they are today. We don't have alot of information about what it is like when it is moderately warmer than today.

On the other hand, it will be costly to give up Carbon. And we do have some ability to measure what that cost will be.

Interesting points, Stinger. Thank you.
 
Actually over the last century it has gone up about .7 C. So what? It has been hotter, it has been colder.
A highly mis-leading statement. What you've dishonestly left out is that the increment is global, not regional. No it has not been hotter in the last 650,000 years though it has been far colder before.

Stinger said:
Tell me this were we better when the northern states were under ice?
Humans weren't exactly really around back then. At least not civilized or established. So can't really tell you.
Stinger said:
Were we better when the people of Greenland were able to farm their land?
:rofl How much of Greenland stinger?

Stinger said:
What is the exact precise temperature that is best for the earth?
Another dishonest spin. Earth has no optimum temperature. However life as we know it on this planet does, and melting of the polar glaciers as well as droughts everywhere and wild weather cycles is certainly not optimum for life today.

Stinger said:
How do you know it is? How do you know it won't be better if we warm up another .5 C?
There you go again spinning. As if to judge that earth has an optimum. I'll answer this question after you answer this. Are you asking about an optimum for the planet itself or for life on the planet today?

Stinger said:
Would the cost of trying to prevent that .5C increase be commensurate with the benefits, if we even know that it wouldn't be better if we did increase .5C?
:lamo, the one time that neocons care about the economy. No stinger, the benefits far outweigh any of the costs. Old industries that refuse to go green would be forced to shut down and new high tech green industries would rise in their place. Yep, certainly more beneficial than the costs. Where'd you get your 0.5 figure from? Care to back it up with a credible source?
 
We don't have alot of information about what it is like when it is moderately warmer than today.
that's not entirely true. WE do see what is happening today from the current warming. Freak weather patterns, droughts, failed monsoons, causing billions of dollars lost - ie cold snap that hit California and the produce lost.

Dezaad said:
On the other hand, it will be costly to give up Carbon. And we do have some ability to measure what that cost will be.
It will be even more costly if we don't give up on fossil fuels, not carbon. There is such a thing as carbon neutral. However fossil fuels only add more greenhouse gases as well as a whole lot of other nasty things - ie diesel fuel that release carcinogens.
Fossil fuels are finite resources and wars fought over these resources should be taken into account of the costs of these resources. This started with WWII and will only get much much worse unless we get off of using these fossil fuels.
 
The problem is that the idiots who deny global warming drown out the LEGITIMATE questions about the cost/benefit analysis of it. It'll probably be cheaper to accept the consequences of global warming and adapt to it, than to try to prevent it.

Even if the Kyoto Protocol were fully implemented by every country in the world, it would only slow global warming by six years over the next century. To completely stop global warming, we would have to adopt a much simpler standard of living...which most of us are not willing to do. I think it's better to acknowledge that solving the problem is simply beyond our scientific capability at this point in time, and push forward as fast as possible. Nanotechnology will likely offer some solutions to our current environmental problems, twenty or thirty years from now.
 
Back
Top Bottom