Polarization in the US?

[Wickabee]

Looks like you're about to get a real first hand look at American politics. Let's watch.

[Wickabee]

Awww

[JustAlex]

Yeah, I mean, we all know Al Gore would never do that. I think you are being incredibly naive or obtuse on this issue.

What the hell does Al Gore have to do with anything?

Al Gore is NOT a scientist his opinion on anything regarding climate change holds as much weight as mine or yours.

It baffles me to no end how dense Americans can be on this topic.

A WORLDWIDE group of experts who study and make experiments on the world's climate overwhelmingly agree that climate change is not only real but it is almost guaranteed that humans had some part in it....probably a lot to do with it.

And yet, non-scientific far right people have the nerve, the audacity, the utter indignity to challenge these people NOT ON FACTS, NOT ON ANY EVIDENCE.....but solely based on nothing more than they don't like the ideas that scientists are promoting.

And let's face it.....a LOT of these far right people are DEEPLY religious....which makes even more sense why they deny the facts and evidence.

Hell, if far right christians can deny that the world is billions of years old, that humans and all species have evolved over the course of millions of years, and that the Universe began from an expansion of all matter and energy from an event called the big bang (ALL of which have evidence and facts to prove that these things happened).....they sure as hell can deny climate change.

Unfortunately, a lot of these people are even in leadership positions in our government who have the power to enact laws in order to continue exacerbating the problem.

Again....in other sane first world countries there is NO debate on climate change about whether or not it's real....it IS real and it IS happening.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the reason why America is so damn slow on these things is due to the fact that the people in power like to play the corporate and religious angle in order to detract from facts and evidence.

I also don't think it's a coincidence why the U.S has plunged in the world rankings in Science....

[shrewsbury]

before you go around claiming evry "real" scientists agrees, lets look at the facts, because many do not

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC, which produced the report, is described as "an international panel of scientists and scholars who came together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change." Unlike the "United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is government-sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. solution," NIPCC "has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency" and is "wholly independent of political pressures and influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations."

In Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, which The Heartland Institute published and released on Tuesday, lead authors Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer worked with a team of scientists to produce a 1,200-page report that is "comprehensive, objective, and faithful to the scientific method." They found that even "if the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide were to double," whatever "warming may occur would likely be modest and cause no net harm to the global environment or to human well-being."

The report rebuts the alarmist reports put out by the United Nations' IPCC, which the authors claim are in "contradiction of the scientific method" because the IPCC assumes that its implicit hypothesis that "dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions" is correct and "that its only duty is to collect evidence and make plausible arguments in the hypothesis’s favor.
According to the study's authors, "the hypothesis of human-caused global warming comes up short not merely of 'full scientific certainty' but of reasonable certainty or even plausibility. The weight of evidence now leans heavily against the theory."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...Global-Warming


another article on how legit the IPCC is:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...th-is-cooling/

[Wickabee]

Hell, if far right christians can deny that the world is billions of years old, that humans and all species have evolved over the course of millions of years, and that the Universe began from an expansion of all matter and energy from an event called the big bang (ALL of which have evidence and facts to prove that these things happened).....they sure as hell can deny climate change.

Yeah, but even when a theist doesn't believe the earth is 6000 years old, you still claim they do because they're a theist, if you really want to talk about people having the nerve, the audacity, the utter indignity of false claims. You claimed a bunch of things about me you know are false and ran away. You have no idea what anyone believes, no matter what you say.

[ajcorleone]

Now Shrew are these authorized sites to prove Alex's point or are they real sites that actually have some fact

before you go around claiming evry "real" scientists agrees, lets look at the facts, because many do not








http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...Global-Warming


another article on how legit the IPCC is:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...th-is-cooling/

[Wickabee]

Some people only believe the first thing they read. I pity those people.

[centrehice]

I feel sorry for anybody posting anything from a Brietbart sight. It's like attending a Dungeon and Dragon's meeting in some fat-guy's basement.

[Wickabee]

I feel sorry for anybody posting anything from a Brietbart sight. It's like attending a Dungeon and Dragon's meeting in some fat-guys basement.

You collect old hockey cards, right?

Ever play fantasy hockey? Like on Yahoo! or something?

[centrehice]

Never. But I get your gist.