Weather forecasters can not get it right on temperatures here where I live the next day! So how the hell can scientists get it on there long term forecasts?

ITS BULL****

Stuff them and enjoy life. :DL

Eh, I was just throwing that in to be silly, not sure if it was taken that way :hmmm:

Honestly, the way I see it, if global warming turns out to be something, well, it's not like I can do anything to stop it, so why bother worrying about it? If we end up with new technologies in our frenzy to save the planet, then cool, and maybe it'll lead to a new push to get out and start kicking people out into space :p2: (or maybe not, who knows)

These points I agree on 100%.

Where are the exalted Nobel prize winners Barack Obama and Al Gore?

That's right, one is in a 'sex poodle' scandle and the other is on daytime television, being groovy.

Its the burning bush, a contributary factor to emmisions

What the **** does that have to do with anything?
Burning bush as in a redhead who doesn't shave? :b

I'm not certain the changes we see are indeed cyclical. We don't have enough hard data either way.

However, we do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and there is much more of it in the atmosphere than in the past, at the poles. What effects this will ultimately have on life on Earth are ultimately theoretical at best (personally, I'd label those theories as "guesses"). Judging by the fact that well over 99% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct, its very difficult to say that any climate change will be either adverse or beneficial to the natural evolution of the planet.

Besides, this entire debate is trivial when considered against the fact that we're overdue for some cataclysmic natural disaster, anyway, and I for one would rather cast my lot with high technology than living in harmony with a Mother Nature that couldn't care less to see me die...

Has anyone looked in the sky and said.....maybe its that great glowing ball which is the greatest contributor to global warming? Makes sence no?

The data we have does not support that hypothesis.

Daß es im Wald finster is',
kommt von der Finsternis,
denn in der Dunkelheit
da sieht man nicht so weit
als wie bei Tagslicht,
wo man viel weiter sieht.

Lame Duck Global Warming hearing
 

C-SPAN: House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment heard from a dozen witnesses about how the public and private sectors are approaching climate change. Washington, DC : 3 hr. 47 min.

If you have trouble falling to sleep......this will fix it.

It is now online and can be watched in full at this link:
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/20...e+Science.aspx

Is it back to global warming or is the catch phrase climate change being used? I just can not keep up with it all. It changes like the weather.

:yeah:

If I see one more article on "A greener mindset" or "Anthropormophic Degredation" in the engineering trade journals I am going to hurl. :shifty:

They need something to divert our attention why not 'global climat change'.

I've gone to going into the Auto Dealerships and asking to see the biggest gas guzzling poluting vehicles on the lot. Invariably they show me a hybrid vehicle. I guess the coal used to create the electricity to charge the battery is a greater poluter than that through normal combustion via gasoline.