Words from an Atheist

How about purple?

Or green?

[nkb]

Well, I have to agree with Choobus, it is kind of annoying. The bolding doesn't help either. It makes it more of a strain to read.

But, whatever floats your boat (he says to the Navy man).

Or white?

nkb wrote

Well, I have to agree with Choobus, it is kind of annoying. The bolding doesn't help either. It makes it more of a strain to read.

But, whatever floats your boat (he says to the Navy man).

OK OK, I'll use normal color only cause it makes nkb strain his eyes!

[nkb]

Hey, I am getting old (bit not as old as Lily, thank Thor).

[Rhinoqulous]

Liberated1 wrote

Ok, here is the most comprehensive list of resources I've found on why man-made global warming is not man made. I’ve yet to read all of the resources, but you can decide for yourself. I apologize if you get lost in the plethora of reading material!


http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_T...showtopic=2050


*Warning- side affects for reading this much information will either make you wiser or make your head explode. In either case, make sure to read the material in an isolated location to reduce casualties.

Liberated, even though you don't believe in man-caused global warming, do you agree we should scale back green-house gas emissions in an attempt to curb its effects?

[nkb]

Liberated,
Another GW question: What is the motivation of all the climate experts to blame humans for GW? Are they all just mistaken, or is there a hidden agenda?

Rhinoqulous wrote

Liberated, even though you don't believe in man-caused global warming, do you agree we should scale back green-house gas emissions in an attempt to curb its effects?

I believe conservation is good for mankind, but seeing as how about 95% of all greenhouse gasses is wator vapor I can't imagine mankind impacting the earth too much. So I think we should balance the effects of scaling back man-made greenhouse gas emissions against global economy impacts.

[dogpet]

Liberated1 wrote

Or white?

Much better.

nkb wrote

Liberated,
Another GW question: What is the motivation of all the climate experts to blame humans for GW? Are they all just mistaken, or is there a hidden agenda?

Government funding for scientific research and publicity for more funding.

[nkb]

Liberated1 wrote

Government funding for scientific research and publicity for more funding.

I've heard that reason before, and I'm just not buying it. Based on this reasoning, all scientific research is now suspect, because they might be fudging the numbers just to keep their research going.

There are just too many different organizations, of all different types, to make this huge conspiracy feasible.

I don't have a problem with accepting that the majority of climate experts are wrong about their analyses (if that turns out to be the case), but dismissing that many scientists as dishonest just won't fly.

[Choobus]

nkb wrote

I don't have a problem with accepting that the majority of climate experts are wrong about their analyses (if that turns out to be the case), but dismissing that many scientists as dishonest just won't fly.

People who believe this kind of bullshit are usually completely ignorant of how science is actually done. The idea of getting a group of scientists to agree to a phony agenda for any reason is as unlikely as getting a bunch of atheists to suck the popes cock in exchange for a free ticket to heaven.

[Rhinoqulous]

You're just saying that Choob so they don't take away your tinfoil and lasers.

[Erik]

Liberated,

Here is an article addressing the water vapor claim: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ck-or-forcing/

The issue, as I understand it, is that not all greenhouse gases are equal, and that water vapor is not thought to be a driver of warming effects; an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere may itself be an effect from other warming causes.