Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for 100 years: study

[Alex+R 0]

Well, darlings, I stand by an offer I made about a month ago. If anyone goes to see An Inconvenient Truth and can construct a rebuttal after that (you know, using evidence from any scientist anywhere in the world, even those sponsored by Bush), I WILL reimburse you for the movie.

What do you have to lose? Less than two hours of your life seems worth it (since it could save you a lot of embarrassment).

I'll see it if you answer this question...

1. What happened to get us out of the last ice-age? (Humans were barely around and you guys keep avoiding this question).

How could the climate change without human interference? Does not compute.

You know, your first one is repeatedly addressed. What happened? Yep, you guessed it: natural climate changes. Is this climate change just like that one? Nope. Is it much more drastic and directly correlating with the industrial revolution, and not following any patterns previously set in billions of years of history? Yes.

They are both climate changes, but not all climate changes are alike.

But I'm sure you will ignore this and a month from now post the same question.

I learned this in my climate courses in college, not from Al Gore's movie, by the way (although the facts are well represented there too).

[Veiled Princess 1]

global warming is just a myth. all those pollutants we put in the air is actually helping the environment.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Well, darlings, I stand by an offer I made about a month ago. If anyone goes to see An Inconvenient Truth and can construct a rebuttal after that (you know, using evidence from any scientist anywhere in the world, even those sponsored by Bush), I WILL reimburse you for the movie.

What do you have to lose? Less than two hours of your life seems worth it (since it could save you a lot of embarrassment).

I'll see it if you answer this question...

1. What happened to get us out of the last ice-age? (Humans were barely around and you guys keep avoiding this question).

How could the climate change without human interference? Does not compute.

You know, your first one is repeatedly addressed. What happened? Yep, you guessed it: natural climate changes.

Repeatedly addressed but you are the first one to actually answer. Bravo.

Natural climate changes don't exist in the politically motivated 'Global warming' scare tactics.

[Alex+R 0]

addressed but you are the first one to actually answer. Bravo.

Natural climate changes don't exist in the politically motivated 'Global warming' scare tactics.

Hm, really? Just me? Well then we need to get on the ball!

I haven't run into any global warming "scare tactics" but the FACTS support climate changes, of course. How else could we explain ice ages, etc.?

What people are worried about is the severity and cause of this one.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

if you want far more interesting reading, try "our angry earth" by isaac asimov and frederick pohl.

i'm not as concerned with global warming as i am about the toxins we release.

[pedroh 21]

isn't global warming a liberal lie?

lolz

[GaryC 7]

Well, darlings, I stand by an offer I made about a month ago. If anyone goes to see An Inconvenient Truth and can construct a rebuttal after that (you know, using evidence from any scientist anywhere in the world, even those sponsored by Bush), I WILL reimburse you for the movie.

What do you have to lose? Less than two hours of your life seems worth it (since it could save you a lot of embarrassment).

The article you used was an anti-global warming column (which offers no counterarguments, but simply shows a few scientists who disagree with Gore's film, and tries to pass them off as the scientific establishment), which managed to cite the research of probably 80% of scientists who believe global warming is false (you know, all 10 of them or so).

And the source looked like a low-budget rag, although I am not familiar with it.

Seems I did exactly what you asked. Just because they rebutt what AlGore says you label them "anti-global warming" people and discount them. I'd say their arguments perfectly counter what AlGore says. They are sientists and they use facts to back up what they say. Are you saying I can only use sorces that agree with you?

[Alex+R 0]

Well, darlings, I stand by an offer I made about a month ago. If anyone goes to see An Inconvenient Truth and can construct a rebuttal after that (you know, using evidence from any scientist anywhere in the world, even those sponsored by Bush), I WILL reimburse you for the movie.

What do you have to lose? Less than two hours of your life seems worth it (since it could save you a lot of embarrassment).

The article you used was an anti-global warming column (which offers no counterarguments, but simply shows a few scientists who disagree with Gore's film, and tries to pass them off as the scientific establishment), which managed to cite the research of probably 80% of scientists who believe global warming is false (you know, all 10 of them or so).

