In 50 years we're all going to be living in sod huts and drinking our own urine. Be afraid. Do what you're told.
I think it says much more than they intended that CNN began their story Friday on the release of the IPCC's report on global warming with the words "the debate is over." To a large degree that sentence summarizes the history of global warming as a political issue, because the focus of global warming supporters has always been more on silencing debate than on proving their arguments. If no one dares speak out against you for fear of losing endowments and being pilloried in the press, the standard of proof for your theories suddenly becomes much easier to meet. Peer review no longer has the same meaning in a climate of fear and intimidation.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - td
Where to begin....
Are some scientific activities corrupted by the interests for funders or the interest of their field of study.? Yes.
Are all scientific activities corrupted by the interests for funders or the interest of their field of study.? No.
Believe it or not there really are scientist who just want to perform unbiased scientific research, and who publish the factual results regardless of whether they support the interests of there funders or the interest of their field of study.
The level of skepticism displayed towards the intentions of scientist in comments above has gone well beyond lunacy.
- Are all cancer/aids researchers trying not to find a cure so that they can continue to keep trying to find a cure?
- Are astronomers in charge of looking for earthbound asteroids purposefully not recording data to ensure they will be able to continue searching forever?
- Do soldiers in the military try not to win wars in order to project a need for more military funding?
Can we just all agree that some research, on both sides, is factual.
Now...when the factual research gets in the hands of environmental agencies, energy companies, political organizations, etc.... it gets spun. No question.
There may be evidence out there that proves or disproves humans are a significant factor in the recent global warming trend, but who can we trust to review all the research and present an unbiased outlook?
Unfortunately, no one.
Dave broke down one side, as did Micheal Chrighton to greater detail in State of Fear, but an article could just as easily written about the other side.
How do we remove the spin? Peer reviewed scientific journals are great, but they look at individual research projects. Not the grand summaries of science that can say 'yes it's our fault, no it's not'.
What is needed is better policy to remove 'interests' from the equation.
- Set-up independent research organizations with fixed budgets, and blind funding.
- Give them research to perform in multiple fields and rotate projects through several groups.
- Establish a government body with equal representation from both parties (ex: supreme court) to peer review major developments in scientific research that will effect policy. (Climate change, stem cells, smoking, etc)
Therefore in a way it is a political debate in the sense that better policy is needed.
Sadly both sides are so wrapped up in their own spin/interests this policy will never happen. And we will continue on towards our environmental destruction, or waste billions trying to reverse the irreversible.
77 - Maurice
Less hyperbole. More information
78 - Maurice
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
The above quote is from the link provided.
79 - Jesse Miksic
troll - no worries about #60... I'm not willing to keep fighting over that one. Especially since I also credited your #2 with being a rare spark of credibility in this argument. So thank you for that.
Maurice - Don't just accuse people of not understanding something. Presumption of hyperintelligence is a fundamental problem in this whole thread, and on this whole "internet," and your comment above is a shining example of it. You assume that because I don't agree with Dave, that I don't understand him.
You're not an idiot, and neither am I. I understand that Dave thinks this issue is being twisted to political ends, and I didn't weigh in on that because I'm not willing to dispute it. However, from an environmentalist standpoint, the debate is framed entirely differently. It's not that "all science is objective and the apocalypse is coming," it's "whether or not there are politics involved, a lot of smart people are telling me something that sounds worth listening to. And maybe acting upon."
Right now, it's obviously not worth dissolving the sovereignty of the United States, or turning capitalism backwards, or halting all social and scientific progress. The problem is, if we wait thirty more years, it might be.
#70 & 72 - We're all conditioned into political cultures of various leanings, and I'm prepared to accept that scientists are often raised in liberal environments and academic settings. That's the extent of the correlation, though... none of the people I know in the scientific community could give a fuck about your politics.
80 - Jesse Miksic
Maurice - that's funny, that's EXACTLY what I just found a second ago, searching for "amount of global warming research" in Google and clicking on the first militantly anti-global warming link. It was circulated in 2000, the paper circulated with it was unpublished, and there's essentially no way of verifying the names, positions, or credentials of the signatories. The "OISM" is quite an organization, too, referencing a computer consultant as a "professor of electrical engineering" and publishing pamphlets on "How to Survive a Nuclear Attack"
Worth considering, but rather dubious as a source of hard data, and probably misrepresentative of the actual scientific community. Especially since, within the confines of the current debate, nobody is arguing with the facts of global warming... only, supposedly, the politics.
