• 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!

Scientific American - Global warming is real

Prove it is man

DoubleFacePalm.jpg
 
That's a good question but that is one of those questions that I would guess is harder to quantify verses showing actual average temperature hikes and the pH of the atmosphere forming differently since the start of the industrial revolution.
 
That's a good question but that is one of those questions that I would guess is harder to quantify verses showing actual average temperature hikes and the pH of the atmosphere forming differently since the start of the industrial revolution.

Who are you????
 
@Orion Can you expand on the question?
 
That's a good question but that is one of those questions that I would guess is harder to quantify verses showing actual average temperature hikes and the pH of the atmosphere forming differently since the start of the industrial revolution.

To say it is 100 % man as Duece does tells me there would be no climate change or we would be cooling neither of which i would believe
 
To say it is 100 % man as Duece does tells me there would be no climate change or we would be cooling neither of which i would believe

Can you expand on what you mean?
 
Just out, and from a peer-reviewed magazine, and about a study just concluded by real scientists. Yes, global warming is real. The study is based on 10 key indicators. The more of them that are up, the more correlation there is to global warming. Guess what? ALL of the 10 key indicators are up.

Article is here.
Just to clarify, Scientific American isn't peer reviewed, but the study that the article is reporting on is being published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, which is. The OP could be interpreted either way.
 
Can you expand on what you mean?

What is to expand? If it is 100% man then there is no climate change and if man had not done this we would be cooling because the warming is 100% from man
 
In what matter would things be cooling because of man?
 
Ok I am going to deconstruct what you just said, because I think I am losing you somewhere.

If GW is 100% man then we should be cooling.
Ok so here you are saying if GW is caused by man, then the earth's temperature the past 100+ years should have declined on average rather than ascend.

Without man there would be no warming so we would be cooling
Here you are saying with man there is warming and so we are cooling because we are warming?
 
Ok I am going to deconstruct what you just said, because I think I am losing you somewhere.


Ok so here you are saying if GW is caused by man, then the earth's temperature the past 100+ years should have declined on average rather than ascend.


Here you are saying with man there is warming and so we are cooling because we are warming?

No if man was not causing warming we would be cooling because Duece says warming is 100% caused by man.
 
No if man was not causing warming we would be cooling because Duece says warming is 100% caused by man.

The sun is currently in a level trend and other mechanics do not change appreciably over the span of a couple decades. Nature is a net carbon sink.
 
The sun is currently in a level trend and other mechanics do not change appreciably over the span of a couple decades. Nature is a net carbon sink.

So are you saying there would be no climate change if not for man? Or should we be cooling now?
 
I honestly think global warming doesn't exist. I think the Earth is just going through a cycle. Besides, if Al Gore is heading the prevention of global warming movement, why does he have so many cars and houses?

And check out this link: Arguments Against Global Warming, Evidence Against Global Warming - The Public Square

The site you presented is questionable at best. Why do they have a bunch of quotes from religious figures on the side? The site also argues that no steps need to be taken to reduce emissions in the first place. You know, there are health risks to this also. I am reminded of when I was a boy walking around the acres of farmland my grandfather had and I found an old dilapitaded farm house that was the boyhood home of his neighbor and finding some old LIFE magazines. The back cover had an ad for Charleston cigarettes that read, "9 out of 10 doctors recommend Charleston!".

Also you want to know why Al Gore has so many houses and cars and a bunch of other B.S. because he's a hypocrite and a whore.
 
Just out, and from a peer-reviewed magazine, and about a study just concluded by real scientists. Yes, global warming is real. The study is based on 10 key indicators. The more of them that are up, the more correlation there is to global warming. Guess what? ALL of the 10 key indicators are up.

Article is here.

scientific american is a liberal rag.
 
Last edited:
If you want to know what GW is about IT IS ABOUT TAXES AND MONEY

UN panel: New taxes needed for a climate fund - Yahoo! News

Carbon taxes, add-ons to international air fares and a levy on cross-border money movements are among ways being considered by a panel of the world's leading economists to raise a staggering $100 billion a year to fight climate change.

British economist Nicholas Stern told international climate negotiators Thursday that government regulation and public money also will be needed to create incentives for private investment in industries that emit fewer greenhouse gases.

In short, a new industrial revolution is needed to move the world away from fossil fuels to low carbon growth, he said.

"It will be extremely exciting, dynamic and productive," said Stern, one of 18 experts in public finance on an advisory panel appointed by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

A climate summit held in Copenhagen in December was determined to mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poor countries adapt to climate change and reduce emissions of carbon dioxide trapping the sun's heat. But the 120 world leaders who met in the Danish capital offered no ideas on how to raise that sum — $1 trillion every decade — prompting Ban to appoint his high-level advisory group.

The Copenhagen summit also resolved to mobilize a three-year emergency fund of $30 billion starting this year. It was unclear how much has been raised and disbursed so far.

The advisory panel, which began working in March, will present its final report to Ban in October, a month before the next decisive climate conference convenes in Cancun, Mexico.
 
Good, Global warming is preferred to global cooling. Last thing we need is a new ice age....
 
The site you presented is questionable at best. Why do they have a bunch of quotes from religious figures on the side? The site also argues that no steps need to be taken to reduce emissions in the first place. You know, there are health risks to this also. I am reminded of when I was a boy walking around the acres of farmland my grandfather had and I found an old dilapitaded farm house that was the boyhood home of his neighbor and finding some old LIFE magazines. The back cover had an ad for Charleston cigarettes that read, "9 out of 10 doctors recommend Charleston!".

Also you want to know why Al Gore has so many houses and cars and a bunch of other B.S. because he's a hypocrite and a whore.

Quotes from religious figures? Yes, there are two quotes from the SAME person, but he's the only religious figure listed in the quotes.
 
Research the other fellas on the side also.
 
Back
Top Bottom