Global Warming is a hoax.

[Winchester]

Truly, the point is moot. We know pollution is harmful so we should be as clean as reasonably possible, whether or not we are a significant contributor to global climate change.

[Anomaly]

Tom,
Thanks for getting a little more specific.

Here's a link [url="http://www.heartland.org/pdf/19383.pdf"]http://www.heartland.org/pdf/19383.pdf[/url] for you to check out. It's an ad-hoc committee reviewing some of the criticisms of the IPCC and especially, Mann's temperature graph. Take a look at it.

Thanks for the link to the IPCC reports. I'm going to try to actually read the reports. What's interesting, is that even Wikipedia notes the politcal pitfalls because of the various goals and motives of the Countries.

That's the point that many are trying to make. Polarized opinions are generated by extremist opinions of science. The scientiests of Galileo and Copernicus's time suffered the same problem. Scientific consensus was the earth was stationary. That remained the scientific consensus for many decades after these men developed, submitted, and proved their theories.

Science is science, and human nature is human nature.

Just another quick note to ask Thomas to check out Dr. Svensmark's work regarding cosmic radiation creating clouds and having a large impact on the weather and climatolgy of earth.

There is not denial that reducing atmospheric CO2 is a good thing. There is not denial that efficient, clean, energy is desireable, and needed. But when real science is politicized to extremes, it makes the whole thing suspect.

Most people aren't going to believe New York will be underwater in 50 years unless we turn off the power plants today. What is the effectiveness of over-stating the dangers? The boy who cried wolf did a disservice to the community. It's not so much that he destroyed his credibility, but by constantly over-stating the danger, he was not heeded when he was right adn the wolf was at the door.

For example, if we can agree that we would like to reduce use of fossil fuels for power generation, time is needed to develop the science of alternatives. As you pointed out, solar voltaic cells are rapidly improving in efficiency. As a Floridian, I am well aware and familiar with Solar Water Heating and how it's technology has greatly increased efficiency. Should these technologies be pursued with resources while the inefficienies of the US nuclear industry are ignored? Which would have the greater impact? Do we or do we not have time to invest in better long-term solutions or waste time and effort on less suitable short term results. The case of DDT is an example of that. In a short period of time, the problems with DDT were over-estimated and complete and immediate bans were proposed and enforced to the detriment of many people. Not until decades later did science finally win out supporting limited and regulated use of DDT as an efficient and safe insecticide.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Anomaly

[ThomasDM]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1238618' date='Apr 11 2007, 09:04 AM']Tom,
Thanks for getting a little more specific.

Here's a link [url="http://www.heartland.org/pdf/19383.pdf"]http://www.heartland.org/pdf/19383.pdf[/url] for you to check out. It's an ad-hoc committee reviewing some of the criticisms of the IPCC and especially, Mann's temperature graph. Take a look at it.

Thanks for the link to the IPCC reports. I'm going to try to actually read the reports. What's interesting, is that even Wikipedia notes the politcal pitfalls because of the various goals and motives of the Countries.

That's the point that many are trying to make. Polarized opinions are generated by extremist opinions of science. The scientiests of Galileo and Copernicus's time suffered the same problem. Scientific consensus was the earth was stationary. That remained the scientific consensus for many decades after these men developed, submitted, and proved their theories.

Science is science, and human nature is human nature.

Just another quick note to ask Thomas to check out Dr. Svensmark's work regarding cosmic radiation creating clouds and having a large impact on the weather and climatolgy of earth.

There is not denial that reducing atmospheric CO2 is a good thing. There is not denial that efficient, clean, energy is desireable, and needed. But when real science is politicized to extremes, it makes the whole thing suspect.

Most people aren't going to believe New York will be underwater in 50 years unless we turn off the power plants today. What is the effectiveness of over-stating the dangers? The boy who cried wolf did a disservice to the community. It's not so much that he destroyed his credibility, but by constantly over-stating the danger, he was not heeded when he was right adn the wolf was at the door.

