Should we switch off Christmas lighting?
Al Gore loves to pontificate about global warming — but just what is "global warming," and what, if anything, can be done about it? Or is it just a ploy to scare us into paying higher taxes?…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
26 - Dave Nalle
We can't, kb. No more than we could have caused it. What we should be focusing on - if we were sensible - is how to adapt to it.
Dave
27 - Zedd
Dave:
Tell us what you do know about global warmaing. How your facts and studies dispute the information that is supported by most climatologist (90%+).
This article does a terrible job. Perhaps you can change our minds.
Please leave the paranoid partisan kook stuff out please. Just the facts please about our beloved earth.
28 - sr
kb876#25. Excellent question. Should we remove R2 corrosives, liquid or solid and treated anti corrosives phosphating materials? Keep in mind acids and alkalies simmular to orange juice contains the fats, oils and grease. Im speculating Florida orange juice and not California. Big rosy O whale blubber maybe is the colpreat. Heat extraction into our atmosphere brings this walrus type pigs to destroy our ozoneing on going climate warm up and shit like that. Hell. What do I know. I live with Elvis in a trailer park.
29 - Zedd
Kb876 and sr
Google carbon footprint if you are serious. Berore then though, I would do some extensive research to see if I believe that this phenominon is actually taking place.
There are extremists on both sides so be logical and seek good scientific information. It will take some time.
But if you are already sold. Google carbon footprint.
30 - Zedd
The following is a list of simple things you can do immediately, which will start to reduce your contribution to global warming. The items in this list will cost you no money at all and will in fact save you money.
Sign up to a green energy supplier, who will supply electricity from renewable sources (e.g. wind and hydroelectric power) - this will reduce your carbon footprint contribution from electricity to zero
Turn it off when not in use (lights, television, DVD player, Hi Fi, computer etc. etc. ...) Click here to find out which electrical items in your household are contribute the most to your Carbon Footprint
Turn down the central heating slightly (try just 1 to 2 degrees C)
Turn down the water heating setting (just 2 degrees will make a significant saving)
Check the central heating timer setting - remember there is no point heating the house after you have left for work
Fill your dish washer and washing machine with a full load - this will save you water, electricity, and washing powder
Fill the kettle with only as much water as you need
Unplug your mobile phone as soon as it has finished charging
Defrost your fridge/freezer regularly
Do your weekly shopping in a single trip
Hang out the washing to dry rather than tumble drying it
Go for a run rather than drive to the gym
31 - sr
Elvis has left the trailer park.
32 - Franco
#14 " Dave Nalle [URL]
A poster askes Dave--
Ask yourself what motivates a person to believe in global warming?
Dave replys--
The desire to have a pretext to impose global socialism on the world?
Poster adds---
and then ask what reason would I have to ignore it.
Dave replys--
Because you should already know that socialism is antithetical to freedom and basic natural rights?
Dave,
You are the only one to suggest this. I could not agree with you more.
The global warming issue is officially based on the Kyoto Protocol and is called the “Global Warming Treaty”. Global warming is not something that is totally understood and is being debated by the best scientific minds along with and other less professional minds with hearts on another agendas.
All true professional scientists will assert that you can not conclusively prove a negative. So why are some scientists’ claming that they have conclusively proved that global warming exists, it is getting worse by the day, it is all caused by humans, and if we don’t do something about right now and in a hurry, we may not be able to reverse it?
The fact is, dooms dayers and sayers have not proved any of this. Since they can’t prove it they have adapted the non-scientific formula called the “precautionary principle”. This formula is not scientific and yet is being trumped up to speak as if it is scientific.
A good example of this is Al Gores documentary which clearly makes one believe that scientists are conclusive on facts when in reality they are not. So why dose Al Gore and those like him do it? You have to start with an understanding of the precautionary principle, how and way this new science has evolved and why it supports these fallacies.
Precautionary Principle:
Like sustainability, the precautionary principle is neither a well-defined principle nor a stable concept. It has become the repository for a jumble of adventurous beliefs that challenge the status quo of political power, ideology and civil rights. Neither concept has much coherence other than it is captured by the spirit that is challenging the authority of science, the hegemony of cost benefit analysis, the powerlessness of victims of environmental abuse, and the unimplemented ethics of intrinsic natural rights and inter-generational equity. It is because the mood of the times needs an organizing idea that the precautionary principle is getting a fair wind.
