buckmeister wrote:The german scientist will be labeld as quacks and totally ignored by the American leftist media.
Indaswamp wrote:buckmeister wrote:The german scientist will be labeld as quacks and totally ignored by the American leftist media.
There are a lot of people that stand to make billions in "tax credits" if the pseudo science becomes policy. Follow the money trail...and see the real reasons for the push...
They want to tax us by the miles that we drive with GPS systems in our car! WAKE-UP AMERICA!!!
MacMan wrote:YO BM - dawg gone if we ain't on the same page. . . This whole thing has "forced" me into delving deeper into the Word - but you know BM - the recent occurance - 4 days of in the Dow is nothing - Barrack said today - "oh the economy - it's not that bad, not as bad as we thought" (verbatim) Now that they've gotten the money from our next genertation - and he preached not 3 weeks ago - "if we don't pass this bill, life as we know it is finished". . . satan incarnate.
Indaswamp wrote:This ones for Dude...
dudejcb wrote:Indaswamp you need to pick an argument and stick with it. You earlier claimed that we're in the midst of a 23-year cooling cycle based on Dr. Avery's assertions from the neocon think tank The Hudson Institute.
Now you claim that sunspot are more intense and that's why we're warming. Okay, more intense solar energy would contribute to warming just as a big fire is warmer than a small fire. Solar intensity, global shading, global reflectivity or emissivity are all factors that interact dynamically to determine temperatures and weather patterns. That's not new news.
But which argument are you supporting? Is climate change tending toward warming or cooling. Can't really do both simultaneously. If you don't know, then say you don't know.
If all else fails, then preach fire and brimstone. Right out of the cult text book. Do as I say or face the fires of hell?dudejcb wrote: a warming or changing climate that has the potential of making large portions of the earth uninhabitable does.
LJensen wrote:The debate over climate change will continue for a long time. I don't think we will ever come to a conclusion that will satisfy everyone. I have mixed emotions about the whole topic. As a science teacher (biology) I get to see all kinds of arguments and field many questions from students who get information from all kinds of sources. The first thing I tell them is that science is imperfect and always seeking to become better. The second thing I tell them is that there are always going to be sources of information that will seem to debunk a theory, regardless of the merit of your theory. Case in point Atomic theory and Evolution. No one has ever seen an atom, we can't absolutely prove its there yet every one accepts it. With Evolution, it is widely accepted by the scientific community, yet there are detractors that site evidence why its wrong. My point is that there will continue to be new discoveries, and there will always be people who disagree with you.
I do think that we need to change the way we treat our planet. I do think that we should be more responsible with our resources. Do I think that our current "climate change" is man-made? I don't know. Current studies estimate the age of the earth to be around 4.5 billion years old. Man, in our current state, has been on this planet for less than 200,000 years. I think that it might be a little ego-centric to think that we could have that kind of impact in such a short time. But the evidence seems to be overwhelming. Personally, I do not believe any studies on climate change that site "how much the planet has changed since the 1960's or 70's". That 30 or 40 year period is a drop in the ocean compared to the millions of years of activity before that.
Like I said, this isn't going away. But to stick your head in the sand, regardless of your position, will not help or contribute to finding a solution.