81 - D'oh
You know, all this hue and cry about how listening to the data, and acting opn it are going to "dissolve the U.S>" and other bullshit is just that...
paranoid, raving bullshit and scaremonger tactics
How simple is it to change quite a lot , with NO ramifications in the political arena?
Let's take a layman's stab at it.
The original diesel engine ran on peanut oil, it wasn't until later that petroleum based feuls were used.
The U.S. can do quite a bit to diminish emissions output by simply giving a tax break to every diesel truck, bus or car for the $300 conversion kit to switch to bio-diesel, give breaks to gas station chains to add a tank of the fuel, take all the farmers receiving subsidies and require them to grow crops for the fuel in order to receive their subsidies.
Then pass the law that in ...oh say 5 years, ALL new vehicles need to be bio-diesel (starting with ALL federal, state and local government vehicles in three years)...and stop production of parts for internal combustion and gas engines.
Hell, once the new vehicles (which bio-diesel hybrids might be best in the end, let the engineers figure that one out)are on the market...sell them to the emerging nations like China, as well as domestically...you know Europe will scarf them up, what with their gas prices.
New tech, new industries, new cash crops (peanuts, soybeans...even corn oils), all at a MUCH cheaper price than the $10 million an hour we are spending on Iraq...
Did i mention this would also remove much of the fuel for conflict in the Middle East, as well as their funding for terror?
Now, I came up with that, at a keyboard, with NO advanced degree, as a possible solution that's do-able with off the shelf tech, at a low cost with low impact for start up...and capital growth potential as well as foreign policy ramifications that are all good for the U.S.
Not even as big a project as Brazil switching to sugar ethanol.
There's an answer, try and shoot it down...but while you do, please do explain why the status quo is better or more desirable in ANY way.
82 - Nancy
I predict that when the pressure gets such that the fuel & auto industries are up against the wall & can weasel no farther, they will suddenly "discover" some brilliant new technology that they can implement all at once, they've been working on it but didn't want to jump the gun without thorough testing, etc. etc. etc. and bring forth a new fuel or new models that don't need traditional fossil fuels. Which in actuality, they've been harboring & sitting on all along - but it wasn't convenient for them to bring it out because they hadn't figured out a way to get a stranglehold on supply, either. I can guarantee nothing will be released until those on top now are also firmly in place as regards owning or controlling any new technologies as well. You heard it from me first.
83 - Jesse Miksic
D'oh, a sensible extrapolation. I didn't want to go to bat on that specific point, because it's too abstract to even discuss in terms that make any concrete sense. But I agree with you that warnings of "loss of sovereignty" and "anti-technology etc etc" are knee-jerk nationalism.
One of the funniest claims in the petition cited above (#above is the claim that global warming "lives on only in the dreams of anti-technologists []." Industrialists and oil prospectors are the ESSENTIAL anti-technologists. Anyone who claims green energy is a social or technological step backward is severely misinformed.
84 - Jesse Miksic
Sorry about the typo... I was referring to comment #78.
85 - Maurice
Jesse
I notice no rebuttal of the facts contained in the article or counter links.
Does that mean you concede that CO2 emissions are probably a good thing as the article suggests?
Here is one of the more interesting quotes:
When an increase in CO2 increases the radiative input to the atmosphere, how and in which direction does the atmosphere respond? Hypotheses about this response differ and are schematically shown in figure 9. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be about 14 ºC cooler (25). The radiative contribution of doubling atmospheric CO2 is minor, but this radiative greenhouse effect is treated quite differently by different climate hypotheses. The hypotheses that the IPCC has chosen to adopt predict that the effect of CO2 is amplified by the atmosphere (especially water vapor) to produce a large temperature increase (14). Other hypotheses, shown as hypothesis 2, predict the opposite that the atmospheric response will counteract the CO2 increase and result in insignificant changes in global temperature (25-27). The empirical evidence of figures 5-7 favors hypothesis 2. While CO2 has increased substantially, the large temperature increase predicted by the IPCC models has not occurred (see figure 11).
86 - D'oh
Maurice - might one suggest that it is simplicity itself to deceive a layman with charts and graphs?
Just as one might take the recent findings and conclusions with a grain of salt, so too do single source studies like the one you link too deserve scrutiny by others who are qualified to search for fallacies?
