re: #277 mrshankly01

i don’t agree that there is a “preponderance of the evidence”. I agree that there is a consensus (if you take the United Nations and Al Gore’s word), but I can give you some great michael crichton links to show you that consensus is a bunk measure of scientific worth. Also, how do you determine that there is a “preponderance of the evidence.” Please do not use the United Nations panel as we have seen many times on this website that it is an organization determined to bring down industrialized first world nations. Also, you say that Scientists that are unfunded by corporate interests are the only scientists worth listening to. are these the same scientists that are funded by government interests actively looking for proof of global warming and knowing if they don’t find it they will loose their funding. Also, do you claim that the biggest climate change champion of them all, Al Gore, is untainted by corporate influence.

I object to you pointing the finger at people who do not believing in Gl0obal Warming as being profiteers and dishonorable. That is a straw man argument. Counter them with facts and analysis and not populist crap such as they are “bought by the MAN”

Lo, I have been summoned…

Please look at any of the dozens of links to actual data and actual analysis I have given.

As to Subsailor,

Sub your wrong about how science works. It isn’t just that more scientists raised their hands, it is that more scientists were convinced by the evidence to the point that consensus was built. Look, I know that the science is complex and that the MSM does a terrible job of reporting it, but honestly, the science - outside of the modeling is pretty straight forward.

GHGs are quite real. When they absorb certain wavelengths of light they get hot. This is not in dispute. It follows that the more of them you pump into your atmosphere the hotter it will get.

If you buy that, you buy that a problem does exist, because it must exist.

All of the debates about how bad it will get and how soon are more complicated because there are all sorts of feedback loops and currents to try to consider. However, do not think for a moment that means there isn’t a looming problem. There is NO debate from any scientist that a problem is looming if we go on indefinitely as we are now. The only debate is how bad how soon.

Most evidence says that bad will be very bad and soon means by the end of this century.