Global Warming

[yamaneko 2]

About the Global Warming Scientist paycheck: it's not large, and it takes 6-7 years after earning a bachelor's degree to earn the Ph. D., most of it spent flirting with the poverty line. The average workweek for Ph. D's trying to earn tenure is 80 hours; $65,000 is a very good salary after 20 years. At least in the sciences, grad students generally get paid a stipend that's enough to live on if you have a roommate -- that you're expected to put in 50+ hours/week between work and study does wonders for the bank balance. Those grants you hear about go mainly to lab equipment, the research team (liberally weighted with students working through school) and a bit for the researcher, who is well-advised to have several grant applications making the rounds at all times.

By the way, the American Enterprise Institute responded to the IPCC report by offering $10,000 a pop to scientists who would write "balanced" articles (read, oil-friendly articles). They didn't say much about field, or if the articles would undergo peer review.

That reminds me: peer review is a process that scientists undergo before they publish, wherein other scientists (with whom they are in some competition) get to poke the work full of holes. Imagine Exxon's CEO having to pass his speech to the stockholders through a panel on which BP's CEO sits before giving it, lest he be thought a crank.

Not that I'm complaining -- I enjoy being a grad student in climate science. The field is intrinsically interesting and I like the work that it entails. I love the university environment so far and interacting with people who are much smarter than me. And, being on the cutting edge of knowledge is exciting. The hours, though can be tiring (12 noon - 10:30 pm today, 6 am to 8:45 pm yesterday, 12-7 Tuesday, 10:30am to 10 pm Monday, 9:30 am - 10:15 pm tomorrow...)

Good night.

[The boy formerly known as Evil Muzz 27]

Everyone probably knows my views already, but I like expressing them!

Yes, Global Warming is happening, but no, I don't believe Humans cause it to as great an extent that the media and environmentalists are telling us. And to clear this up, Global Warming IS NOT FACT. Anyone who says it is is wrong I'm afraid, and this isn't opinion. Global Warming is a theory, a model if you will. It's what we THINK is happening, but it's not what we KNOW is happening. Like the model of an atom, nobody knows even though many people will support it. And so what if 90% of scientists support global warming. Good for them, but as I've already said, what is fact about global warming is that it is not fact. 90% for it means there is a 10% against, sure it may be an astronomical diference, but it isn't conclusive.

Besidess, nobody is going to change anyone's minds here, so I don't really see the point in this anymore... unless, like me, you like giving people a piece of your mind!

[coolotter88 2]

That last statement about the nickel mine and nasa is a myth. unless you actually saw with your own two eyes (and took pictures), it was probably made up by some person.

and that was uncalled for marczar...

[jmjselect 0]

okay:

co2 trapped in the earth's atmosphere absorbes heat that is reflected off the earths surface, green house effect, if there is more co2 than that means that more heat is absorbed which means that the temperature of earth's atmosphere will increase.

co2 is increasing. earth is getting hotter(about 1/2 of a degree either F or C over the past 100 years). <--- these are facts that are undisputable. but the real question is: is it humans fault?

---------------------

gore has correctly pointed out that co2 levels and earths temperature is VERY similar to the point where it is related to one another. but what he forgot, or doesn't know, is that co2 is a product of warmer temperatures. if you look at the numbers as temperature rises co2 then rises after it. it's not increase co2 then the temperatures will rise, it's the temperature rises then co2 levels rise.

but if not from humans then where is co2 coming from? the largest source of co2 is absorbed in the oceans. when you leave a open can of coke out on a hot day what happens? it goes flat, as the temperature of the coke gets warmer the co2(carbination) is released out into the atmosphere. it's the same with the oceans, as it gets warmer co2 is released into the air(from the largest source of co2).

what's causing the oceans to warm up? humans? no because the numbers say that co2 is dependant on temperature, temperature causes co2 levels to increase/decrease. if humans are at fault then we would have had to have increased temperature by different means.

now suprisingly the sun also is VERY similar to the point where it's related to temperatures. but and this is key the temperature on earth is dependent on the sun, the sun affects increased/decreased temperatures. as the sun puts out more energy the oceans get hotter, as the oceans hotter they release co2. the sun, earths temperatures and co2 levels are all very similar to one another, to the point where they are related. when you look at the bigger picture and input all factors the picture looks alot different.

oh also the medivel warming period. during the medivel warming period it was hotter than it is today, however this was before industrialization so what global warming(man made) scientists cannot do is explain how the world heated up without human involvement.

--------------------------------------------

just some things to leave with.

