Upgrade.

[Junket]

I think that people that herald any alternative as "the solution" is hiding the facts.

Awesome, I have toilet paper from 100% recycled paper, now how much waste water did that create?

[Doc Durian]

So, Doc, I'm sorry but the world's scientists disagree with you. I know you aren't a scientist and therefore only have your belief and opinion to base your statements on, but there is data out there to examine, the reports are available online. Feel free to educate yourself, independently of any educational institution. Refusing to do so simply b/c it disagrees with how you'd like the world to work is tantamount to giving up the 'freethinking' you claim to highly value. Basically, it makes your statements the equivalent of religion and I think you are smarter than that. Don't decide before you actually have any proof and then accuse others of being brainwashed. Unless you are making an informed decision, you are the biggest self-brainwashed person posting here. The raw data is out there, go look at the temperature trends for yourself and read what others (who have actually SEEN the data) have to say.

I have made an informed decision and from all indications, I believe the evidence pointing to the sun as the culprit over the previous century. I also see the Earth cooling at the moment and am seeing evidence of that firsthand.

Incidentally, if the "world's scientists disagree" with me, why wasn't my name featured in the leaked IPCC communications?

[Illusional]

haha no offense... but i hate the civic. i do however like your integra....!!

raverboy

[Cbrider]

now how much waste water did that create?

Trust me, not nearly as much as a Saturday night downtown with a trip to the taco truck.

I hated the civic too Illusional....till I drove the thing.

[Charlie Boy II]

I drive a 2005 ford territory. I love the thing. So nice to drive, and really nice leather interior. I can fit surfboards etc in there, so it's good for trips away. Girls like it too.

Edit: here's a pic. This model is actually better than the one I have, but you get the idea.

[IndiReloaded]

I have made an informed decision and from all indications, I believe the evidence pointing to the sun as the culprit over the previous century. I also see the Earth cooling at the moment and am seeing evidence of that firsthand.

Incidentally, if the "world's scientists disagree" with me, why wasn't my name featured in the leaked IPCC communications?

My comment was facetious. Few scientists care what any non-scientist thinks, including folks like Al Gore, so the bat swings both ways. Anyway, your comment is cute if I believed youve actually read any of the original publications or IPCC reports on the subject. I don't. I think you take deliberately contrary positions to feel 'independent'. But it seems just as mindless as those who blindly believe Fox News. Its just the opposite side of the same coin and doesn't mean you think any better. I don't see any evaluation process having occurred, just baseless opinion based on how you'd like things to be. Sometimes tho, a blue sky is blue and water is wet. Even if 99.99% of the population agrees and its just stupid to claim otherwise.

I'd love to see some of the data from your "informed decision", Doc. I'm quite open minded to good arguments, but only based on fact, not opinion. I'd be delighted to learn that global warming contributed by humans is just bunk with the data to show it. You don't have to post an entire argument, but I'm curious about the sources of your information and how reputable they are. Of course, I realize anyone "reputable" must be suspect by your philosophy, but all I can tell you is the scientists I know don't give a damn for what is PC or trendy, only what the data supports.

[Doc Durian]

My comment was facetious. Few scientists care what any non-scientist thinks, including folks like Al Gore, so the bat swings both ways.

You're probably right, Indi. Those wealthy cashed up scientists can't wait to settle their work tabs on their own shoulders.

Anyway, your comment is cute if I believed youve actually read any of the original publications or IPCC reports on the subject. I don't. I think you take deliberately contrary positions to feel 'independent'. But it seems just as mindless as those who blindly believe Fox News. Its just the opposite side of the same coin and doesn't mean you think any better. I don't see any evaluation process having occurred, just baseless opinion based on how you'd like things to be. Sometimes tho, a blue sky is blue and water is wet. Even if 99.99% of the population agrees and its just stupid to claim otherwise.

You are entitled to your opinion about my opinions just as I'm entitled to mine. What I find truly amusing about the whole "climate change" charade though is how the majority of those in the scientific community (well, supposedly scientific) have taken the approach of a medieval Vatican in ramrodding through policy on an entire species and stamping out alternate theories and debate. It's all fun and games until someone gets their clout or funding poked out, eh?

I'd love to see some of the data from your "informed decision", Doc. I'm quite open minded to good arguments, but only based on fact, not opinion.

Do a google or wiki search for scientists who disagree with mainstream climate change bandwagon riders. There are plenty of good arguments out there. If you can be bothered giving them a fair shake.... that whole scientific method which seems to escape some, these days.

I'd be delighted to learn that global warming contributed by humans is just bunk with the data to show it. You don't have to post an entire argument, but I'm curious about the sources of your information and how reputable they are. Of course, I realize anyone "reputable" must be suspect by your philosophy, but all I can tell you is the scientists I know don't give a damn for what is PC or trendy, only what the data supports.

CO2 contributed by humans would have a slight effect, although it's negligible in my view. Not enough to give the Jackboots carte blanche in moulding the world into their twisted goals or the gullible lambs to help them.

You want references and/or data? Look them up yourself. Here's a handy list to start from.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming]List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

Plug the names back into Google and follow the links upstream. Keep a notepad handy to scribble on.

The truth is out there, Indi..

[Mish]

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming]List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

Plug the names back into Google and follow the links upstream. Keep a notepad handy to scribble on.