Do a Google on precautionary principal or precautionary principle+science
Moving on to another important fallacy. Thinking that socialists and communists are behind this is just being paranoid is not reasonable or responsible when one looks at the easily obtainable evidence to the contrarey.
In common with all socialists, communists hold that the capitalism, private ownership of land, capital, and machinery and individual right assocatied with all of this has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear of its self and the envornment; and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society.
Communism works to bring capitalism and the individual rights that come along with it, and to transform capitalism and individuals to thinking it is community-ism and its rights that are greater then the individuals, and all in the communities’ best interest to do so because capitalism in distorying the planet. In this case global warming is caused by capitalism and the individual and or the corporation.
And who is the biggest baddest participant in capitalism and supporting individual rights, and who is being touted as the biggest baddest contributor to global warming, and thus getting all the blame for it? Do I really have to answer that? Why are the socialist and communits jumping all over communits China. Thier environmental poluting is out of control.
I’m not suggesting that we don’t continue ongoing in depth scientific study of our environment and its health and what effects it, but with today’s less then honest and real science research, something stinks in Gotham City.
If one truly researches and looks at who and what is backing to doomsday scientists, one will find the answers.
UN bureaucrats and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have been working for years to turn this voluntary Rio agreement into a legally binding agreement called the Global Warming Treaty. The new treaty was agreed to by Vice President Al Gore in Kyoto, Japan in 1997 and signed in New York in 1998. Ever since, it's been called the Kyoto Protocol. Fortunately, treaties do not bind the United States unless ratified by two-thirds of the Senate.
The Kyoto Protocol would require the United States to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to 7% below our 1990 levels, a tremendous reduction in our energy consumption (our use of electricity, gas, oil, and gasoline) and therefore in our standard of living. However, Kyoto would impose no limitations on 130 developing nations, including China (the world's second largest emitter of greenhouse gases), India, Mexico and Brazil, and would allow Europeans to evade reductions by averaging among the European Union (EU) countries.
Kyoto is so manifestly unfair to the United States that the U.S. Senate went on record against it in 1997 by passing the Byrd-Hagel Resolution 95-0 to warn our President that the treaty would not be ratified. President Bush is obviously reflecting American views when he withdrew from negotiations.
Who is behind Kyoto?
Kyoto is an issue that brings together many different anti-American interests, all of which enjoy wide access to the media.
The socialists, particularly the European countries that have moved left in recent years. The socialist anti-growth mindset opposes economic growth and instead welcomes a scarcity of resources, and enviermental damage agenda so that big socialist government can apportion or ration the scarce resources and their so called proper use. He who controls the worlds rescorces and their use, contols all of us.
33 - Zedd
coo coo
34 - Mark Edward Manning
Zedd, re: #23
If the piece is so poorly written, why did it get published? That's also in insult to the editor(s), not just me.
Don't blame me if you have trouble understanding the easy premise I laid out: yes, let's not pump carbon emissions into the air frivolously and let's conserve energy. But let's NOT walk around thinking that the guillotine's about to fall when we don't have all the facts on global warming. I am not talking out of both sides of my mouth, I'm simply saying: Yes, it's an issue, but no, it's not quite all that Gore and others have made it out to be. We don't truly know what it's all about. Even if we understood 99.9% of the problem, that little remaining 0.1% can still throw a huge monkey wrench into the works. The Earth is like that.
35 - Mark Edward Manning
Re: Zipper's comment in #11:
Scary thing is, there actually are plenty of people who think that way. Which is why you can't just legislate and expect the problem to go away.
Here in England, we face the problem of trying to get people to recycle more. But if people have decided for whatever selfish reasons that they're not going to - such as, "Well, I work too hard and have 7,000 bloody children to care for, so I just don't have the time, so there!" - then they will fly-tip: that is, dump their rubbish by the side of the road or even in the countryside. We really need to think about how to encourage people to recycle while making it easy for them to do so.
It's the same with global warming: how do you convince people to cut down on their use of energy and reduce carbon emissions while, at the same time, not scaring them to death with Apocylapse-style scenarios?
36 - Clavos
Franco,
I found much in your #32 to agree with.
Your discussion of the Precautionary Principle brought to mind a book I read recently in which I saw references to the principle. You might enjoy reading it, if you haven't already:
Hard Green by Peter Huber. It's a very well presented and well written thesis.
