• 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!

What are your views on climate change?

What are your views on climate change?

  • Occurs naturally regardless of how minute or severe those changes are.

    Votes: 21 67.7%

  • Occurs naturally only with minute changes.

    Votes: 3 9.7%

  • Does not occur naturally

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • don't know or other

    Votes: 7 22.6%
  • Total voters
    31
ptif219 said:
The IPCC is a un organization that is not credible and does not allow opposing views

Climate Science and the IPCC Fail Legal Cross Examination

» An Honest IPCC Scientist Warns His Colleagues: Don’t Dismiss
Click to expand...

Your proof is a right-wing Canadian "news" site and freaking Breitbart's site? Now THAT'S funny! You're aware that Breitbart is a proven liar, right?

You know what? Forget it. I'm not going to go around in circles with you again. You've proven over and over that you just google things and paste them without reading, and then don't even understand what it is you post when you do read them. Remember how you thought CO2 levels in the atmosphere hadn't actually changed because some article was showing you 40%? You thought CO2 was 40% of the atmosphere! LOL!
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Your proof is a right-wing Canadian "news" site and freaking Breitbart's site? Now THAT'S funny! You're aware that Breitbart is a proven liar, right?

You know what? Forget it. I'm not going to go around in circles with you again. You've proven over and over that you just google things and paste them without reading, and then don't even understand what it is you post when you do read them. Remember how you thought CO2 levels in the atmosphere hadn't actually changed because some article was showing you 40%? You thought CO2 was 40% of the atmosphere! LOL!
Click to expand...

The IPCC and the UN are proven liars yet you use them
 
bowerbird said:
Please keep posting sites like this - it is stinking hot here and I need the spin to keep cool
Click to expand...

No spin the fact is the IPCC is not credible and comes up with the results the UN tells them they want. Any discenting opinion is not allowed.
 
ptif219 said:
No spin the fact is the IPCC is not credible and comes up with the results the UN tells them they want. Any discenting opinion is not allowed.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you think the IPCC is not credible but denialist websites ARE?

Are you seriously trying to tell me that research institutes like CSIRO and Woods Hole are LESS credible than some anonymous blog?

You want me to believe that the Oregon Petition - and all of its drooling apologists are NOT a scam but the myriad of hard working scientists just trying to do their job and find out answers to what we are seeing happening in the world are perpetrating a scam?
 
Last edited:
bowerbird said:
Sorry but you think the IPCC is not credible but denialist websites ARE?

Are you seriously trying to tell me that research institutes like CSIRO and Woods Hole are LESS credible than some anonymous blog?

You want me to believe that the Oregon Petition - and all of its drooling apologists are NOT a scam but the myriad of hard working scientists just trying to do their job and find out answers to what we are seeing happening in the world are perpetrating a scam?
Click to expand...

No more a scam than the UN and the IPCC are
 
ptif219 said:
No more a scam than the UN and the IPCC are
Click to expand...

Really?? You DO know the story of the Oregon petition don't you? You do know it misrepresented itself to get the initial signatures and then when people objected refused to remove names from it's list? You DO know that at one time that list was open to ANYONE on the internet to sign - under any name they liked? In fact I signed it myself - I think I used "Edward Kelly" and any Aussie knows who Ned Kelly was.

Despite this, and give them credit they did take off the more obvious fake signatories like Donald Duck and Posh Spice but the majority of the signatories they have refused to amend - even those who have subsequently passed away (It seems you can be a denialist even in death)

So this stacks up to the IPCC how?
 
bowerbird said:
Really?? You DO know the story of the Oregon petition don't you? You do know it misrepresented itself to get the initial signatures and then when people objected refused to remove names from it's list? You DO know that at one time that list was open to ANYONE on the internet to sign - under any name they liked? In fact I signed it myself - I think I used "Edward Kelly" and any Aussie knows who Ned Kelly was.

Despite this, and give them credit they did take off the more obvious fake signatories like Donald Duck and Posh Spice but the majority of the signatories they have refused to amend - even those who have subsequently passed away (It seems you can be a denialist even in death)

So this stacks up to the IPCC how?
Click to expand...

The IPCC misrepresents itself and uses anything that supports GW

Bill Chameides: IPCC Slips on Himalayan Ice
 
Deuce said:
This link does not provide evidence of your statement. They made an error, which was corrected when discovered. How would you want them to act differently?
Click to expand...

The lied and got caught. They use any article to misrepresent climate change. If they had not been caught they would have left the lie as fact. Just like the e-mails.
 
ptif219 said:
The lied and got caught. They use any article to misrepresent climate change. If they had not been caught they would have left the lie as fact. Just like the e-mails.
Click to expand...

No they made an error - unlike the Oregon institute which set out to mislead and is continuing to refuse to "clean up it's act"

Okay then leaving OISM aside how about all the spin from Exxon with the funded astroturf sites?
Astroturf - SourceWatch

Oh! and thanks for reminding us about the manufactured conspiracy surrounding the so called "climategate emails"

http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/

Or my favourite "con" artist Marc Morano

Lies, Conservatives and Statistics: Marc Morano's Fantasy | ConWebWatch

How about my all time fav - "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which proved true to it's title at least - it had been shown around the world and was definitely a swindle

The Great Global Warming Swindle

I won't even start on the fractured and falsified data and science.
Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy | Union of Concerned Scientists
 
Last edited:
Climate change of course occurs naturally. I think what is really being asked is how much can mankind influence climate change. We surely have some amount of impact; though there are no real indication of exactly how much at this point. Global warming/climate change is an interesting debate because if you start looking at the list to do, the first few things are reasonable and we should be doing anyway. So it doesn't seem like there should be a whole lot of contention. But it's not like arsenic in the water. If you find any amount, people complain and they complain on such a level that government has to respond. So instead of being influenced by any "arsenic lobby" (just go with it), it has to respond to the people. However, with climate change because the effects wouldn't be so readily noticeable at the time, people are less spurred to do anything about it. Thus you get the "it's all human's fault" folk and the deniers as well. But we should really be looking at our technologies, the energy consumption, and how we can improve these things while becoming less dependent upon other nations. There's a real problem with climate change debate in that most of the intelligence has been drained out of it.
 
Ikari said:
Climate change of course occurs naturally. I think what is really being asked is how much can mankind influence climate change. We surely have some amount of impact; though there are no real indication of exactly how much at this point. Global warming/climate change is an interesting debate because if you start looking at the list to do, the first few things are reasonable and we should be doing anyway. So it doesn't seem like there should be a whole lot of contention. But it's not like arsenic in the water. If you find any amount, people complain and they complain on such a level that government has to respond. So instead of being influenced by any "arsenic lobby" (just go with it), it has to respond to the people. However, with climate change because the effects wouldn't be so readily noticeable at the time, people are less spurred to do anything about it. Thus you get the "it's all human's fault" folk and the deniers as well. But we should really be looking at our technologies, the energy consumption, and how we can improve these things while becoming less dependent upon other nations. There's a real problem with climate change debate in that most of the intelligence has been drained out of it.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself - lol!!

Trouble in America is that when arguing climate change the denialism is so rampant we never GET to the answer quide. I would love to talk stategies for reducing energy consumption, strategies for developing wave power and tidal power and wind power and a hundred thousand other things that are actually going to make our life BETTER. Just even redesigning some of the things we can currently live without - I mean do you REALLY need all of that excess pacakging? What about all those ruddy wads of advertising that gets stuffed through your letter box every day - I mean it does not even make good kitty litter and is WAAAY to shiny and slippery for human use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom