Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <However, we should recognize that there is a scientific consensus on this, and part of that consensus is that there are steps we can and should be taking now to help allieviate the problem.> Really? What is the consensus on what steps we should be taking? In which peer reviewed publication has that consensus appeared?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh How about answering a question instead of being insulting jon? If you were as right all the time as you think you are, the former would be as easy for you as the latter.
Originally Posted By jmoore1966 <<A study done recently by one researcher took a sampling of about 10%, which is quite large, of all recently written peer-reviewed climate papers.>> Was this study peer reviewed? Also, what was the exact concensus viewpoint that no paper disagreed with? Not meaning to be a pain, but I find I find your claim that there are no credible papers that deviate from the concensus hard to swallow without questioning.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Was this study peer reviewed?" Actually, yes, it was. "Also, what was the exact concensus viewpoint that no paper disagreed with? " Global warming exists, and it is chiefly anthroprogenic in origin (if I recall the exact wording). "I find I find your claim that there are no credible papers that deviate from the concensus hard to swallow without questioning." And you are completely right in doing so! See, there is NOTHING wrong with being skeptical. In fact, without skepticism, we can not advance. Without challenging existing thoughts and ideas, we can't learn.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <However, we should recognize that there is a scientific consensus on this, and part of that consensus is that there are steps we can and should be taking now to help allieviate the problem.> <Really? What is the consensus on what steps we should be taking? In which peer reviewed publication has that consensus appeared?> The consensus is that we should be reducing our carbon output. How we do that is up for debate of course, but the consensus is that we need to reduce. Nice snarkiness, though.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Look global warming or not, it's like plastic bags all over again. I like driving my gas guzzler, and I love jsut riding around with the air conditioner all the way up in July just to get my baby to fall asleep, and I lavish in a warm bath that was heated by gas every single morning, and I even leave the fridge door open, alot...oh and when I leave a room, I leave all the lights on on purpose, and I don't recycle because I don't care. I'm a consumer, a user and I don't make anything, I just use stuff. I like to burn fissil fuels every chance I get. And I go to Chick-Fil-A for fast food because the styrofoam cups keep my super duper size Coke cold. And you know what? I'm one out of BILLIONS of people on this planet, and even with all my wasteful ways, I use maybe 10% of the energy... ...Al Gore, the savior of our planet, uses. If HE doesn't care, I don't care.
Originally Posted By jonvn "You had me until you said this part " Yeah, well, I also quoted a couple other sites too. Or pointed to them at least. "just to get my baby to fall asleep" I would think you'd care about the world that baby of yours is going to have to grow up in. But if you don't care about your own child's welfare...
Originally Posted By DAR <<It's fine to keep studying this. That's how we learn. However, we should recognize that there is a scientific consensus on this, and part of that consensus is that there are steps we can and should be taking now to help allieviate the problem. >> You do realize I will study both sides of this issue. This doesn't mean I will grovel at the altar of the almighty global warming is happening crowd.
Originally Posted By jonvn What has been attempted to be explained to you is that there is NOT a second side at this point. OK? Grab that concept and run with it, because in scientific circles, the debate is over.
Originally Posted By DAR Oh and this is off the record, since the weather in my little area of the world doesn't really count. But when I was walking in to Miller Park to watch the Angels and Indians(boy that sounds weird), it was so cold and windy that you actually got a headache from the wind.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, well, remember my question about gravity? It's the same thing at this point. There is no debate anymore. It's a scientific finding.
Originally Posted By jonvn "since the weather in my little area of the world doesn't really count." No one said that, but you are making utterly ridiculous statements thinking that because you are having cold weather where you live, the rest of the entire world's scientific finding falls on its ear.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder DAR, stop it. You can't just take one spot on the globe where it is snowing and say there is no global warming. The issue is much bigger than that, Hence, the "global" part, and I don't mean to be condescending. But don't fall into a pissing contest with anyone.
Originally Posted By DAR No this is what's bothering me that I don't have the right to read up on both sides of this issue. That is wrong. Did anybody here who has chosen to "lecture" me on this issue ever consider that I may come around to accept that it does exist. All I want to do is study this a little bit more. And if people want recycle(which I do) buy a Prius or switch to flourscent light bulbs fantastic. But they shouldn't be forced to either. The earth is a complicated and ever changing place. It needs to be study as much as possible. There's nothing wrong with having both sides study the issue more, without turning this into all this political, apocalyptic rhetoric.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I don't have the right to read up on both sides of this issue" No one said you don't have the right to read up on both sides of the issue. What has been said to you is that there are no both sides at this point. The only other side is contained in op-ed pieces for lay magazines. Study it all you want. But look at what you are studying, and try and follow the difference between an article in Newsweek, and a peer reviewed paper.