¡Sigue luchando!
37 - Zedd
Mark Edward Manning
Its poorly written. Who is the editor? Editor you missed this one. It is poorly written.
I suspect the reason for the poor execution is the lack of knowledge on the topic. You don't know enough, CLEARLY and the editor didn't feel confident enough to make the necessary suggestions.
Actually I would have suggested that you scrap the entire thing and figure out what you are trying to say.
38 - Zedd
Franco
You just dont know do you. You posted that garbage because you just dont know. You are truely clueless. It sounded intelligent so you went with it. Its complete crazy people's stuff. I mean really looney.
It sez: However, Kyoto would impose no limitations on 130 developing nations, including China (the world's second largest emitter of greenhouse gases), India, Mexico and Brazil, and would allow Europeans to evade reductions by averaging among the European Union (EU) countries.
What??
The U.S. is ranked #1. China is ranked #18 in total CO2 emmissions. The U.S. = 5.37 Per capita
emissions(tons/capita), China = 0.76. All of the countries that you have mentioned have not reach the limit that is set by the protocal. We have passed it twice over. China is reducing its levels. We, offcourse are increasing ours.
I would ask myself why the author of your document left out that information. Its rather crucial isn't it? It actually nullifies the entire rant.
That report is garbage. Its designed to look intelligent but its trash. Wad it up and bin it. Its cheesy wisdom for the simple minded. Trash it my friend. There is no conspiracy.
39 - Clavos
zedd #38,
Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Here are the first paragraphs of an article published in November in The New York Times:
It's title is "China to Pass U.S. in 2009 in Emissions"
LONDON, Nov. 6 " China will surpass the United States in 2009, nearly a decade ahead of previous predictions, as the biggest emitter of the main gas linked to global warming, the International Energy Agency has concluded in a report to be released Tuesday. China’s rise, fueled heavily by coal, is particularly troubling to climate scientists because as a developing country, China is exempt from the Kyoto Protocol’s requirements for reductions in emissions of global warming gases. Unregulated emissions from China, India and other developing countries are likely to account for most of the global increase in carbon dioxide emissions over the next quarter-century.
While China has taken some steps to reduce emissions, its economy is growing so fast its overall rate is increasing far more rapidly than that of the US and other developed nations; to the point, as the article says, they will surpass US in 2009.
But the more troubling aspect of China's stance on pollution is its ongoing insistence that the US take even more stringent measures to reduce emissions than China is willing to accept for itself.
If the US were to accept China's bidding, as called for in the Kyoto Protocol, we would be at a distinct competitive disadvantage to China (which has NO limits) in world markets. This is the principal reason the Senate voted down US signing of the Kyoto accord.
40 - Clavos
zedd #38 again:
You say,
The U.S. is ranked #1. China is ranked #18 in total CO2 emmissions.
Another article excerpt; this time from BBC News:
China is the world's number two emitter of the gasses that cause global warming, but like India and other developing nations, its emissions are not capped under current Kyoto rules.
And another. From Reuters via PlanetArk, dated 10/30/06:
China is the world's second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, but as a developing country is not yet required to reduce its emissions.
And so on and so forth...
41 - Mark Edward Manning
OK, Zedd, I'm a poor writer simply because YOU couldn't understand my position. That makes perfect sense. It's so easy to just blame others whenever you just don't understand something.
42 - sr
Global warming reaks havoc in the Denver area. Walrus frozen in ice. Out house's are creating giant brown pyramids. Snow cone sales are down.
43 - Mooja
Global warming gets worse the further south you go. Case in point it was 38 degrees today in Minneapolis. It was 54 degrees in Dallas. My god Antarctica must be melting.
C02 is not a harmful gas! The biggist contributor to the greenhouse effect is H2O vapor. We must stop water emissions!!! Where is Al Gore!
44 - Baronius
If this article doesn't make sense to someone, it's because the article isn't written to prove anything. Most pieces I've read on the environment are making an argument. "This might not be happening, it might not be bad, we can't do much about it, and here's what you can do" is a tougher read. Nicely done article, btw.
45 - Zedd
How about just researching the carbon dioxide emmissions by country and we can end the nuttiness.
46 - Zedd
Baronius
Your statement would be valid if each paragraph was bulleted.
He is making isolated statements and is not connecting them.
The format is that of a report or article wiht a streem of thought. The contex however is as if varying, random points are being made about one topic.
