huskerXman

It isn't, it is nothing but a gotcha game and another reason this country is going to hell. This semantics game is more important than real REAL issues

Well, after seeing this cute little graphic.. everything against man-made global warming must be all lies. Thanks man you graphic changes everything.

Good post... I have this question for you. In your first paragraph, you stated that you discredit this information because it is being put out by a conservative think tank. While I agree that you always need to be skeptical of these issues, do you think the liberal side only gives out factual information? I ask this because I have been involved in several industries in my lifetime that have come under attack by environmental groups. Each time, there is information given to the public by the groups attacking us that is absolutely fabricated BS. From my personal experience, I tend to be extremely skeptical of "scientific" information that is given out by environmental groups. No different than the way you are skeptical of conservative think tanks. Funding goes both ways that is for sure, BUT, from what I have seen it is grossly in favor of research that shows man-made global warming. Meaning, big money is given to those groups that spout man-made..

http://news.yahoo.co...-020759644.html What do you think? They claim it will run 200 miles per charge. I drive roughly 150 miles a day and this would be something i could really see myself buying.. as long as it has some type of heating for winter. When it is slick I can work from home so it would only be a cold issue for me.

Very nice.. let me ask one thing. Don't you think the bold lends validity to the skeptics of the man-made portion of this debate?

nm.. for now

I don't think he even hinted at "it's now a settled matter". To me, it looks like info is being presented that shows the opposite of global warming, thus showing there are serious question about the validity of man made.. WHICH calls into question all the regulations and extra taxes based on something that still is far from being fact. You might have already said this but what is your take? Do you think it is real? Need more info? and I am talking about man-made global warming, not warming or cooling by itself . Also, are you automatically discrediting the info presented because you believe this person is biased?

He's just another politically motivated opinion-writer covering science and spinning it to whatever storyline suits him. It's reactionary to what you might say are the liberal-media alarmists who spin it in the opposite direction. You claim this person is politically motivated.. How so? I'm not saying it isn't true, just want to know why you think so

http://www.forbes.co...rth-is-cooling/ had to include that first line for nebula.

and when the government pays big money to further and agenda. You said you knew all the ins and outs of this subject, surely you know the amount of funding FOR global warming is incredibly. What agenda does "the government" have? And when you answer that, let's bear in mind that the US agency tasked with monitoring climate change has been around for more than 20 years, through four presidents. And it was founded under a Republican administration. So.... what's this agenda of which you speak so eloquently? I don't know, I can only guess it is more control.. At no time in history has the government had more control of the people than they do today.. A number of regulations have been put in place, from global warming, that furthers the power grab.

That's not science, it's rhetoric. A true scientist isn't "for" anything other than proving or disproving hypothesis through fact and data. Sometimes discovering you were wrong can be just as exciting an event for a scientist than discovering you were correct. Whatever link you had won't do either of us any good. I don't want to listen to Al Gore and his emotionally and politically driven mouthpieces nor Republican skewed political/campaign donation influenced rhetoric. I just want research and open minded discourse. Is that so much to ask for #$@%#$@^%$$%^#$$%& sake? (Don't answer the last question. Rhetorical. I already know the answer. And I'm not talking about you. I think you may have jumped the gun in making up your mind, but what the hell. I saw a lot worse flipping through the mug shots on the online Chicago Trib yesterday. Damn.) I hear ya, BUT, the very scientist that claim man-made global warming is fact are the ones behind the rhetoric. Go figure.. EDIT: I know you say you don't know for sure one way or the other, but it sure seems like you have already made up your mind as well.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=38d98c0a-802a-23ad-48ac-d9f7facb61a7

and when the government pays big money to further and agenda. You said you knew all the ins and outs of this subject, surely you know the amount of funding FOR global warming is incredibly.

See, you're conflating again. The silly media that likes nothing more than to run around waving their arms and screaming, 'OMG!', they aren't scientists, and these efforts aren't taken seriously by scientists. Alarmist claims have always been just that, alarmist. It is pretty foolhardy to attempt to use that to discredit what no scientific body in the world disputes. But I'm sure those political think tanks are on the right track. you are not going to give us a link to the site you grabbed you quite from?

See, you're conflating again. The silly media that likes nothing more than to run around waving their arms and screaming, 'OMG!', they aren't scientists, and these efforts aren't taken seriously by scientists. Alarmist claims have always been just that, alarmist. It is pretty foolhardy to attempt to use that to discredit what no scientific body in the world disputes. But I'm sure those political think tanks are on the right track. you missed the point of posting that video. That video is all part of the global crap being pushed down peoples throat.. The rest of that site can be ignored because I didn't pay attention to the rest. The video is what I was interested in.

yep, that was the big "scare" back then.

It has always been an academic issue for people looking for potential answers based on evidence, not people who want to tell you immediately what the right answer is. The latter, which unless I'm mistaken seems to be where your position germinated, is a political one. Politics has devolved into a realm where zero concessions are made, and all discussions are debated with absolute statements. Science, which is not another word for academia but here I think it applies, is ruled by the scientific method. You have to prove your theories with black and white evidence. So, by nature, scientists aren't typically engaged in preening, screaming matches. They're in muted conversation, comparing data they've compiled, looking for the strongest possible rational statement that can be made based on accumulative research. I very much prefer that strategy. (Ben Franklin, fwiw, was a brilliant man who was entirely self taught. His entire life he constantly tried to identify his weaknesses, and improve in those areas. He specifically eschewed speaking in absolute tones. American politics today would almost certainly disgust him. Maybe not Adams, though ) I 100% believe the planet warms and cools.. not a doubt in my mind. EDIT: let me add that you couldn't be more wrong about the bold.. I had a link where scientist for global warming had a few choice words for those that don't believe but I can't find it now.

http://www.politikdi...cane-irene.html listen and watch the video...

No kidding, you should try that. I am saying the current state of global warming hysteria is driven by politics

None, because scientific questions aren't answered by belief, but by evidence. And consensus. You don't use belief to answer these questions, that is so mind-bogglingly wrong I can't begin to fathom how you justify that. Where does the funding come from? I'm guessing big oil Don't conflate the alarmist media portrayal of the issue with the scientific consensus, by the way. My understanding is that anthropomorphic globally warming is a widely accepted phenomenon, but its extent, consequences, and so forth, are both widely misunderstood and subjects of continued study. "How it should affect policy" is a political question, but the topic itself is a scientific one. Big oil? seriously? Do a little research and see what side has the most funding.. You might be shocked.

So lemme get this straight. Your implying that congress or the president or... someone... from the government started this whole climate change kerfluffle? Yes, that is what I am saying (sort of).. What study do you think started this whole thing? IPCC..

BINGO, we have a winner!!!! It was from the beginning

I will ask again.. when has this ever been an academic issue? So what belief are you using? The one were scientist say man is part of the problem, or the one were scientist says it is more natural event? By the way, were do you think the funding comes from?

My question to you is when has this ever been an academic issue? When the government started applying regulations based on this "academic" issue, they made it political. The whole study of global warming was nothing more than political.

Since when has this ever been just an academic issue? It has never been an academic issue, it has always been political.