Quantcast

Is Global Warming a HOAX??!!

BlueRepublican 2012/05/04 18:26:16
Yes, Global Warming is a HOAX!!
No, Global Warming is REAL!!
Undecided
None of the above
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Is it real? Is it a scam? Is Al Gore right or is it just a fabricated political issue to further an agenda? Does the science make sense?
What do you think?
Agree, disagree, have another opinion, vote now!!!
As always feel free to comment, reply, share and RAVE!!!

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Kaleokualoha 2012/05/04 19:43:10
    No, Global Warming is REAL!!
    Kaleokualoha
    +14
    SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE

    The consensus of the scientific community is "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. . . . the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability."

    1. As a matter of FACT, "consensus" IS used regarding scientific judgment:

    [QUOTE]
    Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]

    Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outside...






























































    &








    SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE

    The consensus of the scientific community is "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. . . . the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability."

    1. As a matter of FACT, "consensus" IS used regarding scientific judgment:

    [QUOTE]
    Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]

    Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2]

    Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[3][4] or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.[2]
    [END QUOTE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ]


    2. Further, as a matter of fact, SCIENTISTS use the term "consensus" regarding climate change:

    [QUOTE]
    Scientific consensus on Climate Change

    A question that frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change.[125] Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:

    American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[32]

    US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[126]

    Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[127]

    Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[13]

    American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research.... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[128] -
    [END QUOTE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...


    3. As a matter of FACT, scientific consensus is irrefutable. The list of concurring scientific organizations includes:

    American Geophysical Union: http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/po...

    American Physical Society: http://www.aps.org/policy/sta...

    The Royal Society: http://royalsociety.org/polic...

    European Academy of Sciences and Arts: http://royalsociety.org/polic...

    American Association for the Advancement of Science: http://www.aaas.org/news/pres...

    American Chemical Society: http://www.aaas.org/news/pres...

    American Institute of Physics: http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/0...

    Australian Institute of Physics: http://www.aip.org.au/about.p...

    American Geophysical Union: http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/po...

    American Public Health Association: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/...

    Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences: http://geoscience.ca/_ARCHIVE...

    European Science Foundation:

    American Medical Association: http://www.ama.com.au/node/44...

    World Health Organization: http://www.who.int/world-heal...

    American Statistical Association: http://www.amstat.org/news/cl...

    American Association of Petroleum Geologists: http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/state...

    American Association of State Climatologists: http://www.stateclimate.org/p...

    NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/evide...

    National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/...

    4. As a matter of FACT, dissenting opinion is relegated to the fringe:

    [QUOTE]
    No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
    [END QUOTE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ]


    "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." - Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642)
    (more)

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • HoneyBa... RogerCo... 2012/05/05 10:11:20
  • A Woman... HoneyBa... 2012/05/06 03:05:21 (edited)
    A Woman's View~JLA
    +1
    LOL! Great picture!! Yes...let's send Al Gore to the North Pole along with St. David Suzuki with just their bathing suits...they can then tell us how warm it is up there!!

    ( edited for spelling)

    +
  • findthelight2000 2012/05/04 20:44:38
    No, Global Warming is REAL!!
    findthelight2000
    +6
    No one can deny that we humans have polluted the planet, yet many find it hard to believe that we are contributing to global warming. Yet scientists agree that the weather is a lot more unusual than it has ever been. Just last month the Northeast was hit with record high 90 degree + temperatures which were followed in a mere week by a Nor'easter and heavy snow. That is most definitely not a normal happening. Greenland's glaciers are melting away rapidly - that is not normal. Every year the Bible belt is hit by huge outbreaks of killer tornadoes, and instead of thinking rationally and blaming global warming trends, they prefer to blame gay people. Then explain why they always hit the Bible belt?
  • seattleman 2012/05/04 19:55:22
    No, Global Warming is REAL!!
    seattleman
    +5
    A hoax? No. Not a hoax.
  • ALofRI seattleman 2012/05/04 20:18:10
    ALofRI
    +4
    But, but, but....Everyone on FOX news says it's a hoax! (Any wonder why it's fearless leader was told he was not qualified to run a communication company)??
  • ack seattleman 2012/05/04 21:35:10
  • RogerCo... ack 2012/05/05 00:11:02
    RogerCoppock
    +2
    RWNJ rule for science: If the science fails the test Republican Political Correctness, fire the scientists.
  • ack RogerCo... 2012/05/06 17:19:37
    ack
    Being that you used the term RWNJ your point is mute.
  • seattleman ack 2012/05/05 14:12:15
    seattleman
    Key word: former. These are former employees. They are not claiming that global warming is a hoax, either. They are making a case that man-made global warming is not established as fact. To a certain degree, I can see their point. But had the letter tried to claim it as a hoax, I would not.

