Agreed Sea Demon, but personaly I discount religious belief because its irrational, regardless of which religon you belive in.

OK. That's the decision you made for your own life. You're free to believe that way if you wish. I am a Christian who believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. And I still acknowledge scientific evidence. And I'm awed at humanity's application of it.

Got to go to work. Got to be in meetings by 9:30 this morning. I'm already running late. Good day to you.

And you have not disproven the existence of pink elephants, 5-dimensional licorice and flying spagetti monsters that I conclude to exist by 1:1 the same "logic" you argue with. ;) Show me where the pink elephants are sleeping, and I show you where the spagettis are flying.

And always remember: that you cannot see the pink elephants does not mean that they do not exist, so keep digging!

No, I show contempt for people who don't do research to prove there point because they are too lazy to look. I show contempt for people who don't research anything, just pull ideas out of there butt like 2007 record cooling or ice isn't melting because its -100 degrees and try and cover it with something like "independent thought". Your laziness isn't independent thought it's just laziness pure and simple.
I also haven't railed against oil companies and energy partners whoever or whatever they are. I plainly pointed out that scientist who are vocal about GW have been paid by oil companies. Am I wrong in that? No I'm not. I've shown you often enough. With all these thousand of scientists you say oppose GW you would think they would band together and be under one voice. There are no voices except for your oil paid scientist which is the only thing you ever show.
Wrong! Its your problem to show your theory which you won't do because you are too lazy to research anything and just want to use the term "independent thinking" to cover whatever you pull out of your butt. Wrong answer!
Yes I've shown which is a sight more then you do with your "independent thinking". With all this independent thinking you must have some data to come to that independent thought. Show it!
There you go! But you should change it to Sea Deamon is just too lazy which would more accurately cover it.
The hell it doesn't. You say record cooling I say record warming showing the proof to include FOX news which you swear by. More of your "independent thought" which should be "independent of reality".
Thats a laugh! You made an assertion that the Martian ice is melting because of solar warming. You were to lazy to research and find out it thaws and refreezes every single year Mr independent thinker.
Well if that doesn't show your lack of intelligence I don't know what does.:rotfl:

Due to human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.
China's recorded emissions for 2006 beyond those from the US already. It says China produced 6,200m tonnes of CO2 last year, compared with 5,800m tonnes from the US. Britain produced about 600m tonnes
To work out the emissions figures, Dr Oliver used data issued by the oil company BP earlier this month on the consumption of oil, gas and coal across the world during 2006, as well as information on cement production published by the US Geological Survey. Cement production, which requires huge amounts of energy, accounts for about 4% of global CO2 production from fuel use and industrial sources. China's cement industry, which has rapidly expanded in recent years and now produces about 44% of world supply, contributes almost 9% of the country's CO2 emissions. Dr Olivier calculated carbon dioxide emissions from each country's use of oil, gas and coal using UN conversion factors. China's surge beyond the US was helped by a 1.4% fall in the latter's CO2 emissions during 2006, which analysts say is down to a slowing US economy.
The new figures only include carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production. They do not include sources of other greenhouse gases, such as methane from agriculture and nitrous oxide from industrial processes. And they exclude other sources of carbon dioxide, such as from the aviation and shipping industries, as well as from deforestation, gas flaring and underground coal fires.
Up to 40% of the gas emitted by some volcanoes during subaerial volcanic eruptions is carbon dioxide. According to the best estimates, volcanoes release about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.
It is estimated that about half of all the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide have been taken out of the air and absorbed by natural carbon "sinks" on the land and in the sea. Many computer models of the climate predict that as the Earth continues to get warmer, these sinks will become less able to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Actually, those who discount God merely have their faith placed in Self, Science, Money or some other material thing as their god.

Everyone believes in something. You take many things on faith without even realizing that's what it is.

Just as a bird in the deep forest exists whether you're aware of it or not, God knows He exists.

No matter who's right, we'll all know who's wrong in the end.

That goes for Global Warming as well. Time will tell.

It's time to lock this thread as it has simply degenerated into a flame war over whether God exists or not and attacking each others' beliefs and ignorance, or lack thereof on either count.

You know it's funny, I've read a paper which claimed that the sun plays a major role in global warming, yet it said, that even if the CO2 content of the atmosphere was doubled 1% more cloud coverage would cancel out the warming effect... I don't doubt that, more clouds means less sun and thus cooler temps... BUT more solar activity and more energy coming from the sun would mean more clouds... very contradicting IMHO.

:arrgh!:

Translates into: all your talking is nice and well, but in the end we theists are right, no matter what - and you know it.

