On April 16, 2007 at 12:37, Theaterworks said...
Most of the sources you cited (sited if you're reading
along, Thon) are policitical activisim groups, think tanks,
etc. I'll dismiss them as having an ax to grind.
Just like I said, you (meaning people in general) read articles that agree with your conclusion and you accept it. Contrary evidence is dismissed or the sources are discredited. Just like I said.
Any possibility that the side you are on has an ax to grind?
Any chance someone could make a profit if they can convince us it's true?
I'm just asking questions, that's all.
The NPR article you pull one quote from, and the NASA
as well. If you go through the rest of the NPR or NASA
information you'll find a vast preponderance of information
about global warming indicates that it is happening, with
vast amounts of data to back it up.
Well yes. Did you also note that the warming and the increase in CO2 did not coincide like they should? Did you also see that there is not a consensus that we are causing it? And how are you going to come up with evidence that we can fix it? I think it's a pipe dream.
The part that really irritates me is that we get hammered with "fixes" for the supposed problem that costs us countless billions of dollars in tax, regulations, which are bad for business folks like you and me.
For the next agitating thread, let's not ever consider drilling for oil where it might cause environmental damage. Let's just keep buying oil from the folks who blew up our towers. Let's keep financing their effort. I love that.
BTW, is there an answer to my last question:
"Is it not correct to say that there is
NO consensus, but instead that there is
HEATED DEBATE??"
