Important message to everyone. Please read before posting in this group and the forums.
If your membership or presence in this group is to be a good experience, you must follow the code of conduct
Global warming is real. There is no way to honestly deny that. And the issue is not that Earth gets warmer - it's perfectly normal for it to do that.
The issue is that usually it did that over millenia if not decamillenia...Now it's heated up in 200 years more than in the past 5 million.
Also, using Christopher Monckton as a source on Climate Science is like using Kent Hovind as a source on Evolution.
Apparently you're not very big on science, or reality and rather listen to the very few skeptics the few idiots who decided the planet isn't warming because it snowed just a few months ago. Rather than actually look at the overwhelming amount of data which has always been pointing to human caused global warming.
ComradeWinston it's obvious you didn't watch the video or even look briefly at the posted site. A good sign of a true debater.
Monckton backs up everything, and I mean everything with raw data. That Joe Nova site gives you more than enough information to last you at least a few months of digesting. So don't come back at me with an argument when you haven't even read my factual back up or even looked into my argument.
Global warming is indeed a real phenomena, I am certainly not denying that. I was catering towards those who may have only heard of the much vaunted human caused climate change through the term "Global Warming".
Have any of you actually heard of the "Hockey Stick" or "Climate Gate"?
Oh and don't say that my argument is to outrageous to even consider looking into. That just makes you all look extremely narrow minded.
And really? Burying my comments? I thought thought this was going to be a great place to discuss and debate topics in a civil way. I'm quickly losing that view.
Monckton is doubtless a good debater, but if you confront him with HIS source, he will easily fall apart, because he is misrepresenting scientific data. Thats why we see Monckton and automaticly refuse to watch more, because most of us already noticed that most of his points are garbage and easy to refute if you check his sources. The link Winston posted above leads you to one who stood up to the challenge of debunking this good debater.
And here is another person who rips apart his arguments and shows his hypocrisy:
And therefor we rather stick to people who know their stuff and have a better reputation.
Your arguments arent too outrageous to bother look into, but saying global warming is a fraud isnt a valid argument to begin with. You can say people exploit it, just like how Monckton exploits the deniers, but the science behind it is real and should be taken seriously. And I really recommend Potholer54's video series on this.
Okay, lets say I started off on the wrong foot. I am more than willing for someone here to produce real, scientific, undoctored (key word there) facts that prove that I am wrong in my thinking, but I also request that you, as an opponent of my argument take into consideration my side of the debate. You say there is overwhelming data proving your point, which I do not deny, however what none of you have come to me with is the >true< raw data that is collected through various research stations and the like before it is fed through the universities .
I understand your flat refusal of any source related to Lord Christopher Monckton, you feel that he has been debunked many times over and therefore is not worth the time it takes to listen to him. I anticipated this and handed you the Joe Nova site, whether you now read into the numerous and well educated articles on this site is purely up to you.
I would however like to say this: Throughout history a mans true accomplishments and triumphs have not (or hardly ever) been recognized in their own time, Galileo, Copernicus and Pythagoras to name but three who were subject to harsh persecution during their days of enlightenment.
Although I said I understand your refusal of Monckton I would like to question your views on someone who has been declared wrong by the powers that be and the general mass populace. Does someone who is wrong by popular opinion, mean that they are actually wrong? The Church of Galileo's time was one of his greatest hindrances, even threatening him with death for his studies. In my opinion the Chruch's view of him certainly does not warrant Galileo being branded a fraud, even if they spoke for the rest of the world during that era.
Of course saying that today in retrospect is almost silly. Galileo was certainly not fraud!
This brings me back to the main subject, should we refuse to hear anything more from Monckton because what could be considered as the church of today states that he is wrong?
Monckton presented a very convincing argument and the raw data in all its magnificence to back it up at his lecture.
I think he has a point.
I'd be more than just a little bit skeptical before believing Monckton. He's not just declared wrong by the "powers of the mass populace", he's quite absurd on a number of levels which have nothing to do with the public eye; this IS the fellow who said we should take the UK's government out of the hands of secularists and permanently quarantine AIDS carriers. I know how weak it seems to use an ad hominem argument and point out other aspects of his opinions and judge by that, but let's consider this: This man can say completely absurd, illogical things and be taken entirely seriously by some people, despite them making no sense or being quite horrible. Should we really trust him as a legitimate source on climate change?
Point definitely heard. Say we throw out Monckton. I still believe that the scientific data, collected in its purest form, points against what we are currently fed through the media and such. I really could go on, but I am no scientist and the science in this topic is quite out there. All I know is that there a graphs and data sets that just don't match up. And why would these warmists delete important reference points like the Medieval Warming Period? Why would Al Gore be purchasing a million dollar condo, right on the coast in San Francisco where he says the water will be in however many year?
Things don't add up. I like things that don't add up.
You want the data? Moddb.com
You are welcome.
You call global warming a fraud and dare to post here a video about Christopher Monckton to support your argument and you believe this arrogant, hateful, greedy **********? You might as well say creationism teaches evolution as truth. Same false ******** argument.
You are not logged in, your comment will be anonymous unless you join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) which we encourage all contributors to do.
2000 characters limit; HTML formatting and smileys are not supported - text only