<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:auto; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

First, why don’t you go here, http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php , and you’ll see that not every scientist believes this is man-made, BUT you’ll just use the illogical response that this is just some right-wing think tank political agenda.

Oh wait you coccydynia, I could just say that global warming is just some left wing fear tactic, but let me continue and show you.

I will continue with a man who is the leading and most eminent climatologist and geologist in his country.  In Australia, he’s one of the foremost Earth scientist, Professor Ian Plimer.  You most likely never heard of him.  He has written a book called Heaven and Earth.  Great read with over 400+ pages and with 2311 footnotes (which I could easily use/plagiarize) are the product of his 40 years of in-depth research and entrenched scholarship. He looks at climate over geological, archaeological, historical and modern time. "Past climate changes, sea-level changes and catastrophes are written in stone."

Dr. Plimer says “Much of what we have read about climate change is rubbish, especially the computer modelling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as "primitive".

Speaking of computer models and the IPCC here is an article, http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7116,  about how they are inaccurate by Dr. Tim Ball who is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.  Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.”

Dr. Plimer says "It is little wonder that catastrophist views of the future of the planet fall on fertile pastures. The history of time shows us that depopulation, social disruption, extinctions, disease and catastrophic droughts take place in cold times … and life blossoms and economies boom in warm times. Planet Earth is dynamic."

The Earth’s climate is more dynamically complex than what most calculations done on a supercomputer (which are primitive when compared to that of the Earth's climate).  The sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate despite the crucial relationship it has with the Earth (which is why we went through a ‘cold period’ from 40s-70s due to the lack of solar flares from the sun). Oh wait you don’t believe that the Earth went through a cold period during the 70s here’s an article about that: www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf  Here’s a quote from that Time's article “As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval.”  Wait a minute that sounds like what is being espoused today!

What does a ‘dumb’ Aussie and Canuck know? Here again is a list of  over 31,000 American Scientists (of which over 9,00 have their PhDs) http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php.  I am NOT DISPUTING the influx of climate change.  I (as well as these other Scientist) am fundamentally disputing most of the assumptions and projections being made about the current cause (being man-made), mostly led by atmospheric scientists, who have a different perspective on time.   

Speaking of atmospheric physicists: William Gray and atmospheric climatologists: Harry von Loon and Dave Melita, signaled in the strongest terms that huge climate changes are afoot. Each weather guru suggested that global warming is part of a cycle that is nearing an end.

Van loon has been outspoken about how “solar storms combined with, or because of these storms, the Earth has been on a relative roller coaster of climate cycles. For the past 250 years global climate highs and lows have followed the broad pattern of low and high solar activity. It was cooler from 1883 to 1928 when there was low solar activity” This is what he was referring to (from the United States Historical Climatology Network dataset 1892-2006 Mean Annual Temperature Time Series):

On top of that Kyoto Protocol would avert only 0.06 C of Global Warming by 2050: So fully implementing it would not have that big of an impact.

I am finished with having a discussion with a complete neonate.  You've constantly asked for evidence.  Well here you go.  Oh yeah you're not going to read any of that because it's all just a bunch of 'right-wing' nut jobs!

I can see that you are chalkful of facts and are the end all be all about G-D and Global warming!

Thanks!

That's simply not true.

How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you look at one religion (probably your own) and extrapolate to every other religion out there?

In fact, I do not remember a religion outside Christianity that makes such a claim.

Whether or not a treaty lets developing countries pollute has NOTHING to do with whether or not global warming is real.  Skeptics need to be able to separate the two.  "It's not fair that India's carbon cap is less than mine, therefore, all of the research on global warming is fake" doesn't make much sense.  The two are unrelated.  Science doesn't say anything like "Global warming is caused by man but not by India and China."  The science says that carbon emissions, from everywhere, are causing it.  Politicians are the ones who decide how to enforce reducing carbon emissions in their countries.  Nothing in the science of global warming gives India a free ride; that's entirely a political choice.

It's very possible to believe that global warming is real, to believe that there's no massive conspiracy, and yet still vote against whatever treaty you don't like.  There are, thankfully, a few Repbulicans who do this.  I don't agree with their "let someone else deal with it" attitude, but I can at least appreciate that they're not trying to deny science or claim that there are massive conspiracies when they vote against environmental protection laws.