-the mars ice caps are melting and its very similar to th earths caps melting.

-we have 10 years to solve global warming because then the earth is gonna melt down(spec on my part: also in 10 years scientists predict that the earths temperatures will start to cool, when in 10 years the temps start to decrease the global warming religion will say to the world, see we fixed it)

-the world was flat, to dispute this meant that you would ultimately have to put your life on the line. people were imprisoned and executed for disputing that the world is flat. fast foward to today and scientists that do not board the 'man made global warming' train have had their lives threatened. correlation?

and to the hybrid car people, the overall energy output of a hybrid car(from building to operating to destruction(you can't just throw batteries away)) is more than a hummer. for example nickel is used in the batteries for the hybrids. it is mined(a good story about this mine at the end) in I believe BC canada. then it is shipped to europe, then shipped to china, then shipped to japan. the batteries are built and installed in japan. then the cars are shipped to america. a-round-the-world trip to build a hybrid car, that's alot of gas to ship.

that nickel mine: it has cause so much environmental damage to the surrounding area that nasa has tested some of it's mars rovers there.

------------------------------------------

my position: we do use way to much resources, what's better than the hybrid is an offshoot of the hybrid. it has an electirc engine that powers the vehicle for 100(or so) miles which is more than the daily commute of americans. that means that we can power the vehicles solely on electric day to day, but if we need to go further there is a gas engine in it as well. the gas engine would only be used if you needed to travel long distances(which is seldom). the mpg on the thing is 100+.

okay I'll stop talking now

[jmjselect 0]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 That last statement about the nickel mine and nasa is a myth. unless you actually saw with your own two eyes (and took pictures), it was probably made up by some person.

and that was uncalled for marczar...quote>

I haven't actually seen iraq with my own 2 eyes and I haven't taken pictures of iraq, is that all just a myth that someone made up?

I read a article about nasa using space laser in mines and the article was about technologies that space has contributed to the mining industry.  it also mentioned a 'space robitics used in planet surface exploration'.  <--- mars rover?

also did you know that the only places that can closely mimmic the dust found on other places are in mines, that's where nasa has also tested brakes for rovers.

[coolotter88 2]

no but NASA did not test their rovers in the land surrounding the mine because they were barren like mars. just like how nasa astronauts did not go to that something like sudbury or whatever because it was so polluted to get used to the moon's landscape.

[Goldfish4209 9]

Originally posted by: jmjselect

Originally posted by: coolotter88 That last statement about the nickel mine and nasa is a myth. unless you actually saw with your own two eyes (and took pictures), it was probably made up by some person.

and that was uncalled for marczar...quote>

I haven't actually seen iraq with my own 2 eyes and I haven't taken pictures of iraq, is that all just a myth that someone made up?

I read a article about nasa using space laser in mines and the article was about technologies that space has contributed to the mining industry.  it also mentioned a 'space robitics used in planet surface exploration'.  <--- mars rover?

also did you know that the only places that can closely mimmic the dust found on other places are in mines, that's where nasa has also tested brakes for rovers.quote>

What do you want the mine companies to do, plant grass in the mine shafts?

[1dera3 28]

Originally posted by: marcszar

You say that man-made global warming isn't believable but the story of Jonah being eaten by a whale and surviving is absolute truth? Riiiiggght.quote>

You are now my idol.

[getdown11 0]

Personally I believe when oil gets to be exponentially expensive in about 50 yrs. this whole global warming thing will begin to fix itself. We may need to build levees around New York City though. Just my uninformed $.02

[SystemUK 0]

Please watch the video people. A lot of the global warming 'facts' are discredited.

The Green Lobby will probably have an arguement against that but atleast look at both sides of the story!!

As for my opinion, I do agree that global warming is happening, just that it isn't man made.

If you watch the video you will see that man made greenhouse gases is something like 0.001% of all greenhouse gases produced each year!!

[JWUT 2]

I'm not denying that climate change is occurring, per se, but I feel that it's always a good idea to maintain some skepticism about everything, including one's most deeply held beliefs. I come from a strong religious background, myself, and I'm continually in the process of reassessing these beliefs, questioning whether I really believe in these things that I don't necessarily see with my eyes. Of course, I've chosen to take the leap of faith, and trust my beliefs.

The global climate change (warming, cooling, exploding, who the heck actually knows?) controversy is much the same. There really is a lot of faith involved, both on the part of the scientists who have faith in the accuracy of their measurements, and faith in the idea that the ancient ice cores they're measuring do in fact reflect the nature of the Earth's climate in millennia past.

Personally, I believe that it is incredibly arrogant of any scientist to say or assume that they have such a complete understanding of the nature and laws of the universe that they think, with one of six-and-a-half billion opinions, that they know for certain what is happening to a planet that is truly much larger and more complex than any mere mortal could possibly comprehend.

Not that we should take that as license to abuse the planet. I am from the Los Angeles area, and as is common knowledge, that city has long been the most ridiculously polluted metropolitan area, at least in North America. Obviously, smog isn't a pleasant experience, and decidedly lowers the quality of life here.

I believe that we should indeed strive to do all things in the cleanest and most efficient manner possible. For the religious, God didn't command Adam to go and wantonly kill things and burn stuff. Our role is more like that of a steward, taking care of the little piece of His creation that we have been given to inhabit for the duration of mortality, and making the best of the challenges of life.

By the same token, I believe that the Earth was created for us to use to make our lives and the lives of others better. Human beings, are, at the moment, the rulers of the Earth, and we ought to make sure that we all have homes, food, clothing, and clean water, at the minimum. Then we need to build businesses to provide products and services to each other, and enrich our lives even more. Then we need to build roads and vehicles and communications networks so we can communicate and understand each other, and work ever faster to make things better! Yes, we have social problems that get in the way of this system, but that's where individual responsibilities to ouselves, our friends and families, our civic duties, all come into play to make things better! Look at the progress we've made in the last few millennia, and this century alone! We are continually refining the process by which we make things better, though. Look at our cities, and how clean the most advanced ones are, compared to conditions only half a century past! In the 1970's, Los Angeles experienced Stage 1 smog alerts (the worst level) over 300 days of the year sometimes. Now, after barely four decades of uninterrupted technological progress, we're down to less than ten! Yet some people suggest that we bring a halt to the industries that are bringing us here, thinking that such a course of action will be beneficial (???) to the health of our society. Market forces will prevail, though. Consumers, seeing the benefits of cleaner, faster, more efficient technologies, will replace the polluting industries and vehicles with the new ones. And someday, those will be replaced with even better. We will keep building better cities, and fixing the old ones. And as long as we, the citizens of the Earth, watch out for each other, and guard against corruption, and hold honest, rational, and intelligent debates about the proper courses of action, we will ensure our future.

Who will deny that this progress has enriched our lives? Even twenty years ago, we couldn't even be having this debate, in this forum, with each other. We need to put our faith in our built-in human ingenuity, and work towards increasing our scientific understanding of the Earth and its climate systems. We cannot afford to stop the debate, just because a majority of a minority (most of the world's scientists) agrees on one idea. The Earth is flat, right? No? but 500 years ago, the authorities on the subject said it was! I'm shocked!

There would be nothing less scientific about this issue than the restriction of the minorities' view that it's possible that climate change isn't necessarily our fault, but a natural process. The scientific method does not include a step that says, "pick a position and stick with it, and tape the opposition's mouth shut." We research, form a hypothesis, perform tests, obtain results, and then form a THEORY, subject to future review.

Thank You.

[MrVegetable 2]

It's all very well saying that humans cause global warming, but so do all the other animals, such as cows, but we don't go and ask them to stop passing wind do we? Its's the same for all animals, we all produce methane, we all produce carbon dioxide and use up oxygen during respiration. Volcanoes release HUGE amounts of greenhouse gases and other toxic gases, but we don't go and ask them to stop erupting because more and more CO2 is entering the atmosphere. At the end of the day we are trying to disrupt the course of nature, trying to slow it down, with no effect, which spurs everyone on to take even more drastic measures, which then don't work and the cycle continues.

[hymewales 13]

"The temperature decrease observed during the post WWII era is not evidence of Global Warming being a farce. In fact, in somewhat supports it."

Your words when talking about the CFC's. Somewhat is a very weak statement.

I think you miss the point I made regarding Solar activity, Milankovitch cycles, and the weaking of the magnetic field which you avoided...You are basing your assumptions on one thing...one thing called the internationally media recognized increase in CO2; Basically placing all of your eggs in one basket.  You are seeing only one tree when you should be seeing the forest. You cannot use one set of  data and make a conclusion based on it when many other factors are at work on this beautiful thing we call Earth. Basically you are saying you're favorite team is going to win the World Cup (or whatever your sport is) based on the assumption the team consists of the best players from around the world (analogy).  This is your CO2 theory.

