Originally Posted by serenityseeker

Let me get this straight. The people that believe global warming is an issue refuse to debate, but those that think it is not are the only ones willing to debate scientific facts? I just don't buy that, a rather absolute statement.

Where did Gore or other people, more appropriately scientists, say "end of debate"? I think I missed that.

The point is what you are doing is nothing more than the continued politicizing of the issue, really no different from those you are attempting to debunk. IMHO.

Then your not paying attention. Last night for an example, they had a women on the show and was asked point blank about the man made global warming issue. She said there is no issue because the consensus says that man made global warming is a scientific fact. When the host said that there should be a debate...she said there is no need for debate.
There are many scientists who do not believe there is a man made global warming trend.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2..._dennis_av.php

Well, if this were a human caused warming, it should have started about 1940 and trended strongly upward as global industrialization followed World War 2. That isn't what happened. The warming started about 1850. We had a surge of warming from about 1850 to 1870. We had another surge from 1916 to 1940 and then, when the greenhouse gasses began to spew from the factories, the temperatures went down for 35 years. 1976 to 1998, we had another surge of warming, but we've had no warming in the last 8 years. So, what we have is an erratic warming that started too soon to be blamed on humans and is not following in the footsteps of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Also, take note that they are starting to call it "global change" instead of global warming..as they can't make up their minds if we need to wear skimpier bathing suits or stock up on insulated underwear.

Originally Posted by serenityseeker

To be clear,Carlin is an economist, and Davidson is an ex-member of the Carter administration Council of Environmental quality...and to be clear niether of the men are scientists. There paper is basically a review of articles that are for the most part not even peer reviewed.

The point of this reply is that this "smoking gun" is no different that any number of other politically motivated papers on either side of the argument, perhaps different in that it is not done by scientists, has no real research, and is just a selective review of "un-peer reviewed" papers to a large extent.

It did not, by most scientific standards warrant publishing.
To try to lay this off as some Obama administration cover up is ridiculous and simply more political BS and sensationalism from the media and politicians.
Perhaps it is better to put efforts into more real unbiased research and try to find out to what extent we do or do not need to make changes. That this is politicized at all is pretty indicative of peoples priorities.

I could not disagree with you more emphatically. I suspect that you have never read the 98 page report in its entirety or else you would not have been so erroneously judgemental. This is a link to the actual report. I did read it and could find no correlation to your misleading judgemental analysis about the Carlin-Davidson report. Here is a link to the actual report. I would be interested in opinions from anyone who takes the time to read it.

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

The "smoking gun" you cavalierly dismiss is rooted in the suggestion that the Obama administration and the EPA relied on the "U.N.'s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report. That report, however, was a political document, not a scientific one. Knowing that current scientific research disproves the anthropogenic global warming theory, the U.N. ordered that no recent research be considered in the IPCC report."

The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Here is the "smoking gun", in my opinion, based on my own amateur, independent cursory research on the subject. There is a virtual dearth of information about the latest IPCC authors report that in fact is critical of its own 2007 report. The authors of the UN's IPCC 2007 report....connect the dots.....have in a follow-up report suggested a "10 year postponement of global warning". Further, they state their 2007 report to the UN, did not take into account regional climate oscillations in the Atlantic Ocean since these are/may now be turning toward a "cooler" mode". They now believe that a global warning "postponement" appears likely. Please remember that this revelation is from the authors of the IPCC report that is the basis for all the global warning gymnastics, including Cap and Trade, we are now going through. You won't be reading about that in the Times or the rest of the elite media. However, if you wish, you can peruse it right here on TOTV the truly independent source for political news.....well.....opinions anyway. "Smoking gun anyone ?"

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf page 89 of 98.

Regarding your somewhat cheap shot at the authors, you state, "To be clear,Carlin is an economist, and Davidson is an ex-member of the Carter administration Council of Environmental quality...and to be clear neither of the men are scientists. " You perpetuate an omission of convenience and that is that Carlin and Davidson work for the EPA in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics. They are superbly credentialed as noted below to comment with authority on the subject matter in issue. Concurrently while you diminish their stellar work as "politically motivated" papers, you overtly give the IPCC 2007 report, the mother of all GW reports, a pass even though it is de facto, a political paper.

Even further, you omit and mislead with their credentials to speak to the subject. To correct the record:

Dr. Carlin, got his undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and his PhD in economics from MIT,

Dr. John Davidson has a Ph.D., Physics, 1972, University of Michigan

If you read my original post, I think we are somewhat in agreement as I clearly stated I just wanted to see all the facts made public so that the American public can make their own conclusions and choices....notwithstanding my straightforward disapproval of the current administration agenda.