Yeah, yeah, i keep forgetting that global warming denialists are switching over to saying it's real but it's not our fault.  I meant to say anthropogenic global warming.  My post would still be exactly the same.  The science makes it very plain that global warming is both real AND caused by man; this is what the scientists prove, and the policy on which countries need to cap when is a totally different issue.

I don't know if I should bother arguing with you about this, because my main point is that even if that were true, it has NOTHING TO DO with whether or not anthropogenic global warming is real.  SCIENTISTS prove that anthropogenic global warming is real; POLITICIANS decide what to do about it.  Don't mix the two groups up.  If you've got a grudge against China and want to vote whatever you want about it, you are allowed to do that.  You can argue that Kyoto's unfair without needing to also deny science and make grand claims of a massive world conspiracy.

That said, I'll point this out anyway:  China just recently edged out the U.S. as worst offender.  When Kyoto was written, it didn't.  Before 2008, the U.S. was much worse than China.  Per capita, the U.S. still surpasses everyone, including China, in the amount of pollution we create.  Developed countries, in general, have released much more CO2 and continue to still.  The adopters of Kyoto (nearly all the developed countries except the U.S.) are reducing their emissions, so now the numbers will look different.  Kyoto lasts for 2 more years, and the plan is (and was) that China would have that long to try to pull its economy together, and will then be re-examined in 2010.  When Kyoto was created, China's emissions were lower, and it was decided that developing countries would get a longer grace period to change their infrastructure because their economies are fragile and forcing them to dismantle their power and productions facilities when they can't afford replacements would likely destroy them.

Now, you are free to disagree with that stance; you can say that it's only fair that if developed countries need to start reducing pollution, that still-developing countries need to stop too even if it kills them.  Or you can argue that it's unfair that some countries get a grace period, so we shouldn't have to obey any laws at all.  However, these things are SEPARATE from the fact that anthropogenic global warming is real.  You might have a point if the science was saying something like "Global warming comes from carbon emissions in the U.S., but carbon emissions in China are actually good for the environment."  But it doesn't say anything like that.  ALL carbon emissions are bad, but the politicians decided to give China a few extra years.  I don't know if I can make this difference clearer.  I think most conspiracy theorists just want to ignore that so they can get on with their conspiracies.

That's just stupid.  China was allowed to pollute as much as it wanted before Kyoto.  Almost everyone could pollute as much as they wanted before Kyoto.  Kyoto is there to stop that.  Kyoto didn't let China pollute "more" than it already could.  There were no laws regulating carbon emissions in China, and Kyoto didn't change that.  Kyoto only placed new restrictions on the developed countries of the world (except the U.S.) and that is exactly its purpose.  It didn't get rid of old restrictions on China or India: there were no old restrictions.

LULA POSTS #137

MAKESHIFTWINGS POSTS #139

Do you really believe that the universe and all its regulating laws came together ON ITS OWN? What did it come from?

The reason why there is no way the universe came into existence upon its own comes from the principle that the greater cannot come from the less; rather the less must always come from the greater..the Greater in this case is Almighty God. On this St. Thomas Aquinas wrote the proof is from motion. Everything that is moved is moved by something else. But no series of movers and things moved can explain anything unless there is a First Mover which moves everything else but is not "Himself" moved becasue He is the Source of all movement.

So, when we were told the universe began with the expansion of a primeval atom, we must then ask, what made it expand? If we ascribe this movement to an earlier movement, we must ask the same question about the earlier movement, until we come to a Prime Mover, not Himself moved---the one true God.

This brings us back to causality. One thing is caused by another, but for the same reason as above, there cannot be an infinite chain of causes unless there is a First Cause which does not need to be caused because He always was, is and ever will be.  

What follows the word "then" is not rational. I say the universe is obviously created and that what is created supposes a Creator who is uncreated, or the problem goes on forever, the whole endless chain of dependent things is not able to explain itself as each of it links. It is rational to argue, however, to an uncreated watchmaker. It is not rational to ask who created this uncreated watchmaker. 

God was not created. If He were He would be a creature and would have a creator. His creator would then be God and not He Himself. God never began and will never cease to be...God is Eternal.  There was never a time when He did not exist. If there had been, then neither He nor anything else would ever come into existence since there would have been nothing to create anything. Likewise, God will always exist. 

God is the One Being Who could not possibly not exist. He is Infinite and explanation of all else. And there is no need to be troubled by this as we humans are constantly learning and don't know all the answers to our existence at least on this side of Heaven.

triple post! 

