2500 scientists..from 113 countries came together a few days ago...

[ToxicAvenger]

in a massive conspiracy..to lie about global warming 

[ribonucleic]

That was before ExxonMobil's $10,000 checks cleared.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm?cnn=yes

[ToxicAvenger]

whoops..this ws supposed to go on general topics..

sorry..

move it..

[Camel Jockey]

What do they have to cover up if global warming is not real?   How do the people who claim global warming is nothing more than a liberal scare tactic defend this?

[ToxicAvenger]

What do they have to cover up if global warming is not real?   How do the people who claim global warming is nothing more than a liberal scare tactic defend this?

scientists have grants n such to gain..which apparently is wayy more $ than oil companies make... 

[ribonucleic]

What do they have to cover up if global warming is not real?    How do the people who claim global warming is nothing more than a liberal scare tactic defend this?

The right-wing has an antagonistic relationship with science and other manifestations of the "fact-based community".

[ToxicAvenger]

The right-wing has an antagonistic relationship with science and other manifestations of the "fact-based community".

you mean fundie christians 

[Camel Jockey]

you mean fundie christians 

You mean religious idiots in general.

[ToxicAvenger]

You mean religious idiots in general.

you know brownie..you CAN make fun of christians without people mistaking you for a muslim 

[Camel Jockey]

you know brownie..you CAN make fun of christians without people mistaking you for a muslim 

whatchu talkin about? 

[ToxicAvenger]

whatchu talkin about? 

lol you know exactly what i'm talking about machi walla...

[BRUCE]

I hate to interrupt the little pat-on-the-back session that is in progress here, but perhaps a few of you should peruse this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16948233/site/newsweek/

From the article written by Prof. Ross McKitrick, who participated in the study:

Last Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group charged with assessing the state of the world's climate, unveiled the summary of its latest report. The IPCC Web site claims an impressive number of participants: 450 lead authors, 800 contributors and 2,500 expert reviewers (of which I was one). But it would be a mistake to assume all these experts endorse everything in summary, including its bottom-line assessment: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." Many disagree with the conclusion itself or the claimed level of certainty, but the fact is, we were never asked. Most participants worked only on small portions of the report, handed in final materials last summer and never ventured an opinion on claims made in the summary.

Don't make the same mistake others have in declaring this debate over, as the Professor has rightly pointed out.

[ToxicAvenger]

I hate to interrupt the little pat-on-the-back session that is in progress here, but perhaps a few of you should peruse this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16948233/site/newsweek/

From the article written by Prof. Ross McKitrick, who participated in the study:

Last Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group charged with assessing the state of the world's climate, unveiled the summary of its latest report. The IPCC Web site claims an impressive number of participants: 450 lead authors, 800 contributors and 2,500 expert reviewers (of which I was one). But it would be a mistake to assume all these experts endorse everything in summary, including its bottom-line assessment: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." Many disagree with the conclusion itself or the claimed level of certainty, but the fact is, we were never asked. Most participants worked only on small portions of the report, handed in final materials last summer and never ventured an opinion on claims made in the summary.

Don't make the same mistake others have in declaring this debate over, as the Professor has rightly pointed out.

and their gain would be?

Most participants worked only on small portions of the report

microsegmentation of duties involved..exactly what ws done in the 911 investigation..

[BRUCE]

Since I've made it my Global Warming dogma to not respond to one of the participants in this thread, I'll respond in this way:

This report has used 2,500 reviews from scientists across the globe, some of which, as I have shown, do not agree with the findings.  What's important to note is that this report is not necessarily the consensus of the scientists that are supposedly represented by it.  Proceed with caution.

[Mr. Intenseone]

The right-wing has an antagonistic relationship with science and other manifestations of the "fact-based community".

If it were such a fact then there wouldn't be any arguements now would there? I don't think anyone is denying it, they're just making too much of a big deal out of it!

I remember last year some liberal yaahoo blamed Bush for the happening of Katrina.....what a retard!

[tu_holmes]

If it were such a fact then there wouldn't be any arguements now would there? I don't think anyone is denying it, they're just making too much of a big deal out of it!

I remember last year some liberal yaahoo blamed Bush for the happening of Katrina.....what a retard!

