I doubt congressman taste good! All your's.

Right! Your guys are tough. We've got all the soft under-bellies, and their noses have been deep in the troughs for so long they are just about ready for the spit

We have our share of softies as well, Reed and a whole bunch others like her.

Originally Posted by senojekips

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.

Of course there is a lot of misinformation there is also a lot of useful information (on both sides of the global warming argument) but when you make a point of selling your argument as backed by scientists and then present page after page of tabloid nonsense (which as WNxRogue has pointed out can be generated by typing "global warming" into Google) then the argument is going to founder badly.

In terms of the relevance his sources you are incorrect he doesn't have them he has sources that reference parts of other peoples work which is not that same... He claims:
"All of the links are of scientists, reporters, professors, and experts that are against the whole myth of Global Warming."

And yet I have not found one that is by a scientist, professor or expert in the field all I have found is third hand references to parts of someone elses work, using this type of investigation I can make Mein Kampf say anything I like.

Do yourself a favour and actually read some of these links and you will find the exact opposite, as my previous post indicated out of 140 links a sizable number were no longer active (which is a clear indication that he has not researched anything more than an initial document and then grabbed anything with the words global warming in it to pad his argument) one of them was BBC report on the Czech president referring to global warming as a religion but actually discussing the US missile defence program and a sizable number of the remaining links were blogs run by crack pots and disaffected nut jobs from computers in their basements.

For the record this was the question that was asked...

Originally Posted by The Other Guy

(note to self: remain calm, saying your mind will get you banned...)

Gimme a scientist behind this. Some sort of source. And I don't mean letsgobuyhummers.com

Sadly what has got was "some sort of source" from letsgobuyhummers.com telling us that at 7pm there will be a make over show about scientist who has heard of global warming on channel 198.

I feel you miss my point. I don't deny that there i some "tabloid nonsense" written, but my point being that in many cases it is presented by persons who do have the same qualifications as those not writing nonsense, and it is written supporting arguments on both sides of the debate. What is happening here is that the readers are generally in no position to make a qualified decision, and as such often throw the baby out with the bathwater.

After all there is no definitive proof on either side which is why these people start their dissertations with, "There is evidence to support" or "we believe".

When proof is found there will be no debate, until that time we all have the freedom to believe as we see.

Originally Posted by senojekips

I feel you miss my point. I don't deny that there i some "tabloid nonsense" written, but my point being that in many cases it is presented by persons who do have the same qualifications as those not writing nonsense. What is happening here is that the readers are generally in no position to make a qualified decision, and as such often throw the baby out with the bathwater.

After all there is no definitive proof on either side which is why these people start their dissertations with, "There is evidence to support" or "we believe".

When proof is found there will be no debate, until that time we all have the freedom to believe as we see.

I don't disagree with this but in light of this even you have to admit that there is as much chance of global warming being a man made phenomenon as there is of it being all natural and therefore requires continued work.

Not this constant over reaction about it all being an Al Gore/liberal plot nonsense that this thread started as.
The biggest problem here is that half the people on this site don't read past the title and about half the remaining stop at the first mention of anything remotely intellectual and declare it a communist plot.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I don't disagree with this but in light of this even you have to admit that there is as much chance of global warming being a man made phenomenon as there is of it being all natural and therefore requires continued work.

No,.. I'm not really convinced. I'd want to see a lot more than what has been presented to date, I'm not willing to push anyone's barrow with the odds as they are.

Not this constant over reaction about it all being an Al Gore/liberal plot nonsense that this thread started as.
The biggest problem here is that half the people on this site don't read past the title and about half the remaining stop at the first mention of anything remotely intellectual and declare it a communist plot.

Liberal, Conservative, Presbyterian or Devil worshipper, it makes no difference to me. Al Gore has nothing to do with it and would be better served sticking to politics. As far as I'm concerned, on this subject he is no more than another bloke venturing his rather panic stricken opinions.

I guess I'm just very suspicious of zealots in either camp.

Originally Posted by senojekips

I guess I'm just very suspicious of zealots in either camp.

I agree and there has been some incredibly alarmist global warming prophecies which I think for the most part came very early on in the process when they had less of an understanding of what was actually happening.

I look at as though I am walking in a minefield with two instructors:
One is tell us there is something there and triggering it will have dire consequences so be careful while we figure it out and the other is a guy they dragged in off the street giving out advice that it you cant see it therefore it doesn't exist so full speed ahead.

You choose which advice you take but I am pretty sure I know what the smart ones will be backing.

Originally Posted by MontyB

You choose which advice you take but I am pretty sure I know what the smart ones will be backing.

That's the trouble with gambling, no one knows who the "smart" ones are until after the race.

Me, I support the investigation of all the alternatives, but certainly not because of global warming.

Imagine the panic there would have been at the end of the last cool period in Europe ending in the mid 1500s. There is little if any direct evidence to support global warming being anything other than a continuation of a trend since that time, below is a graph of the Central England temperature since accurate recording began in 1652.




There is no evidence whatsoever to support that this trend accelerated after the industrial revolution, when man made pollution from burning fossil fuels (Coal) increased more than 100 fold.

I feel that if global warming was caused by man's consumption of fossil fuels there would be a far greater rise in the trend since the 1850s.

Originally Posted by senojekips

There is no evidence whatsoever to support that this trend accelerated after the industrial revolution, when man made pollution from burning fossil fuels (Coal) increased more than 100 fold.

I feel that if global warming was caused by man's consumption of fossil fuels there would be a far greater rise in the trend since the 1850s.

Actually that graph shows that there is an upward trend and if you agree that the 1760 is that generally accepted "eve" of the industrial revolution you graph shows that a standard "sine wave" effect was in operation before that date, since that date there has been no such effect just a general warming process.

For example between 1659 and 1746 there is a normal heating and cooling cycle with a mid point at 1659, a trough at 1688 a peak at 1720 and a return to the mid point at around 1750 but instead of it continuing to decline to another trough at what would have been about 1775 (a cycle rate of about 90 years) it suddenly begins climbing around 1760 with a much flatter cycle and only shows a limited trough around 1891 and then at at about 1975 temperatures begin to climb noticeably.

You will also notice that the cold trend lines have grown increasingly shorter over the whole period.

Basically the first third of the graph is what you would expect from cyclic system the last two thirds are not and it is interesting that it corresponds with the beginning of the industrial revolution and in fact the temperature increase is actually more pronounced than appears as even though the mean has not shifted a lot the temperature troughs have disappeared.

Now obviously the analysis is very rough one as it is much better and more accurate to analyse raw data than reinterpret someone elses interpretation but even a layman can see the long term variation in a pattern that is represented in this data.
.