You have to factor in other events like the known fact that we are currently in the closest orbit to the sun (Milankovitch cycle) and the fact that we are in an unprecedented heightedned increase in solar activity in recorded history. Not to mention the weakened magnetic field which is also fact. The video shown supports the fact that solar activity plays a better role than CO2 in the increase in temperatures. There is not a 100 percent match in the graphs in the the comparison to CO2 and temperature increase. I don't know why there is a drop in temperature and the the CO2 levels remain the same. You cannot say it is becuase of reduction in CFC's or anything else. It is not fact. The graphs match when compared to the recorded solar activity and temperatures. Basically you are convinced you have the World Cup winner even though the team does not have chemistry (Earth's orbit), the coach is having a difficult  time with his family and is not focused (solar activity), and one your main players is hiding an injury (weakened magentic field).

Sure you can try and discredit them one by one, tree by tree; fact by fact. But when you look at the trees together (the forest/facts), the evidence is compelling that we humans may not be the cause of Global Warming but that it is a natural cycle of mother Earth.

Global warming is happening. I know I cannot convince anyone to change thier beliefs because I feel that is not right. You will believe what you want to believe. You will tell me to research my facts and I advise YOU to do that. I'm not changing your mind, only putting doubt  in the theory.  Nor am I changing mine. Someone said earlier he/she used a common sense check...use common sense...common sense dictates to research all of the facts and attempt to factor in every part of the equation, not just one unproven theory.  I have yet to see anyone here or scientist factor anything other than CO2 into the current theory.  The equation only contains one thing...CO2 in the atmosphere. A bunch of world class players on the same team does not make a champion. A theory does not make something fact.

[jmjselect 0]

@hymewales: what causes the cyclical changes? the sun imo. japan just got their telescope in space working that will study the sun, so it'll be very interesting what they discover

[coolotter88 2]

everyone knows global warming is occuring, just the extent of which is caused by humans is unknown.

[storms991 0]

All blame resides with the United states and their countless ultra-conservative Christian Extremists that still believe that We were created by the hand of *god*.

No, I am not out to offend anyone, although this may offend someone, it is what I believe, not what YOU believe, respect my opinion.

Rebuttal please.

[getdown11 0]

How does this relate to global warming?

[Micah 16]

Yeah... okay, this thread is deviating from a logical discussion to an off-topic flame war. Please, talk about the subject.

[storms991 0]

Let me explain something, people in the times of today, believe more in human intervention than they do in Divine intervention. The strongest nation on the face of this planet, is part of this minority, believing that the cause for all human existence can be summed up with one word, GOD. If one were to believe in this, all answers become clear to them.

What is Global Warming caused by? God

Why is this happening now? God

They do not believe that humans can have such a *God* like influence on the planet...

Need I say more?

Rebuttal.

[SystemUK 0]

But it is on-topic.

[coolotter88 2]

well, I don't know what my religion is but I just want to say, stop bashing the people who believe in a god. Religion is great, even if there is no god, you lived a good, moral life if you follow religion.

[coolotter88 2]

actually to set everyone going

"AHHH THEORY AHHH!!!!!"

straight

a THEORY is FACT until proven otherwise, so stop talking if you think global warming is untrue JUST BECAUSE IT'S A THEORY. likewise, evolution is fact until proven otherwise but i'm deviating for the original topic but yes, just to set people on the right track.

THEORY in SCIENCE is different than THEORY in speaking term thingies.

[Goldfish4209 9]

People are a little too confident in religion. What if god doesn't really exist? Then you're just sitting there waiting for your own doom? Wouldn't it help to try to fix this? And to my knowledge, nowhere in any holy writing does it say to not fix global warming. Get a grip and do something instead of praying all day.

And this isn't meant to offend anyone. Just my opnion.

[JanYpe 17]

They do not believe that humans can have such a *God* like influence on the planet... quote>

Come off your secular horse for a moment, and consider this. On the face of things it does seem absurd and an example of human arrogance to think that a huge entity like Earth, that's billions of years old, could be influenced so drastically by the monkeys that crawl around on it in as little as 150 years. These issues aren't nearly as connected to religious Americans as you seem to believe.

Yeah... okay, this thread is deviating from a logical discussion to an off-topic flame war. Please, talk about the subject.quote>

Since the thread is originally about the Global Warming Swindle movie, it's reasonable to ask: Who has actually watched this movie? I noticed my link on the previous page went dead, but Marc put up a new link, here.