For example, if we can agree that we would like to reduce use of fossil fuels for power generation, time is needed to develop the science of alternatives. As you pointed out, solar voltaic cells are rapidly improving in efficiency. As a Floridian, I am well aware and familiar with Solar Water Heating and how it's technology has greatly increased efficiency. Should these technologies be pursued with resources while the inefficienies of the US nuclear industry are ignored? Which would have the greater impact? Do we or do we not have time to invest in better long-term solutions or waste time and effort on less suitable short term results. The case of DDT is an example of that. In a short period of time, the problems with DDT were over-estimated and complete and immediate bans were proposed and enforced to the detriment of many people. Not until decades later did science finally win out supporting limited and regulated use of DDT as an efficient and safe insecticide.[/quote]

I fully agree with you, it's important not to overreact...but this isn't a situation where meeting the goal of a 70% reduction GHG by 2050 will cripple the world, or kill anyone - ignoring the issue on the other hand could be very bad.

And if you wish I won't use any more IPCC sources...[I'm still waiting for even one peer reviewed report from you...just one in the last 10 years.]

Here are some other reputable sources of my claims of AGW as borrowed from www.realclimate.com:


[b]Dependence of global temperatures on atmospheric CO2 and solar irradiance,
Nature, 14 September 2006,
DAVID J. THOMSON, Mathematics of Communications Research Department, Bell Laboratories.

Thomson concludes that changes from CO2 over the last century are about three times larger than those from changes in solar irradiance”.[url="http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=6062&method=full"]Link[/url]

Causes of 20th Century Temperature Change Near Earth's Surface,
Nature 399, 569-572, 10 June 1999.
SIMON F. B. TETT, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research; PETER A. STOTT, WILLIAM J. INGRAM, JOHN F. B. MITCHELL UK Meteorological Office; MYLES R. ALLEN, Department of Physics, University of Oxford

They conclude that: Solar forcing may have contributed to the temperature changes early in the century, but anthropogenic causes combined with natural variability would also present a possible explanation. For the warming from 1946 to 1996 regardless of any possible amplification of solar or volcanic influence, we exclude purely natural forcing, and attribute it largely to the anthropogenic components”. [url="http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3303&method=full"]Link[/url]

Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years,
Science, 14 July, 2000 v. 289.
Thomas J. Crowley Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M University.

Crowley concludes that : As much as 41 to 64% of (pre-1850) temperature variations was due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism[There is] a very large late-20th-century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing. The combination of a unique level of temperature increase in the late 20th century and improved constraints on the role of natural variability provides further evidence that the greenhouse effect has already established itself above the level of natural variability in the climate system. [url="http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3513&method=full#study"]Link[/url]

Modern Global Climate Change,
Science, Dec. 5, 2003, Thomas R. Karl, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center ; Kevin E. Trenberth National Center for Atmospheric Research.
[/b]
This next one is affiliated with the IPCC - but I don't see the harm when it refers to an actual scientific study...not any sort of summary.
[b]
They conclude that: Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability. The main source of global climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric composition. We are venturing into the unknown with climate, and its associated impacts could be quite disruptive. [url="http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=4534&method=full"]Link[/url]

Draft Report Affirms Human Influence,
Science, Vol 288, April 28, 2000 , Richard A. Kerr,

For the past several years, an international panel of climate scientists has examined climate’s natural variability, changes in solar radiation, and volcanic outpourings, among others. But none of those factors fit the past centurys observed warming as well as the explanation they suggested in 1995: an increase in greenhouse gases generated by human activity. [url="http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=3482&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=IPCC%20Strengthens%20Findings%20of%20%22Human%22%20Impact%20on%20Climate&Cache=False"]Link[/url][/b]

How can you continue to deny such solid science from so many different sources, while not being able to provide any peer reviewed reports of your own that have been released in the last 10 years. That is my challenge to you. The peer reviewed evidence is overwhelming in favor of the theory of AGW. But extremely underwhelming/nonexistant in opposition to the theory.

All of the above sources are peer reviewed, and all but one from sources other than the IPCC. It's your turn to provide peer reviewed evidence. We are all waiting.

-Tom

Edited April 11, 2007 by ThomasDM

[Didymus]

yeah...um...we just mowed the lawn last weekend, and now there's snow on the ground. Just wanted to put the irony of that out there.