As I said previously, no matter who caused it(we can argue about that while heat death proceeds), if our actions can influence for either better or worse, should we not be discussing how to make things better rather than bickering?
Much more credence to the IPCC, with it's peer reviewed methodology by experts, than the site you link to...and others of it's ilk.
Especially in light of the AEI bounty put out for anybody to spin and distort to fit their agenda, no such evidence has been presented for saying the IPCC is influenced in their findings, and even the WH has endorsed said findings as factual.
Can we agree there just might be a problem here, and addressing said problem, as well as dealing with it, are MUCH more conducive to the well being of humans than ignoring it, hoping it will go away...or even worse, saving it for our descendants to deal with?
87 - moonraven
Descendants?
What descendants?
Or perhaps you meant the cockroaches....
88 - D'oh
moonraven - speak about your own genetic offspring, I was referring to humans.
89 - moonraven
No need for your insults, D'oh.
I was speaking about the fact that there will not BE any human descendants if this problem is not addressed.
90 - Lumpy
Despite some of d'oh's over the top reactions earlier, this is actually one of the most sensible and civil discussions of this topic i've seen online involving relatively reasonable people from opposing camps.
91 - D'oh
moonraven - i'll determine what i consider "needed", thank you very much..
Lumpy - trying to damn with faint praise? please point out which comment in this thread i went "over the top" with?
or are you speaking of other threads? it helps if you cite the source of your accusations, so i can try to parse things out understandably in case there is some confusion.
Now, if you would like to converse...read #81 and let's talk about possible solutions...anything less is just more noise.
92 - Jesse Miksic
Maurice -
I notice no rebuttal of the facts contained in the article or counter links.
Does that mean you concede that CO2 emissions are probably a good thing as the article suggests?
Of course not. It means that I don't pretend to understand the molecular physics of climate change. Do you? Are you fully cognizant of how the physical, chemical, and environmental variables fit together? I'd give you my take on this, but I'm aware that I don't have the necessary training, and my take would be retarded.
So all that's left to me is to trust the experts, with a dose of skepticism to protect me. Here's what I'm finding so far...
The "experts" you've cited in #78 have a blatant, undisguised agenda. They give political advice, part and parcel with their scientific conclusions, and they aggressively marginalize the opposition. For a slightly more credible study and discussion of the evidence, with both perspectives considered, read this:
Granted, a little out of date. Still, worthwhile data, considering both positions, evaluating the landmarks and criteria for each position. This guy weighs in on the greenhouse gases side carefully, and predicts that we'll be able to come to this conclusion much more securely in 10 years or so.
That time has come.
93 - SHARK
IRONY OF THE DAY:
Dave "Vox Populi" Nalle portrays scientists and environmentalists as having "alarmist positions on global climate change' -- and follows with this:
"What we're arguing about now is whether global warming will be used as an excuse to destroy national sovereignty, discourage capitalism and impose draconian and repressive government on developed nations to redistribute wealth and establish some sort of artificial 'social equity'..."
OOOOH. He's scared.
Of science.
And.
Environmentalists.
====
SHARK'S TAKE:
hmmm, lessee...
we DO need to get off oil for the long-term future of our economy -- and to lessen the impact from whack-job Middle Eastern nations.
And global warming -- in its 'later stages' -- does have the potential to impact the 'economy' in a much bigger way than say.. changing a few industries and jobs.
Heck, let's err on the side of safety. Let's...
NAW.
=====
IMPEACH DAVE "VOX POPULI" NALLE.
94 - moonraven
I am speaking for myself, d'oh. I do not need your insults to my offspring or to anything else. Nor am I willing to sit on my hands and accept them.
I am making the point that the planet is doomed. Our species has worn out its welcome. That is a point of view I am entitled to hold without your going off at me.
If you disagree with that, do so in a civil manner.
Better cut down on the coffee, man.
95 - SHARK
Dear Dave Vox Populi Nalle,
Don't think we didn't notice that you're trying to obscure your recent online deception AND attempt to gain some respect by spending the weekend working on this 50,000 word essay on some "subject" of major import to the world.
We know what yer doin', you sly ol' fox.
Or should that be "vox"?
=====
Kinda like:
USA: Where's Bin Laden?!
BUSH: Look! Over there! Saddam! WMDS!
[later]
VOTERS: Iraq is a disaster. And you're a lying, manipulative chickenshit!
