New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

[CajunRed]

I believe him to be honorable. I do think, though, that much of this movement is less than honorable...and ALL are making out like bandits.

[Ragin9221]

Well I said gravitational havoc, it's the magnetic field of the earth, which is why the change is happening. Some scientist believe that the earth is reacting to the magnetic field of this object. Which in turn is causing the climate to change.

[Boomer]

Well I said gravitational havoc, it's the magnetic field of the earth, which is why the change is happening. Some scientist believe that the earth is reacting to the magnetic field of this object. Which in turn is causing the climate to change.

---Are any of the scientific field aware of grants that are given to certain pro or anti Global warming profs to carry out experiments? Just seems that their findings could be slightly subjective in favor of the side giving the bucks!!

[Ragin9221]

Oh I agree! Personally I think the earth naturally goes through periods of warning and cooling .

[DaddyCajun]

A cube of ice just told me that 33 degrees was intensely hot.

Was the 33 degrees Celcius or Faringheight and was it nature or MAN that amassed that 33 degrees?🌞☃

[Turbine]

Was the 33 degrees Celcius or Faringheight and was it nature or MAN that amassed that 33 degrees?🌞☃

The ice cube told me that 33 degrees Celsius does not exist.

[Ragin4U]

---Are any of the scientific field aware of grants that are given to certain pro or anti Global warming profs to carry out experiments? Just seems that their findings could be slightly subjective in favor of the side giving the bucks!!

Well sure that's a possibility. Check out this guy, Wei-Hock Soon. But the research study and its findings are meaningless until peer-reviewed. A ethical scientist is solely concerned with the results and controls for any bias.

[CajunEXPRESS]

If you believe those crazy scientists, the main anthropomorphic cause of the current global warming is increased greenhouse gasses (CO2, N2O, CH4, etc).

The ice ages(we are in one now) are caused by one of many natural cycles on the Earth and also from periodic cycles of of solar intensity.

So man's activities are saving the current life forms on Mother Earth. Six hundred foot ice sheets across N America can't be good for hairless humans.

[Ragin4U]

So man's activities are saving the current life forms on Mother Earth. Six hundred foot ice sheets across N America can't be good for hairless humans.

I'm not sure what that means but I bet you are blaming Bob Marlin for something.

[Just1More]

If you believe those crazy scientists, the main anthropomorphic cause of the current global warming is increased greenhouse gasses (CO2, N2O, CH4, etc).

The ice ages(we are in one now) are caused by one of many natural cycles on the Earth and also from periodic cycles of of solar intensity.

You seem like an informed individual. My grievance with climate change theory is the over politicization has been embraced by the scientific community... and that should never have been allowed. First, there were no "climatologists" until these theories began surfacing. And the scientific community that's required to evaluate manmade (or other) influences on climate, require a massive multitude of disconnected expertise. What the political community has latched onto is the tendency of unscientifically minded masses to summarily accept "the scientists said so" reports.

First, I have a great deal of problems finding sufficient scientific information that I, as an engineer, can read and substantiate any of the theories. I recognize, unlike the average person, the disparate world of scientific input that can possibly culminate in the theory that a) the climate change we are experiencing is solely influenced by greenhouse gases, b) that the full effect over time is understood, c) that the effect is not perhaps a positive effect - balancing out a catastrophic "ice age" developing, d) that mother nature has the means to offset the growing greenhouse gases, or e) man has the time and potential to control or reverse the effects.

A find it highly disturbing that massive numbers of incredibly ignorant people take jabs at informed people asking questions about the validity of the science examined to date... and the subsequent theories.

I also find it very disturbing that a scientist using risk analysis (risk = probability x consequence) concluded that the U.S. elimination of fossil fuels (taking the lead globally) had ZERO risk... even if the probability that the greenhouse gas conclusion is incorrect. He is so wrong, he should never be allowed to speak to any audience ever again in his life.

The idea that other nations (desperately attempting to surpass the U.S. in global economics and military dominance) are going to cooperate with reductions in fossil fuel usage in unison with the U.S., as we cripple our economy (and that most assuredly will occur) as we "investigate" alternative fuels (which BTW are a complete joke if we are focused on renewables - I, as an engineer can explain that in vivid detail some other time). If renewable fuels are so attractive as alternate fuel sources, the Japanese alone would have invested their entire economy on solar, wind or hydro... in order to not be a captive economy that depends on the world for fossil fuels. The amount of revenue available to any and all that discover the magic solar cell, battery technology, etc... is sufficient to have launched those productions for many many many years.