[ThomasDM]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1238670' date='Apr 11 2007, 10:00 AM']yeah...um...we just mowed the lawn last weekend, and now there's snow on the ground. Just wanted to put the irony of that out there.[/quote]

Yes Global Warming is already leading to some strange anomalies. It'll be different everywhere because a higher global average temperature [historically it's been about 14.5 degrees] just means that there is more heat in the system, or rather more energy - and thus stranger more sporadic weather.

This past winter here in Saskatchewan, Canada was one of the warmest winters on recorded history...but in a matter of hours we got hit by the biggest blizzard in over 50 years. Cars were abandoned on the bridges, 4 people died around the city, it was chaos. We don't typically get weather like that.

We're feeling it up here already.

It's important to start acting now and to try to meet the 70% reduction in GHG's by 2050 because that is our best bet in light of all of the evidence.

To procrastinate on this issue is irresponsible. And 70% isn't that bad, it just required a bit of a sacrifice on our part. Start walking to work more, drive much less, use your air conditioner less, turn the heat down at night, be more intelligent in how you use the blinds around your house.

The typical Hybrid vehicle outputs 70% less GHG's than a typical vehicle. That's the goal met right there.

There are things we can all do to help. And no one gets hurt if you live slightly a more humble life.

-Tom

[cmotherofpirl]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=66589&st=0&p=1236209&#entry1236209"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...p;#entry1236209[/url]

[ThomasDM]

I would just like to put this out there. Wikipedia mentions a man named Fred Singer. You all might have heard of him, he is one of the most outspoken critics against the theory of AGW. He as advised both President G.W. Bush on the matter, as well as Canadian Conservative leader Stephen Harper.

He holds PR conferences promoting the side of Global Warming 'skepticism'.

Here is a little bit more about his credentials:
[b]
Siegfried Frederick Singer (born September 27, 1924 in Vienna) is an electrical engineer and physicist. He is best known as President and founder (in 1990) of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, which disputes the prevailing scientific opinion on climate change.[citation needed]

Singer is also skeptical about the connection between CFCs and ozone depletion, between ultraviolet radiation and skin cancer[1][2][3][4][5] and between second hand smoke and lung cancer.[6][7][8] Singer has also worked with organisations with similar views, such as the Independent Institute, the American Council on Science and Health, Frontiers of Freedom, the Marshall Institute, and the National Center for Policy Analysis.[citation needed]
[/b]

It seems that he is not at all a climatologist, and has some interesting other theories as well [notably the smoking-cancer connection].

And if you'll research a bit further you'll see that he's recieved research grants from Exxon, and Exxon has also funded one of the institutes that he works for.

Follow the money.

-Tom

[Anomaly]

[quote name='ThomasDM' post='1238660' date='Apr 11 2007, 11:50 AM']And if you wish I won't use any more IPCC sources...[I'm still waiting for even one peer reviewed report from you...just one in the last 10 years.][/quote]LOL. What about the science committee review I gave you in the link above? Did you check out Svenmark's paper? Nobody brought up Singer, so why discredit him? I hadn't even mentioned Linden fro MIT, nor the hurricane expert (who's name escapes my memory at the moment.)

I'm a big believer that EVERYBODY usually has an agenda. Sure, I'll listen to the tree huggers and the politically poisoned UN reports, but I want to here from the greedy timber companies and the reactionary rightwingers supported by oil money. The voice that accounts for a wider perspective is usually more accurate. Sure, go ahead and use the IPCC report, but be aware and open to the critics of the reports, it's methods, and conclusions. Unlike most extremists, I don't completely discount #3 & #4 IPCC reports, but look at them with a critical eye as part of the picture, not necessarily an honest or complete opinion, but not 100% wrong and off the mark. If you're open to that, I'll provide further links that questions some of the mehods and conclusions of the IPCC reports, but you know that's not necessary because Wikipedia provides links to the questions surrounding the IPCC reports.

That's one of the reasons why I want you to clearly state what you think Global Warming is, the degree of urgency, the main causes, and what course of action you believe should be taken. The plight of the Inuit people is an emotional comment, but doesn't serve to indicate the urgency, or lack thereof, any more than the fact that Antartica has been colder and it's western ice mass has been growing.