BUSH: Look! Over there! Iran! WMDS!
BLOGCRITICS: Dave Nalle used a fake name to attack people.
NALLE: Hurumph. Let's talk about global warming, whatta ya say!
96 - D'oh
moonraven - despite your authoritarian pronouncements as to how i should type...i'll still do as i see fit...which is MY right, just as it is for you to express your opinion.
so i'll disagree, or agree in the manner i see fit, and keep it within the comments policy...as my track record shows (with rare exceptions)
but be civil? because you say so? you had best put down the peyote buttons, it will help cut down on the delusional assertion that what you type makes a fucking iota worth of difference to the likes of me, because i ain't no nice guy.
[Edited. And code fixed. The Cleaner]
97 - Maurice
Thanks, Lumpy #90. That is why I've hung in so long (the civility).
Jesse #92 - I have to take off for a while. I will read your link later and comment.
98 - Clavos
IRONY OF THE MONTH
moonraven actually saying this to ANYONE, much less D'oh:
If you disagree with that, do so in a civil manner.
99 - D'oh
Clavos - it's only the 5th...i'm fairly certain much grander examples of Irony will surface before the month draws to a close...
hell, i'll bet it doesn't stand for even the rest of the week...but that's another walk entirely.
100 - JR
Maurice: It is interesting to note that as recent as 4 years ago people had a passionate belief that an inert gas heavier than air could travel 6 miles into the atmosphere, be converted to chlorine and diminish the ozone layer.
Argon is an inert gas heavier than air. It also comprises 1% of the atmosphere. I guess you believe that it sits in a layer in the first few feet above the surface of the Earth, suffocating all life.
101 - Martin Lav
"We've all moved beyond that"
Dave Nalle
Dave,
Do you ever think the reason you are constantly trying to defend yourself and are always wondering:
"Did you even read the article?"
Is because people see through your disengenuous positions?
Write one thing, but imply another?
When Clavos isn't available to defend your position, create a new handle and defend yourself.....Vox?
Resign sir.
102 - D'oh
In another thread on the subject moonraven says: "Any debate that's "nice and calm" is not about anything worth bothering to debate." in comment #17.
That trumps the whole irony bit...for today at least.
103 - Clavos
Conceded, D'oh. Noteworthy that they're both moonraven's lines...
104 - moonraven
Nice and calm is now the opposite of your insulting me and calling my daughter a cockroach?
That was WAY out of line, even for this pesthole we are conversing in.
And you cannot say that it was to get me back--childish posture trotted out by folks like clavos--as I have never given you a blast of crap like that.
105 - Martin Lav
Hey Moonraven,
Didn't you in effect call your own daughter, yourself, me, clavos and D'oh......cockroaches?
When you said this:
"Descendants?
What descendants?
Or perhaps you meant the cockroaches....'
PS: We don't need no sticking badges....
106 - zingzing
moonraven: "...you cannot say that it was to get me back... as I have never given you a blast of crap like that."
blast of crap... that's the best three words written all day long.
mr is the queen crap blaster.
107 - D'oh
No? did you not say my thinking was "malleable, like dough"? there are other examples, but i have no need of such.
perhaps you might want to read what i typed again, what i said was "speak for your own offspring, i was talking about humans"...now was i implying something...yep, guilty...but if that is your threshold for unacceptable you might want to check yourself and what you have typed around here
and fair warning...that was fucking MILD on my part... play nice, and i am always nice back, spew vitriol and you are fair game, imo
your choice, step off or step up and wake the daemon.
nuff said?
108 - Emry
D'oh #81..."Then pass the law that in ...oh say 5 years, ALL new vehicles need to be bio-diesel (starting with ALL federal, state and local government vehicles in three years)...and stop production of parts for internal combustion and gas engines."
Google - compressed air car.
This would be the perfect city commuter - a car that emits clean air, produced by solar power, wind power, water power, tidal power and bio-diesel.
109 - D'oh
Good point, Emry. I didn't say what I proposed was the ONLY answer...just one that can be easily achieved with off the shelf tech, very quickly and with the least amount of pain or inconvenience even.
Well worth it in the grand scheme of things.
110 - D'oh
Oh, yeah...forgot to mention, there is some inherent danger in a compressed gas container moving at 50 plus miles per hour that is NOT inherent in what I propose.
But the debate over the best way to approach the problem is light years better than the bickering while "Rome" burns.