The program centers around several points:

1. Allegedly bad science behind man made global warming theories.

2. Tunnel vision; Anyone who doubts these theories is dismissed as a drone on the payroll of "the corporations", since everyone supposedly agrees with the theory and "fact". This, they argue, leads to a vicious cycle whereby any research with a remote connection to global warming gets funding, thus turning global warming into an industry, and anyone who doubts it into a threat.

3. Research as a political tool; British research into human CO2 causing global warming was apparently started by PM Margaret Thatcher, to reduce reliance on coal plants and to gain more government control over the energy industry through this.

4. Inequality caused by some CO2 reduction schemes; By asking developing countries to rely on weaker sources such as solar panels instead of on traditional resources, we are hindering their growth in an unfair and abject way.

This isn't about crackpot denial theories and "ultra-conservative Christian extremists".

[JanYpe 17]

well, I don't know what my religion is but I just want to say, stop bashing the people who believe in a god. quote>

Agreed. Marc already gave a warning that the religious talk is off topic here. Please don't get this thread closed because you are unable to follow simple instructions, and just discuss the movie, global warming and the implications of both.

If you want to set the gentle readers straight, c88, then you need to define the terms you use. *pulls up quote*

actually to set everyone going "AHHH THEORY AHHH!!!!!" straight

a THEORY is FACT until proven otherwise, so stop talking if you think global warming is untrue JUST BECAUSE IT'S A THEORY. likewise, evolution is fact until proven otherwise but i'm deviating for the original topic but yes, just to set people on the right track.

THEORY in SCIENCE is different than THEORY in speaking term thingies.quote>

If you define global warming as the current upward trend of global temperature, then you'd be right and logical.

If you meant global warming as warming caused by human CO2, then you wouldn't be right because the movie in question disputes the whole premise of that idea, and presents its own. For the purpose of this discussion we'd be talking about both as hypotheses.

[MayorCain 2]

I beleive we do have a small part in global warming.

Its been proven throughout history, that the earth has gone through periods of cold spots, and hot spots. They know this, because of drilling they do and they inspect the soils for evidences.

The meteor impact that apparently killed off the dinosaurs was proven to be around 65,000,000 years ago, because of an unusual layer of sediment on the earth lines.

They are like wrinkles, that peer into our past. Same goes for ice ages, etc.

How can you prove we are doing this?

Every scientist has his own opinion.

One might beleive time travel is possible, while another might think it ridiculous.

One might have said the atom bomb was a fancinful dream that would never happen.

Alot of science is speculation, and as you can see, scientists have 'proven' we are to blame, while others have 'disproven' it.

One topic that came up during a political talk in the UK is that Global warming will never stop.

He is right, because while we as first world countries are now moving on to cleaner technologies, the developing world will soon rely on the technologies we disdain.

China is building over 30 coal factories a WEEK, and they have some of the worst pollution in the world. Yet they arent a super hot country are they?

[schm0 27]

I have read most of the posts in this thread, and I thought I'd throw in my own (albeit, humble) opinion. Before I get to that, let me point out some simple observations.

1) Most of the posts on here are rants, and that goes for both sides of the debate. The idea of the users of Simtropolis discussing this issue in extreme detail and with absolute certainty is akin to a room full of construction workers discussing wormholes with the same amount of credibility. None of us, at least from reading these posts, is a paleoclimatologist, atmospheric researcher or global meterologist. Let's be honest with ourselves.

2) We can only dissect the actual data that has been recorded, and leave all theory as that: simply a theory. However, it is not vain to discuss the various data that supports those theories. (I would like to point out that none of us doubts the validity of the Theory of Gravity.) Similarly, let's not confuse a conspiracy theory with a scientific theory.

3) Religion has no place in a scientific debate. You cannot debate facts with the unprovable, supernatural, or immaterial. Let's respect each other's beliefs, and keep them separate from debating the facts.

Now, on to the opinion part:

Originally posted by: jammy

I'ts recently been prooved that global warming is not caused by humans

The sun is the cause of global temperatures not us!

[Edit: I deleted a bunch of other uncorroborated "facts" from the original post.]

quote>

The director of this documentary is hardly credible. (Click the link if you want to know more.)

Nothing has been proven, on either side of the debate. The scientific community and it's consensus support the idea that humans are contributing to, and are the main cause of, global warming, which is occuring at an alarming rate. The only way to actually prove the theory is to test it over time, which is exactly why so-called "alarmists" and "reactionaries" are trying to make an impact: to change things before it's too late.