Also, of particular note is Svenmark's work on cosmic radiation affecting cloud formation which then has an impact on climatology. Studies are incomplete regarding the affects that oceanic algea has processing organic chemicals and regulating world temperature by fostering cloud formation. It would be a shame if billions are spent on CO-2 removal, storing it underground like the EU plans to and find out later that particulate pollution is much more harmful and has a greater effect on the world's clime.

There are too many questions and critics of the 'dire emergency theories' and it's become too politicized for rational and reasoned discourse. But that seems par for the course and the way the world community has reacted to all the current problems. Gotta sell the newspapers and get people to read the magazines or check out the blogs so they will see the advertisements for low interests mortgages and Enzyte. Who benefits from over-hype? And when things are over-hyped, people think with emotion, not reason. People who are making emotional judgements are easily taken advantage by people motivated by greed. Follow the money indeed, but follow all the money.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Anomaly

[Winchester]

[quote name='ThomasDM' post='1238684' date='Apr 11 2007, 11:23 AM']The typical Hybrid vehicle outputs 70% less GHG's than a typical vehicle. That's the goal met right there.

There are things we can all do to help. And no one gets hurt if you live slightly a more humble life.

-Tom[/quote]
Hybrids have voltage regulators that go out and are incredibly expensive to replace. The batteries are unproven in the long run. People like me don't really see them as an option, yet. I don't have the money to buy one. I drive a straight six 4 liter jeep cherokee. Dependable engine, decent gas mileage. Proven technology.

[dUSt]

I drive a hybrid.

The front is an 84 Toyota Tercel, and the back is a 79 Chevy Chevette, with hubcaps from an 82 Cadillac slant back. I also put a BMW logo on the hood just to give it that extra cool bonus.

[Azriel]

I think I had that same hybrid.

[ThomasDM]

[quote name='dUSt' post='1238830' date='Apr 11 2007, 12:40 PM']I drive a hybrid.

The front is an 84 Toyota Tercel, and the back is a 79 Chevy Chevette, with hubcaps from an 82 Cadillac slant back. I also put a BMW logo on the hood just to give it that extra cool bonus.[/quote]

Ha ha. Sounds like fun.

I drive a Unicycle.

-Tom

[ThomasDM]

And a pair of Freeline Skates. They're fun, check it out online.
-Tom

Edited April 11, 2007 by ThomasDM

[Didacus]

[quote name='ThomasDM' post='1238436' date='Apr 10 2007, 11:31 PM']The speed and magnitude with which Global Warming is occurring right now has not been seen since life itself balanced out the atmospheric concentrations of C02 through the establishment of the Carbon cycle.

Didacus, answer this plain and simple: do you honestly believe that putting millions and millions of years of carbon that's been out of the atmospheric cycles for so long, all back into the atmosphere in only a few decades is completely devoid of any negative consequences? Do you really deny that it could upset any sort of delicate balance on the earth?

-Tom[/quote]

Upset?

No, a new equilibrium will eventually be reached, and I don't foresee any devastating consequences in the magnitude of 'doomsdayers'.

As it was said, the 'delicate balance' is always changing. Nature's strength, as seen in evolution for example, is that it is versatile and can adjust to changes and find a new balance.

You spoke of rhetoric earlier - what you've stated above is not very far from this.


Now, I've replied to your question, care to reply to mine?


[quote]However, may I ask this; If weather would change without man's tampering, should we do our best then to halt this change and force nature to remain in a stable condition against its own tendencies?[/quote]

[Didacus]

[quote name='ThomasDM' post='1238452' date='Apr 10 2007, 11:43 PM']Only time will tell...but no climate models that take into account all of the variables have shown a decrease in the trend of Global Warming...they all show an increase in Global Average Temperature. The most conservative models show a 2 Degree Celsius rise in Global Average Temperature, and the most extreme show an 11 Degree Celsius Rise.

A 2 degree rise is what the IPCC is predicting. Yes it's going by the most watered down, conservative estimates that good science will possibly allow. In truth it's likely to be more threatening, but the Scientists of the IPCC have to water things down a bit so that the politicians wont be put off by the severity of the situation.

The fact that scientists have been able to look at a time in the earths past...input all of the known variables...and run a model to ten years in the future, and have it match the actual global climate for the next decade with impressive accuracy is a testament to how accurate our latest, most advanced climate models are.

