Puppyz

Who really cares about the country folk? Not me. You can have your conservative ways and live out in the middle of nowhere. I prefer the city life, there's no place like New York.

jungle

Thanks guys, when I see statements like this as a counter to the facts I have posted it makes your argument all the weaker.
Is there any chance at all you can counter any fact I have posted with a direct and logical argument?
Let's try to stick to facts instead of slagging people because you have an incorrect stereotype stamped in your mind.
Dazzle me with your logical, organized presentation. Something that isn't political, but based on facts.
We've had a little humor with parrying these stereotypes back and forth, all in good fun, but it just doesn't get the job done.
I have admitted I don't have the answers, can you?

FDXLAG

I have seen some of the Genesis videos and they are compelling. And the hosts have credentials superior to AL (they didn't flunk out of divinity school). But I would never use these movies as proof in my argument.

Lag

RedBaron007

Precisely...what is great about Al Gore's movie is it puts everything succinctly, yet accurately and scientifically. If you want a comprehensive set of data, I'd recommend the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on climate change, which will be released in full this April. The first section, done by the "Physical Science Basis" Working Group of this panel, was released on Feb 2. Anyone interested can visit their website at http://www.ipcc.ch/. This report was written and reviewed by over 620 experts from 40 countries. I would consider that significant agreement among experts and scientists.

It is a misrepresentation by the media that there is a body of dissenting SCIENTISTS, not politicians, not people with agendas. Scientists by definition have no political motivation behind their hypotheses (if they did have a motive beyond their findings then what they did would not be called science). Scientists use the scientific method to gather results and hypotheses, and political impact is not a step in that method, at least the one I learned from elementary school through college. Al Gore is not a scientist, but the information he uses was compiled by real scientists who gathered information and used the scientific method to develop a theory. The scientific community as a whole agrees that humans play a role in global warming. Obviously there are other possible reasons warming is occurring, and there are some who believe this could be happening for a number of other reasons. The vast majority of scientists, though, concur that humans ARE playing a role and we can and need to do something to reverse what we've done to the planet.

This is a developED theory, and while there is always more information coming in to corroborate it, there is enough information and data out there that we should come together to do something about it.

While there are other sources out there, they are not accepted by the vast majority of scientists, making other theories much less credible.

Furthermore, it is important to remember we're not looking at short term weather changes, but long term ones. Gas levels in the atmosphere and temperatures can be found using ice cores, which has been mentioned earlier. Keep in mind that just because it's been really cold in the Northeast in the past month or so, that doesn't mean global warming isn't happening.

Lastly, for the conservatives out there. Why would this hurt business? Yes old coal and oil power plants might be hurt, but doesn't this offer a new opportunity to create an entire new range of industries centered around alternative energy resources? Of course. New cars, new power plants, new technologies across the board that use less energy and produce less pollution could be included under this umbrella. This offers another level of competition in the industry, making it more capitalistic. I understand conservatives are resistant to change by definition, but this really could be a change that would help the market not hurt it if implemented correctly.

jungle

Rb007 said: Scientists by definition have no political motivation behind their hypotheses (if they did have a motive beyond their findings then what they did would not be called science).(BINGO) *Scientists use the scientific method to gather results and hypotheses, and political impact is not a step in that method, at least the one I learned from elementary school through college.

*empasis and BINGO added by jungle


I see they never discussed research funding, publication, and competition for contracts in the halls of academia with you. Any comment on UN funding of research?
I guessed you missed my list of 17,000 plus scientists for whom this is most definitely not a fully developed theory.


And just what is it you propose to do about it? The UN farce you are fawning over says man cannot stop the effects of Global warming. I take it you do agree completely with the report?

You keep citing the Gore film without any other source. Try this and check out the wealth of articles there, I'll even dig the first one up for you.
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO.../V9/N45/C2.jsp

mike734

Good source. Funded by the coal and gas industry. No conflict there!

jungle

Nice off the cuff try, but they maintain a legal public charity status, which is much more than I can say for the UN.
It can get a little tough to tell a lie when the facts are at hand.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/Te...=CO2ScienceB2C

mike734

Maybe this source is completely off base:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Craig_Idso

jungle

It doesn't cover the research cited, the legal public charity fund status, or the bulk of the research on the site. It does address two films made in a lobbying effort by a specific energy company.

Now would you like to talk about the funding for the report presented in Paris, or the Gore film?

By the way, here is a list of publications by Sourcewatch's parent group:

The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies and the Mess in Iraq
Toxic Sludge Is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry
Mad Cow USA, which documents the PR coverup of human and animal health risks from mad cow disease
Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future
Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq
Banana Republicans: How the Right Wing is Turning America Into a One-Party State

No bias whatsoever under this rock?
No bias whatsoever in their reporting of the proper spin?

ryane946

Not a Bay Area Republican... I am a Bay Area Conservative.
I am kinda like Arnold. I am a fiscal conservative, but fairly liberal/moderate on social issues. My favorite politician is Diane Feinstein cause she's not a crazy liberal.

And no matter what my political beliefs... No matter what my political affiliation... I love California and I don't want this AWESOME place to get wrecked by global warming.