Re: Global Warming is it Real or is Al Gore trying to make money off you?

On Apr 20, 8:38�am, Kevin W Miller <i09172strudelyahoo.com> wrote:

Not that long ago, the deniers were saying that there is no GW. Then
it changed to, "If there is GW it isn't Man caused." Now it's, "There
is GW but it isn't Man caused." When you explain that the consensus of
the scientific community is that there is GW and that it's possible
that a large component of it is Man caused they tell you that you
can't prove anything with a consensus. Then they bring up a "Petition"
of "scientists" who contend that GW isn't Man caused.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kevin, I can't speak for others. Only myself. I still believe the way
I did
when this all started in like 1997. I have stated that here many times
in one form or another.

You may be missing the main thrust of the Petition Project which at
the very start says:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming
agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any
other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would
harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology,
and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of
carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or
will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the
Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover,
there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric
carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant
and animal environments of the Earth."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The main thrust is the rejection, by the USA, of the Kyoto Accords.
You can argue all day, every day about GW. But the bottom line for
The United States of America is we should not agree to go along with a
flawed
agreement to waste our economy and resources on a flawed plan that
is not going to work or be in the best interests of the USA and the
world as a whole.

We, the USA, have our own problems about energy . We need to work to
solve those in a positive way. Our leaders are failing us in that
regard.
They wring their hands and moan about "what we must do about GW."
But their thrust is mostly hot air and words with little meaningful
action.
The stuff they do put to action is mostly stuff that strangles our
economy
rather than solve the large problems we face about energy.

China's way of handling their problem is to turn off their smokestacks
and
make their own people suffer just to get accepted by the Olympic
Committee.
During the up coming games themselves I would bet they do more of that
and later there will be stories about how their own people suffered
just so
people from far away could go to the games without coughing black soot
every minute.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You can't argue science with liars and people who believe in FTL
bullets and the nonsense they call "creation science".

--
Kevin W Miller
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What in the ever loving hell is that supposed to really mean? Holy
Kevin Cats,
man! Who are you calling a liar? Who believes in whatever the hell FTL
bullets
is? And who here is spouting about creation science in this thread?

Are you just pissed like Tom, bitter, or what? It's a discussion. Not
the bloody
Goreist end of the world.

Go look at who starts these threads lately. Somebody starts them and
those
that feel passionate about the subject offer their POV. Would you
prefer that we
just roll over and STFU? That ain't happening unless we are having too
much fun
with all of our time on something else.

Jan

.

Relevant Pages

  • if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... because they claim to have scientific support ... Science is based in methodological naturalism. ... and if IDers have faith that their assertions are validated by ... Scientific evidence is objective by definition. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... because they claim to have scientific support ... Science is based in methodological naturalism. ... their faith tells them that what they are doing is correct science. ... Scientific evidence is objective by definition. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Intellectual Dishonesty
    ... atheists to call creationists intellectually dishonest (for not all ... Some say that there is no scientific evidence for God. ... things that can be observed and verified experimentally by science are ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Richard Dawkins - yeah, whatever...*yawn*
    ... Both cling equally fondly to foolish beliefs. ... are contrary to scientific evidence? ... Science has nothing to say about hell and heaven. ... universe is a perverse kind of scientific superstition. ...
    (soc.culture.irish)
  • Re: God and evolution
    ... I don't see him talking out of both sides of his mouth, ... equating intelligent design with science? ... include 'aspirations' and 'thrustings'?? ... The word 'thrust' appears twice - where he says that mathematical physicist ...
    (talk.origins)