Climate models aren't perfect...but the broad range of models all being run right now do show that Global Warming is man made. It doesn't take too much to show that. Again simple reasoning can tell us that dumping millions of years of Carbon into the atmosphere in just a few decades is going to have negative consequences. Who among you can dispute that simple claim?

I encourage you to read more on Global Climate Modeling both its strengths and weaknesses. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model"][Link][/url]

-Tom[/quote]


And as a summary reply to my question: "And how many have they accurately predicted in the future?"

Reply:

Absolutely none.

Point made.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1238605' date='Apr 11 2007, 08:34 AM']Truly, the point is moot. We know pollution is harmful so we should be as clean as reasonably possible, whether or not we are a significant contributor to global climate change.[/quote]

Excellent point my friend, and I agree.

That which I dispise is those who would exagerate the situation to gain attention, fame, whatever. These people spread misconceptions and often push solutions which are harmful to the very objectives they claim to aim.

There is no need to panic in my opinion, but there is a persistent responsibility which cannot be denied.

[ThomasDM]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1239052' date='Apr 11 2007, 05:13 PM']Excellent point my friend, and I agree.

That which I dispise is those who would exagerate the situation to gain attention, fame, whatever. These people spread misconceptions and often push solutions which are harmful to the very objectives they claim to aim.

There is no need to panic in my opinion, but there is a persistent responsibility which cannot be denied.[/quote]

Didacus,

I'm going to try to respond to all of your questions here.

How many models have predicted the future? You'll have to be more clear on what you mean, because models have been able to take inputs from the earlier portions of the century and matched up with what happened later. That is as close as we can get to 'predicting the future'. But they demonstrate an ability to realize [to an extent] the trends of Global Warming. It's a method not yet perfected, but surprisingly useful in it's ability to predict trends as a result of C02 input. I say, trends...not specifics. But if your going to reject absolutely anything until it's absolutely proven then you cannot function as a rational human being. By that same logic you shouldn't worry about standing in the way of oncoming traffic because we don't know all of the variables. We don't know for 100% certain that you could get hit. People narrowly avoid getting hit all the time, it's a natural trend in the earths history. 80-90% certainty [as proven by peer reviewed science...again no one here has been able to wage an argument against peer reviewed science...] is about as good as it gets when it comes to these kinds of things. I am a realist, I don't believe in some global conspiracy of fame hungry scientists, nor am I some environmental extremist...I am simply a realist because I accept the science on the matter. I've read both sides of the arguement.

Speaking of argument, Anomaly...that article you posted wasn't peer reviewed science...it was simply an unproven hypothesis - not published in a peer reviewed journal from the last 10 years. The sun is unlikely the cause of Global Warming because the trends don't match. 2005 was the hottest year in recorded history [until 2006], and was preceded by gradually hotter and hotter years leading upt o it...however the output of the sun was at the lowest point of it's 11 year cycle. Why didn't we see a reverse in the warming of the earth? The hypothesis that claims that Global Warming is caused by cosmic rays from the sun is unsupported by science. Also the claim that these same cosmic rays can cause different type of cloud formations is true but this has already been studied and has already been determined to be of such small influence on Climate Change that it's virtually negligible Now this would change if Svensmark could bring up any new evidence...but he hasn't. And yet you claim that the theory of AGW has a lack of evidence? Here is a point by point rebuttal of Svensmark's argument. [url="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/index.php?s=GCR&submit=Search&qt=&q=&cx=009744842749537478185%3Ahwbuiarvsbo&client=google-coop-np&cof=GALT%3A808080%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A34374A%3BVLC%3AAA8610%3BAH%3Aleft%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BALC%3A66AA55%3BLC%3A66AA55%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A66AA55%3BGIMP%3A66AA55%3BFORID%3A11%3B&searchdatabase=site"][Link][/url] It does a great job at pointing out how he 'cherry picks' the evidence, and conveniently neglects so many facts that we've already established and that crush the GCR argument.

Some more literature that puts the GCR argument to rest.

