Comments on: Deadly Ice Storm Glazes Midsection Of U.S.

Storm Snaps Power Lines, Closes Schools In Midwest; 23 Deaths Blamed On Weather

[aaabee-2009]

Posted by hawksprings at 03:33 PM : Dec 11, 2007

Excellent post, I applaud you and am reading your links as you request.

One question: Why do you feel anti-global warming sites carry more weight factually than global warming sites? What made you decide that New Zealands anti-GW site has more merit than the IPCC?

Facts are facts, it is the interpretation of those facts, and those who interpret them, we are debating.

That does not make me a sheep. I, like you, am presented with points of view from persons who claim expertice in fields of study that I cannot so claim. It is by their presenting of evidence that I must make a personal decision. If evidence presents itself more on one side than another, my world view has and can adjust to assimulate truth, even when it hurts. And when it doesn''t. But to err on the side of safety seems to me, the better course.....

The Union of Concerned Scientists report, Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco''s Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change.

Any of your loved ones died of effects of cigarette smoking?

Does anyone want a list of global warming sites that interpret the facts differently than Hawksprings set?

[missingamerica]

hawksprings -

Just for the sake of argument, assume all of the scientists - the vast majority of the world''s scientists - who believe that humans are causing or increasing global warming are wrong.

What is it going to hurt to play it safe for the sake of our descendants?

Your profits?

They are more important than the world''s children?

You drive your kids around without a car seat because you KNOW you''ll never cause an accident?

[andor3]

"If all you Human-Caused Global Warming Sheep dare to read these articles..."

I did. Don''t think you really wanted anyone to since the URLs are fractured and not usable without some work. Didn''t find anything convincing or even eyebrow raising. We got a scientist with no affiliation or credentials listed, a paper with author funding ties to Exxon, a random blogpost where the blog clearly has an agenda...

Is is just supply and demand. A demand has been created for scientists who will oppose the consensus and research on global warming. The demand is paired with funding. Not surprisingly a supply of these critters arises. It does not change the majority consensus or the truth.

There is also a demand for the truth, and that has produced quite a different supply.

[hawksprings]

Here''s an article explaining that Carbon Emissions Don''t Cause Global Warming
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf

Here''s an article stating: Climate Warming Is Naturally Caused And Shows No Human Influence.
http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html

Here''s an article about a prominent scientist reversing his views on Global Warming after looking at the latest research:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12

Here''s an article by scientists calling for a review of the UN''s IPCC''s and it''s procedures:
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1


If all you Human-Caused Global Warming Sheep dare to read these articles, there''s plenty more where they came from.
Your Consensus is Melting, Melting, MELTING!!!!!

[aaabee-2009]

That''''s because liberals do not deal with facts,
liberals deal with emotions. Posted by skykk at 02:04 PM : Dec 11, 2007

Wow, this was a clearly unemotional fact-driven post itself.

[aaabee-2009]

What kind of fool would ever reference Al Gore as a visionary and leader. He''''s a fraud.

http://www.snopes.com/politics
/bush/house.asp

Check it out.
Posted by trey2166 at 02:57 PM : Dec 11, 2007

And while you are there, read the one on Bush. It is far better and has more green dots than Al''s red dots. :)

[aaabee-2009]

Posted by skykk at 02:07 PM : Dec 11, 2007

Don''t get it, sorry. Mine was just kidding around anyway.

[trey2166]

What kind of fool would ever reference Al Gore as a visionary and leader. He''s a fraud.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

Check it out.

[andor3]

"Liberals can`t handle the truth. "

Oh yeah and name calling. When you are REALLY backed in a corner and got no facts on your side, you can always call someone a name like liberal-- has zero relevance to the science or the discussion, but an ad hominem attack is the classic way to admit defeat in a debate without waving a white flag.

[andor3]

Time to start just ignoring these climate-change denyers.

The pattern seems to be--a vague assertion of "scientists" and "research" that cast doubt on the accepted theories. Several people respond asking for facts, names, references, qualifications--anything to back up the story.

Then, as likeitis5050 says: "Tah tah..."

Probably suddenly remembered she left her SUV double-parked with the engine running.