Originally Posted by serenityseeker

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.

You are missing the key issue here. If there were scientific evidence of global warming caused and fixable by man, it would just be so. Global warming caused and fixable by man would be fact. Once it is refuted by any of the myriad of factors, it is reduced to the level of a theory. A flat earth was a theory that was supported my the Catholic church. Global warming is a theory supported my the "Liberal" church.

As a side note, your statement, "This really is a waste of time. Good luck with "the fight." Seems to support a previous statement by a poster that Pro global warming supporters seem to thing that the subject has been decided.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

serenityseeker....I am surprised that someone as well read as you have acknowledged yourself to be, cannot distinguish between tongue in cheek sarcasm and abounding "downright lies". Less I digress further into the low road you seem to want to take this, perhaps from the perspective of your lofty scientific training and knowledge, you will enlighten us on the 98 page report you have acknowledged reading in its entirety. Inquisitive minds would appreciate your scientific insights.

What specific empirical data and information in the report is invalid?

What offended you about the report?

Does the report contain any redeeming data that is useful to defining the global warming issue?

Perhaps you can cite the specific political rhetoric in the report. I couldn't find much, but, than again, I don't have your discriminating perspective.

Is the holder of a Ph.D in physics a scientist?

Is a medical doctor a scientist?

Do you need a degree to be a scientist?

Good evening....make that good morning.

Originally Posted by cabo35

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.

Wowser! I guess you told me! Yes, I miss many things in your long-winded dissertations. But! You are right about one thing. There is nothing that can be said here that is going to change my opinion. I have my beliefs and you have yours. Time will tell the answer.

Many of you keep spouting off about your children and grandchildren's economic futures, but you turn away from their environmental futures. Guess what! Mother Nature is bigger than the economy... and she's p'oed! Let's hope there is a future for all of our young ones if global warming continues to be ignored. As I said... time will tell... tick, tock...

And a good evening to you too sir. Let me know the next time you win a Nobel Prize.

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 ..

How would you know Fumar dahling? You never got past the pictures of natives breast feeding their young??? The National Geographic does have an agenda. It's to educate.

Why not stick to your usual -- Dr. Seuss. I believe you left off as The Cat was about to get into the Hat... or was that the rat???

Now, you have to be a very good boy or you won't get your bedtime story!

Originally Posted by chelsea24

Wowser! I guess you told me! Yes, I miss many things in your long-winded dissertations. But! You are right about one thing. There is nothing that can be said here that is going to change my opinion. I have my beliefs and you have yours. Time will tell the answer.

Many of you keep spouting off about your children and grandchildren's economic futures, but you turn away from their environmental futures. Guess what! Mother Nature is bigger than the economy... and she's p'oed! Let's hope there is a future for all of our young ones if global warming continues to be ignored. As I said... time will tell... tick, tock...

And a good evening to you too sir. Let me know the next time you win a Nobel Prize.

The earth has a fever..... Nobody is deny global warming....The earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years before man could even stand on two feet. How do you think the Grand Canyon got there? And you know something? Earth will continue to warm and cool when all traces of mankind disappear.

Originally Posted by Yoda

A flat earth was a theory that was supported my the Catholic church.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

Yoda....are you saying the earth isn't flat and a flat earth is just a theory? That explains so much that has been confusing me. Your insights continue to amaze and enlighten.

There will always be a disagreement when the cause cannot be specified followed by a myriad of non specific cures and even more just in case solutions.

Much will be written and discussed. But significantly less will be done....unless there is a political or financial gain. Then we can hope for either or both to have any impact.

When something that takes centuries to manifest in commencing, who will be responsible how many years from now to show progress or lack thereof?

btk

Originally Posted by billethkid

There will always be a disagreement when the cause cannot be specified followed by a myriad of non specific cures and even more just in case solutions.

Much will be written and discussed. But significantly less will be done....unless there is a political or financial gain. Then we can hope for either or both to have any impact.

When something that takes centuries to manifest in commencing, who will be responsible how many years from now to show progress or lack thereof?

btk

My suggestion is to wait until the problem clearly and with scientific proof manifests itself, rather than some political or social motovation. Saying it doesn't make it so.

Yoda

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...rt_the_economy

He thinks were stupid

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../06/023883.php

Originally Posted by Yoda

My suggestion is to wait until the problem clearly and with scientific proof manifests itself, rather than some political or social motovation. Saying it doesn't make it so.

Yoda

I wish we had some warming here in Massachusetts. June was the coldest, rainiest month I can remember. Today is the 1st of July and it is still raining and cool. We are still in the 60's!!!!




Massachusetts For Global Warming

31,000 scientists signed this partition.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Originally Posted by Keedy

I wish we had some warming here in Massachusetts. June was the coldest, rainiest month I can remember. Today is the 1st of July and it is still raining and cool. We are still in the 60's!!!!




Massachusetts For Global Warming

Tonight, my wife asked me, "Do you think we'll see the sun before we sell the house?"

Keedy, do you remember the year with no Summer?

Yoda

Originally Posted by Yoda

Tonight, my wife asked me, "Do you think we'll see the sun before we sell the house?"

Keedy, do you remember the year with no Summer?

Yoda

I heard that 1816 there was no summer because of volcanic activity. Holy mackeral, how old are you Yoda?

Originally Posted by Keedy

The citizenry has been bombarded by the media that the consensus of man-made global warming was fact. The media has been telling us that there is no debate because the consensus said so.

......
EPA is a government agency. Think about it. Environment Protection means that they have a vested interest. After all, they do need a boogie man as to have a reason to protect us.....

Do you really believe that about the EPA? DO you think there aren't enough things on their platter already to protect us from like oil spills, contaminated water supplies, air quality, and more? They certainly don't have to conjure up new environmental hazards to spread their thin resources on.

Originally Posted by Taj44

Do you really believe that about the EPA? DO you think there aren't enough things on their platter already to protect us from like oil spills, contaminated water supplies, air quality, and more? They certainly don't have to conjure up new environmental hazards to spread their thin resources on.

Seems their thin resources keep getting fatter. From 7.8 Billion to 10.5 Billion.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/27/...lobal-warming/