State Dept: Global warming man-made

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

I must say that while I don't know which side to take on this debate (other than "better safe than sorry" is probably a good idea) I often find very interesting the reasoning why certain people choose one side or another. I say this from a country where kooks are the only real 'global warming deniers' (Not that there is anything wrong with being a kook...).

As long as you understand the basics than it is probably enough to make an informed choice as to which side you belong. In any event there are three sides to this problem. There climate change deniers, climate change skeptics, and people who think climate change will have a more adverse effect. it is also important to understand that global warming is what we now call climate change
because of the recognition that temperatures are rising in certain areas of the world but are lowering in other areas
it's not a uniform warming of the earth that's going on.

[Vepres]

coughclimategatecough

That sure debunks everything!

You can't state something as a fact with something like that hovering in the background. You are inferring what I meant, and you are inferring wrongly

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Because I disagree with Global Warming, and disagree with the ability of the human species to affect Climate change, I am anti-Scientist. One of the reasons that I have gotten so agressive on the forums in response to false labeling on this forum is because I can't stand to be misunderstood but lack the time to adequately defeat the arguements, otherwise I could and would.

I have yet to see anyone who does beleive in Global Warming/Climate Change to refute any of the specific challenges to academic integrity or violations of the scientific method. I have yet to see any reasonable rebutals beyond "They are funded by Big Oil" They are skeptics who aren't. Yet I have yet to see a Global Warming proponent that isn't funded by their special interest(s).

You say that Scientists receiver grants from the gov't based on not on findings or expected findings, however if their is a fear or concern over Global Warming that will lead to overall increases in research into the causes, effects, and responses to that environmental change.

Also, I see that in the wake of recent events, 99% has come down to 95% consensus. Wow, amazing what can happen when results are revealed to be riddled with faulty research, untested results, outright lies, and even anecdotal evidence unbacked by any significant research. At this rate we will be below 50% consensus in 10 years.

of course you are not going to accept what climate scientists have to say! People are not very objective, and if they reject climate change than it probably has more to do with their world view. In any event the Argument is that Global warming is causing climate change, and thus even if Global warming was a hoax it still does not mean that climate change is one as well.

There is a problem with that theory of yours on me. Want to know what it is?

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Because I disagree with Global Warming, and disagree with the ability of the human species to affect Climate change, I am anti-Scientist. One of the reasons that I have gotten so agressive on the forums in response to false labeling on this forum is because I can't stand to be misunderstood but lack the time to adequately defeat the arguements, otherwise I could and would.

I have yet to see anyone who does beleive in Global Warming/Climate Change to refute any of the specific challenges to academic integrity or violations of the scientific method. I have yet to see any reasonable rebutals beyond "They are funded by Big Oil" They are skeptics who aren't. Yet I have yet to see a Global Warming proponent that isn't funded by their special interest(s).

You say that Scientists receiver grants from the gov't based on not on findings or expected findings, however if their is a fear or concern over Global Warming that will lead to overall increases in research into the causes, effects, and responses to that environmental change.

Also, I see that in the wake of recent events, 99% has come down to 95% consensus. Wow, amazing what can happen when results are revealed to be riddled with faulty research, untested results, outright lies, and even anecdotal evidence unbacked by any significant research. At this rate we will be below 50% consensus in 10 years.

of course you are not going to accept what climate scientists have to say! People are not very objective, and if they reject climate change than it probably has more to do with their world view. In any event the Argument is that Global warming is causing climate change, and thus even if Global warming was a hoax it still does not mean that climate change is one as well.

There is a problem with that theory of yours on me. Want to know what it is?

I thought I deleted that post.