On another note, I appreciate the time you take to offer your articulate professional insights into the National Health Care debate.

Have a good evening.

Al Gore has refused to debate time and time again. He said the debate is over. There are many articles on Google confirming this fact.

Trying to debate Global Warming with some is like trying to debate the people that still believe the Holocaust never happened. Here's an article that might shed some light to otherwise dim views...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...l_warming.html

Chelsea...how unlike you to hip shoot without doing your homework. The "dimmest" view is the posting of a link to a publication that uses the "suspect" IPCC 2007 report, currently under scrutiny, to make a point. Here's a bright flash for you, having crossed sabers with you before, I doubt reasoned opinions that conflict with your own will convert the tenacious, applaudable defense of your viewpoint.

The authors of the 2007 report your source relies on, have acknowledged they may have erred about global warming. You must have missed that in my long of wind post above. I could swamp you with links to opposing opinions but wouldn't have as much fun.

The bright spot is having engaged you in the debate.

Have a good evening.

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC , ISN'T THAT LIKE THE NEW YORK TIMES WITH PICTURES.........LETS TRY TO PICK READING MATERIAL THAT DOESN'T HAVE AN AGENDA.........

FUMAR ..

Originally Posted by cabo35

I could not disagree with you more emphatically. I suspect that you have never read the 98 page report in its entirety or else you would not have been so erroneously judgemental. This is a link to the actual report. I did read it and could find no correlation to your misleading judgemental analysis about the Carlin-Davidson report. Here is a link to the actual report. I would be interested in opinions from anyone who takes the time to read it.

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

The "smoking gun" you cavalierly dismiss is rooted in the suggestion that the Obama administration and the EPA relied on the "U.N.'s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report. That report, however, was a political document, not a scientific one. Knowing that current scientific research disproves the anthropogenic global warming theory, the U.N. ordered that no recent research be considered in the IPCC report."

The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Here is the "smoking gun", in my opinion, based on my own amateur, independent cursory research on the subject. There is a virtual dearth of information about the latest IPCC authors report that in fact is critical of its own 2007 report. The authors of the UN's IPCC 2007 report....connect the dots.....have in a follow-up report suggested a "10 year postponement of global warning". Further, they state their 2007 report to the UN, did not take into account regional climate oscillations in the Atlantic Ocean since these are/may now be turning toward a "cooler" mode". They now believe that a global warning "postponement" appears likely. Please remember that this revelation is from the authors of the IPCC report that is the basis for all the global warning gymnastics, including Cap and Trade, we are now going through. You won't be reading about that in the Times or the rest of the elite media. However, if you wish, you can peruse it right here on TOTV the truly independent source for political news.....well.....opinions anyway. "Smoking gun anyone ?"

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf page 89 of 98.

Regarding your somewhat cheap shot at the authors, you state, "To be clear,Carlin is an economist, and Davidson is an ex-member of the Carter administration Council of Environmental quality...and to be clear neither of the men are scientists. " You perpetuate an omission of convenience and that is that Carlin and Davidson work for the EPA in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics. They are superbly credentialed as noted below to comment with authority on the subject matter in issue. Concurrently while you diminish their stellar work as "politically motivated" papers, you overtly give the IPCC 2007 report, the mother of all GW reports, a pass even though it is de facto, a political paper.

Even further, you omit and mislead with their credentials to speak to the subject. To correct the record:

Dr. Carlin, got his undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and his PhD in economics from MIT,

Dr. John Davidson has a Ph.D., Physics, 1972, University of Michigan

If you read my original post, I think we are somewhat in agreement as I clearly stated I just wanted to see all the facts made public so that the American public can make their own conclusions and choices....notwithstanding my straightforward disapproval of the current administration agenda.

On another note, I appreciate the time you take to offer your articulate professional insights into the National Health Care debate.

Have a good evening.

Your comments are misleading an do not address with accuracy the things I refer too. Superbly credentialed, for what? You are quite off base. If your political leanings are more important than validated science and researchers so be it, but do not presume that the rest of us will blindly aquiesce , and do not presume to know the extent of my readings and research which on this subject likely exceed yours.
In the end it is of no matter. Most of you are concerned with the political leanings of this much more than the possible effects to the planet. An open and inquisitive mind is required, as is holding people to scientific methods and standards. The very fact that there is controversy would indicate a detailed and open mined view of ALL of the evidence as it continues to become known is required.
Perhaps I can put it in a way that is more palatable to you. If there was a 1% chance that a certain building was likely to collapse, or that a terrorist attack would occur during a certain time frame would you take precautions? If there is even a small chance the the theories regarding global warming on on track, shouldn't we take precautions until we can be more certain either way? You would do well to spend as much time on the science of the issue as the political aspects.
I am frankly insulted by your crass and innaccurate comments concerning me (cheap shots etc) but it is what goes on in here, and expected.
You are welcome to the rest of the thread, it's all yours.