Are you the editor???
47 - Franco
#38 " Zedd
Set aside who is first, second, or third on the list of green house gas emitters. That can be discussed/debated separately.
For now I have two questions for you.
#1) What is your understanding and definition of the precautionary principal?
#2) What is your understanding of how it is being applyed in science today concerning global warming?
48 - sr
Farts.
49 - Mark Edward Manning
Thank you, Baronius. Spot on analysis of my piece.
Unfortunately, as you noted, there are some people who just want to read straightforward arguments, it's all their brains can handle. A piece that attempts to answer the global warming question from a "yes and no" perspective, as I did here, confuses those looking for a red-hot argument one way or the other. Then, when they just don't get it, they reply with, "This article was poorly written!"
50 - Zedd
Franco
You are not at the arguing stage yet. Do some serious research. Not just one or two articles from your fav political rag. Look at both sides of the "debate". Look at the sources. Put the puzzle of the entire thing together, THEN come back and lets talk.
Right now you are just posting little tid bits that you catch that make your point. You are reading here and there and looking for what you want to find.
Be educated on the topic. If you are wrong, great, you've learned something. If you are right, wow, publish your findings.
But don't pick and choose information just to make a silly point.
51 - Zedd
Mark Edward Manning
No, its really bad. Take a SOBBER look next time.
You should have bulleted your various statements instead of writing this piece in straight essay form.
Making random unconnected points with each paragraph confuses the reader and is just not correct. Sorry bud. Ask someone whose writing skills you admire.
Oh well.....Disagree but I bet you wont do it again huh??
52 - Franco
#50 " Zedd
You are not at the arguing stage yet. Do some serious research. Not just one or two articles from your fav political rag. Look at both sides of the "debate". Look at the sources. Put the puzzle of the entire thing together, THEN come back and lets talk.
Zedd,
Your are assuming that I have not done any series research and or looked carefully at both sides of the debate. This is a faults assumption. And accusing me of this then stating "THEN come back and lets talk”, is only your seeking an escape in answering my two (2) very simple questions in post #47. Not answering these questions now presents another question.
Zedd, (1) is your area of technical expertise (earth science, physical sciences, astronomy) or (2) is it the general nature of science, or (3) is it other areas where you have personal experience, or (4) dose it pertain to topics where blatantly fallacious logic is involved? For it is from upon one of these that sets the foundation of your case for discussion/debate.
Can you answer any one of my questions from this post or my last post in #47 that so fare you have side stepped?
53 - Zedd
Franco sez:Your are assuming that I have not done any series research and or looked carefully at both sides of the debate.
Yes I am because its true and you know it. Your post revealed that.
I did respond to your tid bit posts. They are tiny.
Come on.....Do the research freind and well talk.
I know the ego think is big with guys but swallow your pride and just study for your own personal growth. Forget about goober me. Just do the reaserch.
54 - Mark Edward Manning
Zedd, re #51:
Sober is spelt S-O-B-E-R. A sobber is someone you expect me to be, simply because you called my piece bad. Why? Because it didn't have bullet characters? Are you for real?
Who the hell ARE you, by the way? What great professional knowledge in the field of writing have you gained? Inquiring minds want to know.
Why don't you publish your own article here on BC instead of just commenting on them? Or do you get your kicks from telling established writers like myself how bad I am? Go into my BC archives and review my other work, smart-ass. Then tell me they're all bad as well.
55 - Zedd
Mark:
Dont bother correcting my errors. There will be millions more in the future. I am not that insecure about my reasoning skill that I get all worked up about my typos. Don't care that much...
Never start correcting spelling errors on a blog. As luck will have it, you will make the next.
Also the spelling corrections indicate the last kick of a defeated horse. Do you feel defeated?
Just use bullets next time you comment on unrelated points of a larger issue, and there will be no problems.
take care....... bud. Hey about a better picture. You sort of look drunk on the photo
56 - Franco
Zebb, your claims in post #38 have been refuted by Clavos in both his posts #39 and #40.
You have not responded to either with discussion and intellectual honesty and entered into discussion/debate on a signal one of those challenges to your assertions.
Then in my post #47 I ask you two (2) simple questions:
#1) What is your understanding and definition of the precautionary principal?
#2) What is your understanding of how it is being applied in science today concerning global warming?
