Religious Beliefs

[Pandora's_Box]

People like back it Up with facts. And Rush Limbaugh. Start from there. In fact Rush said he would have a wonderful thing, listing sources, on exactly the evidence dissproving it. Take a look. Now I know that this is not a lot. But A. I do not remember nearly all the scientists names that have been sited or I have read, that one guy in particular, but you asked for a step in the direction, and that is it.

Limbaugh is not a scientist. Point me towards a scientist who is discrediting Global Warming with good science. Or at least point me towards some of this bad science you speak of.

NASA's site, by the way, on Climate Change.

NASA's Eyes on the Earth

[Pandora's_Box]

I do not remember the guys name. I wish I did. And it seems to work for them when they can arbitrarily say that global warming is fact.

They don't.

No one is arbitrarily deciding that Global Warming is fact. They have data, measurable evidence, that is a fact.

So far, you have shown me no measurable data to prove otherwise.

[Col.Foley]

Limbaugh is not a scientist. Point me towards a scientist who is discrediting Global Warming with good science. Or at least point me towards some of this bad science you speak of.

NASA's site, by the way, on Climate Change.

NASA's Eyes on the Earth

Bad Science= Inconvenient Truth.

And now that I have gotten to it, and I knew that this would happen too, it is the wrong kind of evidence! I knew that this would happen. He has had scientists on, from I believe it was NASA, who gave reasons for Global Warming being a complete hoax. That is why I suggested it, since I have fogotten who the specific scientist was, and also his story when he went to Congress to try and present this information...most of them left without hearing him.

And btw, that is completly different then global warming. Climate change is more then likely, it is happening. Some of it even is our fault.

[Col.Foley]

They don't.

No one is arbitrarily deciding that Global Warming is fact. They have data, measurable evidence, that is a fact.

So far, you have shown me no measurable data to prove otherwise.

Measurable data that you can draw different conclusions from?

[jenks]

*raises eyebrows* you are completly right. And also what would get them votes is instilling fear in the population, and then by saying that they are the only ones that can fix the problem, and that there oponents are a bunch of baffoons who will not. Fear. That is how they can get them, and this is just another boogeyman in the closet.

What, and virtually every government on the planet is in on this conspiracy? Even countries like China, who have nothing to gain (votes don't do them any good, they're not democratic), but an incalculable amount to lose? Come on, pull the other one, no government could pull this off in a free society even if they wanted to, and you still haven't said why scientists all around the world would want to be in on this.

and right. So all those NASA scientists and people around the world are incorrect? What makes you so right?

What are you talking about?

[Col.Foley]

What, and virtually every government on the planet is in on this conspiracy? Even countries like China, who have nothing to gain (votes don't do them any good, they're not democratic), but an incalculable amount to lose? Come on, pull the other one, no government could pull this off in a free society even if they wanted to, and you still haven't said why scientists all around the world would want to be in on this.



What are you talking about?

China is a good example. China has loads to gain from this whole mess, one thing being more fear and more power, to continue to keep their people in fear of...well...this. The other thing, and a lot more immediete. Is the economic gain, and hypocracy. They have recently said that their one child per family policy lessons their footprint any ways so they have a right to pollute more then the US and other nations who not enjoy this practice. The so called 'carbon credit' scheme. They are simply playing the system from the other end, that some how they can produce as much pollution and green house gasses as they want. But it is us who must pay that price in the long run.
And why are scientists falling for this? Honestly? I do not know. Other then there is evidence, I will admit there is evidence for this. Just a lot of it, to me, smells.

[Pandora's_Box]

And why are scientists falling for this? Honestly? I do not know. Other then there is evidence, I will admit there is evidence for this. Just a lot of it, to me, smells.

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and

The Summary for Policy Makers

Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last 100 years.

Joint Science Academy's Response to Climate Change

The Royal Society Policy Reports and Statements

Climate Change Controversies

[Col.Foley]

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and

The Summary for Policy Makers

Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last 100 years.

Joint Science Academy's Response to Climate Change

The Royal Society Policy Reports and Statements

Climate Change Controversies

Oh god where was that video! I have one that is such a great counter to this. Oh man, ha, it is wonderful.

[jenks]

China is a good example. China has loads to gain from this whole mess, one thing being more fear and more power, to continue to keep their people in fear of...well...this.

What good does that do them? They're not free like we are, they don't need fear to rule people, they do it by force.