111 - moonraven
D'oh: Now you're playing Mister Macho Tough Guy with me?
This is a virtual space. My virtual tomahawk against your virtual heavy metal something still produces no reality.
At no point in my pun about your thinking being lilke dough did I imply that you were not human.
You fucked up. And then you made virtual threats (Oxymorons 101, here we come.)
112 - moonraven
You make me regret having encouraged you, when you were wallowing in your own private Idaho or private vale of tears, to keep posting.
113 - D'oh
Me? threats?
nope...read again, or you could try listening
my point is that if someone fucks with me, i get surly...fair warning, no threat at all, just a statement of empirical fact
was that "nice" enough for you?
if not, speak up...we can see where it goes, but for all that i have found some of your typings to have a semblance of sense, you lose much of it with other parts of your writings, as far as i am concerned...
oh yes...and i don't "play" at anything
you might want to read some of these articles to get some idea of where i'm coming from...
then, perhaps, we can talk
or, you can continue to blather about shit you know nothing about, just like i know nothing about Venezuela...so i keep out of the Chavez bickering
i say again step up, or step off...not any kind of threat...merely a bit of idiom equivalent to "put up or shut up"...or even closer...your choice as to whether we argue or let it alone
the Tao of D'oh
114 - Dave Nalle
Troll, because you seem miffed that I didn't respond to your #2 I've now gone back and reread it several times. I realize that you think it's some great challenge to what I wrote in the article, but it just isn't.
I wrote: "What is not certain, and is described in even in the IPCC report as only 'likely' is that humans are directly responsible for a worldwide trend of global warming."
You then outlined how the IPCC report defines likely and very likely and such. But none of those definitions contradicts what I wrote. 'Likely' and even 'Very Likely', by definition mean 'not certain'. What the IPCC report says is that humans are probably contributing to global warming to some meaningful degree. Nothing I said denied that reasonable conclusion from the report.
What the report does NOT say is that humans are directly responsible as the primary cause of global warming. The reason the report does not say that is that it's abundantly clear that global warming originated prior to industrialization and would continue with or without human participation, though perhaps at a somewhat lower rate.
Your attempt to focus on the semantics of how 'likely' is defined is a distraction from the real issue.
As for the lying, misrepresenting and cherrypicking, you just sound like a primadonna upset because I ignored your post. I ignored it because it didn't say anything meaningful to me. Sorry.
Dave
115 - D'oh
The "real issue" being what do we do about it?
Since you are willing to posit that humans are indeed having some deleterious effect, can you get behind working to fix the problem...lowering our contribution to the problem?
116 - Martin Lav
Apparently since the "left" are the ones that have been pushing this and now that the "right" (Dave Nalle) will concede that their could be some truth to humans causing global warming.
The LEFT will:
"make our industries more efficient and develop reliance on renewable energy, including nuclear power, rather than fossil fuels."
While the RIGHT along with Dave: will worry about:
"squabbling among themselves over who can have the remaining resources and who to blame for their fouled rivers, clouded skies and starving people."
That's my take on this....
117 - troll
if you intended to use the concept of likelihood in a fashion other than that specified by the authors of the report perhaps you should have avoided the ' ' marks
118 - Dave Nalle
However, there's a reason people see your politization of the debate (your framing it in explicit political terms) as a form of denial. Those of us who allow that global warming is a problem on which humans (fault aside) can have an affect, then see it as a logical progression that humans SHOULD be held to behavioral standards, both socially and by way of regulation, so we can get started making real-world compromises to restore the system that's gone into tailspin.
Jesse, I think calling it a 'tailspin' is way overstating the case. Only the most extreme and alarmist interpretations of the evidence would lead to that kind of characterization.
But you raise an important issue. What should the role of humans be in shaping the environment? I would even ask whether trying to counter global warming through human action is any less dangerous than contributing to the warming process.
What seems sensible is for humans to try to minimize their impact as much as possible for the future. Taking radical steps to reverse past trends or compensate for them by essentially reshaping the environment seems awfully dangerous.
You may not be denying science or evidence, but you're obfuscating the essential question: blame aside, politics notwithstanding, should we be taking action to change this environmental phenomenon?
I agree that this is a good question. It's not one for which the IPCC really has an answer, or considered for that matter. Being scientists, they just assumed from the start that we should take action. It's another aspect of the issue which has not been given due consideration.
demonstrating that it's not sweeping alarmist conjecture, but rather a researched and qualified argument based on statistics and preponderance of data.