Kyoto doesn't say their pollution is acceptable.  It says that it is unacceptable, but that China would be allowed an extra few years as a grace period to fix it because its economy was crap, it doesn't have easy access to new technology like first world countries, and shutting down their only power plants and factories would probably have caused the nation to fall apart.  The U.S., on the other hand, has (or at least had) plenty of money, easy access to technology, and one of the best infrastructures in place for upgrading their factories.  The U.S. didn't want to, because it would cut into short-term profits, but that's not the same thing as risking the collapse of your national infrastructure as is the case with third world and still-developing countries.

The Kyoto agreement was basically an agreement that global warming is a global problem, and that the nations with all the power, money, and technology, were going to have to be the ones driving the change, and poorer nations would be brought in later.

As I said, it's fine if you disagree with that, but it has nothing to do with the scientific fact of global warming.

Yes, of course.  Because if Kyoto had included demands that would have destroyed developing nations and left hundreds of thousands of people in poverty like you seem to want, it never would have been approved by most countries.

And that alone is enough for you to believe that every science institute in every nation in the entire world is involved in a massive conspiracy controlled by the Chinese?  Seriously?  You are willing to ignore all of the data, and the opinion of every accredited organization in the world, because things get slightly cooler some times?  The graph goes up and down; it doesn't have to go straight up to show a warming trend; it just has to be constantly trending upwards.  2008 was cooler than 2007, but that doesn't change the fact that the 10 hottest years that have been recorded since decent record-keeping came about in the 1880's have ALL happened in the last 12 years.  It's getting hotter.  All the data is showing that.  A slightly cooler summer one year doesn't mean it's suddenly reversed itself.  And besides... didn't you JUST SAY that you agreed that global warming was real, and now you're claiming that it's not?  I thought your only disagreement was that you think we're not responsible.  Now you ARE saying that you think it's not even really happening?

Well, you apparently didn't know that it's been getting hotter over the last fifty years, which is sort of step one.  I'd tend towards saying you're willfully ignorant because you don't seem to want to read any science from actual scientific pages.  How about:

Joint National Academies of Science: http://dels.nas.edu/climatechange/

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

American Association for the Advancement of Science: http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/top%20issues/climate%26energy_index.shtml

IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/

EPA: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html

Or, seriously, any actual accredited scientific body that is peer-reviewed and has published in actual scientific journals.

Instead, you're getting all your info by (apparently) googling "global warming hoax" and parroting the first thing you read.  It's important to remember that the internet is a crazy place, where anyone can make a web page on anything they want.  Half of what isn't porn is lies.  You can't blindly trust information on a random page just because it sounds nice.  This goes doubly for right-wing anti-science propaganda sites.

Why not read NASA's own reasoning for the warming on Mars, since they're the ones who discovered it, and the only ones who have actually researched it?

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html

Here you go, straight from Stanford's solar research group: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png

Or you could read about NASA's study: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/

How about the World Radiation Center saying that solar radiation hasn't increased noticably at all since 1978, yet we've had the fastest increase in temperature ever in these last years: http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

The Max Planck institute has tried to get records going even further back, to 1940, and even then, they show there has been no increase in solar radiation, yet a huge increase in temperature: http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/

What more do you want?

I'm having a difficult time posting tonight...I can't get past page 8 and post #180 if I open by the Forums and My Replies.

I keep getting that the website wants to run an add on, and that I should click on it....

I'm also unable to edit or delete comments #188 and 189.

At least it has a name.

Why does the first mover have to be a Democratic blob of nothingness?

I'm not exactly seeing solid arguments around here.

How about this:

• Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
• The universe has a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause.
• God does not have a beginning, therefore god does not need a cause.

^^^  Not necessarily true.  But it's just stating a premise, so as far as logic goes, it's fine.

^^^ Would be true if the first one is true, so this line is ok.

^^^ Doesn't work for two reasons.  First the logic problem:  "All A are B" does not imply "All not A are all not B"  In other words, "Everything that is a bird must have wings" does not imply "Bats aren't birds, so bats don't need to have wings".

The second issue is that "God does not have a beginning" isn't necessarily true, especially since it's allegedly impossible to know anything at all about God.  I'd maybe say this is its own internal contradiction; "It's impossible to know with certainty anything about God" and "We know with certainty that God didn't have a beginning".