Oh, and have a good evening.

Take the test:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Gl...est/start.html

Originally Posted by The Great Fumar

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC , ISN'T THAT LIKE THE NEW YORK TIMES WITH PICTURES.........LETS TRY TO PICK READING MATERIAL THAT DOESN'T HAVE AN AGENDA.........

FUMAR ..

Good one.

serenityseeker....thank you for confirming that you never read the 98 page report prior to commenting with such authority on its relevancy, context and authors. Further thanks are in order for the privilege of your intellectually stimulating response.

As to your questions to me regarding collapsing buildings, terrorist attacks and global warming precautions...the answer lies in the scale of the response relative to the scale of the threat, ergo the crux of the debate you seem to take offense and umbrage to.

The thread was not started by me, hence, I do not claim ownership so you can't really give it to me. In retrospect, I may have over personalized my argument.

Really...have a nice evening.

Originally Posted by cabo35

serenityseeker....thank you for confirming that you never read the 98 page report prior to commenting with such authority on its relevancy, context and authors. Further thanks are in order for the privilege of your intellectually stimulating response.

As to your questions to me regarding collapsing buildings, terrorist attacks and global warming precautions...the answer lies in the scale of the response relative to the scale of the threat, ergo the crux of the debate you seem to take offense and umbrage to.

The thread was not started by me, hence, I do not claim ownership so you can't really give it to me. In retrospect, I may have over personalized my argument.

Really...have a nice evening.

Again, your inaccuracies, if not downright lies abound. At no point did I confirm I never read the report, quite the contrary actually.This of course speaks to the validity and/or credibility of your comments as a whole.
The only things I typically take umbrage with are unsolicited attacks and inaccurate, slanted information. As I said, you would do well to research and understand a little science to counterbalance the political rhetoric.

Originally Posted by serenityseeker

The knife cuts both ways and neither "side" participating in BS pseudoscience can claim the moral high ground. This should be about science, and real research thus far has compelling arguments for each side of the debate. Depending on your knowledge, interest, and interpretations one side may have a more compelling argument than the other. There is a plethora of information out there for those that are truly interested in actually learning rather than towing one political line or the other.

Nobody doubts that there is a plethora of information out there. Information is not scientific evidence. Consenses is not scientific proof. Scientific proof is repeatable. It "is". It doesn't require a bunch of people to agree and argue. It stands on its own merit.

Thus far, the case for global warming, caused by man and repairable by man is not supported by scientific evidence. It is be political in nature. If it is ever proven, I will support reasonable measures, shared by the efforts of the nations of the world. Until then I will fight to be sure that our nation is not destroyed by a bunch of guilty feeling self flaggelating people.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

Originally Posted by Yoda

Nobody doubts that there is a plethora of information out there. Information is not scientific evidence. Consenses is not scientific proof. Scientific proof is repeatable. It "is". It doesn't require a bunch of people to agree and argue. It stands on its own merit.

Thus far, the case for global warming, caused by man and repairable by man is not supported by scientific evidence. It is be political in nature. If it is ever proven, I will support reasonable measures, shared by the efforts of the nations of the world. Until then I will fight to be sure that our nation is not destroyed by a bunch of guilty feeling self flaggelating people.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

Wow...That,my man, was a home run!!! I wish I said all that!!!

Originally Posted by Yoda

Nobody doubts that there is a plethora of information out there. Information is not scientific evidence. Consenses is not scientific proof. Scientific proof is repeatable. It "is". It doesn't require a bunch of people to agree and argue. It stands on its own merit.

Thus far, the case for global warming, caused by man and repairable by man is not supported by scientific evidence. It is be political in nature. If it is ever proven, I will support reasonable measures, shared by the efforts of the nations of the world. Until then I will fight to be sure that our nation is not destroyed by a bunch of guilty feeling self flaggelating people.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

As I said, inaccurate and slanted information.
Of course it is supported by scientific evidence, just as it is refuted by the same thus far, depending on a myriad of factors. You are crackin me up.
This really is a waste of time. Good luck with "the fight". Hopefully while that has you occupied those with scientific training and knowledge will continue working towards sorting out some answers of substance as research continues.