And then some people wonder why they trigger aggressive reactions to such claims, for example from people like me. but I have no problem with people believing something that I find weired - as long as they keep their beliefs a private issue and do not demand others to follow them or take their beliefs serious - not even in disucssions like here. Like I also have no problem with people painting their appartement in a colour that I find terrible - as long as I must not sit inside of it and tell them how beautiful it looks.

Some of what you say is simply wrong, btw. especially the first paragraph says less about the ultimate truth you think you own, and more about your most personal and subjective beliefs. One ould at least label it a question of politeness that you name it as that, a private opinion, instead of generalizing it and claiming you speak for the only truth on earth that ever could be.

You may want to make yourself familiar a bit with the concept of atman and anatman, as an alternative to your daring generalisation in the first paragraph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atman_%28Buddhism%29

Theists - so many of them convinced of themselves defining the nature of all mind and universe, and making the laws of nature bending to their precious beliefs, and declaring their own little being something the universe has to take note of, and has to save and to deal with. Theism is the greatest ego-trip ever, me thinks.

Keep your precious wonderful religions to yourself. They are your very personal and intimate business, and nobody else's. Directly or indirectly referring to them, and making them known in public, or even forcing them down some foreigner's throat, is not wanted.

Strange, just some days ago I was locked in anasty thread were sombody out of the blue started about religion and how much I defend it, and when I told him I hate relgions and do not defend them at all and that he should leave it out and better treat me as just this: a normal mortal human being, next he even accused me of mysticism. :dead: If that isn't queer.

Jesus loves even you Skybird. Just remember that... :up:

He is young. Sometimes you must drift away before you are able to see the truth.

Just my 2 cents.

-S

Allow me to clarify.

Skybird, you know you exist, regardless of whether anyone else has proof of your existence.

God, should he exist, knows He exists in spite of those who refuse to acknowledge this and any contrary arguments put forth against this would not alter that.

Using Buddhism, a religious philosophy, to back up your refutation of my statement that everyone lives by faith in at least one respect of their lives does seem a bit queer in itself.

As for "triggering an aggressive reaction", well, that's not justification for poor manners and lack of respect. Reason and argue like a rational adult all you want but try to restrain your passion or it will be your undoing.

Avoid making assumptions as well. I do not "own" the truth, be that whatever each perceives. My statement about everyone knowing the real truth in the end has nothing to do with espousing any particular philosophy. It was a very straightforward and simple statement into which you read a great deal.

As for myself, I must point out the hypocrisy of your own remarks. I merely stated arguments of logic, not religion or theism. Yet you feel free to insult and criticize me for sharing my viewpoint and how offensive it is to you that I have done so in public while you, apparently, feel it is your right to very publicly state your own beliefs or lack thereof. If I must keep mine private, then do be so kind as to shut your own mouth as well.

C'mon, Subman, no way Skybird is young. Just look at all the stuff he's done in his life! World traveller, clinical psychologist, college professor, samurai sword sensei, veteran warehouse worker, Buddhist priest, not to mention a self taught expert in such disparate subjects as world politics, global warming, military affairs and American society, heck, thats not even including probably a dozen other subjects he has opined on over the years.
Now that extensive experience set would take, at least, 50-60 years for any single person to gather, so stop dissin the man. At this rate he might be our President some day, maybe even President of the world! :yep:

Give it a rest you two. :roll: This thread was about Al Gore and not Skybird.

If all the people of earth burned wood and no fossil fuel they would have to reproduce a whole bunch of new growth trees to do it. Thus pulling the co2 back out. On the other hand. Burning fossil fuels that have been stuck in the ground for millions of years have no recipricating level of co2 removal.

Nonsense I have no 'faith' in science whatsoever.

I don't believe in god because like the tooth fairy and Santa Claus I see no convincing evidence for its existance unlike science which provides evidence.

This is a common mistake; science is not a 'secular religion', its not down to belief; its an approach to the universe which relies on quantifyable and testable evidence or hypotheses.

There is no equivalence between science and faith.

There is as much evidence for god as there is for a giant teapot orbiting the galactic centre......more infact.....that teapots exist is a testable fact.

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

Now you disprove the teapot theory....it knows it exists even if you try to deny it.

I see your point but those trees certainly wouldn't be grown first, so if we're as close to the "tipping point" as some claim surely such a move would put us over right?

Neither is it about Skybirds often repeated religious beliefs or lack thereof so why don't you tell him to give it a rest as well?

My statement was in reaction to yours. Not some ideology sporting a new form of energy consumption with wood burning as the way out.

However.

84 % of U S emissions of co2 are the direct result of burning fossil fuel which has no return method. The US alone pushed out 20 % of total co 2 emmissions globaly while only containing 5% of the worlds population.

Source EPA:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html

Well that's odd. I read the entire page you linked and don't see where it says that Neon.

http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/images/ES05.gif

Little orange pie chart thingy showing 84 Percent.

and