[url="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/recent-warming-but-no-trend-in-galactic-cosmic-rays/"]Recent Warming but no Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays.[/url]

[url="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/broadly-misleading/"]Broadly Misleading Arguments against AGW[/url]

[url="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/"]Did the Sun record highs over the last few decades?[/url]

[url="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/on-veizers-celestial-climate-driver/"]A critique of the Celestial Climate Driver hypothesis.[/url]


Back to Didacus,

Do you really think that the 2500+ scientists in the IPCC are doing it for fame? Because their names, while available, are not broadcast everywhere. They all have much less fame, and much less potential for fame than the Climate Deniers that are getting so much attention in the media.

As for your point on efficiency for efficiency's sake? I fully agree with you, in fact when it comes down to it that is my point. We should all do our part in reducing our waste, in reducing our Carbon emissions etc. By sacrificing a little convenience here and there, and living a more humble lifestyle we can each do our part to help. The theory of AGW isn't motivated by money or consumerism...in fact there is very little money to be made in asking people to shop less, drive less, use less energy.

In the last 10 years, people who deny the highly supported theory of AGW have released just as many peer reviewed studies and reports as the people who believe the earth is flat, that's right : Zero, None.

Now I find your argument that this has happened in the past, and that it's a natural part of evolution to be very interesting. It demonstrates a poor understanding of the history of climate change, and the mechanism of natural selection. What we face today is much different because it has never, ever as far as all the science can tell, happened nearly this quickly AND this globally.

When other huge catastrophes have caused large amounts of damage - as this is projected to -for example asteroid strikes, super volcanoes, etc...it is not a healthy thing for evolution. Healthy natural selection requires a large amount of biodiversity...when so many species go extinct because something is happening at a rate so quickly that they cannot adapt - then those genes are lost from the gene pool and it takes a long time for life to rebound in that area - usually a very long time. Genetic diversity is necessary for healthy, natural evolution to progress...however the current rate and magnitude of Man-Made Global Warming is deleterious to this mechanism - AGW threatens 3 out of 5 species with extinction in many parts of the world. It's happening too fast for many things to adapt, in fact we have already lost various species of animals due to desertification, loss of water tables, loss of particular climates, due to Global Warming. Feel free to research the Golden Toad. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Toad"][Link][/url]


All of the best evidence...in fact ALL of the peer reviewed scientific evidence in the last 10 years indicates a loss of biodiversity that the Earth doesn't usually experience. It is going to take life a long time to bounce back from something like this. You are misinformed on the method of Natural Selection, the more genetic diversity the better. I recommend that you read the book 'The Selfish Gene' [selfish not referring to moral standing, but to a genetic mechanism - don't be confused]. It will clear a few things up on this matter.

Now I need a shower.

-Tom

Edited April 11, 2007 by ThomasDM

[ThomasDM]

The one question that I keep asking, but that no one as answered me: Why hasn't there been anything that disputes the theory of AGW published in a peer reviewed scientific journal in the last 10 years? Why? That's not a hard question to answer. They either have evidence that can stand up to criticism and cross examination, or they don't.

Didacus, Anomaly, can either of you answer that? You've been sidestepping that question this whole time. Why?

-Tom

[jeffpugh]

Just wanna comment that last I was on (yesterday I think) we were at page 8. now we're at 10. I sorta skimmed through the 10th so bare with me if this was said... I'd like to comment that nuclear energy is not exactly perfect because of the waste factor: the output of the nuclear material can not be properly disposed of this time so the alternative is putting the stuff in the bottom of giant pools of water. To me, the energy source isn't that great unless we figure out how to harness or deactivate that radiation efficiently (opposed to waiting for hundreds of years before it stops shooting off tiny bits of matter).

[Didymus]

[quote name='ThomasDM' post='1239116' date='Apr 11 2007, 07:46 PM']The one question that I keep asking, but that no one as answered me: Why hasn't there been anything that disputes the theory of AGW published in a peer reviewed scientific journal in the last 10 years? Why? That's not a hard question to answer. They either have evidence that can stand up to criticism and cross examination, or they don't.

Didacus, Anomaly, can either of you answer that? You've been sidestepping that question this whole time. Why?

-Tom[/quote]

a peer reviewed scientific journal? because they're all either liberal or fully realize it would be a waste of time arguing over something this rediculous