    I think the reasons or causes of global warming/climate change can be, and should be debated. I also think that to deny its existence - to claim it's a hoax - is utter denial. osterich   head in sand
  • ack seattleman 2012/05/06 17:22:18
    ack
    The problem is that the alarmist no longer want debate because they believe the issue have been resolved by consensus.
  • RogerCo... ack 2012/05/06 20:14:47
    RogerCoppock
    +1
    No, the issue has been resolved by multiple independent direct measurements of infrared radiation being trapped by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

    TempVsCO2 jpg

    Carbon Dioxide, or CO2, and Methane, or CH4, each have different infrared spectra. Satellites recording the infrared spectra of our planet's atmosphere can tell how much infrared energy each gas in our atmosphere traps. The fraction of Earth's greenhouse effect from CO2, CH4, and many other gases is therefore directly measurable. These measurements have been taken for more than three decades, now. Please see:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/...
  • ack RogerCo... 2012/05/07 17:39:01
    ack
    Here is a counter to your post.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
  • RogerCo... ack 2012/05/07 21:02:19 (edited)
    RogerCoppock
    +1
    No, that's not a counter to the measurements I posted.
    That stupid lie which was debunked within an hour, is not even on topic here.
  • Icarus 2012/05/04 19:45:57
    No, Global Warming is REAL!!
    Icarus
    +8
    It's real and it's caused by us.
  • Kaleokualoha 2012/05/04 19:43:10
    No, Global Warming is REAL!!
    Kaleokualoha
    +14
    SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE

    The consensus of the scientific community is "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. . . . the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability."

    1. As a matter of FACT, "consensus" IS used regarding scientific judgment:

    [QUOTE]
    Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]

    Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outside...






























































    &








    SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE

    The consensus of the scientific community is "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. . . . the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability."

    1. As a matter of FACT, "consensus" IS used regarding scientific judgment:

    [QUOTE]
    Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]

    Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2]

    Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[3][4] or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.[2]
    [END QUOTE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ]


    2. Further, as a matter of fact, SCIENTISTS use the term "consensus" regarding climate change:

    [QUOTE]
    Scientific consensus on Climate Change

    A question that frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change.[125] Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:

    American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[32]

    US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[126]

    Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[127]

    Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[13]

    American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research.... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[128] -
    [END QUOTE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...


    3. As a matter of FACT, scientific consensus is irrefutable. The list of concurring scientific organizations includes:

    American Geophysical Union: http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/po...

    American Physical Society: http://www.aps.org/policy/sta...

    The Royal Society: http://royalsociety.org/polic...

    European Academy of Sciences and Arts: http://royalsociety.org/polic...

    American Association for the Advancement of Science: http://www.aaas.org/news/pres...

    American Chemical Society: http://www.aaas.org/news/pres...

    American Institute of Physics: http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/0...

    Australian Institute of Physics: http://www.aip.org.au/about.p...

    American Geophysical Union: http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/po...

    American Public Health Association: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/...

    Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences: http://geoscience.ca/_ARCHIVE...

    European Science Foundation:

    American Medical Association: http://www.ama.com.au/node/44...

