Tell that to Cahill and Martin and the rest of the sneering, vitriolic liberals. They believe those scientists that disagree with GW have as much right to speak as Fox News. That is, none.

And again, what data? Can I see this data? Do I know this data is reputable?

>>Well, that's false.  Any good library subscribes to scientific journals.  Data is also available from numerous government agencies free of charge via internet.  The press disseminates data all the time, but if you don't trust it you're always free to go to the above sources.>>

K can you point me to some of these internet sources? Besides, I already said I believe in a short term warming trend, I just believe in the alledged causes. But hard data is good, just like I like to look at troop deaths in Iraq via hard numbers, not what the US media tells me is going on. Oftentimes that's hard to do.

>>NASA, if anything, has been pressured to keep people in the dark concerning global warming. >>

Oh ok, when I say anti-global warmers get pressured by the leftist scientific establishment, I'm a kook. Well who's the kook now? I guess it's perfectly acceptable for you to say Nasa may have lied, but I cant say I think some on the other side may be biased and lying. Doesn't that just speak volumes.

 >>In terms of you saying this year's starting off cold and 1998 was warmer, it's one year and one place you're talking about.  It doesn't have to get hotter each and every calendar year for a trend to take place.  >>

Yeah but 1998 was almost a decade ago, it seems that's long enough to say something. Even in GW's long time frames.

>>And just because it's been cooler than normal in Texas or even the whole United States, that means little when you're talking about GLOBAL Warming.>>

Let me rephrase your own words: "And just because we had a bunch of Hurricanes in 2005, that means little when you're talking about gobal warming"

See? You're doing the exact same thing. You claim little things dont matter, but then you point to them as proof in the next breath.

>>Relative to the global climate, you ARE pointing to random weather events and saying that it's proof that global warming isn't happening.  You go onto say that it's valid to do that, because you think that's what the other side is doing.  Well, the other side isn't doint that.  More hurricanes are consistent with hotter oceans, which we have observed.  Just because we had a lot of them in 2005 and few of them in 2006 means little.  >>

Wait a minute, so when random weather events agree with you (05 Hurricanes), they mean a lot, but when they dont (06 Hurricanes), they should be disregarded? Yeah OK.

You could, I dont know this for a fact, but probably say something like, using  the hyperbolic langugage GW supporters use, "2006 was the mildest Hurricane season in recorded history". Gee, that would seem a little odd here in the throes of GW, if indeed it was true.

>>When it's 2011, let's then look back at what transpired over the last decade.  On the whole, we'll probably have had more and stronger hurricanes than usual.  Let's wait and see.>>

We probably wont be arguing on this message board in 2011. And what if we dont have stronger Hurricanes? What will you and other GW people say? "Oh, it looks we were wrong". Nope. We may have an active few years in hurricanes. I'd attribute that to El nino. It's happened in the past decades as well.

>>Again, we're talking about a GLOBAL trend and you're pointing to localized examples.  It's logically incorrect to do that.>>

No, it isn't. If the globe is warmer, my corner must be warmer. That's generally speaking, just a fact.

>>I bet I do know more about science than you.  In fact, I know I do.  The reason I don't want to get into is twofold: One, it's boring for most people.  Two, you obviously wouldn't understand it and will refuse to take it seriously.  If you want to talk hard science, start talking.  I'll follow.>>

What is "hard science"? All you're going to do is point to a bunch of news reports about studies. And we dont know a damn thing about who conducted those studies, the methedology, what political party all the lead researchers happened to vote for in the last election (hmmm..maybe, Democrats?). Anyways for the millionth time I accept there's probably a short term cyclical warming trend going on.

>>Again, immediate or short-term predictions don't mean much in the context of global warming.  So, no, they don't matter to climatologists who are studying long term meteorological patterns.  Nobody says every location on Earth is going to be hotter every successive day.  Nobody's saying that.  Weather as we know it hasn't disappeared.>>

Studying long term meteorogical patterns? These motherfuckers cant tell me if it's going to rain three days from now.

The problem is these guys like to make open ended and very long term predictions. That way they'll be dead when they're, inevitably, proved wrong. Science is supposed to deal in things like facts and data, theory based on predictions.

