Intelligence agencies do not usually fit the "transparent" criteria. They are certainly not open to any kind of peer review of their method of sources.
Most other claims lacked primary sources, which isn't surprising now.

You have left out the people with your level of intelligence and knowledge that think you are right, and the many more people with better knowledge and intelligence than you who also think that you're right. All things being equal and relative, the people with your level of intelligence or greater who think that you are wrong should find themselves in the same position, having to admit that in your turn it is you that think that they're wrong and that therefore they could be wrong, until the case is closed.

2)c If you are wrong and we do act, then we won't loose as much either.
2)d If you are right and we do not act, then we incurred no loss at all.

3) Scenario 2d is preferable to 2b, 2c and 2a.

You have left out these two alternatives, including the most preferable outcome of all.

So, even though I don't think that you've deliberately withheld information twice with the purpose of attempting to cunningly persuade, the rational course of action is to act as if you did.

Splitting hairs. Intel works differently than academia, research, and other organizations. But there is information collection and dissemination which is the key here. And there is an apparent believed danger from WMD and man-made global warming. Peer review from academia is a narrow requirement and irrelevant when dealing with threats of any kind. If you want total proof from one type of danger before taking action, why not the other? Believe me, I know why the global warming alarmists split hairs here. It's also another reason why they're hard to take seriously.

Yeah. OK. We've all seen the guy with glasses on the youtube video that tries this approach to reason. And it is a weak argument whether your talking about global warming, or if you're talking about any other potential "danger". It's just another "let's take action just in case" argument.

This statement is most odd

So even if I think Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, even though they say they are close, the rational thing to do is act as though they do. Let's bomb them into oblivion just in case.

Geez, I have a headache, maybe it's a brain tumor......The rational thing to do is treat it like it is. Let's have brain surgery and find out.....just in case.

People are telling me that we're at peak oil. The rational thing to do is go the grocery store chains and clean them out. Horde everything I have, build a bomb shelter and lock myself up there......just in case.

This global warming stuff has made people nuts.

New Honda Fuel Cell Powered car on the Market NOW!
 

I would encourage anyone and everyone to buy a fuel cell powered car.

We have submarines powered by Fuel Cells and this crowd should know about submarines.

You would think that if a county like Germany (very smart engineers) put their faith in fuel cells then it's a good idea.

And generally speaking people are not shooting at your automobile like they will be at a submarine.

Fuel cells are the future power source for the world IMHO.

Thank god Polar Bears can Swim. But they can't catch seals easily without the frozen ice on the oceans up north. Seals won't need breathing holes in the summer months if the ice keeps melting like it has been lately.

Remember that it only takes a few more calories of energy to turn ice into water. That's why it's critical to control the global warming. A one degree increase in average global temperature will mean a much higher increase in temperatures at the poles. To get a higher average the extremes have to get much warmer.

No breathing holes means the seals can't be so easily caught by the bears and the bears will starve to death. One the other side it won't be so cold up there and the bears won't have to eat as many seals to stay warm. :)

I'm not suggesting anything except that more people = more pollution. Whatever percentage of global warming is caused by human beings that has to increase as you increase population.

Pattern is being accelerated by mankind
 

Yea but seals are better swimmers and will escape from the polar bear if all the ice melts. It's only because the seals have to come up though breathing holes in the ICE that the bears can catch them. Still they fail to catch their dinner 9 times out of 10. Without ice and breathing holes there will be no seal dinners.

Beside we are smart enough to develop better energy source than burning Coal which is just the remnants of old forest that died along with the dinosaurs. It took 60 million to 120 million years to make that dirty coal and oil and natural gas. And we are using it far faster than it's being made. It will run out someday.

It's stupid to burn coal and oil and poison ourselves when we can use solar energy to make hydrogen fuel for fuel cells. We deserve to have a clean planet.

Well, you can't argue with someone of that mentality can you. Fighting pollution will cause more harm then good. Good grief!
What unforseen poblems would dropping pollution cause?

Yep the guy that invented the thermometer lived 2500 years Before Christ was born. LOL

What a joke!

And they invented paper to record all those Pre BC temperatures. The Chinese didn't invent Paper the Cave Men Did! Yea right!

You guys remind me of the Creationist who said that Noah put T Rex on his ark. LOL

Ah. There you are. Of course, you're twisting the argument again. And not very skillfully either. This ain't about fighting pollution. That's something we can all agree on. Less pollution and cleaner energy is good. But the drastric changes in kyoto, the exemptions for some in climate agreements, the total and rapid conversions to new and untested sources of energy, etc. may do some harm. And the total remanufacturing of entire sectors of the economies of the world to effect new changes could be drastic and harmful if done incorrectly and poorly planned. If you can't see how, that's your problem.

OK. That's reasonable. And I can agree with that.

How about 100 years ago? 40? We've seen warming and cooling trends throughout the 20th century. There were warmer temperatures earlier last century without the mass transit of today.

I finally agree with Waste Gate on something
 

It's about the money.

Lots of folks will deny the existence of global warming because they are afraid it will cost this country a lot of money to fix the problem

But I think we are looking at it from the wrong angle. We can save a lot of money by going away from fossil fuels in the future.

The real problem as I see it is who's going to pay or loose money when we start to eliminate carbon based fuels from our economy.

The big looser will be the oil companies and the coal companies who stand to loose Trillions of dollars. They are the ones that have more to loose than anyone else.

And if we convert to hydrogen fuels the Chinese and Indian's will surely follow in our path.

Right now the Chinese are building more coal fired power plants every day. There is a limit to how much CO2 and air pollution the world can take.

Any treaty that tries to limit the amount of CO2 that the US had to cut will have to do the same thing with China and there other countries.

But the USA has more to loose because we consume so much coal and oil right now. More than almost any other country in the world. And our population is much less than Chinas or India's.

We want to maintain our quality of life and keep the status quo.

But we won't be able to do that without a fight sooner or later. Look at the middle east right now?

It's interesting that just last night I watched the movie "Kingdom of Heaven" which was about the 1st or 2nd crusade where Saladin Defeated the Knight's Templers and finally took back the Holly Land. That area of the world has always been a hot bed. And I find it ironic that most of the world's oil resource are in the middle east!

i dont doubt that global warming is here all i doubt is that we( humans) are the cause of it the signs of global warming on mars for instance the shrinking polar ice caps .its amazing that the whole global warming thing came around at the same time we lost a big fear that controlled post ww2 europe the cold war, i find it no co incidence that one fear has been replaced by another one

I don't agree with that at all.

It's not a good thing in it's self.

It is far better to generate 20% more economic development at the cost of 50% more
pollution because pollution is inevitably going to rise with the rise in population, but
the rise of the development to cope with that pollution it is not inevitable.

If the planet is going to get poluted one day what ever we do, then delaying it will deny us the development to cope with it to some extent.