"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

Really... you listen to both sides. So, what does science, real science
from scientists, actually say about GW?

If you bothered to be circumspect, you'd realize that the
meteorological/geographical scientific community is almost evenly split
on the subject.

I contend that there are always a couple of wackos who are unconvinced
by the preponderance of evidence.

I see. When scientists disagree with your point of view, they are
wackos?

What do you believe in?

I've made that clear in any number of posts. But since you seem to read
selectively: I believe that the global warming we are currently
experiencing is, to some unknown degree, influenced by the activities of
mankind. I also believe that the warming trend is at least party natural
and predictable, and would have occurred during this same period even if
the Earth had no human population. The net effect of human activity upon
the warming of the planet is unknown, albeit real. Until we actually
know, any attempts to correct the perceived problem will likely have one
of two outcomes: 1) it will achieve nothing substantive, or 2) it will
cause unforseen changes which could make the situation worse. Cleaning
up emissions is a laudable endeavor, if for no other reason than to clean
up the air we breathe.

So far, I have yet to see you cite any actual facts on the subject.

I've cited at least as many facts as you have. You spout vitriol and
platitudes, but offer up no evidence. You automatically assume that
*everyone* already knows all about GW, or at least your version of it.
You have a closed mind.

Max



You're completely wrong about an even split. The vast majority of
scientists know that we're dramatically changing our environment for the
worse. Look it up for gods sake. You're really not putting your best foot
forward here.

I have looked it up. As an example, Purdue University's meteorology
department published a position paper a while back stating that man-made GW
is probably a fact, but inconsequential compared with the normal global
warming trend. Out of their entire faculty only one of their people
dissented in that paper. I attempted to find a link for it, but so far I've
been unsuccessful. Give it a try--you may have better luck.

The point is that you choose to believe that the majority of meteorological
researchers are on board with your belief, but that simply isn't supported
by fact. Feel free to prove me wrong with more than just your opinion.

Max