While I can't address every single post (I would have to write a doctoral thesis to do so), there's a couple posts I'd like to address:

Originally posted by: jammy The thing is we can not control the sun, there has recently been an increase in sumspots which are intense heat, sometimes they kind of burst and let out something called a 'solar storm', These are not like a regular storm, they bring out heat and sometimes head towards the earth, they can last for 100's of years.quote>

Solar storms are the result of solar flares that are so large, they escape the magnitude of the sun and are released into space. The earth's iron core creates a magnetic field that surrounds the earth and protects us from harmful solar radiation, which is increased during times of a solar storm. The aurora borealis are a direct product of the magnetic field "trapping" this energy at the poles, which is why this phenomena is more prevalent in proximity to the poles. (This is the short answer.) Sun spots are recordable and appear in an 11 year cycle, the more energetic ones producing the larger flares that produce solar storms. They don't last hundreds of years. If they did, we would have aurora in our nightly sky for the period of several centuries. How they even relate to the CO₂ in the earth's atmosphere, I have no clue.

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes Didnt we have these same arguments in the other thread?

People will beilve what they want to belive. If a certian explination for GW make sense to them

no matter how much you argue you not going to convice them to change thier minds.

especialy since thier are conflicting veiws both with viable research to back them up in this case.

Its like the Roswell Incident. you belive or you dont, thier is so much information and misinformation

out their that no one can realy say its 100% certian.

so untill time travel is invented and we go back and make certian

its all subjective.

quote>

This is not Roswell. This is global warming. The amount of information on the Roswell "incident" is miniscule compared to the data collected by scientists and the papers and studies published, peer-edited and reviewed by scientists.

Originally posted by: wagusmaximus

[Edit: some of this message was omitted]

I will not hold it against most of u posters that scream global warming on Simtropolis, after all most of u are young individuels who have fragile minds and belive everything that is tought to u like I once was.

And for a final thought, most of u supporters must not belive in GOD. One of the "theories" of global "warming" is that the Ice caps will melt and the waters will rise and drown us all, oh my! I seem to remember in suday school that GOD did the same thing a long time ago:

And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Genesis 9:11

Shame on u Al fore misleading the youth of America, shame on us all for believing democratic lies.quote>

My mind is neither fragile, and I will forever remain a natural skeptic of anything and everything I experience.

As to the fact that I shouldn't be worried about the water levels rising, I personally would prefer to die of natural causes, and not by a global flood that destroys most of human civilization (which certain proponents of global warming theory ironically predict to be caused by human civilization itself.)

Your biased and partisan views shine through in your very message. Refute an argument with facts, not Biblical quotes and Democratic Party-bashing. Shame on you, sir, for disagreeing on the basis of party politics and religious teachings. Your personal creed does reflect on the actual science of this issue.

Originally posted by: Gnargenox

Oh and did anyone notice when looking up in the sky nowadays there are MANY more airplane contrails than in the past? That's because the government is secretly seeding clouds (called Chemtrails) to form thereby reflecting the sun's radiation away and reversing the problem we've created. And no one would ever suspect. I wonder what the space aliens would think.......

quote>

[blank stare, jaw dropped]

I don't know how to respond to such nonsense.

In closing, I think for the most part this has been an interesting discussion. I'll continue to pay attention to it, but I plead that we all take a look at the facts of the issue, and debate that. You are entitled to purport your beliefs, but don't try to purport unproven statements as fact.

Where do I stand on this issue? I trust the scientific community, the result of their discoveries and the data and research they used to arrive at those conclusions. Why? Because I've read the science. I've read the data. Pick up some Carl Sagan or do some research on your own. You may be surprised at what you learn.

[Micah 16]

Originally posted by: schm0

3) Religion has no place in a scientific debate. You cannot debate facts with the unprovable, supernatural, or immaterial. Let's respect each other's beliefs, and keep them separate from debating the facts.quote>

 

Thank you!  For those of you who wish to discuss religion, here's the place!

[coolotter88 2]

no, i actually wanted to set readers straight on the definition of a "theory"

[jmjselect 0]

it always amazes me how those who bring up 'god' the most are aethists(sp?)

i'll just leave the dicussion on global warming with this:

scientists of the past were shunned and beaten and imprisoned and sometimes killed for throwing up the ideas that deviated from the norm. today we see 'man made' global warming scientists deniers sent death threats.  it's reminds me of how the world was flat, those that denied it were shunned, beatened, imprisoned, and killed for criticizing that thought.

link to stories on how scientists who deny 'man made' global warming are sent death threats and other forms of threats.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=global+warming+scientists+threatened&btnG=Google+Search

you never hear of global warming scientists who believe it is caused by man threatened like this