The truth is out there, Indi..

That's a dozen skeptics against the consensus of how many thousands of actively publishing scientists? Aren't these skeptic scientists really like a drop in the ocean?

According to the results of a one-time questionnaire-based statistical survey published by the University of Illinois, with 3146 individuals completing the survey, 97% of the actively publishing climate scientists (as opposed to the scientists who are not publishing actively) agree that human activity, such as flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is a significant contributing factor to global climate change.[1] According to additional sources, the majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points.

# ^ a b "A guide to facts and fictions about climate change". Royal Society. March 2005. [url]http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/News_and_Issues/Science_Issues/Climate_change/climate_facts_and_fictions.pdf[/url]. Retrieved 2009-12-07. ""However, the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points""
# ^ a b "Global Warning". Washington Post. 5 February 2007. [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020400953.html]Global Warning - washingtonpost.com[/url]. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
# ^ a b Barker, Scott (October 25, 2003). "Scientists agree on climatic change, differ on severity". Knoxville News Sentinel. [url=http://www.csm.ornl.gov/PR/NS-10-25-03.html]Scientists agree on climatic change, differ on severity[/url]. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
'/

[Lipp]

That's a dozen skeptics against the consensus of how many thousands of actively publishing scientists? Aren't these skeptic scientists really like a drop in the ocean?

According to the results of a one-time questionnaire-based statistical survey published by the University of Illinois, with 3146 individuals completing the survey, 97% of the actively publishing climate scientists (as opposed to the scientists who are not publishing actively) agree that human activity, such as flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is a significant contributing factor to global climate change.[1] According to additional sources, the majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points.

# ^ a b "A guide to facts and fictions about climate change". Royal Society. March 2005. [url]http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/News_and_Issues/Science_Issues/Climate_change/climate_facts_and_fictions.pdf[/url]. Retrieved 2009-12-07. ""However, the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points""
# ^ a b "Global Warning". Washington Post. 5 February 2007. [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020400953.html]Global Warning - washingtonpost.com[/url]. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
# ^ a b Barker, Scott (October 25, 2003). "Scientists agree on climatic change, differ on severity". Knoxville News Sentinel. [url=http://www.csm.ornl.gov/PR/NS-10-25-03.html]Scientists agree on climatic change, differ on severity[/url]. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
'/

No no Mish, don't forget that they are all political puppets who are on the payroll of the world's corrupt government machinations, and that the opposition has a strong core of illuminated freedom fighters who have never had any affiliation with industry lobbyists.

[Doc Durian]

That's a dozen skeptics against the consensus of how many thousands of actively publishing scientists? Aren't these skeptic scientists really like a drop in the ocean?

According to the results of a one-time questionnaire-based statistical survey published by the University of Illinois, with 3146 individuals completing the survey, 97% of the actively publishing climate scientists (as opposed to the scientists who are not publishing actively) agree that human activity, such as flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is a significant contributing factor to global climate change.[1] According to additional sources, the majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points.

# ^ a b "A guide to facts and fictions about climate change". Royal Society. March 2005. [url]http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/News_and_Issues/Science_Issues/Climate_change/climate_facts_and_fictions.pdf[/url]. Retrieved 2009-12-07. ""However, the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points""
# ^ a b "Global Warning". Washington Post. 5 February 2007. [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020400953.html]Global Warning - washingtonpost.com[/url]. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
# ^ a b Barker, Scott (October 25, 2003). "Scientists agree on climatic change, differ on severity". Knoxville News Sentinel. [url=http://www.csm.ornl.gov/PR/NS-10-25-03.html]Scientists agree on climatic change, differ on severity[/url]. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
'/

A dozen skeptics? There's at least 30 publically named on that page alone, and it's by no means comprehensive. Of course when one looks at the Climategate Scandal, it's easy to see why more scientists don't come forth and publically debunk the math being peddled by the the IPCC.

It's like wearing feathers at a turkey shoot.

[Doc Durian]

Lipp: I agree with your data collation skills. Go the IPCC Global Warmers! You want to get a CO2 CORNdog at half time, Mish?

[Mish]

A dozen skeptics? There's at least 30 publically named on that page alone, and it's by no means comprehensive. Of course when one looks at the Climategate Scandal, it's easy to see why more scientists don't come forth and publically debunk the math being peddled by the the IPCC.

It's like wearing feathers at a turkey shoot.

That's 30 vs 3,000+?

You do understand that when you talk about skeptics you are talking about less than 1% of Scientific community?

[Doc Durian]

That's 30 vs 3,000+?

You do understand that when you talk about skeptics you are talking about less than 1% of Scientific community?

That's one web page of approximately 30 skeptics which you called "a dozen" just earlier. There are numerous scientists and researchers out there beyond the 30 plus you called a dozen and even more who presumably don't agree with your data collation skills or that of the IPCC.

Global warming/climate change has become the newest McCarthyism/Grand Inquisition.

[Junket]

For the record, even though I'm skeptical of global warming, there are still many negative consequences to the amount of air and water pollution we produce.

Fact of the matter is, nobody will ever do anything until we can't do anything about the result.

DC will never burn until half the population is starving.

[Doc Durian]

DC will never burn until half the population is starving.

That's not a question of "if" but "when".

It's a cycle.