[It's_GO_Time]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

It certainly explains it better than Al Gore can.

Right . . . and how many nobel peace prizes has the wrtier of the article you cited won?

But I know . . . a nobel peace prizes is product of the lefties and the devil.

[Superblaze]

Well like they say, what you dont see, wont hurt you. I guess Talkhard will just feel the impact of Global Warming in the near future.

[dudleysghost]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

Just as it has done before in the history of the world (before there was man-made CO2 emissions).

The Earth was once a cloud of dust orbiting a proto-star at one point in time. Between then and now, there have been plenty of changes in the planet and it's environment. Measured over geologic time, climate has changed wildly.

Even still, there are fluctuations. The Earth wobbled, mega-volcanoes explode, meteors strike, and stuff changes a lot. As recently as 10,000 years ago, there was a major ice age that wiped out many if not most of the pre-historic people on Earth.

That the climate changes over long periods of time isn't really in question. What's in question is if we are causing a change ourselves right now, how quickly it will occur and how damaging it would be to humanity. The consensus among scientists seems to be that we are causing it, it's very rapid by historical standards, and it will be damaging, possibly very severely so. Deny it if you wish, but most of the world's scientists don't agree with you, and they know much more about it than you.

Originally Posted by Talkhard

It certainly explains it better than Al Gore can.

Look at the map smarty pants. The ice is receding by the North coast of Russia, far from Greenland. Your assertion that magma in Greenland is causing the overall melting is obviously false. You can refuse to admit it and flail away at Al Gore if you want, but it doesn't hide the glaring irrationality of what you tried to say at the start of this thread.

It also doesn't diminish from that giant list of scientific organizations who, rather than Al Gore, do represent the world's experts on this matter, and they overwhelmingly disagree with you.

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by dudleysghost

It also doesn't diminish from that giant list of scientific organizations who, rather than Al Gore, do represent the world's experts on this matter, and they overwhelmingly disagree with you.

They are spouting the company line--which is to say the leftist line. The global warming "science" is extremely weak and driven by political ideology. Many scientists have pointed this out, but the drumbeat rolls on and the media eats it up.

[ryanjend22]

oh boy...

more hot air from everybody's least favorite neo-con.

[Stepping Razor]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

They are spouting the company line--which is to say the leftist line. The global warming "science" is extremely weak and driven by political ideology. Many scientists have pointed this out, but the drumbeat rolls on and the media eats it up.

Just keep saying this. If you keep saying something over and over and over again, it makes it true. Just ask Yega.

Stepping Razor

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by Stepping Razor

If you keep saying something over and over and over again, it makes it true.

That seems to be the mantra of the global warming crowd.

[Stepping Razor]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

That seems to be the mantra of the global warming crowd.

If, by "the global warming crowd," you mean, "the world's reputable scientists," then yes. If, of course, by "repeating themselves endlessly," you mean, "doing millions of hours worth of peer-reviewed research."

But I get it. You hate Al Gore. Al Gore was an early and prominent advocate of action to address climate change. Ergo, climate change can't possibly be true.

This is an entirely sensible way to form a reasoned opinion.

Stepping Razor

[dudleysghost]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

They are spouting the company line--which is to say the leftist line. The global warming "science" is extremely weak and driven by political ideology. Many scientists have pointed this out, but the drumbeat rolls on and the media eats it up.

Hmm. All the major relevant trade associations and the majority of scientists aren't credible because they are "leftist", that's your explanation? How about the committee appointed by President Bush that came up with the same answer as those hippie scientists? What happened there? Why is it only those scientists are publishing data and papers, and the "many" you say that disagree remain silent?

You know what I think the problem is ... it's that the scientific method itself is "leftist". I just don't think empiricism is a good conservative value. The whole process of forming hypotheses and testing them, doing research and procuding evidence, it's all corrupt at it's core. That's the only explanation.

[Hector]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

Science is what proves Al Gore wrong.

He won the Nobel Prize a month ago for his work on this issue. The authority of science is behind him.

[It's_GO_Time]

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/play...26722&src=news

[dr_a2k]

Originally Posted by Kiss_My_Darius

But I know . . . a nobel peace prizes is product of the lefties and the devil.

If a terrorist can win the peace prize why cant an idiot win a noble prize?
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...rafat-bio.html

[STOMP]

Originally Posted by Kiss_My_Darius

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/play...26722&src=news

the commercial is a perfect lead.

STOMP