You say you "would have" become further confused by reading my sources... uh... does that mean you didn't read them? How do you know they wouldn't back up my claims if you didn't even bother reading them? I had the courtesy to read the wikipedia article you linked to.
If you did read them, you should work on your own communication skills. You used an improper tense. Past tense would have been fine.
Other than your own murky communication, you're absolutely right; I should have collected my thoughts before facing an intellectual giant such as you.
OK, so the globe is warming. That's not the point (which you would have known had you read the articles I linked to). What I'm waiting to see is evidence that it's caused by carbon gases (read: man). Global warming is a part of global climate shift that has happened for millenia. After global warming, comes global cooling, with or without carbon gases. And besides, if carbon footprints were such an issue why are "supporters of change" consistently the worst polluters (read: Al Gore)?
Evidence? Wikipedia is your evidence? Nice. I'm real impressed. You're colleagues in the scientific community are most definitely the ones posting that information. No way it could be wrong. By the way, I just deleted the graph you linked to... just kidding.
I will concede that I misspoke about temperatures falling for the past decade. What I meant was that all the warming that has occurred for the past decade has been undone in the last year or two of cooling. To back up my remarks with more substantial evidence than a wiki article:
Here's a book filled with bonafide, respected, research scientists who deny that Global warming exists or (if it exists) that it is causing any global problems. Read the excerpts on the Amazon summary page. Heck, buy the book.
All the computer models are wrong. They have not only failed to predict the future, they can't even predict that past.
That is, when you run their software with the data from, say, the 1970s or 1980s, and project what should happen in the 1990s or 2000s, they project results that have absolutely nothing to do with the known climate data for those decades.
Now I know what you're going to say you're going to contest that my sources aren't scientific enough, or they are unfounded. That's the coward's way out; especially when your source was Wikipedia. Try refuting evidence with evidence.
You'll also be apt to say that this is only a handful of evidence against the towering "evidence" of your "scientists." Ok. Prove it.
As for your "supernatural" comment, faith and science are not all that different. You have faith that the sun will rise, because it has before. You have faith in these scientists because of their titles, given to them by humans just as fallible and weak as you and I.
I, on the other hand, have faith that God exists and that prayers are answered because they are and have been before. You can chalk all you want up to coincidence or superstition, but I'd rather stick to that which I know for myself to be true. Personal experience has taught me that science can't explain everything.
If this were a bill that suggested students think critically of religion, you'd be dancing on the rooftops. Your atheistic views are not shared by everyone. In fact, they are a tiny majority.
Additionally, they weren't limiting in their scope. They offered several suggestions which were actually very good. For example (there's that non-limiting phrase again)global warming; there's no real evidence of it. In fact, this last winter was the coldest in recent history in most parts of the world. The world has actually been cooling for nigh on to a decade. Global warming is more of a political platform than a scientific fact.
Slashdot Mirror
You say you "would have" become further confused by reading my sources... uh... does that mean you didn't read them? How do you know they wouldn't back up my claims if you didn't even bother reading them? I had the courtesy to read the wikipedia article you linked to.
If you did read them, you should work on your own communication skills. You used an improper tense. Past tense would have been fine.
Other than your own murky communication, you're absolutely right; I should have collected my thoughts before facing an intellectual giant such as you.
OK, so the globe is warming. That's not the point (which you would have known had you read the articles I linked to). What I'm waiting to see is evidence that it's caused by carbon gases (read: man). Global warming is a part of global climate shift that has happened for millenia. After global warming, comes global cooling, with or without carbon gases. And besides, if carbon footprints were such an issue why are "supporters of change" consistently the worst polluters (read: Al Gore)?
Ha! That was a good way of turning that faith thing around on me. You are clever.
What about my sources? Did you even bother looking at the links? I smell hypocrisy...
I will concede that I misspoke about temperatures falling for the past decade. What I meant was that all the warming that has occurred for the past decade has been undone in the last year or two of cooling. To back up my remarks with more substantial evidence than a wiki article:
Here's a book filled with bonafide, respected, research scientists who deny that Global warming exists or (if it exists) that it is causing any global problems. Read the excerpts on the Amazon summary page. Heck, buy the book.
So, how can Aspen ski resorts open in June if it's warmer than usual?
The founder of the Weather Channel thinks global warming is a bunch of crap.
Orson Scott Card writes a column with information from people directly involved with the global warming models.
Here's the raw truth:
All the computer models are wrong. They have not only failed to predict the future, they can't even predict that past.
That is, when you run their software with the data from, say, the 1970s or 1980s, and project what should happen in the 1990s or 2000s, they project results that have absolutely nothing to do with the known climate data for those decades.
Now I know what you're going to say you're going to contest that my sources aren't scientific enough, or they are unfounded. That's the coward's way out; especially when your source was Wikipedia. Try refuting evidence with evidence.
You'll also be apt to say that this is only a handful of evidence against the towering "evidence" of your "scientists." Ok. Prove it.
As for your "supernatural" comment, faith and science are not all that different. You have faith that the sun will rise, because it has before. You have faith in these scientists because of their titles, given to them by humans just as fallible and weak as you and I.
I, on the other hand, have faith that God exists and that prayers are answered because they are and have been before. You can chalk all you want up to coincidence or superstition, but I'd rather stick to that which I know for myself to be true. Personal experience has taught me that science can't explain everything.
If this were a bill that suggested students think critically of religion, you'd be dancing on the rooftops. Your atheistic views are not shared by everyone. In fact, they are a tiny majority.
Additionally, they weren't limiting in their scope. They offered several suggestions which were actually very good. For example (there's that non-limiting phrase again)global warming; there's no real evidence of it. In fact, this last winter was the coldest in recent history in most parts of the world. The world has actually been cooling for nigh on to a decade. Global warming is more of a political platform than a scientific fact.