Just the fact that it takes every player in the scientific community to play a role in evaluating the global climate impact of greenhouse gases... as the political idiots push the ignorant public into "the scientists all said so" agenda. These "scientists" are people I've read up on. None of them individually have the scientific credentials to make any postulations regarding the questions I gave above. They have to link up in a mile long human chain and work together. And they are very unimpressive at drawing any useful conclusions to-date. But that isn't stopping many of them.

You even addressed something that the general public fails to comprehend in science. Science isn't the U.S. legal system. They do not say "greenhouse gases are innocent until proven guilty". They do quite the opposite as you know. They say "greenhouse gases are guilty until proven innocent". That is how science operates... quite acceptable. There's a plant x until someone says there isn't. Very little direct evidence has to prove plant x. But it exists in science until proven not to.

Those who didn't make it this far, I'll give you a quick fart joke soon enough. But for those that did, use your brain and help stop the madness.

[CajunRed]

You seem like an informed individual. My grievance with climate change theory is the over politicization has been embraced by the scientific community... and that should never have been allowed. First, there were no "climatologists" until these theories began surfacing. And the scientific community that's required to evaluate manmade (or other) influences on climate, require a massive multitude of disconnected expertise. What the political community has latched onto is the tendency of unscientifically minded masses to summarily accept "the scientists said so" reports.

First, I have a great deal of problems finding sufficient scientific information that I, as an engineer, can read and substantiate any of the theories. I recognize, unlike the average person, the disparate world of scientific input that can possibly culminate in the theory that a) the climate change we are experiencing is solely influenced by greenhouse gases, b) that the full effect over time is understood, c) that the effect is not perhaps a positive effect - balancing out a catastrophic "ice age" developing, d) that mother nature has the means to offset the growing greenhouse gases, or e) man has the time and potential to control or reverse the effects.

A find it highly disturbing that massive numbers of incredibly ignorant people take jabs at informed people asking questions about the validity of the science examined to date... and the subsequent theories.

I also find it very disturbing that a scientist using risk analysis (risk = probability x consequence) concluded that the U.S. elimination of fossil fuels (taking the lead globally) had ZERO risk... even if the probability that the greenhouse gas conclusion is incorrect. He is so wrong, he should never be allowed to speak to any audience ever again in his life.

The idea that other nations (desperately attempting to surpass the U.S. in global economics and military dominance) are going to cooperate with reductions in fossil fuel usage in unison with the U.S., as we cripple our economy (and that most assuredly will occur) as we "investigate" alternative fuels (which BTW are a complete joke if we are focused on renewables - I, as an engineer can explain that in vivid detail some other time). If renewable fuels are so attractive as alternate fuel sources, the Japanese alone would have invested their entire economy on solar, wind or hydro... in order to not be a captive economy that depends on the world for fossil fuels. The amount of revenue available to any and all that discover the magic solar cell, battery technology, etc... is sufficient to have launched those productions for many many many years.

Just the fact that it takes every player in the scientific community to play a role in evaluating the global climate impact of greenhouse gases... as the political idiots push the ignorant public into "the scientists all said so" agenda. These "scientists" are people I've read up on. None of them individually have the scientific credentials to make any postulations regarding the questions I gave above. They have to link up in a mile long human chain and work together. And they are very unimpressive at drawing any useful conclusions to-date. But that isn't stopping many of them.

You even addressed something that the general public fails to comprehend in science. Science isn't the U.S. legal system. They do not say "greenhouse gases are innocent until proven guilty". They do quite the opposite as you know. They say "greenhouse gases are guilty until proven innocent". That is how science operates... quite acceptable. There's a plant x until someone says there isn't. Very little direct evidence has to prove plant x. But it exists in science until proven not to.

Those who didn't make it this far, I'll give you a quick fart joke soon enough. But for those that did, use your brain and help stop the madness.

I had just sat down to type this out...then I looked up and...there it was.

[CajunRed]

A fact is an observation. A law is a description. A theory is an explanation.
The scientific method is a process to test a hypothesis.
There is no proof in science.

You seem to imply here that no one is stating that man made global warming is a fact. On the contrary. Run a search on the topic and see how many results show up stating all such science as "fact".