And the source looked like a low-budget rag, although I am not familiar with it.

Seems I did exactly what you asked. Just because they rebutt what AlGore says you label them "anti-global warming" people and discount them. I'd say their arguments perfectly counter what AlGore says. They are sientists and they use facts to back up what they say. Are you saying I can only use sorces that agree with you?

I want to see a scientific consensus, not one created to dupe the readers of that website.

[GaryC 7]

you know, using evidence from any scientist anywhere in the world, even those sponsored by Bush

Seems I did exactly what you asked. Just because they rebutt what AlGore says you label them "anti-global warming" people and discount them. I'd say their arguments perfectly counter what AlGore says. They are sientists and they use facts to back up what they say. Are you saying I can only use sorces that agree with you?

I want to see a scientific consensus, not one created to dupe the readers of that website.

So your changing the rules here. Your also falling into the "anyone that doesn't agree with me is duping people" line. Now who is not being honest?

Edited August 22, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Alex+R 0]

you know, using evidence from any scientist anywhere in the world, even those sponsored by Bush

Seems I did exactly what you asked. Just because they rebutt what AlGore says you label them "anti-global warming" people and discount them. I'd say their arguments perfectly counter what AlGore says. They are sientists and they use facts to back up what they say. Are you saying I can only use sorces that agree with you?

I want to see a scientific consensus, not one created to dupe the readers of that website.

So your changing the rules here. Your also falling into the "anyone that doesn't agree with me is duping people" line. Now who is not being honest?

I just want to be convinced, and that article was rather weak. How am I supposed to know how the scientific community views those guys? How about something from a peer-reviewed journal? Maybe I phrased my bet wrong. Ok well, I *would* actually give you your money back if you wanted it then. Sorry.

[GaryC 7]

I invite you to read this. Yet another person with a PhD after his name that seems to dissagree. Looks like he went to a lot of trouble to back his theory up. And not once does he mention AlGore.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st285/

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Whether or not you agree that human activity influences climate change (for which there is certainly some evidence and consensus among scientists), I'm wary of the argument that "it would happen anyway" as a means to justify cavalier attitudes towards our industrial activities and the continued pollution of our environment, which even if you don't think is damaging to the planet, is certainly less than desirable for the people who live on it.

[GaryC 7]

Whether or not you agree that human activity influences climate change (for which there is certainly some evidence and consensus among scientists), I'm wary of the argument that "it would happen anyway" as a means to justify cavalier attitudes towards our industrial activities and the continued pollution of our environment, which even if you don't think is damaging to the planet, is certainly less than desirable for the people who live on it.

Oh, I agree fishdude. There are many ways we can f*ch up the planet. Pollution is a big problem. I just don't hold with the doom and gloomers when it comes to global warming. It's all junk science.

[Fuzzness 2]

Whether or not you agree that human activity influences climate change (for which there is certainly some evidence and consensus among scientists), I'm wary of the argument that "it would happen anyway" as a means to justify cavalier attitudes towards our industrial activities and the continued pollution of our environment, which even if you don't think is damaging to the planet, is certainly less than desirable for the people who live on it.

Oh, I agree fishdude. There are many ways we can f*ch up the planet. Pollution is a big problem. I just don't hold with the doom and gloomers when it comes to global warming. It's all junk science.

I knew it wasn't true. It's some damn liberal conspiracy.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Whether or not you agree that human activity influences climate change (for which there is certainly some evidence and consensus among scientists), I'm wary of the argument that "it would happen anyway" as a means to justify cavalier attitudes towards our industrial activities and the continued pollution of our environment, which even if you don't think is damaging to the planet, is certainly less than desirable for the people who live on it.

Oh, I agree fishdude. There are many ways we can f*ch up the planet. Pollution is a big problem. I just don't hold with the doom and gloomers when it comes to global warming. It's all junk science.

Same here. Global warming is the least of my worries. I've said it before.. I'd rather have higher sea levels than a glacier covering 60% (number just a guess) of our country.

BTW... Nuclear power doesn't contribute to global warming. An 'inconvient truth' the liberals ignore.