Nations Wiped off the Earth by 2000 by Sea Levels - Failed

No Snow in the UK - Failed

More Hurricanes in the US - Failed

Complete Arctic Ice Melt - Failed

Global Temperature will go up .2C a year - Failed

CO2 up, Warmer Wetter Winters - Failed

Goodbye Winter - Failed

It's quite fascinating, actually.

not really

In so called "third world country's" there are many dumb traditions. The same can be said for first and second world countries.

It is fascinating, that word doesn't imply it's a positive. Serial killers are fascinating, doesn't mean I like them.

And thanks for posting that procon.org article, I'm enjoying reading it.

a. That's a lot of information to digest; as stated, I will look at what is presented.

b. From what I've read, overpopulation is another theory that is a significant matter of opinion.

c. What is a scientific family? All test-tube babies or???

Nice

So does a science denier also qualify as one who engages in cognitive dissonance and ignores years of contradicting scientific evidence?

You are right. The problem is that global warming itself ha not been established. No one is arguing we don't have an impact. That is like saying cheese has no impact on the taste of the pizza. Which is why I am confused by how you missed the point of the argument.



Yes everyone who does not see things the way you do does not follow science. You better tell these people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sci..._global_warming





I am excited to hear more about the cultures of third world countries from an expert such as yourself. I am not saying I disagree, but lets stop pretending to be "scientists".



I think Merriam Webster disagrees with you:


fascinating
adjective

: very interesting or appealing

Synonyms
alluring, appealing, attractive, bewitching, captivating, charismatic, charming, elfin, enchanting, engaging, entrancing, fetching, glamorous (also glamourous), luring, magnetic, seductive

Antonyms
repellent (also repellant), repelling, repugnant, repulsive, revolting, unalluring

This is too easy: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/...-Global-Warming

So much negativity here! lol

I don't need to explain my family background, but I will say that I am closely related to many scientists - physicist, astro-physicist, biologist, pharmaceutical researcher, etc. All published, all current or retired professors in their respective fields. My beloved grandpa spent 30+ years traveling the globe (most of it to 3rd world countries) and I was lucky enough to learn from him about all different cultures, etc. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, I was simply taught to think for myself and analyze all sides of an issue.

Yes, I've read plenty of dissenting opinions on global warming but the fact of the matter is, the sheer numbers of the argument do not support that side.

I also like how when I state my opinion, I am called out on not being an expert or a scientist. Funny stuff.

On a side note, I am not offended by anything and I like having friendly debates.

From my continued reading, that is one of the reasons why there are such strong feelings that GW/CC isn't scientific fact. Many articles I've read stated that much of the 9X% (as you quoted) who believe it, relied upon the work of the initial science that established it, and that as more time and work went into it, it was accepted as truth before it was fully borne out.

Oh, and my great-great uncle once caddied for Steven Hawking's dad's left-handed financial advisor after he slept at a Holiday Inn, so keep that in mind, thanks.

No doubt. Yeah I listened to some global warming Zealot at DNC fundraiser and that makes me an expect of anyone who disagrees with my opinion.

Aggs what is the global warming end game? I posted an expose on this last year. It has nothing to do with global warming. It has to do with regulating things by the government. It is a manufactured problem. Since you are so open minded and intellectually superior to the rest of us, consider the source of the information. Most of these studies are being done by the UN. What on Earth is UN doing paying for these studies (sometimes corruptly which has been exposed)?

Perhaps then, it is the way you present your opinion. You label those who disagree with you as "science-deniers" as if the opinions you hold are scientific fact and opposition is non-science and therefore wrong.

The fact that more people think a certain thing does not make it right. Facts are facts whether people accept them or not. And scientific fact is based on observable, repeatable analysis and not on tendencies or a 50% plus 1 agreement with theory. It is also critical (if not paramount in today's world) to consider by whom scientific research is funded, along with the economic results of those scientific findings. Particularly the economic results for those doing the research.

I realize that all of this debate is merely words on a screen, therefore tone, attitude and all of the other non-verbal parts of communication are lost. That is why I want to be clear that I am not trying to attack you or assume anything about you, just assessing how your words come across.

And thankfully, nobody has used the informative argument "epic fail".

'

Seriously, dude? That's what you're getting out of my posts?

My opinion/argument is based on the current state of available data. Most (vast majority) of it points to opinion A. Very small minority points to opinion B. This doesn't mean opinion B is not valid or that it's put forth by uneducated people, but the logical conclusion would be that the evidence backs opinion A. Science backs opinion A. Therefore, the people who are arguing for opinion B, are denying the majority of scientific research. Hence the term "science deniers". I used it as a joke, all of you are acting as if I insulted your mothers.

Either way, you all say you can debate, but your posts to me are "veiled" insults, to use someone else's term.

We'll just agree to disagree. You are not going to change my opinion, I won't change yours.

What's your opinion of GMOs?

Most (vast majority) of it points to opinion A. Very small minority points to opinion B. This doesn't mean opinion B is not valid or that it's put forth by uneducated people, but the logical conclusion would be that the evidence backs opinion A. Science backs opinion A.

http://www.askmen.com/top_10/entertainment/top-10-disproven-theories_7.html


perhaps b was correct in these instances?

or these?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

edAudit, I agree with you on that. I said this above:



And I don't know what GMO has to do with anything, but I don't believe in the anti-GMO propaganda at all. Science has found no evidence to back those claims. I'll continue to eat my seedless cucumbers, thank you.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php

here you go.


I am sure that you can find an opposing peer review.

Aggs I thought that you had been around long enough to know better than to try to state an opinion that in some way does not agree with this gang. Do you not know that there is only one correct point of view on each and every subject and that they have experts on virtually any topic you can imagine. They can post endless articles to prove that they are correct and you are not only wrong but also stupid? They will wear you down until you finally just get tired and stop posting at which point they will celebrate their victory and virtually high five one another. You are now on their radar and they will stalk each and every post you make in here so that they can try to bait you into another "debate" and keep referencing their "victory" in this thread for years to come. Maybe that was your goal all along - if so, great Job!

Did BOL get some new posters who do that?

That's good. Most who promote the AGW line of thinking are also big on the anti-GMO hysteria as well. Also those who claim gender is not a purely biological construct. Glad you're at least consistent.

Does peeing in Wheaties cause bad moods?

I'm no scientist, but I need to know whether you're asking from the perspective of the preparer or consumer. 'Cuz it'd affect my answer.

LOL! I am from a long family of Wheaties eaters, shoot my great uncle was on the box once. We have always been open to eating them with different topping. Not sure that makes me an expert, but we were always taught to be open minded, LOL if we tried it once, we might like it, not sure it would change our moods.

My IQ consistently tests at 146 or 147, thereby riveling the IQs of many of the scientists you were in the company of during your youth. My IQ tells me global warming is a bogus political football. My IQ also tells me that anyone who does not have an agenda likely also doesn't possess a pulse.