Yeah, that was bullshit... Like he can fucking make a hurricane... I wasn't happy with FEMA's response, but Bush certainly wasn't to blame for it.

I think politically, the Dems are making to much out of it... from a humanitarian aspect, I think we really do need to do something about it and we need to act very quickly as a human race... I just hate how people are Demagoguing the whole thing... let's just do something about it and stop pointing fucking fingers.

If someone jumps up and says "It's a LIE!" then you get to snicker at them and point fingers, but until then, how about we get our environment in check ok?

[BRUCE]

If it were such a fact then there wouldn't be any arguements now would there?

Yes, it's intriguing that on one hand, the Left argues furiously with any heretic that contradicts their Global Warming beliefs, yet on the other, claims that the debate is over and Global Warming is fact.

Interesting behaviour indeed, they seem to be somewhat confused.

[tu_holmes]

Yes, it's intriguing that on one hand, the Left argues furiously with any heretic that contradicts their Global Warming beliefs, yet on the other, claims that the debate is over and Global Warming is fact.

Interesting behaviour indeed, they seem to be somewhat confused.

Both sides will argue because of the political motivations... They don't need or care about proof... kinda like talking about God or religion, you either believe or you do not... There is nothing more that can change your mind.

However, to me, it's simple... Do you love this planet? Do you love it more than what you may simply pillage from it? Do you love your kids enough to try to make sure it's there for them when they are old?

Let's say Global Warming isn't real... should that really make you any less conscience about protecting it? Because it's false gives us free reign to say, fuck the world?

I mean, even if Man isn't the cause, I'm going to at least ATTEMPT to do what I can... If it doesn't work out, fine, It wasn't man and whatever happens happens, but at least I can say that I tried to make sure it WASN'T my fault.

[BRUCE]

Both sides will argue because of the political motivations... They don't need or care about proof... kinda like talking about God or religion, you either believe or you do not... There is nothing more that can change your mind.

However, to me, it's simple... Do you love this planet? Do you love it more than what you may simply pillage from it? Do you love your kids enough to try to make sure it's there for them when they are old?

Let's say Global Warming isn't real... should that really make you any less conscience about protecting it? Because it's false gives us free reign to say, f**k the world?
I mean, even if Man isn't the cause, I'm going to at least ATTEMPT to do what I can... If it doesn't work out, fine, It wasn't man and whatever happens happens, but at least I can say that I tried to make sure it WASN'T my fault.

No one is saying this about the world - I need a home as much as you do, my earth brother.  The reason I am interested in the debate raging over Global Warming relates to regulations placed on people by things like the Kyoto protocol, which is being poorly followed by those that have ratified it anyway.  I believe, from the evidence shown, the extent that some Global Warming subscribers would like us to go to to achieve something we're highly ambiguous on is dangerous from an economic perspective.

For America, and to a lesser extent Australia, to enter into the Kyoto protocol, would be crippling for their economies, and would lower the standard of living.  The Left would love us to rescind back into the caves - we would leave a smaller 'carbon footprint', but probably also live to a ripe old 25 years of age.  This, obviously, has little to do with how much you or I love our children

You want your kids to live in a better world than we do?  Guess what?  So do I - it's just that we have different opinions on how that should be achieved.

[tu_holmes]

No one is saying this about the world - I need a home as much as you do, my earth brother.  The reason I am interested in the debate raging over Global Warming relates to regulations placed on people by things like the Kyoto protocol, which is being poorly followed by those that have ratified it anyway.  I believe, from the evidence shown, the extent that some Global Warming subscribers would like us to go to to achieve something we're highly ambiguous on is dangerous from an economic perspective.

For America, and to a lesser extent Australia, to enter into the Kyoto protocol, would be crippling for their economies, and would lower the standard of living.  The Left would love us to rescind back into the caves - we would leave a smaller 'carbon footprint', but probably also live to a ripe old 25 years of age.  This, obviously, has little to do with how much you or I love our children

You want your kids to live in a better world than we do?  Guess what?  So do I - it's just that we have different opinions on how that should be achieved.

I doubt we do... I'd bet we could both achieve what we are looking for, and along the way, perhaps both receive what we thought impossible.

Most people really aren't that different... It's just the loud talkers who get all the attention.