The other thing, and a lot more immediete. Is the economic gain, and hypocracy. They have recently said that their one child per family policy lessons their footprint any ways so they have a right to pollute more then the US and other nations who not enjoy this practice. The so called 'carbon credit' scheme. They are simply playing the system from the other end, that some how they can produce as much pollution and green house gasses as they want. But it is us who must pay that price in the long run.

Even if this were true, it begs the question, why would the West play along? The fact is this will hit every economy hard, and China being a developing country, stand to be among the biggest losers. The carbon credit scheme is peanuts compared to what they make through exports.

And why are scientists falling for this? Honestly? I do not know. Other then there is evidence, I will admit there is evidence for this. Just a lot of it, to me, smells.

Well I can't tell you what to think, but what I would suggest is to look at what even the proponents have to lose from Global Warming being true, and then look at what the sceptics have to gain from it not.

[Col.Foley]

What good does that do them? They're not free like we are, they don't need fear to rule people, they do it by force.



Even if this were true, it begs the question, why would the West play along? The fact is this will hit every economy hard, and China being a developing country, stand to be among the biggest losers. The carbon credit scheme is peanuts compared to what they make through exports.



Well I can't tell you what to think, but what I would suggest is to look at what even the proponents have to lose from Global Warming being true, and then look at what the sceptics have to gain from it not.

I do not know what the west has to gain, and this is part of the reason why I am rallying against this so much. because we are going along with it regardless of anything that common sense dictates.

[Pandora's_Box]

I do not know what the west has to gain, and this is part of the reason why I am rallying against this so much. because we are going along with it regardless of anything that common sense dictates.

So....nothing?

You've got nothing to show me that defeats this Global Warming idea?

I pulled up I don't know how many papers on the topic and you can't find one to disprove it?

[Col.Foley]

So....nothing?

You've got nothing to show me that defeats this Global Warming idea?

I pulled up I don't know how many papers on the topic and you can't find one to disprove it?

For crying out loud. I have seen such evidence, I know where it is to look, I gave you a good place to go. And then it is the wrong type of evidence...and such....and now you are saying I do not. I simply do not remember the names of the people, or articles that I have read debunking this. And this I have made clear to you, and yet you feel the need for keep on making the point that I do not have anything.

[Pandora's_Box]

For crying out loud. I have seen such evidence, I know where it is to look, I gave you a good place to go. And then it is the wrong type of evidence...and such....and now you are saying I do not. I simply do not remember the names of the people, or articles that I have read debunking this. And this I have made clear to you, and yet you feel the need for keep on making the point that I do not have anything.

You gave me Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh is not a scientist. He is not published.

I gave you papers and facts, charts and graphs, written up and analysed by people who know what they're talking about and aren't fed information by studio fact checkers. I gave you hard science to back up my viewpoint and I took the time to find what I had read (because with the Internet these days, it really isn't hard) and post it here for the sake of rational, reasonable debate and discussion.

You don't wish to do the same, that's fine. But then I can't see how that is arguing your point when you have no evidence to back it up. In a debate about science, you need facts.

[PG15]

For crying out loud. I have seen such evidence, I know where it is to look, I gave you a good place to go. And then it is the wrong type of evidence...and such....and now you are saying I do not. I simply do not remember the names of the people, or articles that I have read debunking this. And this I have made clear to you, and yet you feel the need for keep on making the point that I do not have anything.

Then you have no case until you find those sources.

You know what? How about this. If you can't find those sources, do you at least remember what those sources said? Do you remember what it is that disproved this data?

[Col.Foley]

You gave me Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh is not a scientist. He is not published.

I gave you papers and facts, charts and graphs, written up and analysed by people who know what they're talking about and aren't fed information by studio fact checkers. I gave you hard science to back up my viewpoint and I took the time to find what I had read (because with the Internet these days, it really isn't hard) and post it here for the sake of rational, reasonable debate and discussion.

You don't wish to do the same, that's fine. But then I can't see how that is arguing your point when you have no evidence to back it up. In a debate about science, you need facts.

And I told you that he has had scientists on his show, and has given evidence on his show. This is not so hard. I know he is not a scientist, but he has scientists on that usually are not approached by our far leftist media sources. Science can be manipulated.

And AGAIN I have told you I do not remember there names, but maybe he has a list...maybe not....who knows? But it is a place to start.