Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Crabtownboy, Oct 31, 2011.
Another nail in the coffin of the deniers of global warming.
oh well then ....its settled
Why not try to reply with a rational comment. Even knowledgeable critics are changing their stance.
Maybe you should look up the definition of rational. The so called science behind the whole myth has long been discredited. The polar bears are not dying off but increasing, the ice caps are not melting at that rate originally claimed and the released emails have shown a collusion to withhold information that brings doubt to the whole thing. At first the claim was it is settled science and anyone opposing this has been demonized and attempts have been made to ruin their careers. That behavior alone damages the credibility of this myth.
Any scientist who falls in line with this myth will lose credibility and most likely has been given some personal benefit.
You have shown nothing here, either old nor new references, to support you opinion. Thus it remains an unsubstantiated opinion. All the latest evidence goes against your opinion. But then some still believe the world is flat.
What I said is common knowledge. It seems you are engaging in a debate tactic rather than a real conversation. And you have not shown (by your own standard) "all the latest evidence" to prove that it goes against the facts I have stated. But I will tell you what. I will cater to your whim:
More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore
My whole problem is not even if the globe is warming or not, perhaps it is. The question is it a natural cycle or anthropogenic?
We have had warmer periods before when there were less people and less burning of fossil fuels.
Professor denies global warming theory
Worlds leading scientist fighting against global warming is opposed to cap and trade
Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
What the BEST data actually says
The Games Climate Scientists Play
Exactly. Another factor is the selection of the endpoints for the timespan over which the warming is recorded.
I like to qualify someone's position on global warming, er, climate change with these three questions. How a person responds to these questions gives me a good indication of where they stand on the issue.
1. Is the earth increasing in temperature?
2. If so, is the increase in temperature being caused by man's activities?
3. If so, how catastrophic will the results of increasing temperature be for life on earth?
I would say yes to #1, depending on what year you start from.
I would say "we don't know" to #2, and therefore I couldn't answer #3.
This is the key issue imho. Too many who are trying to exploit the reality of warming are causing half the backlash.
Granted I'm a fan of zero emission products because I believe that being a good steward of our creation is a biblical command. But I don't see how mankind, in its current state, has impacted world in such a way to bring on the catastrophic destruction, erroneously, predicted by many of fringe environmentalists who are using it to push an agenda and not a true point.
One cannot look at the overwhelming evidence from across the globe (the rising temps in oceans, the thinner ice layers in the ice caps, the hotter summers in almost all regions, the general uptick in overall temperatures, etc etc etc) and not see that warming is happening. That said it is too rash to say it is solely caused by mankind.
We have had periods of warming and cooling. Much of it is, imho, a product of God's built in design for regulating the more effecient and effective environment where humanity can, and does, prosper. Because of the cyles we see a lot of benefit.
Of course there will always be people who believe whatever they heard from their favorite (non-scientist) preacher pushing their political point over the evidence. Thankfully, the enlightened minds of our culture move beyond the extremes represented in these conversations.