Zebb you have chosen again not to answer either question or discuss/debate it, just like not answering Clavos challenges. Instead you make the following remarkable statement.
Zebb sez… Only those who have Looked at both sides of the "debate". Looked at the sources, and Put the puzzle of the entire thing together, THEN come back and lets talk.
Zebb your not only claiming to have Looked at both sides of the "debate" and Looked at the sources, but the most remarkable statement is that you claim to have Put the puzzle of the entire thing together.
Your claiming to know all truth over the biggest scientific issues of our time, involving some of the worlds brightest minds still divided on both sides of the debate. Scientist without policy agendas, scientists with policy agendas, associations of scientists in both camps, NGO affiliate with and without scientific credentials, policy board advisory councils in both camps.
Then you bring in the Zebb standby (cover you ass) to keep out of the debate by stating that when those questioning and or challenger you have done the research of truth that you have and when we reach you state of intelligent pure scientific nirvana, THEN come back and lets talk.
Now considering these remarkable claims, one would think that some kind of credentials would back them up. So far nothing has been offered from you.
And to boot, after having to ask you what kind of credentials and or platform you base your assertions on you have once again responded in true Zebb from of side stepping to covered your ass by deflecting discussion/debate.
For the record, this is what I asked you in post #52.
Zedd, (1) is your area of technical expertise (earth science, physical sciences, astronomy) or (2) is it the general nature of science, or (3) is it other areas where you have personal experience, or (4) dose it pertain to topics where blatantly fallacious logic is involved? For it is from upon one of these that sets the foundation of your case for discussion/debate.
And this is how you responded in post #53……Come on.....Do the research freind and well talk.
Your obvious and repetitive standard practice for staying out of discussion/debate makes its all the more remarkable that have accomplished so much research and come to your scientific state of nirvana of truth without ever engaging in discussion/debate.
Tell you what Zebb. When you ready to engage in discussion/debate, then and only then will we talk. Until then you are full of
bullchicken shit.I’m waiting for you to prove my criterion for testing your consistency in keeping out of discussion/debate.
57 - troll
adding to the list of things that one can do to make a difference - in this case about the landfill issue:
find people like this in your area and support them
'money where your mouth is' and all...in fact feel free to buy from this woman from wherever you are - she's the real deal (even though her site could use an update)
...or build a house out of clothe bricks
58 - Zedd
This Zebb whomever he is sounds like a real jerk.
59 - Zedd
Clavos refuting anyone's statement says a lot. Zebb must be really dumb.
I say we burn Zebb at the stake!! Here! Here!
60 - Mark Edward Manning
Zedd asks yours truly in #55: "Do you feel defeated?"
Not at all, Zedd. Because not only have I had others here telling me that I wrote a good, challenging and thought-provoking piece, but I really can't place much creedence in a guy who tells me my stuff is bad yet won't reveal to me what special certificates in writing he's got. So you know what you can do with your bullets ... I know how and when to use them. I didn't think this piece required any. End of story. Again, stop blaming me because you had trouble keeping up.
I noticed that you haven't bothered answering any of Franco's assertions. Seems everything he's saying about you is true. Is he getting too tough for you? Face it, Zedd, you're just a troll, someone who pops into the threads of writers and starts shouting everyone down. At least that's what I'll believe until I've seen otherwise.
As for the photo, no I wasn't drunk - I was caught unawares, which made me look a bit "WTF?" But I thought it looked great and wanted that for my profile photo, because I look a bit like a pissed-off Christopher Hitchens. If given a choice between some dumb company-standard photo of me against a fake background of blue sky and clouds or that "on the spot" photo, I'll choose the later every time.
61 - Zedd
I am not responding because I really mean it. This is a serious topic and he and Clavos need to research before copying an pasting.
As for the questions about my person life that were requested, you cant be serious? Why would I tell strange men across the globe anything personal about myself.
That is just silly. Also Franco must have immigrated to the US. I immigrated as a small child. That is such an immigrants question. "What is your official qualification for making such an assertion". Look this is America and for goodness sake this is also the internet, the world wide web dad gum it. You can learn whatever you want and know as much as you like about anything you like. You don't need and official status. That was funny. Let me know if I am wrong and you are not an immigrant, I'll apologise, but you sound like one. I do have significant formal education but geeeeez dude. Chill.
If you are one, Buddy, no body cares about all that. Especially on the internet.
