Global Warming has been cancelled. Sorry.....

[neilli]

your side does try to influence people's behavior and impose restrictions based on your beliefs, and that is the problem.

And governments don't do exactly the same thing? Of course not, they're all wholy rational, concerned, benevelant lovely lovely people. Lobby groups, and convienient bribes combined with nice safe director positions once they leave government don't influence things at all.....

You may have total faith in whichever government having a long term view for the good of the population and the planet. I don't. Short term financial gain and re-election would seem to be the significant motivation for many global politicians, and so politics for hire doesn't really fill me with faith that our respective governments are gonna do anything for the longterm good of humanity, whatever that might be.....

Oh, and can we just quash that whole acid rain thing that killed millions of trees in northern Europe. Didn't happen. Wasn't caused by humans. Oh, no that's right, IT WAS.....

shutting up the opposition should not be necessary if you are in the right.

I agree totally.

[SeventhSon]

Seventh, you are free to believe what you want. just don't try to make me do something or not do something because of your beliefs. your side does try to influence people's behavior and impose restrictions based on your beliefs, and that is the problem.

Like it or not, the U.S. is a democracy where the beliefs of the majority do indeed shape laws which fortunately/unfortunately everyone has to abide by. I can live with that as long as the majority are properly informed.

and as you are SO inclucated into the religion of global warming to fail to admit to, and actually demand proof of, the overwhelming pressure brought to bear in the academic, local govt and scientific communities on people your side labels "deniers," I'm not really sure any proof would make any difference to you. I or the scientist with the sense to point out that your side has very little real science on it's side and an overhelping of emotion, would just be called more names and have rumors spread we take $ from oil companies or the Bush Administration.

Nope. I am NOT a blind follower of the global warming side. I don't really care that much actually. Global warming will only benefit me in my lifetime as I live in a cool climate and I could use longer summers lol.

I am just wholly unimpressed with the arguments of dissenters. That Ted Patterson in that video is funded by ExxonMobil is a fact. That ExxonMobil has funnelled $16 million dollars to groups that promote the dissenting opinion is a fact. When I see big corporations influencing a scientific debate, my bullshit radar fires. We have seen this before with tobacco. Up until recently, you could find scientists (on tobacco payroll) who would deny that tobacco caused lung cancer.

I *do* have a predisposition to not trust big corporations.

I'm not a scientist and neither are you. but I'm married to one. and I spent time studying this, and the various camps. I know what makes sense to me logically. and what does not. that's all.

I do have a degree in computer *science* which, at my university, required my taking Physics 1 & 2 where they made it a point to pound into my brain what the scientific method was all about.

as for your request for proof of the denier abuse, this is like asking me to prove the sun comes up in the morning, just look at the news every single day. people with the audicity to suggest that this global climate change hysteria is not a proven science, and far from it, are labelled, misrepresented, gaped at by the media, and told they should not be allowed to speak their point.

shutting up the opposition should not be necessary if you are in the right.

I am not saying i'm in the right. I'm just asking those who dissent to present one scientist who has published his findings in a peer reviewed journal.

the Weather Channel lady suggested this recently. did you miss that?
and the governor of OR was going to fire a "denier" because that person had the gall to challenge the global warming sermon.
these two examples in the past week alone. please.
you are quite the example of exactly what I'm talking about here. your responses show my point better than I ever could.

There is a benchmark for general scientific acceptance. It is called peer review. Without it, the press/government would have to bestow equal importance to people who claim the earth is flat or that the Holocaust did not happen, et. al.

No effective public policy decisions could occur if there wasn't a benchmark for what constitutes scientific acceptance. There has to be a bullshit filter.

I challenge you to find where someone who published a dissenting opinion in a peer reviewed journal was attacked or vilified. That's all.

[RacerX]

Man, you pull that peer review as often as Mattie Ross pulled the Lawyer J. Daggett "like a gun" in the 1969 movie "True Grit"

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0065126/quotes

[SeventhSon]

Man, you pull that peer review as often as Mattie Ross pulled the Lawyer J. Daggett "like a gun" in the 1969 movie "True Grit"

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0065126/quotes

lmao!

again, i have no strong opinion on global warming. i do have strong opinions on what kind of science (or lack thereof) is used to frame the debate. e.g., i am WAY more concerned that the same disinformation methods will be used to inject the teaching of creationism bullshit into my kids' school curriculum.

[xenophobe]

Just curious. Are you a scientist?

No. Are you a scientist?

Please disprove the fact that the Earth naturally goes through cycles of heating with glaciers melting, and then cooling where glaciers grow again.

Provide statistical comparisons as to the differences between pre-recorded cyclic events and current climate changes.

Please provide data regarding contaminant levels from volcanic activity during these same time periods and factor them into your climate model, including changes of atmospheric conditions from meteor impacts, solar radiation, industrialization and metropolitan growth.

Please compare this data to a control subject identical to the Earth without a species of life capable of altering it's environment in any significant fashion.

Thank you. Time is ticking.

Of course, please provide sources for your data.

[skorb]

Seventh, the problem is you have this scientific proof thing backward (as Xenophobe points out above).

it is the doomsday climate change global warming prognosticators who are making these wild claims, and thus must PROVE what they are claiming is accurate and supported scientifically. they cannot provide any scenario that does not crumble under basic logic.

those like me who are rightly skeptical of these wild claims, due to lack of positive proof of claims of catastrophic man-made warming of the earth, are not in the scientific position of having to offer proof of any theory.

we're still waiting for you to prove what you seem to have already accepted as fact.

[SeventhSon]

No. Are you a scientist?