    World Health Organization: http://www.who.int/world-heal...

    American Statistical Association: http://www.amstat.org/news/cl...

    American Association of Petroleum Geologists: http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/state...

    American Association of State Climatologists: http://www.stateclimate.org/p...

    NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/evide...

    National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/...

    4. As a matter of FACT, dissenting opinion is relegated to the fringe:

    [QUOTE]
    No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
    [END QUOTE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ]


    "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." - Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642)
    (more)
  • ack Kaleoku... 2012/05/04 21:35:51
    ack
    +4
    Sorry but you can't do science by consensus.
  • Cyan9 ack 2012/05/05 00:01:00
    Cyan9
    +5
    that statement makes negative amounts of sense.
  • RogerCo... ack 2012/05/05 00:14:36
    RogerCoppock
    +5
    Yes, we scientists do science by consensus, the majority of people working in the field. Anyone who does not understand that needs a refresher course in general science. In the scientific world, there are such things as "'Consensus of the Literature' studies."
  • Kaleoku... ack 2012/05/05 00:32:31 (edited)
    Kaleokualoha
    +4
    Au contraire! People "do science by consensus" routinely by depending on the collective judgment of the scientific community. Any objective analysis must distinguish between minority and majority opinion, and distinguish between mainstream and outlier positions. Consensus is the method by which scientific judgment is established:

    [QUOTE]
    Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]

    Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a ...







    Au contraire! People "do science by consensus" routinely by depending on the collective judgment of the scientific community. Any objective analysis must distinguish between minority and majority opinion, and distinguish between mainstream and outlier positions. Consensus is the method by which scientific judgment is established:

    [QUOTE]
    Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]

    Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.

    Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[3][4] or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.[2]
    [END QUOTE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ]

    AGW Deniers are the outliers of the climate science community, just as "intelligent design" proponents are the outliers of the biological science community.

    "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
    - Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)
    (more)
  • Ken Kaleoku... 2012/05/05 06:37:34
    Ken
    On rare occasions new evidence emerges which supports those who disagree with the consensus. A gambler that relies on such exceptions will likely be bankrupt before they get rich. ... So I bet on the consensus. Of course, I am delighted that you chose otherwise because it makes a bigger payday for me.
  • ack Kaleoku... 2012/05/06 17:42:49
    ack
    Btw, today, May 5, is carl Marxs's birthday. He is the farther of todays environmental movement. The whole global warming bs is all ab out control of the people. How many to James Hanson predictions have come true?
  • Wolfman ack 2012/05/05 07:03:34
    Wolfman
    +3
    A consensus is nothing but an opinion.
  • Warren ... Wolfman 2012/05/07 04:38:39
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    Uh, no. Consensus means agreement.
  • Wolfman Warren ... 2012/05/07 04:56:10
    Wolfman
    +1
    Uh, no, not in science. If the outcome is determined by experiment, math, or observation there is no need for a consensus; the result is repeatable and can be verified.

    If it is determined by opinion, a majority consensus can be determined. But it isn't science.
  • Warren ... Wolfman 2012/05/07 05:00:28
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    No. Review the scientific method. Experiments do not become theories. Experimental evidence can only test a hypothesis. It can never prove a theory.
  • Warren ... Warren ... 2012/05/07 05:04:24
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    Consensus means that scientists agree that the current theory is best able to explain all experimental evidence. That is the scientific method.
  • Wolfman Warren ... 2012/05/07 05:08:18
    Wolfman
    +1
    Nope, it isn't. It's an opinion.
  • Warren ... Wolfman 2012/05/07 05:15:17
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    +1
    You, like many Americans, are scientifically illiterate. This is why America is falling behind the rest of the world. Science is the best tool we have to understand reality. It is not opinions.
  • Wolfman Warren ... 2012/05/07 05:19:33
    Wolfman
    +1
    I am an electrical engineer and I am quite scientifically literate. You don't know what you're talking about.
  • Ken Kaleoku... 2012/05/05 06:32:01
    Ken
    +1
    Thank you for an insightful post. You will probably get a lot of flack from "deniers" but the truth must be told....bravo for telling the truth.
  • Kaleoku... Ken 2012/05/06 01:08:06
    Kaleokualoha
    +1
    Thanks for the kind words. The type of useful idiot who believes AGW is a hoax is a very dangerous citizen. During the 1930's, "Good Germans" were the SAME type of useful idiot. They believed propaganda just as easily as American useful idiots believe propaganda.

