Results 81 to 90 of 186
-
10-06-2009, 12:58 AM #81
you have been asked a couple of times but have not responded at all. what do you do with the thousands of scientists who question and doubt man made global warming? since you belive in it are they just stupid or is it possible they might know a little something?
-
-
10-06-2009, 01:01 AM #82
I dont think 1 degree is much to be worried about.
-
10-06-2009, 01:05 AM #83
How old is that article and what are the scientist's specialization? If 31,000 chemists and anatomists say that global warming isn't happening then the article is just proganda. You have to look at the popluation and when the question was asked before you can make a determination if the poll or questionarie is valid. I would also like to know how the questionaire was phrased as questionaries are misleading depending on the question. OPT has not shown me the article. I will not accpet it if all the scientists are not geologists, climatologists, or other specialization for the question of global warming. This is why I do not trust questionaires or polls. Depending on many factors you can trick people to answer it the way you want it.
-
-
10-06-2009, 01:09 AM #84
so if 30,000 scientists disagree with you then it must be propaganda right? If they disagree with you then the questions must have been misleading right? Wow, you really are a prideful guy aren't you.
-
10-06-2009, 01:15 AM #85
Once again my concerns are reasonable about the questionaire. If you do not see this, then I have no idea what to say. If all of the scientists have the specialties for answering the question of global warming, I will admit I am wrong. If the question was asked in a valid way, I will admit I am wrong. I suspect it wasn't. I am not going to accept an opinion of a biochemist who works in a lab all day about global warming. It is not his/her field and he/she does not have the right to confuse the public about it. He/r may have been tricked and would not hold this against him/her though.
-
-
10-06-2009, 08:13 AM #86
All he is asking you to do is show some of this evidence instead of speaking in generalities. Throw the man a bone and get him something to debate
-
10-06-2009, 09:58 AM #87
Bingo!
Oh dear Lord, you're actually buying into his crap. As I've told him repeatedly, I'm not trying to prove or disprove "global warming," I'm simply asking for all information to be considered. But since you asked, a simple Google search brings up some quick info:
"Satellite Evidence Against Global Warming Being Caused by Increasing CO2" Sept 8, 2009 (PDF)
"Impact of Duration Thresholds on Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Counts" May 16, 2009 - Evidence that increased hurricane activity very well may not be attributed to "global warming."
"Proposed NCEE Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act" March 9, 2009 (PDF) - Which, by the way, is the report that the EPA did a good job of covering up to get the Clean Air Bill passed.
I already know your response dr, this science is not correct because you don't agree with it. But, even though I know it won't matter to you, let me say this to people who will listen: I'm not saying this is proof against "global warming"...I'm saying this is contrary scientific data that needs to be considered before a "solution" is formed. Read the first three paragraphs of the last link I posted...that is exactly how I feel about "global warming."
-
-
10-06-2009, 11:00 AM #88
Mostly I just wanted some of this stuff posted on here on the off chance that it sparks intelligent debate
-
10-06-2009, 02:31 PM #89
I honestly have to know about this. I remember a few months back there was a very large thread about the healthcare debate and you were dead set against admitting that studies and surveys could be scewed by who was giving them and who was taking them. And now I keep seeing you saying that it depends on who is givng them and who is taking them.
I just have to know what the difference is now with surveys being able to be viewed in different ways?
Just an honest question that I have been curious about.
-
10-06-2009, 05:48 PM #90
I'm going to be very general about this, but I feel I know why some people are for spending money on global warming and others are against spending REGARDLESS of the data.
In America roughly 40% of Americans do NOT pay income tax. I have a feeling that most people AGAINST the government spending trillions of tax dollars fall into those that pay a lot of tax. Generally, if someone else is spending your money you usually want to feel that it is spent with a lot of thought and not wasted. Those that do NOT pay any tax at all really don't have a care if the government spends trillions of dollars fighting Global Warming because it is NOT their money that is being spent.
Typically, the other group of people that are for spending trillions on fighting man-made global warming are those making a living off of it. For example, Al Gore makes tens of millions of dollars annually and thousands of workers at the UN and universities only have a job if humans cause global warming. They have a vested interest for governments to fund and increase spending so they can get paid.
Generally speaking people are for trillions being spend fighting global warming because 1) it is not their money or 2) their income depends on it!
-
Originally Posted by drtom2005 
