> article has a quote from the environmental advisor from Bush,
strange, that same advisor who I have provided quotes from was the very advisor against the US signing the Kyoto protocol, which was Bush's first stance.
they have flip-flopped, that's why I say they are not credible. Not consistent.
> New Scientist articles are very reliable, but
Uh, no they aren't. I went and spoke with the people at NewScience.com before I posted what I said. I didn't make that up. In fact, you can even go to their site and find it in writing.
> If global warming were false as you claim, the New Scientist, Scientific American, Nature, et all, would all reflect it,
Again, you are wrong. They choose what gets published because they want subscriptions. I got news for you-- the majority of science agrees that "global warming as a man-made problem" does not exist. Again, I tell you to go look at the actual science-- hard facts, graphs, and historical proofs that exist-- but you refuse to. Your information is based solely on faulty computer modelling of weather patterns. Nothing more.
That simple fact remains that 80% of the earth is covered in water-- and it is the ocean which has the greatest impact on our climate. Every living plant absorbs CO2 and issues oxygen, whether it is above or under the water.
> My lectures who are proffessors of environmental chemistry lectured to us about it,
So you are a dewey-eyed college boy mislead by liberal educators brainwashed by their own arguments. You forget that college is not so much a place of teaching anymore, as it is a way to brainwash people to a certain school of thought. Seems to be working on you.
> Of course if you go digging you will naturally find some scientists
Again, it wouldn't matter if I could only find 1 scientist that didn't believe in man-made global warming. As long as they follow accurate scientific principal and provide truthful non-biased data, they would be correct.
Your argument is essentially this: I (Clyde) believe all the people telling me that 2 + 2 = 5. I choose not to actually work the math out for myself and when someone else tells me 2 + 2 = 4.
Go ahead Clyde, keep opening your mouth-- your IQ drops by the word.
And by the way for you nit-pickers-- the key word here is "man made global warming". I don't dispute that the world might be warming a little-- Science disputes that man is the reason. Fact is solar flares caused the earth to be warmer than it is now, back in the 13th century. This is a natural cycle, nothing more.
Oh, I love science. Irrefutable fact. Unlike your sources which I quote:
"...the data [scientific fact] don't matter". Those very words were spoken by Chris Folland of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office at a meeting of climatologists in Asheville, North Carolina, on August 13, 1991. Shortly after that Folland added:
"Besides, we're not basing our recommendations [for immediate
reductions in CO2 emissions] upon the data [hard scientific fact]; we're basing them upon the [inaccurate] climate models [our computer programmers have created]."
Clyde, perhaps you should look the definition of "science" and "scientific process" up-- it might help you to understand what science is really all about.
Ooops, I just tore your left nut off-- going for the right if you keep this up...