Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

[Martin Blank]

Be careful of your statements about Christians, Hagis. We do have some rather devout members here, and calling them Ignorant Masses within your first few posts will not go over well.

[DontEatRawHagis]

Its just for lack of a better example Ill try and do another one that doesnt offend.

A report says that michal Jackson is a fake and that the Original was found in a prison cell in his basement people will still believe that the White one is the real one even though the one in the basement is the real one

On A side note I apoligize to all those Evangelicals and Fundementalists and Michael Jackson loves who I offend in my posts, I like religious debate(meaning where there is actual talking not two people yelling at each other) but if a theoretical example is going to come between us I rather that we just forget the whole thing.

[mikehendo]

[quote="DontEatRawHagis";p="717886"]A report says that michal Jackson is a fake and that the Original was found in a prison cell in his basement people will still believe that the White one is the real one even though the one in the basement is the real one[/quote]A report? You may want to not "dumb down" your logic for us poor ignorant folks..

[DontEatRawHagis]

If some one wants to be politically correct they might as well start insulting the nearest person to them.

[Martin Blank]

It's not that we're looking for political correctness, Hagis. However, until you've established yourself a little better, it's best not to antagonize a significant portion of the vets, especially in SPPACE. While we do debate a wide variety of topics, we try to keep things civil and academic to some degree. This means not discussing others' religion in a demeaning way, and not oversimplifying things as you just did. Just try to consider your words more carefully.

[Blaze]

I don't THINK too many of we Christians would take offens to Hagis' post, because he said he COULD show evidence, like, if it existed. Not that it does. And hopefully he won't make that claim, because I can show a lot of counter evidence, and I just don't want to get into that argument.

And he's right. Many people do harbor that kind of faith. Not what I call BLIND faith, which is faith without proof. But rather some people harbor faith in the FACE of truth, in denial of it. That's usually highly unhealthy, though occasionally facts are reversed.

I mean, nobody would say that those who believed in a flat earth for years were dumb or ignored the facts. I mean, that was what EVERYBODY thought. So, now nobody is going call somebody dumb for believing in global warming. The facts more and more seem to be pointing in that direction. However, nobody should think somebody dumb for NOT believing in the current theory of global warming either. Unfortunately, it looks like they are.

[JudgeMental]

Yes Hagis, so far you've been pretty good for a newbie (at least you're legible...) but be careful about your references. I am a Christian, and while I don't find your example offensive, I find it amusing. Be careful about making such statements, even as asides, as you will be called out. If not by another, then by myself.

Also, your view of the middle ages is rather simplistic. I'm not a huge history buff, but I've done some checking into the history of the church, and the relationships you were talking about (flat earth vs. round earth) are much more complicated than you imply. You may already be aware of that, but I don't want to assume you are

Anyway, I'm still riding the fence with global warming. If it wasn't such a hotbutton issue, I might be able to balance it out, but in everything I've ready there's too much ambiguity. Trends can be recorded, but I'm doubtful of all the connections claimed. I dunno. The whole deal annoys me.

[DontEatRawHagis]

Ill just say Im sorry for the comments on people's religion and my side comments that I say that I mean not to offend.

[Blaze]

Well, like I said, I think you were just using it as an example, even if it is something you believe. So meh. Good on you for finding a quality example.

[Sophira]

Back on topic, the point was missed entirely.

Quite a number of people who argue that humankind's effect on global warming is minimal do not do so out of a stupid, childish desire to keep doing things that are bad for the environment. They do so because the evidence that our contribution is causing the majority of what we're seeing in climate changes is clouded by politics and skewed data.

(The same could be said for the other side, mind you.)

Those misguided folks who dismiss an idea because of the effect it would have on their lives really shouldn't enter the equation at all, because there are reasonable minds driving both sides of the argument.

[Deacon]

THANK YOU. You said that so well.

[Bigity]

[quote="DontEatRawHagis";p="717886"]Its just for lack of a better example Ill try and do another one that doesnt offend.

A report says that michal Jackson is a fake and that the Original was found in a prison cell in his basement people will still believe that the White one is the real one even though the one in the basement is the real one

On A side note I apoligize to all those Evangelicals and Fundementalists and Michael Jackson loves who I offend in my posts, I like religious debate(meaning where there is actual talking not two people yelling at each other) but if a theoretical example is going to come between us I rather that we just forget the whole thing.[/quote]

No, actually I could quite quickly accept that the current MJ is an imposter.

[StruckingFuggle]

So could I.

[DontEatRawHagis]

"Which one is the real one?" LMFAO

[LQDMTL]

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="718367"]So could I.[/quote]
Props on the robot chicken link. I was gonna do it until I scrolled down and saw your post.

My problem with statistics and "proof" on global warming, from either side of the argument, is that the data collection they're basing everything off of is rather young compared to the age of the world. It's easy to say, "this is the hottest year on record" when we only have data for less than 2/3 of one century. How do we really know that this isn't a natural cycle that isn't just repeating itself from say, 1814? We can't say that, either way, difinitively. So in my mind, a lot of this is just speculation.

And while I can agree that erring on the side of caution is more beneficial than a 'wait and see' attitude, going overboard with it to the point that you make like exceedingly difficult and put people off of the idea is a very bad thing. The backlash could be worse than the effects we humans are having right now that you're trying to change.

There are many more reasons for getting the US off of oil and onto alternative fuels (one of the big, big, big pushes of many global warming groups) than just global warming. National economy, is one. Cheaper transportation costs in the long run is another. The list goes on.