Sorry...I'm not a big sports fan, but I'll agree with you if you'd like. :-)

I repeat this as much as I can, I'm sure some might get tired of it, others actually don't know it, where will this fit with you?  Only you can answer that.

Consider this:  The biggest so-called premise behind the global warming fraud(I called it a hoax too, but like someone else in this thread, it's definitely a fraud, especially for the building of those wind farms) is that carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing it and that it has to be reduced.  This is mentioned in many pieces of legislation and other literature and passed off as science. 

The key thing is, most people don't realize how much CO2 is in our atmosphere's composition or even know the composition.  So here is our air's basic composition: 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 0.93% Argon and 0.03% CO2 otherwise known as Carbon Dioxide.

To hear the global warming alarmists, they would tell you that the sky is filling up with CO2, but ask yourself this question, how is it that the amount of CO2 that's in the air as I laid out to you above have as drastic an effect that they are leading us to believe is going to happen(and it won't)?  They tried to tell us that Hurricane Katrina was caused by it, of course, it certainly wasn't.  They tell us that it hit as a Category 5 hurricane, no, it made landfall as a Category 3 hurricane.  They tried to tell us the very next year we were going to have killer storms aplenty and we had none.  All this due to an imaginary increase in CO2?  Sorry, doesn't work.

If anything, one basic scientific fact is that plants NEED CO2 to thrive, as part of photosynthesis.  

The activists out there want the US to cut back on so many things that we enjoy, claiming all we do is pollute the air with excess CO2.  Sorry, volcanoes put out more CO2 in a day than all the vehicles do in a year(or however that comparison worked, been a while since I've seen it).

The sun is the biggest reason we have climage changes all the time, and as someone else mentioned, the earth has been cooling just a bit since 1998, this has been due to a decrease in sunspot activity in the last decade. The sun is the weather's main source of energy in many ways.

But most people don't see it that way.  If anything, this global warming zeal issuch a religious fervor that I keep expecting someone to start making human sacrifices such as what the Mayans did in times past and ignore all these things.  As it is, it's really about control over our lives, such as that stupid "energy" bill that got signed into law a couple of years ago that did nothing about creating energy but banned lightbulbs which are absolutely HARMLESS in favor of the Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs that are actually more dangerous in many ways, most notably having mercury inside them and are deemed hazardous materials if broken.  Where is the common sense in that? 

How about the construction of Hybrids?  The factories that make them produce a LOT of pollution.  Not only that, most people don't realize that the batteries that are used in those things don't have as long a life as a regular car battery, and are prohibitively expensive.  Last I heard they last 2-3 years and cost over 3000 bucks to replace, I don't know if that's still the case.  Where's the common sense in something like this vehicle?

I could go on and on, but I hope you made it this far and again, ask yourself those questions about these things. All the above is verifiable.  There's a lot more, but this is some basic stuff.

-Jon

You could start by answering the question I asked and lay off the indignation over me simply outlining what you've already done in this very thread.  Offer an argument for AGW, or hell, just GW.  Present your evidence for scrutiny and return to defend it.  Shoot, just go to the latest NB article (as of this response) on the subject and make your case for GW.

You could even do it in the forums so the discussion won't scroll off into the archives. 

mamabear,

First, I will say that it isn't clear to me that when you say "global warming" if you mean just that or if you mean anthropomorphic global warming (AGW). So I'll write this response in a way that doesn't assume one way or the other.

There are two issues here. First, is there a global increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and second, if there is, what is causing it?

For the sake of argument, let's say there is enough empirical data to say, with confidence, that yes there has been an increase in the Earth's temperature (again, just for the sake of argument).

Well, then we have to figure out what is going on. You make reference to an apparent lack of correlation between solar activity and this temperature increase. OK, let's assume that's true. How do we figure out what's causing the temperature increase?

Well, folks who study the Earth's atmosphere fall within a category of science which has an unfortunate restriction - they can't actually do experiments to test their theories. If I were a particle physicist or a condensed matter physicist, I could do (or arrange for) experiments to test the predictions of my theory. But people who study the Earth's atmosphere can't (a fact that is also true for a number of other areas of science).

What they can do is use their theories to make predictions and then see if there's empirical evidence that agrees with those predictions. That's were those computer models come into play.

The problem is that the Earth's atmosphere is very complicated and isn't fully understood. Any scientist will acknowledge that. So even if a model makes accurate predictions, there is no way to be sure if the proposed model accurately reflects the reality of the situation. Since changes in global temperature can be the result of any number of causes, any of those (or some combination) can result in basically the same data. And, again, since we don't have a complete understanding of this system, there has to be some guessing involved.

Is it possible that human activity is causing an increase in global atmospheric temperature? Sure. But the simple fact is that we are not now in a position to say if that's what's going on.

I'm not saying we ignore folks who believe in AGW. But you have to accept that their predictions are educated guesses. They might be correct - but they might not be. I don't think I have to tell you that there have been times in the past when a majority within the scientific community held views that turned out to be false.

I don't think most of the folks here an NB object to having scientists working on AGW theories. The whole thing is a work in progress, and it should be approached from a number of different directions. I think most here object to people (many of them with no real scientific background) pushing AGW as if it were an established fact. Any way you cut it, it isn't.

Rumor has it a Stealth Delta Smelt is being developed that doesn't show up on SONAR. 

"...radiation AND genetically modified plants"

And if you can, does that make it ok to destroy thousands of peoples lives over a minnow? Inquiring  minds want to know.

Gary

If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace. -- Tom Paine

Do you mean Oingoboingo?  :-)  The lead guy in that band -- can't recall his name -- does all the music for Tim Burton's movies now.

I got a little off topic due to your tag line.

ACA 

...

Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)