It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Galvatron
Besides, regardless of whether or not global warming is indeed human induced or not, isn't it pretty concrete that pollution is bad for the environment?
Originally posted by brEaDITOR
Gore presented a lot of data in his film "An Inconvenient Truth". As a scientist, I tend to agree with him.
Originally posted by Gatordone
It seems to me…
Originally posted by Gatordone
"scientific consensus" which doesn't exist.
Originally posted by Gatordone
There is no such thing as "scientific" consensus, is there? Unless you have a political agenda to support.
Originally posted by Gatordone
As if the left were completely incapable of the fear tactics you've been trained to charge the right with.
Originally posted by Gatordone
How will we fix this GW Problem?
Originally posted by Gatordone
The gov't will save us! A completely liberal point of view to shut down industry and ruin economies that have the unfair advantage of not being socialist in nature.
Originally posted by enjoies05
Originally posted by brEaDITOR
Gore presented a lot of data in his film "An Inconvenient Truth". As a scientist, I tend to agree with him.
I agree. I actually watched the film today, as a matter of fact.
I think he had alot of great points especially with the charts and pictures he showed. It changed my entire view of Global Warming.
Originally posted by Galvatron
I think the main thing here is generally getting lost on americans. Its not that difficult. I don't know how to be clearer than the smoke detector analogy.
Just because it may or may not be causing a problem right now doesnt mean its a good idea.
What if the sun is the cause of global warming? Does that mean we should stop cutting back on emissions?
Originally posted by loam
Originally posted by Gatordone
"scientific consensus" which doesn't exist.
Mind giving me the facts on this one?
Originally posted by Gatordone
There is no such thing as "scientific" consensus, is there? Unless you have a political agenda to support.
I forgot that one requires a “political agenda” in order to assert that water is wet or that an absence of oxygen causes suffocation.
Whew! I’m glad you cleared that up for me.
Originally posted by Gatordone
As if the left were completely incapable of the fear tactics you've been trained to charge the right with.
Apparently, you know nothing of my politics. How certain are you that I’m from the “left”?
Originally posted by Gatordone
How will we fix this GW Problem?
In my view, we have two GW problems… But I’m quite sure you will use that to assert I’m from the left as well.
Originally posted by Gatordone
The gov't will save us! A completely liberal point of view to shut down industry and ruin economies that have the unfair advantage of not being socialist in nature.
Can you show me where the majority advocate the “shutting down of industry” and the “ruin of economies”?
And, can you also provide me an explanation, from your far superior “conservative” mind, how a failure to account for the cost of the use (or abuse) of natural resources is an economically conservative principle and not just a vast redistribution of wealth scheme?
I eagerly await your sagely view on the matter.
Originally posted by Gatordone
A "consensus" is a general agreement or opinion. (Oxford Desk Dictionary)
Science is a branch of knowledge involving systematic observation and experiment. (Oxford Desk Dictionary).
Now when there was "scientific consensus" that the world was flat was it scientific? Even if there was consensus? Are you sure the planet didn't just turn spherical when the worlds scientists finally agreed?
There is NO correlation between science and consensus.
Originally posted by Gatordone
There is no such thing as "scientific" consensus, is there? Unless you have a political agenda to support.
Originally posted by loam
I forgot that one requires a “political agenda” in order to assert that water is wet or that an absence of oxygen causes suffocation.
Whew! I’m glad you cleared that up for me.
That's just silly...
Originally posted by Gatordone
Have you actually read the Kyoto Treaty?
Originally posted by Gatordone
Originally posted by loam
And, can you also provide me an explanation, from your far superior “conservative” mind, how a failure to account for the cost of the use (or abuse) of natural resources is an economically conservative principle and not just a vast redistribution of wealth scheme?
I eagerly await your sagely view on the matter.
The premise of this question is on shaky ground. What cost? Abuse?
Originally posted by Gatordone
We are so full of ourselves to assume that we are so consequential to a planet that's been here millions of years- going through these cycles all by itself the whole time.
Originally posted by budski
I have no agenda on GW
Originally posted by budski
try reading all of the last paragraph instead of quoting part of one sentence out of context
Originally posted by Lucius Driftwood
The original IPCC report commissioned in 1996 showed a 1000 year graph showing correctly that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today. But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period and a uniform temperature until the onset of the industrial age when it began to rise. This graph wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1000 years. This information shows that history is being deliberately falsified by a UN agency.