in case anyone missed it, forests are REgrowing and replacing the trees lost. The species we never knew lived in the rain forest, not so much.



And faith you know very well we cook it up in the shed out back so when it asplode we can rebuild it for less than the cost of a new house. Dude seriously we lost 3 co-workers due to meth-induced non-performance on the job. It's bad working in rural (anywhere) these days.

 

So I have to say that I do find it somewhat amusing how hard you are trying to poke holes in everything I’m saying. You’ve even gone so far as to completely discredit a major website, and per-emptively discredit a politician on the pure assumption that I might make reference to him, or his work, in future statements. And all of this is for what? You’re debating that it’s impossible for humans to have had an effect on their planet? If I was invited into your house and said cautiously “Hey man I think I smell something burning, maybe we should check it out before something bad happens” would your response be “No, nothing is burning, you’re not a firefighter, and you have no idea what fire smells like”. That is all that I’m trying to say here. Look at this rock that we’re living on, sure it’s huge and full of all kinds of stuff (known as resources to the educated), it’s older than we are, and it’s changing all the time. Then look at ourselves, look at all the coal fired power plants burning away 24 hours a day, look at the millions (billions?) of cars on the road, look at the billions of people eating breathing and reproducing, and tell me how there is no breaking point. Show me where population growth will slow before we start suffering widespread famine. Tell me about how the atmosphere will hide the tons of pollution (not just C02) that we pump into it every day. Show me a place where we can keep stacking our waste that will never overflow.



But you say you want science. You crave it from an infallible unbiased source. Ok how about the National Academy of Science? Here is their most current findings on the topic of global warming.



http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/l...ate-change.pdf





Official statement from the President of the National Academy of Science, signed by representatives from Brazil, India, South Africa, Canada, Italy, United Kingdom, China, Japan, United States, France, Mexico, Germany, and Russia.



In short the greatest minds from all around the world.

 

Actually that's a likely scenario.





That aside, The G# conferences are knowingly slanted in favor the eco movement so none of the above is surprising. I do however, have to admit the credentials of the above, though being in presidential roles, as we all know well, is far more a role of politics less than the actual study. That said, I full believe that there is some data supporting either side, but as sated before the majority of material supporting the eco movement is based on current events and 50 year-old data. Even the G8+5 summary uses a lot of buzz terms like "estimated" in regard to CO2 emissions, but that's hardly a scientific fact. It seems there is not enough study in this particular scenario regarding an increase in global natural activity. EX: According to the USGS half of the 10 largest earthquakes in the past 150 years occurred within the past decade alone. Then take into account volcanic activity on a scale so massive we couldn't predict as much, say the case of Eyjafjallajökull in 2010. The Iceland volcano wasn't particularly violent or harmful to human life, but it did eject a plume of volcanic ash, along with the basic cocktail of sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide (greenhouse gasses), which was mammoth enough to drag almost all northern European air travel to a halt. None of the above were predicted, nor could they have been with current technology. Its just a few examples of extraneous events that are not taken into account by many when looking at (relatively speaking) recent data. Which is, as have stated before, where core samples provide far more accurate data.







The best analogy I can come up with is the Prius argument.

At inception the a single Toyota Prius created more waste, pollution and otherwise impact, that a fleet of Ferrari created that same year would over their lifetime. Yet people swarmed the brand and touted its fuel efficiency and blindly took hold of, what one day will be the scourge of auto scrappers everywhere. That said, people still flock like sheep to the damn things and a lot of the products past is swept under the rug in the name of the "eco" movement. After all, these movements are avid money makers. Don't think so? just looks at the profits made by many of the "organic" and other fad diet food producers. Think that's band enough? Look at the gross gains/markup per product. Yet they are the first one to finger point and call unfair to equally wealthy bodies. Not the same? Untrue, they are all part of the same "green" (or what ever the hell they call it today) movement.



And why did I bring 12 year old politics to the table? Because he is the driving force behind the ego-crazy drive of the past few years. He wants to claim to have coined the term "global warming," so he can take the heat for creating all that it has become. He even still stands in the background pulling strings, periodically emerging to take claim over small victories. There is a history lesson there that few recognize. To know the movement you have to know the roots.

 

Again...





I will stand by this belief because I might actually be smelling something burning, and rather than ignore it and say "Nah, no way, we'll be fine" I personally would prefer to be a little more cautious.



Yes the Prius is a lie, as are curly light bulbs (at least by what I've last heard).



As for everything else we will have to agree to disagree.

 

Exactly! "Eliminate mercury waste! Buy a CFL"









I can read between the lines. You think I'm



But I think you're





















I also like a good juicy debate

 

Wait, is that the same IPCC statement where a whole bunch of scientists signed off on it, then came out and said the published summary was twisted so it lost the plot by the time the international press reported on it?







p.s. using obviously-agenda-driven websites and wikipedia as evidence is self-discrediting, but it's nice for the n00bs when someone points it out in detail.



Agreeing to disagree: what CAR website people will have to do, when talking about glowbull wormening.

 

Not really. He could go put a deposit on a Leaf.

(A car I actually liked surprisingly)

I'll put my cash into a 59 ElDorado

 

Please come up with some evidence for that.





Referencing this link:

http://climatechange.supportportal.c...estionID=33346

Was found by visiting EPA.gov > Climate Change > then looking on top right of page under top questions. Question#1 "Are human activities or natural variations in climate responsible for the climate changes observed today?"



Wikipedia did not come to the position it is in today by being jam packed with lies and biased half truths. It does contain some inaccuracies, but they are usually corrected when noticed.



I do too, but you're right I am because I'm trying to reach a point of understanding with someone who is clearly only in it for the debate.



For the record I'm done with this thread, I know what I think and you have failed to sway my thought on it even one iota. You quite obviously have your head so far in the sand that you won't be swayed either. Whatever it is that's happening out there is continuing to happen regardless of what we claim to believe or not believe about it.







Tibbi: should we ever meet in person the first beer's on me and we can debate anything you want till we can't form words any more.



Stocker: eat a fat one, it's probably the most useful thing you could do with your mouth.

 

You just want to get me drunk









It's not so much "head in the sand," I have had this discussion many times. I have yet to hear, what in my opinion is, an irrefutable fact regarding human influenced climate change. That said, you missed one very big, concrete piece of evidence that just about everyone sees come the summer months, and that is smog. Working in a big city come late May/early June you can literally just watch the cloud of pollution roll into town. Making the logical connection would a breeze ( ), but even that I have personal reservations toward and would have refuted to the end of time. But in a debate, the goal isn't to sway the opinion of the opposition, it's to share information to influence onlookers. I know a lot of political debates provide a win/lose rank, but so long as there are good facts thrown back and forth I see no reason to qualify. You did bring a lot of great facts to the table and should have no shame in the results. The best news of all, it never fell apart or became an argument.





In other words: gg

 

Im gunna go out on the limb here and put global warming blame were it belongs, are SUN! Its that or our suv's are warming not just the Earth but are solar system, ice caps on Mars have been melting, must be man, hey solution to this will be carbon tax so its cool it will all work out.