damaged people dot com

... but the cause is definately global warming.

Wow, what an illuminating article, and from the literary equivalent of Fox News no less. Tell you what, when it comes to matters of science, I'll take conflicting scientists over William F. Buckley anyday. Call me crazy but somehow I put more creedence in people whose field actively encourages revision of thought over the Skull N'Boner who hobnobs with oil tycoons at the "gentlemen's club." Jesus, as if anyone who matters actually reads the staid old piece of cageliner.

yeah, go ahead and attack the messenger. The quotes were from "scientists". It also appears these two genii didn't make it through peer review and sadly they're not alone.

My point was that the entire debate is completely without scientific riggor and should be ignored until some shows up.

Then again, maybe it already has

article reposted by the current Decomatrically led senate who would probably be deeply offended if they were compared to FOX News

Tell you what I.P., if I do something and nothing happens, then what do I have to show for it? Cleaner air, renewable, cheaper energy sources, and a reinvigorated economy from new innovations and research. And if we go your way and you're wrong? Tell you what, I'm not going to gamble on your do-nothing opinion.

If only half the scientists believe global warming is an issue, then half do. And if all the democrats in the world saddle up against global warming (and get it through your skull that I hate 99% of them just a smidge less than republicans), I'll still be advocating revision.

BTW its not killing the messenger when you come around spouting conservative dogma in a forum that is predominantly liberal. Its fucking cause and effect. You want us to all gather 'round your bullshit and admire the scent, you need therapy. Somehow you think liberals are uninformed lemmings who just get in line behind Al Gore or Jon Stewart or whomever. It's your mistake -- just don't be surprised when we fail to get in line behind spurious data from National Review or whatever such crap you drag in here.

And for the last time, science is designed to be in conflict because it recognizes nothing as fact. It revises and tests all data until something reasonably likely to be called a fact emerges. But nothing is 100% including such staples as gravity, sub-atomic theory and evolution (note that science deems them 99.9).

Given that the right wing consistently tries to skew and manipulate science for its own commercial ends, who do you think a reasonable person would trust?

PS: The article itself was posted to the site by the [s]Esteemed[/s] Retarded Oklahoma Senator Inhofe's lacky Matt Dempsey. Meaning that it does not exist with the endorsement of a majority of Democrats. Rather its more conservative claptrap bullshit. You'll excuse me if I tell you that its stinks of bullshit.

Huh? Conservative dogma?

Ok, I too bring up issues of politics, but I'm afraid I wasn't even close to thinking politics on this one, rather the sad state of the modern American scientific comunity. You may have to trust me on this one, but I spend a hell of a lot more time worring about where our scientists are going as that where our politicians are as I am one.

My methodologies are quite old school. I truely believe that assertions should be kept in notebooks and journals, sometimes discussed with peers, but NEVER published. Most of the study I've seen on global warming has not been properly formalised so it remains assertion, not hypothesis. Even if you ignore my strict definition between assertion and hypothesis, to graduate to theory, logical assesments and studies must be made AND APPROVED at peer review.

Our current scientists are ignoring this process as can be seen in all these selatious headlines that are actually assertions, NOT theories. Worse, this mentality is pervasive in the scientific community.

As for my own stance on global warming? If I believe my own bs, I can't make one yet. I do, however, commute 5 minutes down the stairs to my office, my electricity is hydro generated and when I do go to Seattle on business, I drive a vehicle that gets 35 miles to the gallon. I also recycle, compost, treat my lawn with all natural fertalisers, capture large amounts of rain water to reduce the amount of water on my lawn and NEVER fire up the wood burning fireplace.

There are excelent reasons for doing all of these things, I just can't yet say it's global warming.

Your views were never clarified, except that you've twice presented articles from conservative sources indicting the accuracy of scientists urging response to global warming. If you don't want fleas, don't lay down with dogs.

Does global warming, as we understand it, exist? I like hedging my bets. Especially when something as important as our existence is on the line. It isn't saving the world - its saving our own asses. That's a viewpoint I would imagine conservatives especially should be able to appreciate.