The report does maintain a relatively calm perspective, though it rarely presents figures in context or elaborates on what some of the trends they identify mean in concrete terms. To a large extent they leave that to those who have come after to interpret the report, and it's from these groups that you see the alarmism at its most out of control.
What I see in coverage of the report are comments like this list of impending disasters from an article in the Huffington Post:
Much of this seems to have been picked up from AP articles, but where they are getting these predictions from is not yet clear to me, though the predictions seem to be coming from the UN, perhaps from remarks accompanying the release of the report, or from the full version of the report which has not yet been released.
These alarmist claims are not in the summary, which more or less sticks to the facts, but they ARE out there and being circulated, and they are the definition of the problem I'm talking about here.
Like it or not, this country's whole political system has been built on the enlightenment ideal of scientific authority and progress. Political accusations won't stick to scientists as well as they stick to other politicians. Science is a powerful, traditional institution, and scientists are not priests or desperate ideologues... they're people who have been brought up in a culture of strict subservience to testable evidence and balanced hypothesis. When the vast majority of the community makes a strong statement, it deserves some benefit of the doubt.
I'm all for science as a general rule. But as has been mentioned before, Climate Science is unusual in that it cannot really be tested by experiement and relies on preponderance of evidence. That leaves it open to a great deal of interpretation, and creates more opportunities for it to be politicized and spun to promote particular interests.
Dave
119 - Dave Nalle
Since you are willing to posit that humans are indeed having some deleterious effect, can you get behind working to fix the problem...lowering our contribution to the problem?
D'oh, I'm on record of being very strongly in favor of taking measures to address the problem. I've written more an alternative fuels than anyone else on BC. Your whole screed earlier on Biodiesel is something I've been writing about for more than a year, remember?
Dave
120 - D'oh
Just wanted to give you the chance to get on the record about it, Dave.
And yoiu will remember my bio-diesel screed is also something i have been saying for quite some time as well.
121 - Dave Nalle
It's nice to know we can agree on something, D'oh.
I have to go cook dinner, but I actually have some issues which what you posted on Biodiesel.
I'm very concerned that our nation may not be able to gear up production of alternative fuels to the levels necessary to get off of petroleum, even to the 20 or 30% necessary for energy independence.
Some very basic reforms are needed soon, starting with a complete reevaluation of the farm subsidy system and followed by tax policies which politicians lack the balls to follow through on. We need a substantial additional tax on petroleum products, and real tax breaks for alternative fuels and alternative fuel production.
And don't forget Ethanol. It's an even bigger factor than biodiesel since so many more vehicles will run on it.
Dave
122 - Baronius
Dave, did you happen to see National Review's Jay Nordlinger's articles out of Davos? Quite amusing. This year's conference was about climate change as the single greatest threat to civilizaton, requiring international cooperation and massive funding. No one at Davos talked about last year's topic (bird flu) which was the greatest threat to civilization...
123 - D'oh
corn ethanol is horseshit, and a political ploy...NO answer to the problem due to the inefficiencies inherent in it's chemical reactions...sugar ethanol is MUCH more efficient...as the research in Brazil has proven beyond a doubt
As for the rest...type all you like, but i am far past done trying to converse with you..this bit has been a sheer courtesy prompted by my own ethics due to the kicking around you have received as of late.
I still consider you an insidious part of the problem, and completely incapable of setting aside your partisan agenda for ANY reason...and thus not worth conversation, but merely something to be looked over and debunked as required.
124 - Martin Lav
"Taking radical steps to reverse past trends or compensate for them by essentially reshaping the environment seems awfully dangerous."
- Dave Nalle
Who's promoting radical steps besides the paranoid schizophrenic voice in your head?
It's funny that there mere admittance of human impact on Global Warming, strikes fear in your libertarian heart.
Gov't regulations......BooH!
Taxes on Polluters......GRAB YOUR GUNS!
125 - alessandro nicolo
Personal attacks aside, both sides are presenting their thoughts with conviction. Now if you are all ready for the real, real, REAL truth I suggest we pay more attention to evil giggling gnomes of Norwegian origin. They are the onces melting the ice caps with a giant apparatus that resembles a hair dryer. I'm almost positively certain of this semi-factual surreality. Now they sit back and laugh at us while we drown.