Like sea rise. We're always hearing about the terrible sea rise GW is going to cause. So year after year of this, probably approaching a decade now, I start asking I dunno, why isn't New Jersey underwater? No forget that, why isn't a single beach in New Jersey underwater? No never mind that, why isn't a single beach in New Jersey even two feet farther inland now? Why is not a damn thing changing?

You know why? Because there isn't going to be any sea rise. You know, I know it, and GW scientists know it. That's why they keep revising their estimates of future sea rise downward. Like this:

In 1992, Al Gore said we only had 10 years left until it was too late to do anything. Now he's saying the same thing. Well, if he was right in 1992, then it's too late now.

Gore is also saying that sea level will rise 20 feet by the year 2100. But the IPCC computer models say it will be a maximum of 17 inches:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml

Oh gee, is the liberal media going to jump all over that report, and splash it everywhere that hey, man's impact on climate downgraded? No I dont think so. I wonder why? Oh that's right, because they're a bunch of liberals and all their reporting is slanted lies. And you KNOW that is true. You know what the media supports, you KNOW it.

I googled to see what kind of, immediate sea rise was going on. You know, right now. I found something to the effect sea level was currently rising at the rate of 1 3/4 milimeter per year. In other words, who gives a shit.

>>Have you ever read a real scientific journal?  Hell, have you ever taken a regular history of science course in college?  There is a LOT of variation of opinion in any discipline.  HIV doesn't cause AIDS?  I'm not an epidemiologist, but statistically, HIV is a precursor to AIDS.  If this guy didn't get published he likely didn't have the data to back up his claim.  If he did, believe me, it would have been published.  Otherwise, since just about every person diagnosed with HIV is eventually diagnosed with AIDS if HIV isn't treated, I think it's pretty safe to assume you don't want HIV.  >>

Yes I already said I think the guy is a kook. The point is, lets say you're a creationist, well, the scientific system is going to shun you. The guy believes AIDS is caused by the drugs given to treat it, and so forth. I cant argue well, but he could probably run circles around you if he were here. And quote plenty of "data" which you would then reject as unreliable, just like I reject mainstream GW studies as unreliable. The only real point here is unaccepted positions are not allowed in mainstream science. And that censorship certainly has been given to GW opponents already.

>>I don't think anybody's trying to kill anyone else.  That's ridiculous. >>

Sure you dont.

>> If you can't accept that burning fossile fuels causes air pollution, then you really are on the fringe.>>

Yes, I believe that. But I dont think if we tried, we could do anything to hurt the planet.

>>There are several very large economies that are developing rapidly, most notably China and India.  Oil discoveries have slowed.  In the future, it will not be feasable to depend on oil.  >>

If that was true, it would take care of itself via the currently, somewhat free market. So it's nothing that you're truly worried about obviously, or you wouldn't need to pass laws to restrict oil. The reality is, oil is still very plentiful and cheap.

I mean, seriously, if you really thought we were running out of oil, would you be trying to pass laws to make it come to pass? No, you'd be sitting back laughing as the world ran out of oil. It's like why you dont drive a hybrid, of course YOU dont REALLY believe in global warming. Of course you dont. Why dont you drive a hybrid? Because you dont care. We'll run out of oil at some distant point, it's irrelevant, the price should spike and it'll take care of itself, as soon as it becomes less efficient than the alternatives.

>>New technologies will develop and it would be best if they were developed here in the United States.>>

I dont know what this means. Meaningless, stupid thing to say. So do we get to keep this mystical "technology" after we develop it or something? And why would we want to do that? And really, I promise you dont care about America's economic growth ok, I promise. You've proven that.

Oh do you know what else I just found out? About catastrophic sea rise, I didn't know this, thanks to Al Gore's dishonest documentary, but a 20 foot rise in sea levels, IF it did happen, which would be a worst case sceneraio of all Greenland and Antartica melting, apparantly could only happen over "centuries". So I dunno, really, dont you think we could adjust? You know, move things back a little bit, over centiries? It's not going to be this "manhatten underwater overnight" like Al Gore lays out.

That is if any of it happened, which of course it wont.

And if you're really concerned about GW, why dont you hop on France about meeting their obligations under the Kyoto treaty like they're not doing, ya know? Come on, it's so obvious none of you care about this shit. If you cared, you'd do something about it that mattered.

You dont care about France because France isn't your target. You dont give two shits if they make their Kyoto commitments. That's because you dont care about the enviroment.