[quote name='pittpizza']I highlighted your failing elprincipe. That's where you're wrong: they're not MY claims, they're the claims of an international concensus of experts (climatologists, geologists, ecologists, oceanographers, meteorologists, etc...) the world over. Moreover, these are not people employed or funded by entitities with any interest in it. The facts are as undeniable as "tobacco is bad for you."[/quote]
It's not a failing at all. Global warming ("climate change" now, is it?) is not a scientific fact, and there is room for disagreement and criticism. In fact, disagreement and criticism is what science is all about. However, the most zealous promoters of this theory are also those who wish to cut off any debate or criticism because they "know" they are right and anyone who disagrees, as I said, is wrong/evil/ignorant/stupid/selfish/etc. You fail on this one because you refuse to respect any criticism or dissent on the issue at all, immediately trying to discredit it through fallacious debating techniques.
[quote name='pittpizza']The problem is that politics in America has become so divisive, many here seem to feel that acknowledging what they see with their own eyes, feel with their own skin, and hear with their own ears (Migratory birds stayin north in winter!?) would be "admitting defeat" or caving in to the other side. It's a shame really.
It's sad that it has become a political issue, when really it is a human issue. So elprincipe, I challenge you to leave the politics out of it, use your own common sense, listen to those who know a lot more about it than you and I, listen to the rest of the world and international consensus as evinced by int'l treaties like the Kyoto Protocol and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's findings. Pay attention to the storms worsening, the oceans rising, the deserts spreading, the rivers drying up, the barrier reef bleaching, the ocean's warming, and perhaps most importantly: the raw data.
Then you'll see that they are not "MY" claims but the claims of mother earth and the international community of humans it houses.[/QUOTE]
You are arguing semantics. Your claims or whoever's claims, same thing -- though "Mother Earth" is not a person or entity capable of thought and, shocking though it may be, there is actual disagreement among the billions of humans on Earth.
I will agree with you on leaving politics out of it. Unfortunately, both sides seem to politicize this issue, I can only assume for scoring political points and money. You should accept, however, that I have no monetary or political advantage to reap here, so please refrain from calling me dishonest because I disagree with you.
You list many different things that are happening in some places in the world. News flash for you: things are always happening in the world. Storms vary, deserts spread and shrink, rivers dry up or flood, oceans warm or cool, and a billion other things. Tell us something we don't know. That these things are happening does not prove that global warming is caused by humans or even that humans contribute to it. I don't know why you think you can divine the root cause of something by pointing to the results.
And if you feel the Kyoto Protocol was an international consensus I don't know what to tell you. It wasn't. Not even close. And if you actually support its implementation I also don't know what to tell you, since it would have negligible effect on greenhouse gases due to the exemption of developing countrires (China and India most importantly). Kyoto would have been an idiotic thing to implement, which is why Bill Cilnton never sent it to Congress for ratification and why the Senate voted unanimously to never approve such a document if it didn't apply to developing countries. Kyoto was a horrible treaty negotiated in part by Al Gore (had to tie it back in of course) that should be opposed by people who take global warming as gospel truth and those who are skeptical since it would cause massive economic harm to developed countries while having little to no effect on greenhouse gases.
ing man.