Lets hope he is quiet because he is doing his homework.
62 - Clavos
zedd,
This is a serious topic and he and Clavos need to research before copying an pasting.
I HAVE researched it, and even provided convenient links for you to see for yourself the entire source of what I quoted.
You, on the other hand, keep repeating the same unsubstantiated personal opinion bullshit over and over...
I do have significant formal education
Nothing you've posted in any of these threads is indicative of that.
63 - Zedd
Clavos
Why so personal?
64 - Col. Mustard
Clavos, isn't personal. He's being factual.
65 - Franco
Happy Holidays to…
Baronius
Bliffle
Christopher Rose
Clavos
Col. Mustard
Dave Nalle
D'oh
handyguy
Lumpy
Mark Edward Manning
Maurice
MCH
Nancy
RJ Elliott
Ruvy in Jerusalem
SHARK
Sisyphus
ss
STM
troll
Zedd
66 - Clavos
Right back at you, Franco.
And to all on BC:
Peace on Earth to men of good will.
Happy holidays, one and all.
67 - Col. Mustard
and to you and yours, Franco.
68 - troll
above Dave asks where the waters are rising...Lohachara island might be one of a few isolated instances based on multiple factors but it's got an interesting story
and the latest is that it's gone
69 - Zedd
Thank you Franco!!
Same to you Bud and everyone on BC!!
70 - Zedd
Franco
Thanks for the post, really. Do you know that I have not had the Christimas spirit this year at all. Its not cold enough where I live, its just soggy and iky and I was hospitalized a few days back, its just been blahhhh and gray.
You put me in the spirit!! I'm gonna go and put the presents under the tree and play christimas CDs (Charlie Brown is among my favorite), get some hot chocolate and do my nails after the kids are back and in bed!!
Gracias!!!
71 - sr
what is global warming?
72 - Mark Edward Manning
Franco:
Thank you for including me in your "Happy Holidays" list, sorry I didn't notice that until now. Just shows you how busy these past two weeks were for me.
Hope your Christmas and New Year's were peaceful and relaxing.
73 - IAmOpie
One could take easy jabs at Zedd all day long. He is a True Believer. I'll just make one point.
He says "90%+" of climatologists agree that global warming is caused by human activity.
So what?
Its a self fulfilling prophecy. "Climatology" is a fresh new profession, as well as a great new pyramid scheme. Do you honestly believe you would ever get a PhD in "Climatology" if you disagreed with the professor, and were skeptical about their claims? It is theoretically possible, but highly unlikely.
Its not hard to reach near unanimous consensus when you declare that anyone who doesn't believe what you believe does not have the qualifications, is not a "Climatologist", and therefore his opinion is not valid.
Its not an objective field. The theories of the climatologists are simply that, theories. Subjective theories that can not be tested.
Its a great racket: say whatever the hell you want, which in no way can be proven or disproven until long after you are dead, proclaim yourself "right", and leave it to others with real day jobs (e.g. actual scientists) to try and prove you "wrong". Like others pointed out, one can't prove a negative.
Its essentially a religion. They go around proclaiming each other as "experts", and scratching each other's backs with grants to create yet another phony study showing the effects that the evil human will have on the environment in 100 years. At the same time, they band together to crush any legitimate research to disprove their theories.
I bet you that 90%+ of Fundamentalist Christians agree that drinking beer sends you straight to hell upon death. Prove TO THEM that they are wrong.
But can we really take a chance? BAN BEER TODAY!
I bet you that 90%+ of Bishops in the Vatican agree that you could fit at least 1000 angels on the head of a pin. Prove TO THEM that they are wrong.
Tell me how, other than by pure speculation, that one could prove that adding an additional tax to the sales price of a Hummer is going to make the climate more favorable for human habitation in 100 or 1000 years.
Who decides what is more favorable anyway?
Just because a "Climatologist" is willing to make that leap of faith does not prove anything. And just because someone isn't a "Climatologist" does not deem that person incapable of distinguishing fact from speculation.
Sorry Zedd, but you're going to have to come up with a more credible source than "Climatologists" and Al Gore's movie if you want to be taken seriously.
Now, how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?
74 - IAmOpie
Woops. Sorry Zedd. It appears from some of the comments that you may be female. Male or Female, doesn't matter. I apologize for any mistaken pronouns. ;-) Please don't let it distract from my point.
Cheers