    "A consensus is nothing but an opinion" demonstrates their cognitive impairment, especially after this was clearly posted:

    "Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity."

    To believe that a consensus is nothing but an opinion, after being advised that it is general agreement instead of "an opinion," suggest serious problems with reading comprehension.

    "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." - Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642)
  • Starman 2012/05/04 19:34:10
    No, Global Warming is REAL!!
    Starman
    +9
    Human caused global climate change is real, the science has been settled since 2000. Deniers are the same people who don't accept evolution and are still looking for another birth certificate. No factual evidence shall go un-ignored.
  • ack Starman 2012/05/04 21:45:10
    ack
    +3
    What caused the last Ice age to end?
  • Starman ack 2012/05/04 23:59:32
    Starman
    +1
    There have been broad fluctuation in weather before, but the scientific evidence shows us that this one is human caused. I also know that no amount of scientific evidence and certainly nothing I say will convince you to accept those facts.
  • A Woman... Starman 2012/05/06 03:10:05
    A Woman's View~JLA
    +1
    read this about the Global warming Hoax...

    "More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate."

    Read more: 31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=64...

    +
  • Starman A Woman... 2012/05/06 03:28:00
    Starman
    +1
    WorldNetDaily? That's your source? I think I'll stick with NASA, NOAA, the National Science Foundation and every other credible science organization in the world.
  • A Woman... Starman 2012/05/06 08:33:22
    A Woman's View~JLA
    Okay fine then...here's another one for you to read and get educated....read it and then you can say that it's a bunch of hooey.


    31,000 Scientists Shatter the Myth of a “Scientific ...
    Environmental extremists routinely assert a “scientific consensus” that global warming is occurring, and that human activity somehow causes it.
    www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislati... - Cached

    The point being is that 31,000 scientists now reject the "Global Warming" agenda!

    Another....
    Myths of Global Warming | Publications | National Center for ...
    Periodic media reports link human-caused climate changes to more frequent ... As scientists expose the myths concerning global warming, the fears of an apocalypse should ...
    www.ncpa.org/pub/ba230 - Cached




    +
  • Starman A Woman... 2012/05/06 15:36:31
    Starman
    Same rediculous article, different questionable source. The list of "scientists" cannot be verified, but of the 31,000 only 39 are climatologists. Even *if* you accept the list, it represents less than 0.3% of US scientists as they define it. This is meaningless against the overwhelming evidence and support by credible climate scientists.
  • A Woman... Starman 2012/05/06 21:42:41
    A Woman's View~JLA
    Now that's picking straws! BTW...I also read that NASA got told to shut it when it came to voicing their opinion on it!

    You can choose to either believe it or you can choose to decide that the file is still open and nothing has been decided for certain.....they are all guessing.....nature doesn't follow a computer generated model which they used to get their findings.....the computer model only gives outcomes that are not written in marble.....if an error was made in the data given then it can screw up the whole hypothesis.

    But believe as you will....they've been wrong about it so far....I can't see it changing.
  • Starman A Woman... 2012/05/06 22:50:43
    Starman
    Since you insist on ignoring the science, I know that nothing I say will convince you to pay attention to the the vast VAST majority of climate scientists the world over and accept the danger we are posing to the ecosystem.

    You probably should consider changing your profile to reflect the fact that you are radically right wing. Your claim to be "moderate" is disingenuous at best.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/25 03:48:52

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals