now im convinced.

As far as Charlie is concerned...the history of conservation and environmentalism is littered with con men and cult like leaders using the issue in an attempt to accomplish other goals. I am not surprised Charlie has hitched his wagon to this. I don't assign much importance to his signing on, other than how indicative it is that extremists have tried to latch onto environmentalism for decades now....but none of this 'guilt by association'.

BTW, Manson should sue Sheen for stealing his schtick.

I would like to point out how absolutely impossible it would be to challenge Climate Change. Since the beginning of recorded history, the climate has changed just about every day. It gets hotter, it gets cooler. Yet, there always seems to be a snake oil salesman around, trying to stir up some fear:You can't differentiate weather from long term change. You can't grasp that natural changes in a complex system of feedbacks and buffers is different than human-caused changes that corrupt and override these feedbacks and buffers. Go on. Post some irrelevant news clippings.
______________________________ _______________________
New York Times (1881):

“This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting …”
______________________________ ________________________
New York Times (1895):

“Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.”
______________________________ ________________________
New York Times (1932)

“NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents”
______________________________ __________________________
New York Times (1975)

“A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”
______________________________ __________________________
New York Times (1979)

“A puzzling haze over the Arctic ice packs has been identified as a byproduct of air pollution, a finding that may support predictions of a disastrous melting of the earth’s ice caps.”
______________________________ __________________________
I would love to challenge the 'Hockey Stick' data...which is not based on raw data at all (its been 'filtered'). Where is the raw data? The dog ate their homework. Allegedly, the raw data was lost when the 'researchers' moved to a new office building. One chart, of many. One leg of a table with ten thousand legs.

So I'm going to switch this around 180 degrees. 180 degrees! Where is your data to prove that you changed anything that many degrees?HA!If we are to completely change our way of life, in the name of 'climate change', somebody is going to have to produce data which Proves global warming/climate change/ozone depletion or whatever the hell they are calling it these days. You demand 100% proof from scientists and refuse to take any action until you get 100% proof. Try that in your own life and see if it makes sense. EXAMPLE: Your doctor says that you need to stop smoking because it will lead to lung cancer. You claim that cigarettes causing cancer is a hoax and keep on puffing. Furthermore, you find some 'scientists' that agree with you. Since you can't get 100% of scientists to agree that smoking causes cancer, you make no change to our life. You then die of lung cancer.

I believe we are going to take short break from all this nonsense...as some 'prominent scientists' were indeed caught falsifying data. The half-hearted 'investigations' of fraud are about over...and just about all the dust bunnies have been swept under the carpet...but these con men are going to go underground for a few years, before we see another push. I don't see a carbon tax in our near future (as recently as two years ago it seemed to be an absolute certainty). I even believe we may see a reversal of the wattage limits on bulbs, as more is learned about the problems with CFL's. Start a new thread on that.

At its pinnacle, Global Warming had attracted both political parties...remember President?Newt and Nancy sitting on the couch together? Whenever both political parties line up together and claim 'we just have to do something', I get very concerned....somehow I get the feeling that my best interests are not at the forefront of their thought process. I'm glad its died down for now; and, quite frankly, we have enough genuine problems to keep ourselves occupied. Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

What do you believe, exactly? Do you believe in a conspiracy theory that global warming exists, but it is not caused by man's pollution? Or do you believe that global warming doesn't exist at all, and that man's pollution has no effect on the Earth's temperature?

Sickening. You guys don't challenge Global Climate Change data, theory, drivers, buffers, or anything sciency. You just divide people into groups based on them having similar opinions about an obvious fact. Originally Posted by Longermonger

This is why I love this place! Longer, that is exactly what YOU do on here that makes this so much fun! When you can't refute a position, you ALWAYS resort to namecalling, spelling or some other ridiculous distinction. For example, I could say, "I like dogs." And the most likely response from you is "Oh, yeah? Well Hitler liked dogs. What are you, some kind of Nazi?"

God, you make me laugh!



And just to stay on topic, up until a couple years ago we went through a cycle of no sunspots. Sunspots, among other things, are cooler parts of the sun's surface. We are now experiencing an increase in sunspots, which means that solar activity will be more volatile, but cooler.

"What do you believe exactly"

Actually I am of the opinion that belief and faith should be left out of scientific pursuits.