I hope Bradclark that you took note of this one especially important part:

-S

If the climate change aka global warming theory changes peoples minds to think about the planet and the effects people have on it then i am all for it . Its the same for the price of petrol/gasoline going up in price . If it takes cars off the raod then good . Theres too many anyway .

No cars / trucks = no product in your stores and you starve + if you don't starve, your quality of life just hit the toilet - such as your computer that you are using will no longer be functional. Cars bring people to work which brings products and services into your life. Like it or go live on another planet.

-S

Since I don't like to repeat myself I just quote what I wrote about this in the earlier thread.:

And:

You are 100% right Schroeder but the difference would be in the speed the technology is emphasized. For some reason the other side always seems to think cracking down means going back to oil lamps and horses and buggy right now.

Sorry. His boy and one other guy.
From his site:
"The global warming hypothesis has failed every relevant experimental test. It lives on only in the dreams of anti-technologists and population reduction advocates."
What experimental tests failed? In fact what experiments have his "theory" passed? who are the anti-technologists and population reduction advocates? I haven't heard of either. I've heard a lot about advancing technology and I have not heard anything about downing the population. The problem with this guy is he can only think in extremes as evidenced by that comment and his paragraphs on the petition. Trust me, the GW crowd is not out to kill off the third world and make everyone drive donkey's.
Then how do you know there are 600 scientists?
Who are "they" and what growth? Half will die of what? Who's hysterical? I think you need a Valium.
Warner's and Lieberman's bill was a little over the top I agree. It should be done sensibly. They tried using the same program that was worked with acid rain.
The bills goal in case you didn't know what it was for:
"The bill would impose new regulations on industry to lower overall emissions to the 2005 level by the year 2020. By the middle of this century, the bill would require greenhouse gases to be cut by 66 percent.[/quote]
I believe thats a little too enthusiastic. It should be at a slower pace to stand a realistic chance to work.

Here's a semi list of notables rejecting GW by humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...ng#cite_note-9

Further down in the "See also" is some other information.

Shocking me showing this huh? I read both sides.

:-? You're aware of:

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Sci...dex%29#Biology

I agree with you 100%, but the problem is they are trying to cap our energy 'today'!!! Not after the technology has been built. I'm all for clean energy (I don't like to breath crap into my lungs more than anyone else) but we need to build things first before you can use it.

-S

Bradclark and Fish - what part of only showing you 400 years of data by the IPCC don't you understand? Yeah, warmest period in 400 years, but that is because we are climbing out of a mini Ice Age!! Hello??? Anybody home? Are the lights on in there?

Now how about this crap (or did you fail to miss it?):

This is the data you guys are advocating. Bad propaganda, not real data. This ticks me off more than anything. I do find it funny that you guys are believing it in a way though. Short sighted with blinders on. Must be young - both of you I'm guessing.

Be a little more subjective and post information - not skeptics websites. The web is full of skeptics, though most don't have any credentials. Same of posts I see through this entire thread - nothing of substance from either one of you - simply garbage links! :D Typical when you don't have an argument. Face it, you lost already. :yep::yep:

-S

Subman,

What you need to remember is that these same people who are waving the alarmist banner on global warming, are the same people who back in the '70s waved the banner of global cooling, and another iceage was looming in the future.

I understand your frustration with the topic, as it's used to manipulate economies, and prices. Plus the "enviornmental tax" that would be levied would be done by the UN. If the rest of the world wants to participate in a global lunacy, they can, but I would prefer to have the U.S. of A. stay out of it.

All one has to do, is study the information that has been accumulated by geologists, that have studied the core samples from the earth, and one can put together a graph that shows like the same info as you posted how the world goes through times of warming, and cooling all on it's own.

Man has only affected the earth in that it is becoming overpopulated, and not much is being done to explore the last frontier for habital planets, that we can abuse like we do our own.

First thought on that that you seemed to overlook but I didn't and stopped reading.
Your boy claimed hurricanes are level. Why would he claim land fall hurricanes are level when a hurricane is a hurricane and hurricanes have risen regardless of where they are at. If he's manipulating simple hurricane data what else is he manipulating. Still not one scientist has backed his data . Hello! Switch pulled yet? Out of all the skeptics out there and there are some notables, not one even makes any references his data. On your holy list of phd's not one is identified. Now, can this be that he has zero respect of any community or scientist. If his information were credible wouldn't at least a few notable skeptics have been part of that presentation or at least applauded or aclaimed such a fine piece of scientific accomplishment? No because he's a nut job who thinks IPCC is out to kill hundreds of millions of third worlders and knock the technology tree back a couple of hundred years. Hello!! Nut job!
Why would I waste time on a nut job. His own peers don't even support him. That should be something that at the least should make you wonder why. He's only a hero in your mind. That article you are so proud of on Robinson, The New American is a magazine of the John Birch Society which is about as far zany right as you can get. So a nut job magazine interviews a nut job scientist.

You are a bit hard headed aren't you? You claim no one supports him - only 31K scientists do.

He doesn't claim the IPCC is out to kill hundreds of millions. That will simply be the side effect. If you bothered to read anything instead of posting crap from your *ss, then you would know that it's not about killing people but gaining control, specifically America. Its a way to stop AMerican domination and put the world into the hands of the elitists. Scary? it is.

-S

PS. Quite frankly, Mr. Robinson is quite sane. you however seem to be the nutjob because you can't analyze the data as presented and operate off pure belief. Sounds like some kind of cult.

Pretty much sums it up right there.

-S

I still don't get it. I've no idea what they are telling you in the US, but here in Europe no one wants to cap power.:doh:

Here our industry simply shall produce (and of course use) equipment that needs less energy. The technology is available (sometimes for decades) but was to costly because it was only build in small numbers and sometimes not advertised like conventional products were (for example the VW Lupo 3l which needed only 3 litres of Diesel/60miles).
Another step is to replace fossil energy with regenerative (is that the English term for it?) energy (Solar cells, wind, tides etc...).
So actually we Europeans are talking about reducing the energy consumption without giving up anything from our way of life:rock:. I've never heard anyone say that the we shall cap power.:hmm: