Do you belive in human caused global warming?

[Xsyne]

You spoke of sources. Assumption of the two links from a previous post.

Post a couple links. I read everything......

I'll post sources once i get home, in about four hours. I know this sounds like a lame excuse, but I don't have my paper listing them on me at the moment, and i don't keep a digital copy of the sites. That's something I should think about doing, isn't it? But before you start clamoring for my blood, screaming "NO SOURCES", rest assured, I will post them.

I'd just like to remind our friend of this.

[United Dependencies]

I believe in using clear sentences.

[Grave_n_idle]

Aha ha ha! Your jibes are so witty and well-thought. It is not my data, merely sources I have come across that refutes the man-made global warming phenomenon. They have already been published, otherwise they wouldn't be legitimate sources now, would they?

I'm confused. I thought your point was that such evidence doesn't get published, because it wouldn't be profitable, because it's contrary to the acceptable theory or something. And to prove this point, you have several published articles?

[Supreme Marshal Petan]

I'll global your warming.

[Grave_n_idle]

Well, when you get home, we'll take a look at your sources. Papers like that have not been published because nobody can find data to support those conclusions. If your "retired scientists" have the data to support it, they'd be publishing it to supplement their incomes. If no journal is willing to publish it, it's almost certainly because their methods are flawed or that their data don't support the conclusions. But I guess we'll see.

Oh right, because many of these journals don't have an agenda like the media and might just refuse to print stuff that contradicts their system of indoctrination.
No, that would never happen.

If you're talking about the sort of science magazine you can buy at the local wal-mart, you might have a point. If you're talking about serious peer-reviewed journals, material that contradicts established theory is likely to be a selling-point, not a handicap.

[Grave_n_idle]

They have an agenda to sell copies. What sells copies is good science. They are not obligated to tell the other side of the story, if there is no data supporting the other side.

You are quite trusting to think just because they put it in there automatically makes it "good" science.

I'm wondering if you've heard the term 'peer-review'.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm getting confused about what you're arguing now. I thought were discussing whether or not scientific journals are biased against climate change skeptics. What are you saying now? That we should stop people from sending out press releases about climate science unless they've been vetted by Nature?

The topic somewhat shifted from the former to the latter.I'm not entirely sure at what point though. These things happen.
What I am saying, is that the general populous receives a skewed view about climate change.

Which doesn't matter, except that it means most opinions on the subject (since the bulk of the population are NOT experts in relevant fields) are going to be somewhere between prejudiced and absolutely clueless.

If you want to deal with the reality, you need to look at the view received by the NON-general populace - i.e. those who actually familiarise themselves with the data.

[Southern Dixiecrats]

Somewhere in between? A small part, I believe, even if it is true. Although I like wind power stations. They look nice.

[Saiwania]

I don't believe in global warming being a bad thing.

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't believe in global warming being a bad thing.

The OP has perpetuated (perhaps innocently) a misdirection. The concern isn't about 'warming' - it is about 'climate change', within which parameters some 'warming' may or may not be a factor.

The idea that the data just suggests an isolated elevation in temperature is ridiculously simplistic and deceptive.

[Lykosia]

Before you answer that question watch this video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hY49F2LWnM

:rofl:

But seriously, I am NOT stupid enough to belive in Al Gore trying to preach to me his cult about CO₂ heating the Earth! Besides, if I could heat the Earth, I would, no more cold winters! woow!

No more winter? awww....

[St George of England]

Before you answer that question watch this video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hY49F2LWnM

:rofl:

But seriously, I am NOT stupid enough to belive in Al Gore trying to preach to me his cult about CO₂ heating the Earth! Besides, if I could heat the Earth, I would, no more cold winters! woow!

No more winter? awww....

Actually, if the Gulf Stream ever stops, Britain'll look like Norway.

[Sociobiology]

I don't believe in global warming being a bad thing.

The OP has perpetuated (perhaps innocently) a misdirection. The concern isn't about 'warming' - it is about 'climate change', within which parameters some 'warming' may or may not be a factor.

The idea that the data just suggests an isolated elevation in temperature is ridiculously simplistic and deceptive.

it does suggest an average elevation in temperature, which would suck since we grow a lot of crops in places that will become deserts and live in places that will be underwater. we also know for earths history once a warming trend starts its very very hard to reverse until it runs its course say a 10-15 degree change for perspective imagine if the tropical climate zone ends in Canada instead of Florida, and the desert-like dry zone ends in DC. instead of southern mexico. that to me is the biggest worry we know the farther it goes the more difficult it becomes to stop, much less reverse, sometimes to exponential degree. due to many positive feed back loops (ice sheet loss, desertification, methane sequestering)
warming can mean more snow in areas still cool enough to get it but it also means those areas shrink those big east coast snow where in the warmest winter on record. more evaporation but fewer places suitable for snowfall. so you drought and monsoons at the same time just in different regions. if it normally dry it gets drier if its normally wet it gets wetter, but thats short term long term if the average temp rises enough climate patterns start to shift jet streams ocean currents all start changing at that point most of civilization is in deep doodoo since we rely on on predictable climate (ex,Arizona dry east coast rainy) especially for food.
to quote
Man - despite his artistic pretensions, his sophistication, and his many accomplishments - owes his existence to a six inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains. ~Author Unknown

[Kalasparata]

I don't believe in global warming being a bad thing.

The OP has perpetuated (perhaps innocently) a misdirection. The concern isn't about 'warming' - it is about 'climate change', within which parameters some 'warming' may or may not be a factor.

Aol Gore promised it would be a factor

[Unchecked Expansion]

check out bjorn lomborg new book biggest skeptic of global warning has just put out a book supporting anthropogenic global warming and explaining ways to combat it. this is the beauty of science, no matter how much you have invested in a position a real scientist will admit they are wrong when the evidence points that way.

He's the man that was cleared of scientific fraud by virtue of not being a scientist, right?

[Grave_n_idle]

The OP has perpetuated (perhaps innocently) a misdirection. The concern isn't about 'warming' - it is about 'climate change', within which parameters some 'warming' may or may not be a factor.

Aol Gore promised it would be a factor

Which is a fairly safe claim, since there is almost assuredly going to be some warming involved in any global climate alteration.

Your point?