• 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!

Skeptics: Show me an alternative theory.

Somehow you aren't getting that I did provide evidence.

No, if you don't agree with Deuce and parrot the AGW "science" you are just speculating or repeating the claims of big oil.
 
Hmmm.....what's an alternative theory to replace the disproven anthropogenic global warming hoax?

There's the Man Isn't Melting the Earth Theory.

There's the Climate Has Natural Variability And That Means Warmer Theory.

There's the Gee It Was Warmer in the Eemian, So What's to Worry Theory.

There's the Why Shouldn't It Get Warmer, We're Between Ice Ages Theory.

And, finally, there's the Hoaxers Should Starve Theory.
 
Yes. The scientific community is in agreement that we are getting warmer and have been for decades.

And if you were honest you'd post a graph showing the true beginning of the current warming trend, back in 1650, when humans had, just like today, no ability to grossly influence climate.

Since science hasn't been able to explain the origins of the current trend, and by origins I mean the cause of the end of the Little Ice Age, there's no valid reason to presume those causes have ceased to operate.
 
So as usual - Sceptics - nothing, nada, zilch empty rhetorrhic, meaningless cliche's

See this is the whole crux of the issue - there is no alternative explanation other than a wild conspiracy theory
 
So as usual - Sceptics - nothing, nada, zilch empty rhetorrhic, meaningless cliche's

See this is the whole crux of the issue - there is no alternative explanation other than a wild conspiracy theory

Yes, because the Climate Changing throughout history is a wild conspiracy theory.
 
Yes, because the Climate Changing throughout history is a wild conspiracy theory.

So explain to me please how so many scientists throughout the world have managed to co-ordinate this conspiracy?
 
I don't think it's a conspiracy.
But I do think it's incomplete analysis - we haven't been analyzing and keeping up with solid records long to actually monitor the wider-spanned natural patterns.

Sure, we know seasons - shorter spans which repeat over the decades and so on. But centuries? We're just not quite there, yet.

One good example of this long-term climate change: some scientists have discovered evidence that the Sahara Desert turns green every 20,000 years or so - the monsoons and everything shifts north due to the earth's natural warble in rotation and tilt and brings all the Southern-African rains north.
Evidence for this is that deep in the Sahara they've found remains of villages and so forth - where, traditionally, people would not be able to live.

So - if this theory is true, how would that affect everyone and everything else? Truly the entire world would alter it's state of existence - in good and bad ways. And it would last long enough to allow people to relocate to previous un-livable lands and settle.

But for scientists to disagree on evidence of modern-day climate change/shift isn't surprising. Scientists come from different schools of thought, philosophy and interpretation - not all of them come to the same agreement on anything, ever.

Everything from ideal cures for illnesses to the proper approach to stabilizing a faltering economy - all the experts *never* agree on the same course of action or cause.
 
Last edited:
So explain to me please how so many scientists throughout the world have managed to co-ordinate this conspiracy?

Money. Scientist are people too, and when you have a choice of researching something like AGW for $$$ or not doing so and scrambling for funds...

You go where the money is.

The IPCC is a political animal, and there is a lot of personal power and political power to gain playing that game. I note how you ignore the many scientist that do NOT subscribe to the AGW theory.
 
I note how you ignore the many scientist that do NOT subscribe to the AGW theory.

that's because they are all shills for BIG OIL!!!!!! :shrug:
 
So as usual - Sceptics - nothing, nada, zilch empty rhetorrhic, meaningless cliche's

See this is the whole crux of the issue - there is no alternative explanation other than a wild conspiracy theory

I believe you AGWers are giving the human race WAY to much credit here. Perhaps it is because you seem to have some sort of superiority complex and that your "understanding" of all this "proxy data" seems to be so much more specific than us skeptics. The human race ACTUALLY occupies less than 10 % of this planet's surface and has only been releasing a significant amount of dioxins into the environment for, say 100 years (and I am really allowing you some leniency here).

So we have a planet which has been doing it's own thing for pretty much five-and-a-half BILLION years, and we have, a population which "MAY" have been negatively impacting it for say 100 of those 5.5 BILLION years and who occupy less than 10% of its surface area, hmmmm? Yep! Sounds like we certainly are giving ourselves quite a bit of credit here. Also, I forgot to ask, that of all the land area which we actually occupy - how much is ACTUALLY used for INDUSTRIAL purposes?

Finally, I'd like to ask 2 questions, just for the sake of discussion, mind you, for all of you who seem to be "experts" at collecting and measuring proxy data..................... (1)How many fossil fuel-burning power plants and automobiles running simultaneously would it take to equal ONE MAJOR volcanic eruption (say Vesuvius, Krakatoa, or Mt. St. Helens) when it comes to the amount of dioxins released into the atmosphere ?(CO2, Carbon monoxide, sulphur, etc.)

and Question (2) How many major volcanic eruptions have occurred on our planet over the past 5.5 billion years? Just curious. Thanks, have a nice day! I think I'll keep my SUV and wood-burning fireplace.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps it is because you seem to have some sort of superiority complex...

That seems to be the case with liberals in general and AGWers in particular. They are the experts in every topic and if you disagree with them you are either ignorant, uninformed or biased. If you don't believe it...just ask them. :shrug:
 
That seems to be the case with liberals in general and AGWers in particular. They are the experts in every topic and if you disagree with them you are either ignorant, uninformed or biased. If you don't believe it...just ask them. :shrug:

If you just bothered to read their sources and agree with them, you wouldn't be so stupid OscarB63!









;)
 
So as usual - Sceptics - nothing, nada, zilch empty rhetorrhic, meaningless cliche's

You know, I'm beginning to feel really insulted here. I have provided evidence and reasoning in several threads to show an alternative cause, despite the fact I do not have to provide a new theory to challenge the present theory, and yet you two keep insisting that I have done no such thing.

See this is the whole crux of the issue - there is no alternative explanation other than a wild conspiracy theory

The problem is you think the scientific community is generally immune to corruption with the bad apples generally all arguing against global warming. Most researchers and scientists are guided by a combination of political and economic motives that inherently cloud their judgment. You should look at who sits on the boards of various universities. When the people paying for your research are looking for a specific conclusion you will look for anything that can support such a conclusion to the exclusion of alternative explanations. Also, when that conclusion would be a boon to some political objective you strongly hope will be achieved it also makes you less receptive to alternative explanations that might damage said objective.
 
Still waiting for that physical mechanism that is causing the current warming trend.

You: OMG CLIMATE CHANGES!!! IT MUST BE OUR FAULT!!!

This is not accurate. I came to this conclusion based on evidence, primarily CO2's absorption characteristics in the longwave infrared spectrum. I'm well aware that climate can also change via natural means, and no climatologist has ever claimed otherwise.

Sometimes your car's engine quits because you run out of gas, but that doesn't mean every time it quits you need to put gas in it. There can be more than one possible cause of a particular effect.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's a conspiracy.
But I do think it's incomplete analysis - we haven't been analyzing and keeping up with solid records long to actually monitor the wider-spanned natural patterns.

Sure, we know seasons - shorter spans which repeat over the decades and so on. But centuries? We're just not quite there, yet.

One good example of this long-term climate change: some scientists have discovered evidence that the Sahara Desert turns green every 20,000 years or so - the monsoons and everything shifts north due to the earth's natural warble in rotation and tilt and brings all the Southern-African rains north.
Evidence for this is that deep in the Sahara they've found remains of villages and so forth - where, traditionally, people would not be able to live.

So - if this theory is true, how would that affect everyone and everything else? Truly the entire world would alter it's state of existence - in good and bad ways. And it would last long enough to allow people to relocate to previous un-livable lands and settle.

But for scientists to disagree on evidence of modern-day climate change/shift isn't surprising. Scientists come from different schools of thought, philosophy and interpretation - not all of them come to the same agreement on anything, ever.

Everything from ideal cures for illnesses to the proper approach to stabilizing a faltering economy - all the experts *never* agree on the same course of action or cause.
And this is where science has failed to show how far reaching it's research on this has actually been.

There is an entire field of science called paleoclimatology that has been investigating past climate changes and the reasons for it. They are the ones that helped uncover issues like the Pacific Decal Oscillation and other drivers.

As for scientists disagreeing = the numbers who disagree are less than 3%.

People underestimate the number of scientists in a wide variety of disciplines who have all contributed to researching climate change. It is tens of thousands of scientists over a huge range of disciplines - from Physics to chemistry to archeology to astronomy to marine sciences to geology and finally climatology itself

You want impressive - use google scholar and see how many papers you can pull up on say, green sahara
 
You know, I'm beginning to feel really insulted here. I have provided evidence and reasoning in several threads to show an alternative cause, despite the fact I do not have to provide a new theory to challenge the present theory, and yet you two keep insisting that I have done no such thing.



The problem is you think the scientific community is generally immune to corruption with the bad apples generally all arguing against global warming. Most researchers and scientists are guided by a combination of political and economic motives that inherently cloud their judgment. You should look at who sits on the boards of various universities. When the people paying for your research are looking for a specific conclusion you will look for anything that can support such a conclusion to the exclusion of alternative explanations. Also, when that conclusion would be a boon to some political objective you strongly hope will be achieved it also makes you less receptive to alternative explanations that might damage said objective.

And this happens all over the world and in institutions other than universities? Tell me please

Why did 187 governments sign Kyoto?
 
And this happens all over the world and in institutions other than universities?

Science has been politicized from the beginning of human inquiry. Naturally it continues to be abused and corrupted to this day around the world.

Why did 187 governments sign Kyoto?

Why do you put out that number like it makes the science authoritative. Now, I am not going to look up every single country's situation, but it would be fair to say the vast majority are dependent on foreign studies. Never mind a large portion of those countries already have high levels of corruption and governmental abuse of power.
 
Science has been politicized from the beginning of human inquiry. Naturally it continues to be abused and corrupted to this day around the world.



Why do you put out that number like it makes the science authoritative. Now, I am not going to look up every single country's situation, but it would be fair to say the vast majority are dependent on foreign studies. Never mind a large portion of those countries already have high levels of corruption and governmental abuse of power.

Have you looked at those countries that have NOT signed??

You just have to keep trying to make this conspiracy theory bigger to try and fit it to the facts that this is a GLOBAL situation and the research is not coming out of Al Gore's basement but from scientist doing everything from freezing their butts off in Antarctica to toasting their tootsies in the Sahara

But somehow all of those people throughout the world, and it numbers tens of thousands of them - are all corrupt?
 
So... we still going with the easily-disproven "Sun" theory or what?

I was kindof hoping somebody would show me some, you know, evidence or whatever.
 
So... we still going with the easily-disproven "Sun" theory or what?

I was kindof hoping somebody would show me some, you know, evidence or whatever.

why? you'd simply ignore it or call the source a shill for big oil. :shrug:
 
No, I'll respond to it scientifically.

since when? I know I haven't been here that long but that does seem to be your MO whenever anyone produces evidence. Instead of actually addressing the content of the evidence you attack the credibility of the source. just sayin' :shrug:
 
since when? I know I haven't been here that long but that does seem to be your MO whenever anyone produces evidence. Instead of actually addressing the content of the evidence you attack the credibility of the source. just sayin' :shrug:

Pot, kettle, etc. Call my bluff if you don't believe me.
 
Back
Top Bottom