As you said, I can't argue that statement either.
I'm all for making any change that is proven a necessity but don't require me to do it and not the bonehead that came up with the idea. I am willing to do whatever it is necessary to keep America and our allies strong and healthy but to pretend that it's a problem where policy should prevent some from using sources but the freaks that came up with the idea don't have to follow their own advice just doesn't make a bit of sense to me.

This is quite fascinating, and I'm learning a lot, but unfortunately I must go. I have an appointment, I look forward to looking in later.

Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm

Strange with in those links I see reports from the BBC, NASA, and other sources then FOX News and other "Right Wing Sources".

You mean like this link from the Washington Post that mentions what scientific report?
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/m...ed-as-religion

or this one which links nicely to that bastion of scientific reporting the TV and Show Biz section of the Daily Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...se-preach.html

How about these from the OPINION section of the Australian News.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...6-7583,00.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...4-7583,00.html

I have checked the last 140 of those links (I enjoy research in fact I get paid for it so I have a high tolerance to boredom) and of those 140 links I found about three genuinely interesting articles, 5 broken links and and ton of blogs and tabloid crap but the one thing I did not find in any of those links was a single scientific paper with data and fact to back it up, sure there are lots of "Joe Schmoe presented a paper on" statements but no actual fact.

If you think that copying and pasting links with the word climate it is a valid form of science then I see why we disagree because its a pretty poor attempt at proving a point to anyone but the easily fooled.

In fact the only thing I have found accurate in your posts to date is the title of the thread because what you are doing is literally "Junk Science".

Originally Posted by senojekips

It's the oldest ploy in the book to try and get one's opponent on the back foot defending his argument instead of promoting your own.

Actually it is the second oldest ploy in the book behind dumping tons of unrelated data on the opposition in the hopes that no one can or will check the relevance of the data to the argument, something that 5.56 is very adept at.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Well why do you doubt the sources that merely don't suit your point of view. If you want proof go and Google it yourself, why accuse those who disagree with your point of view as unable to support their sources.

Is it not true that you only said that because there were so many sources your argument appeared overwhelmed and you reasoned that it would silence your opposition??

It's the oldest ploy in the book to try and get one's opponent on the back foot defending his argument instead of promoting your own.

Its not that I doubt his sources because they dont suit my view. Its that I could go on google and spam links to every site that has the world "global warming" in it. Just because you have the ability to link hundreds of websites does not mean they are credible or worthwhile.

You are correct, there are a lot of sources. And to someone looking at the debate from an outside view, it would look as though it is overwhelming. But ust the ability to do a google seatch and state a link does not mean the link supports your evidence or even has anything to do with the argument.

Edit: Kind of a redundant post, Monty barely beat me to it =/

Originally Posted by MontyB

Actually it is the second oldest ploy in the book behind dumping tons of unrelated data on the opposition in the hopes that no one can or will check the relevance of the data to the argument, something that 5.56 is very adept at.

Ahhh,... but 5.56 was asked for sources, and he got them, as I said earlier, "it largely depends which sources one chooses to believe". taking into account that there is so much written on both sides is a good indication that it is far from an open and shut case.

I personally feel that there is a lot of misinformation out there on both sides of the argument.

Also - it is hardly very impressive to sweep away opinion that doesn't conform to one's own judgement on so-called expert relevence. In a democratic society, the demeaned 'tabloid press' should not be overlooked in high-handed manner. In the search for truth, let a million flowers bloom; bring the arguments to the surface, get the subjects kicked about, pick the bones out of them, tell it how it is and face confrontation in doing so. That is news, that is democracy, the debunking of all those who believe that only themselves are worthy to hold the conch.

God save us from the 'experts'.

Isn't that the truth, with every other one of em disagreeing with the other on this subject. I guess it comes down to which do you prefer to believe? I know where I am on it. Make me right? No, but it also does not make me wrong at this point either.

my views on global warming:

by the time it affects us, we'll all be dead; who cares?
And another one:

Yeah, we MAY be making a SLIGHT effect on global warming. However, Mauna Loa (the volcano in hawaii) has been pouring out more CO2, more generally bad gases that humankind has actually given out it the same amount of time.

Methane, a greenhouse gas, is produced by cattle. do we kill the cattle?
CO2 is produced by all mammalian life. do we kill that to prevent global warming?
Sulphur Dioxide, IIRC, is also a greenhouse gas. but that's produced by nature as well.
Water Vapour (H2O(g)) is a Greenhouse gas, so do we rid ourselves of water?
O3 is actually harmful to humans. it's ozone, and is vital to protect us from UV radiation, but can kill us. do we get rid of that

i could go on, but to be honest i'm fed up of defending my corner against militant environMentalists. i don't like the deforestation of the rainforests because i rather like rainforests. i don't like urbanization because it attracts the scum. I also dislike a lot of other things, but i see NO reason AT ALL to stop using coal and gas fired power stations purely because of global warming.

I guess what i'm trying to say here is "don't be brainwashed, look at cause and effect, look at pure numbers." if you can't get your head round the numbers, don't fight like a madman for this cause.

(note to self: find hard unbiased facts on "global warming" and greenhouse gases)

Also, this is my last post in this thread, unless i find something worth replying to.

16 and already angry? Welcome to America young man.

Only one point, Insomniac, before you rush off. In support of your views on cattle methane, there are claims that this is the biggest contributor to the problem. That's how the west was won. .So eat as much beef as you can and we'll get them before they get us. We could adopt the same solution to our government perhaps.

And Aiki - you are right; I have said before that this young man has the makings of a politician ; just what we need, a bit of fire in the belly. He -He.