Debate Info

I never believed GW crap Wait..., what? No!
Debate Score:41
Total Votes:50
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 I never believed GW crap (4)
 Wait..., what? No! (10)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(39839) pic

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

I never believed GW crap

Side Score: 12

Wait..., what? No!

Side Score: 29

I bet that there will still be a few die hards on that side ---> ;)

Side: I never believed GW crap

There all ready are .

Side: I never believed GW crap
casper3912(1581) Disputed
3 points

Alarming alarms are for anti-alarmist alarming that alarmists can no longer be alarming...

Lets leave the political pseudo-scientific stuff out of the global warming debate, and turn to what the scientific consensus is:;=1

Side: Wait..., What? No!
3 points

Die hards like NASA:

Side: Wait..., What? No!

That was done a long time ago when they got paid to spread lies. Now that their funding has been cut, they're going all out to put the truth out there ;)

Side: Wait..., What? No!
3 points

Hahaha funny to hear yet another piece of evidence that GW alarmists will somehow find a way to ignore...

Side: I never believed GW crap
2 points

The science is nice and all, and the fact that Yahoo (not known for its bias :3) published it is nice and all, but all of this is just speculation.

It doesn't disprove global warming, it just shows that we do not know everything about global warming.

There are three sides to this debate (even though I have still not seen an organized debate on the matter...):

1. Believers - People who believe that global warming is a major issue and is man-made and could possibly be stopped by man if we enact enough legislation (that happens to serve certain corporate interests, and harm others)

2. Non-believers - People who believe that there is no global warming or believe that climate change is an inevitable force that has been occurring for millions of years. They support the other lobby, which is against legislation that could hurt some corporate interests but help others.

3. The skeptics - People who, after looking at the science that has been presented, have concluded that there is no conclusion. Global Warming MAY be happening at an alarming rate, and it MAY be mostly man's fault, but there has not been enough hard evidence to show that legislation will cure this man-made catastrophe or if it truly is man-made. There is possible corporate interests since skeptics, at this time, are against legislation, but the problem skeptics, as opposed to non-believers, is that they can be convinced by presentation of hard evidence (as opposed to mainstream, juicy evidence that says "carbon dioxide, in the air, causes a greenhouse effect and then the earth gets hotter and then florida drowns in 20 years"... you know, that stuff they've been telling us since we were 10 years old.

Side: I never believed GW crap
4 points

Let me get this straight.

You're submitting as proof a right wing magazine article written by a member of a pro-oil think tank funded mostly by the Koke brothers...

Wanna buy a car? I'm an expert on this car, send the money to may paypal and I promise it will be there in a week.

Side: Wait..., What? No!
3 points

Although the prediction models are not being played out as ... predictiable, possible answers as to why are explored. One is that because China is putting out a new coal factory a day may be a cause of unexpected cooling in the Global Warming- (propaganda for the coal industry?).

The one I adhere to is a acceleration of Milankovitch cycles -

The eccentricity of the Earth's orbit, the axial tilt, and and precession of the equinoxes are called Milankovitch Cycles and are used to calculate very long term climate changes. The current trends of the tilt and precession cycles should be making the Earth colder according to Figure 2 on the USDA Climate Change Resource Center website.

Supporting Evidence: milankovitch cycle and the Mayan 2012 precession calender (
Side: Wait..., What? No!
2 points

Unless someone wishes to make the argument that the average amount of cloud cover has grown exponentially over the last 100 years, then I don't see how this 'blows a gaping hole' in anything.

Side: Wait..., What? No!
2 points

Downvoting without rebuttal means that you disagree with me but are unable to support your own argument and therefore are probably basing your opinion on emotion and rhetoric rather than objective evidence.

Side: Wait..., What? No!