There is little reason not to believe in climate change. But there is plenty of reason to be skeptical about statements such as the one above reading "climate inaction may cost billions" which suggests man can actually do something about climate change.

Peeing in the pool surely raises the pool water temperature, but the impact of a few ouncs of pee is simply dwarfed by the impact of the huge 2 million BTU gas heater (the sun) running in the shed. Scientists are telling us me must stop peeing in the pool before it becomes a hot tub, yet they don't understand what is running in the shed or how it affect the pool temperature. Now we all would prefer nobody to pee in the pool but to believe we are controlling the pool temperature with our pee is ludicrous.
The Crusher, 2011-11-01 10:53:26

LOL Neil, the planet is doomed what next Nibaru the X planet is going to hit us. No no no the Mayan calender ends in 2012 so this climate change is just a sign of things to come. You really have to admire those that have it all wrong, they seem so obsessed and preoccupied they have little clue the world is really not listening anymore.
ilikesoup, 2011-11-01 03:36:34

The reason that I "cut and Paste", then give credit to where I got it is, unlike what I hear from my some esteemed counterparts on this forum, not all I post is formed through opining in my head. It is through diligent and thoughtful research on both sides of the issue. So, for the sake of argument, a definition of debate -

: a contention by words or arguments: as

a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure

b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two sides (Merriam Webster, so you don't have to take my word for it.)

Now, quoting hmminvisiblecola - "neil has the audacity to come onto a forum which he believes to be explicitly right wing and proceeds to call anyone right wing foolish shortsighted etc to what end? people like neil bother me because they have no interest in debating and certainly do not want to have a middle ground. they believe things are black and white, there are no grey areas." BTW - the "shift" button is the one on the left with the arrow printed on it, it makes the letters big...

I have debated your arguments and submitted my own. Read what you said and disagreed with it, and presented evidence to support my side of the argument...or debate. I have never called you or anyone else here "foolish", you have implied that.

And the people who thought the world was flat were considered... conservative. Those who thought the world spheroid were progressive.

And no, you would have thought the world flat, because you would be the last one to look at the scientific evidence presented at the time and accept it as fact.

Y'know, I was getting bored with coming here, with the lack of intelligent debate from you, hmminvisiblecola. Instead, maybe I'll stick around... not because you'll ever come over to my way of thinking...

But maybe someone will begin to see that your style of posting does nothing to bring anyone over to your side.
Neil McClung, 2011-10-28 15:33:40

Lets put it in a slightly different perspective. Our scientist are well versed in the human body. They have studied it for years, can poke and prod, test, examine touch and feel. But if I ask a simple question...what causes cancer?....I get a blank stare. Oh, it's not because they don't know what cancer is. It, in its many forms, has been studies for decades. And they also know what the prognosis is for all the various types. But as to the causes, well, what you would get is a list of "causes" from those that they are "very sure on" like smoking and lung cancer, to those they are somewhat sure on to those they are slightly concerned about. And all these factors or "causes" have their own weights or levels of influence. So, inspite of being well versed on human physiology and have an abundance of historical data and ongoing test studies, they are constantly revising the "list" of carcenegens. They readily acknowledge that they still do not fully understand the causes of cancer.

But somehow, the scientists tell us they fully understand the causes of global warming and are "sure" it is mankinds fault. This in spite of the fact that scientists don't even know how the sun, the orimary source of heat on this planet, works. Theyt can speculate on how the sun burns, what is the internal energy source, and so on, but when it comes to planet earth, the specualtion ends. Why is that?

Secondly - I not only understand the issues, I have ample intelligence to determine a solution.

Neil McClung, 2011-10-23 21:35:35

The Crusher, 2011-10-25 12:16:11

Neil, YOU may have said "if", but the scientisist did not. We have been bombarded, off and on, about the risks of cellphone usage for the last decade.
The Crusher, 2011-10-24 10:24:18

hmminvisiblecola - You're not pushing an agenda? I believe you're repeating the "talking points" that have been pushed by the right for the past decade... almost word for word, as have most of the others on this conservative echo-chamber. I have read what you've written, disagreed and responded with facts in response. I have never said I had all the answers - you have.

Look - what you all fail to understand is that the last thing anyone wants (including myself) is to admit to is that our actions are seriously damaging the planet we live on. I'd love to be able to be as wasteful and negligent as my parents were and some of my contemporaries are. It would not only be easier, I could rationalize many things that can't be rationalized now. Unfortunately, through research of both sides of the argument, I can't find anything from your side that convinces me that we're not a large part of what is happening... and what is happening will affect every single living thing on this planet.

Secondly - I not only understand the issues, I have ample intelligence to determine a solution.

You have not asked for one - if you did, you'd be admitting to the problem.

I haven't stooped to questioning your intelligence. I have disagreed with you. That's what happens in a debate over diverging ideologies.
Neil McClung, 2011-10-23 21:35:35

Jay from Ottawa - you are, of course, right. We need to stop denying that we are raping the planet and the atmosphere above it and get on with the business of finding ways to balance our needs with the limitations of our ecosystem.

Not continue to be more concerned with our pocketbooks than our survival.

Oh, hmminvisiblecola... you know not what you speak. Your arguments hold as much water as a colander, and when disagreed with you resort to name calling and character assassination. If you want my qualifications, I will gratefully give them to you. Do not assume.

Could you stick to the subject and stop wasting pixels on playground tactics?

Crusher - I believe I used the word "If". I was working with a hypothetical here, not wishing to refer to anything concrete.
Neil McClung, 2011-10-22 00:38:54

Jay from Ottawa, 2011-10-21 13:29:20 Posted: "As I suspected, people are so busy selling / denying global warming that our number one problem, pollution, is dropping off peoples radars."

I agree 100%.

Not_the Daddy, 2011-10-21 21:20:25

As I suspected, people are so busy selling / denying global warming that our number one problem, pollution, is dropping off peoples radars.
Jay from Ottawa, 2011-10-21 13:29:20

dont bother with neil crusher the man is not educated enough to understand the intricacies of the worlds climate. he jumped on the bandwagon while ignoring what is truly dooming this planet, chemical contamination, deforestation, potable water. he claims he worked for the media well it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out the guy is biased and easily influenced.
hmminvisiblecola, 2011-10-21 13:18:36