An Inconvenient Truth... for Al Gore.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Love the way you try to discredit the journal that published the report.

Why not? How would publishing a physics journal make one an expert on climate change?

[Pepto]

Why not? How would publishing a physics journal make one an expert on climate change?

I just found it funny that one could try to validate a report by discrediting the source that published it.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

I just found it funny that one could try to validate a report by discrediting the source that published it.

...what? Who was doing that? Or are you just making the world's most haphazard strawman argument? I said the report stood on its own merits, you tried to discredit the report by quoting the opinion of a physics journal.

[Vette Boss]

I think he fails at reading comprehension...

[Pepto]

...what? Who was doing that? Or are you just making the world's most haphazard strawman argument? I said the report stood on its own merits, you tried to discredit the report by quoting the opinion of a physics journal.

I wasn't talking about you. I was trying to say that saying things like so-called "experts" was an attempt to discredit the journal. Sorry that my english isn't very good. It's not my native language.

About the report: I'm not an expert on the subject so I'd rather place my bet on the vast majority of very credible scientists who disagree with the report. Just seems like the way to go...

[airmenair]

^ Who disagrees with it? It hasn't even been reviewed or verified as far as I can tell.

[Pepto]

^ Who disagrees with it? It hasn't even been reviewed or verified as far as I can tell.

The American Physical Society.

This debate is pretty pointless. The more anyone tries to convince others the more they try to hold on to their original stance.

[airmenair]

^

From http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...7/monckton.cfm:

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

?

[Pepto]

Try doing some research for yourself... Couple of minutes of googling found these rebuttals and a critique by someone at the American Physical Society.

[Ottobon]

Try doing some research for yourself... Couple of minutes of googling found these rebuttals and a critique by someone at the American Physical Society.

The overall point is that people shouldn't be made to feel guilty, or taxed without reason, for a subject that by all means is still a theory. To me legislating anything in the name of Global Warming is just as stupid as outlawing gay marriage because "the bible said so." Its one of those things that has more of a faith based following then anything else, and thats what makes it dangerous.

Furthermore, about that graph i posted. 1st of all its interesting to me because that graph was made before enviromental hysteria was wide spread, so with that in mind it unlikely to be baised one way or another, and 2ndly take a gander at the timeline, you'll notice all the other climate graphs deal maybe at the most in millenia.


Also, i do not for a second believe that neo-environmentalists care at all for lose of human life, if that was the case DDT would have never been banned. Do you have any idea how many people potentially die every year because they can no longer afford to fight off malaria? Of course to those in power wound'nt care anyways because their not latte sipping urbanites who can easily be manipulated into forking over tax dollars to benefit the misleading.

[Hercules286]

Actually I have and I have noticed that there are much better options if you just want money.

You should've also noticed they don't have any money-making tallents.

[Sir Stiggington]

I have to agree completely with Ottobon on this debate.

First of all, there is massive evidence that does not support the CO2 theory, and it is simply being ignored. There are also substitute theories (cosmic rays, sun, etc.) which have also been ignored in IPCC reports and the likes.

Secondly, the data that is provided to support the CO2 theory is just as, if not much more flawed than the evidence that does not support it.

Thirdly, the IPCC and similar groups are saying that there is a consensus, while anyone who knows the subject knows there isn't.

And finally, as Ottobon said, how can governments be taking action by taxing people, etc. on a theory that has not even been proven.

I reccomend you read this:
http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf

The NIPCC report which is very convincing and scientifically accurate (peer reviewed, etc)

[Scott]

Did anyone else catch the story about China wanting to sell the USA carbon credits for all of the babies they have aborted over there? They claim that the situation would be MUCH worse if those children were allowed to be born. I am a pro choice guy and even I wanted to puke when I heard that line of bullshit.

This is not the best link to support my post, but I have to get to work! http://pirate-king.com/episode/3774