I'm not saying the earth isn't warming or cooling (it's done both). I'm saying extreme warming or cooling could be a problem for mankind.
Furthermore, I'm saying environmentalists ASSUME man is the only cause of global warming. This is where environmentalists diverge from the 'science', and their ideology (that it's only man, baby) declares what to do about global warming. That's why the only measures to reduce the horror of global warming deal with man's effects on nature.. the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere... and why the end result of weaning the atmosphere of CO2 is to lessen the effects of man on the environment and not to stop global warming.
I mean, if you TRULY believe greenhouse gases (like on Venus) cause warming on the earth, and you're TRULY fearful of global warming and its effects, you'll think to do a whole lot more than just reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.
Isn't there an interpretation by Thomas Jefferson's SCOTUS that government should be separate from church? Why isn't the environmentalist's church of man as the only cause of global warming not separated from government because of the separation of church and state?
Last edited by cabse5; 07-15-14 at 04:33 PM.
One of the biggest reasons I advocate potential skeptics to educate themselves are because of silly denier myths that are perpetuated through a lack of basic understanding of science. Here is a page that debunks over 100 of them, they are very basic and simple but you will see people making these silly arguments in the environmental forum on a weekly basis. A basic understanding would bypass this.
Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says
You then make a leap in logic Evel Knievel could not fathom and go from learning basic science to challenging the global mainstream scientific community because of a one paragraph forum post that you think debunks everything. This shows a lack of critical thinking skills on your part and an almost childlike understanding of well reasoned science and debate. Do you really think it can all be boiled down to such a simplistic position? Do you know what all else effects what Longview is talking about? You don't and neither do I, guess who does... climate scientists. Do you know what all could be missing from the equation?
It has warmed .7C in the last 30 years, that is REALLY rapid warming that is already effecting ecosystems around the world. That is 2.33C a century. Do you know how likely it is for the rate of warming to increase? Do you know what will stop it? Do you know what other factors could be in play right now that are contributing to weaker than expected warming? I know a few answers to these, do you? This rate of warming is already enough to cause massive consequences in the near and long term, so I'm not sure what you think is so revealing here.
The point is thousands of scientists around the world hold the position that these things are of critical importance that are in urgent need of mitigation. I would tend to trust them over anyone else. As I stated before I would question my own understanding first before I questioned them. If you really think very basic glances at the data reveals an unimportant conclusion, I would guess you're probably out of your league and don't understand the issue.
Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.
You can use ether the J-D or the D-N annual column.