Please disprove the fact that the Earth naturally goes through cycles of heating with glaciers melting, and then cooling where glaciers grow again.

Provide statistical comparisons as to the differences between pre-recorded cyclic events and current climate changes.

Please provide data regarding contaminant levels from volcanic activity during these same time periods and factor them into your climate model, including changes of atmospheric conditions from meteor impacts, solar radiation, industrialization and metropolitan growth.

Please compare this data to a control subject identical to the Earth without a species of life capable of altering it's environment in any significant fashion.

Thank you. Time is ticking.

Of course, please provide sources for your data.

I could gather that data, stare at it, and come up with bupkus. Same as you. Because you and I are not trained to interpret it. So again, in the absence of me trusting your interpretation of the data or your assertion that its uninterpretable, I choose to listen to climatologists who, in study after study, come to the same conclusion and publish as such in peer reviewed journals.

If, as you assert, the data doesn't or can't come close to supporting the position that global warming is caused by humans, where is the peer reviewed research that supports that position? It's certainly not for lack of money that such research does not exist. Where is it? Is it suppressed? By who?

The science supporting global warming is suppressed by the politicians.

The science opposing global warming is "suppressed" by peer review in prestigious journals.

You can easily figure out from that one where the scientific community stands on the issue

[straycat]

You know the top 10 most polluted places on earth are not in the USA.7 are in Russia.2 are in China 1 in India.So they need to be getting of the back of the USA and blaming us for the suposed "green house gases".Its a bunch of shit in my book.

[neilli]

Please disprove the fact that the Earth naturally goes through cycles of heating with glaciers melting, and then cooling where glaciers grow again.

You'd have to be a idiot to want to disprove that. It's humanities 'exageration' or influence on that that is being discussed here. However, you can not deny all the evidence which indicates that humanity has influenced the 'behaviour' of the planet - if you do, I repeat: You'd have to be a idiot.

You cut one tree down = no practicle difference. Howver, if you flatten the rainforests at the same time as pumping millions of tons of man made or man-released chemicals into the environment, that's gonna have an effect. As soon as you're including your "industrialization and metropolitan growth" into any equation, you're going to inherantly factor in human infuence.

If you accept that humanity creates smog (just look at LA), why is it so hard to think that smog could be having a bigger effect somewhere down the line?

Without a 'control' earth, none of what you're asking for is possible, so it's ultimately all up for debate, but like treating a kid badly, eventually, someday, it'll come back and bite you on the ass.....

You know the top 10 most polluted places on earth are not in the USA.7 are in Russia.2 are in China 1 in India.

That may well be the case, but you're into the realms of "well he murdered 12 women and I only killed 3 so I should be allowed to go free"......

[SeventhSon]

Seventh, the problem is you have this scientific proof thing backward (as Xenophobe points out above).
it is the doomsday climate change global warming prognosticators who are making these wild claims, and thus must PROVE what they are claiming is accurate and supported scientifically. they cannot provide any scenario that does not crumble under basic logic.

those like me who are rightly skeptical of these wild claims, due to lack of positive proof of claims of catastrophic man-made warming of the earth, are not in the scientific position of having to offer proof of any theory.

we're still waiting for you to prove what you seem to have already accepted as fact.

lol. calling the scientists names doesn't make your position stronger. you claim that their conclusions (yes, i can cite published paper after published paper) would crumble under basic logic. Please produce such a reasoned refutation of these conclusions by a scientist in a peer reviewed journal. It should be trivial, no? We know where the bush administration and the oil companies stand. And they can't find one scientist to refute these "wild claims"? In fact, if the theory is incorrect, they have a responsibility to the public to point out the flaws and holes, otherwise they're just gasbagging. But no such scientific refutation exists. Why not?

[SeventhSon]

You know the top 10 most polluted places on earth are not in the USA.7 are in Russia.2 are in China 1 in India.So they need to be getting of the back of the USA and blaming us for the suposed "green house gases".Its a bunch of shit in my book.

In terms of pollution that may be true, but in terms of CO2 emmissions, we are responsible for 40,000 pounds of CO2 per US citizen per year. That is the highest of any country in the world, and more than China, India, and Japan combined.

Why exactly do you think it's a bunch of shit?

For the record, I don't think that is a statistic we should be ashamed about. We were/are the industrial leader of the world. It is what it is.

[OnlineStageGear]

The first time I get some data that isn't tainted by politics, I will be willing to read it.

[SeventhSon]

The first time I get some data that isn't tainted by politics, I will be willing to read it.

The first time I get some data that isn't tainted by politics, I will be willing to read it.

A White House report that says people cause global warming.

The report, titled Our Changing Planet, is part of a regular series that summarises recent and planned climate change research by 13 government agencies. It was signed by Bush's secretaries of commerce and energy, along with his science advisor.

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/default.htm

The National Academy of Science ("Advisors to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine") commissioned by a Republican congress also recently produced a report that concluded that the Earth's temperature is at the highest levels in 400 years.

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/Surface_Temps_final.pdf

[xenophobe]

I choose to listen to climatologists who, in study after study, come to the same conclusion and publish as such in peer reviewed journals.

The science supporting global warming is suppressed by the politicians.

The science opposing global warming is "suppressed" by peer review in prestigious journals.

You can easily figure out from that one where the scientific community stands on the issue

So what's your stance on gun control?

[xenophobe]

If you accept that humanity creates smog (just look at LA), why is it so hard to think that smog could be having a bigger effect somewhere down the line?

Why don't you also say secondhand smoke kills. Even though the studies prove that the effects are negligible, it still kills.