Exactly! :ylsuper:

 

It really doesn't matter whether global warning is caused significantly by man. We have a responsibility to do all we can (given the doubt) to reduce our effect on this planet. It's the only course of action that makes any sense at all. I just can't see burying our head in the sand and refusing to even consider the possibilities, simply because they may not be palatable.

 

I realize that this thread was started in regard to global warming; but I think it's a shame that we're so focused in on that one narrow issue. There are so many other ways that we are damaging our environment, and so may ways that damage could be lessened.

That's why we're focused in on it.

 

As I said to RM, it's a two way street. We disagree, and we're putting our heads in the sand.

We disagree, and we're putting our heads in the sand.

At least one side is willing to explore the issue. The other side doesn't want to be bothered.

At least one side is willing to explore the issue. The other side doesn't want to be bothered.

WRONG!

 

Our side just isn't willing to jump without knowing. THERE IS NO PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!

 

ONLY THEORY!

WRONG!

 

Our side just isn't willing to jump without knowing. THERE IS NO PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!

 

ONLY THEORY!

Apparently, global warming causes weak vision.

Apparently, global warming causes weak vision.

Nah, I just know at your age you need all the help you can get. :lol:

Nah, I just know at your age you need all the help you can get. :lol:

Hush up and be a good boy.

 

Here's another for you to put your spin on.

 

Plenty of info, but I'm sure it won't satisfy you.

 

I read it. So what? A lot of grant money is flowing into climate change/global warming research. Something would be wrong if there were no funds available to study this. This article's authors present a lot of data, but freely admit in the Conclusions section on page 11 that they have merely provided a broad overview of funding data that bears further investigation. No proof of anything--just documentation of who is contributing how much to climate change research. Not exactly a smoking gun. :lol:

 

But you didn't answer my question in my last post: If manmade global warming is a hoax as you claim, why is so much money being allocated to study it by private organizations, individuals, and government entities around the world? What unifying "goal" could such a far-flung, disparate, enormous group of supposed conspirators possibly have to lead them to invent a crisis that doesn't hold up to basic scientific scrutiny? The claim that such a conspiracy exists is completely absurd.

 

On the other hand, the motivations of those who seek to discredit manmade global warming science are obvious. Here is an article about their efforts:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

What unifying "goal" could such a far-flung, disparate, enormous group of supposed conspirators possibly have to lead them to invent a crisis that doesn't hold up to basic scientific scrutiny?

Umm...election? :sssh:

Umm...election? :sssh:

 

Two responses. 1) Scientists from around the world have come to similar conclusions regarding the root cause of global warming. Are we so vain as to believe they're all trying to influence our elections (and would resort to publishing bogus research?) Sorry, that one pegs the needle on the Conspiracy Nut meter. 2) Aren't there easier ways to influence elections than to construct an elaborate scientific ruse, complete with supporting, peer-reviewed scientific papers requiring hundreds of millions of dollars of research money to fund? If your goal is to influence elections, why not just put that money directly into campaign issue ads?

Aren't there easier ways to influence elections than to construct an elaborate scientific ruse, complete with supporting, peer-reviewed scientific papers requiring hundreds of millions of dollars of research money to fund? If your goal is to influence elections, why not just put that money directly into campaign issue ads?

Hmm.....no, I think that's probably the easiest way to go.

I read it. So what? A lot of grant money is flowing into climate change/global warming research. Something would be wrong if there were no funds available to study this. This article's authors present a lot of data, but freely admit in the Conclusions section on page 11 that they have merely provided a broad overview of funding data that bears further investigation. No proof of anything--just documentation of who is contributing how much to climate change research. Not exactly a smoking gun. :lol:

 

But you didn't answer my question in my last post: If manmade global warming is a hoax as you claim, why is so much money being allocated to study it by private organizations, individuals, and government entities around the world? What unifying "goal" could such a far-flung, disparate, enormous group of supposed conspirators possibly have to lead them to invent a crisis that doesn't hold up to basic scientific scrutiny? The claim that such a conspiracy exists is completely absurd.

 

On the other hand, the motivations of those who seek to discredit manmade global warming science are obvious. Here is an article about their efforts:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

I'll answer your question with a another question. If it's real, why won't they have open debates as they've so often turned down? Fear of exposure, perhaps? :sssh:

 

One more question that's yet to be answered. Where is your proof that it's man-made?

Two responses. 1) Scientists from around the world have come to similar conclusions regarding the root cause of global warming.

Scientists are in general agreement as to the root cause of global warming. What they are not in agreement to is the root cause of changes in greenhouse gas accumulation.

On the other hand, the motivations of those who seek to discredit manmade global warming science are obvious. Here is an article about their efforts:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

This attempt at a "news" article is your smoking gun?!

 

The only problem is — Newsweek knew better.

 

 

Reporter Eve Conant, who interviewed Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the ranking member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, was given all the latest data proving conclusively that it is the proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics. (A whopping $50 billion to a paltry $19 million for skeptics — yes, that is billion to million.

 

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/100434.shtml

I say play nice.

As for the global warming thing, I believe to a degree some of it, but not all of it.

I'll answer your question with a another question. If it's real, why won't they have open debates as they've so often turned down? Fear of exposure, perhaps? :sssh:

 

You mean a debate like this one?

 

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climatechange/summary.asp

 

 

One more question that's yet to be answered. Where is your proof that it's man-made?

 

People who understand the scientific process know that there is always uncertainty. But the risk of that uncertainty is mitigated by the peer review process that continuously weeds out faulty methods and conclusions from the scientific record. I'll stand by the thousands of climatologists around the world who keep each other honest and have concluded that CO2 emissions from human activity are the root cause behind global warming. People who want to ignore the views of thousands of qualified, professional scientists can have whatever belief system they want.