"Supporters of Intelligent Design don't have to *prove* that Intelligent Design is real, they simply try to suggest that Evolution as a theory is flawed. It's the ultimate right-wing tactic.. tell a lie enough times until it is virtually indistinguishable from the truth. Classic.

Proving that you don't even know what intelligent design is either. You, as other ignorant people do, pretend it is all Pat Robertson and religion, when in reality there needn't be anything supernatural, deitic, etc. for evolution to be directed by more than chance.

It isn't for skeptics to prove scientific theory wrong, BoP, it is for scientists to prove themselves correct. You can't stand in a scientific pose and the dismiss hypothesis offhand without them even being tested. We all admit there may be something to global warming, but we can't accept the piddly work so far as law.

So far, the proof simply isn't there without reading it with bias. Frankly, the data itself is insufficient to even begin to believe, given the short few decades they have even studied the billions of years of change on Earth. The same with Intelligent Design. We, at least, have an open mind.

The only one here dismissing thought in a "the world is flat" way is you, who can't fathom the idea of any other model other than your own.

I never said Global Warming was law. What I said was that the evidence to suggest that it is real is very strong, and on the contrary, the nay-sayers (even scientific nay-sayers) have been linked with big oil and other polluting industries who have much to lose if legislation forces them to clean up their acts. (Don't ask me to provide you with names, I remember reading articles regarding this from sources I trust.) So whose word am I going to take?

I myself am not an environmental scientist, and I will not claim to know the entire body of knowledge that global warming encompasses, and I doubt anyone here can either... however, I have heard countless reports about the global temperature index rising, and its projected increase..so the global index is going up but one NASA satellite says we're really cooling off? That's contradictory as far as I'm concerned. But that's just the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended).

If NASA's report is true.. I would love to hear them explain why areas that used to be frozen tundra are now thawed, why fifteen-twenty years ago thick ice sheets at the poles are now nothing but melted water. There is REAL phyisical evidence that the Earth is warmer. Yet, DrMiler presents one article about NASA's findings and you want me to throw all that I know out the window? I don't think so. Not until there is more definitive proof. (This is not an invitation for you to post more articles.. we'll just have to wait and see.) ANd you can't have it both ways either..one article suggests that global warming is a natural phenomenon, while the NASA report suggests a cooling trend. So which is it?

Finally, all this talk of global warming is technically off-topic. The original topic dealt with celebrities and their involvement with political issues, not the environment. (My point about the environment is that it is a *real* issue and global warming is only one among many other environmental issues whose effects cannot be disputed... e.g. acid rain, deforestation, etc..) Everytime some celebrity (unless it's Schwarzenegger, Dennis Miller, or Ron Silver...) raises awareness on an issue, the first thing you hear coming out of the Conservative community are the words "Liberal Hollywood Elite" - as if that was a case against their ability to speak out on important topic. In fact, that type of statement betrays its own form of elitism.

So go ahead, if you have any final points about global warming, make them. I won't adress them.

BoP

Again, what you pose as evidence is the phenomenon you seek to explain. If I give you the point that the Earth is warming, which I don't dispute or advocate, it still doesn't prove we are RESPONSIBLE for the warming, or that the warming isn't the natural cycle of planetary temperature.

You're like a UFO buff who seeks to prove aliens exist by pointing to mutilated cattle. Fine, I yeild that cattle are mutilated, but that doesn't mean aliens are responsible. Given a few decades of real weather study and great ignorance toward the cycles of warming and cooling of the earth, no one seems to have proved sufficiently that this perceived warming is an unnatural occurance.

As to the "topic", I find your posts very, very valid. You believe what these people say because of who they are. A guy with a degree on his wall says it, so it must be true. People you consider stupid differ, so you are CERTAIN you are right. The people you debate here are open to either side ending up being correct, we simply don't want to take a knee-jerk stance based on little information.

No offense, your global warming beliefs aren't much different than the fundamentalists you refered to earlier. Both you and they read books you aren't qualified to judge and opt to believe them blindly.

P.S. and if you think blindly adhering to environmental pop science isn't destructive, consider the millions who die due to malaria because DDT was a great environmental evil. The data involved with deeming it so now has been reviewed and found lacking.

When folks like you push reform that harms economies and causes destruction, will you just say "oops" in a hundred years when it is found to be bunk?

One last thing... Las Vegas recieves electricity from the Hoover Dam, an ecologically friendly, and non-polluting source of power. Kind of makes you feel stupid doesn't it?

No, not at all. when we speak of resource management, we must realize that the power from the Hoover Dam is desperately needed throughout Southern California. Remember the Enron energy scam? Well, the folks at Enron profiteered off of SoCal's need.

While the Hoover Dam IS ecologically friendly, as you insist, the electricity used by its supply often is not. Do you seriously think that light pollution and the heat that is often produced in creating that light are pollution nonfactors? For that matter, have you ever BEEN to Vegas to view what I'm talking about?

You assume that my conclusions come from right wing talk radio hosts, when, in fact, they do NOT. If you read my posts regularly, you will quickly notice that I am a LIBERTARIAN, about as far ideologically from Republicans as I am from Democrats. This article was written about the inconsistencies and hypocrisy of the left, a fact you obviously missed when picking nits for your ad hominem attacks.

I didn't say for a certainty that global warming does not exist, just that it is a highly debatable topic. And, having a cousin who did extensive research on CO2 emissions caused by the SOUTH AMERICAN RAIN FORESTS (and he is a leftist of all leftists...but I digress), I believe that there are far more factors at work than our pollution.

My point was (and is) that if you want to look at the excesses that cause pollution, then you need look no further than the hypocritical Hollywood elite. And if you want to look at communities that pollute, you need to look no further than the city of Las Vegas (care to do the calculations on the tonnage of raw sewage that has made its way into Lake Mead from the city over the years? I know FOR A FACT...it was a widely reported news item...that just about a year and a half ago over TWO TONS of raw sewage made its way into Lake Mead from a burst sewer main at Treasure Island).

I could write an entire book of FACTS refuting your assertions, balance, but the proof is in the pudding. I'm stating facts, you're attacking me personally!

 

The liberals are right that we need to be environmentally minded. Although there is credible evidence that global warming is a myth (before you point to this fall's warmer than usual temperatures, check out The Old Farmer's Almanac's article in the 2006 on sunspots for a FAR MORE LIKELY explanation), we need to be responsible stewards of what we have. But until they hold themselves liable, until they hold communities like Las Vegas liable, they have NO BUSINESS preaching to me as I sit in my woodstove heated, 1200 square foot home, watching a 19 inch TV and doing everything I can to minimize our personal impact on the environment. Bad form, Hollywood libs!

For the record, THIS is one of the biggest problem I have with leftists such as yourself, BoP. You seem to have MISSED this paragraph entirely. And, seeing how it was the concluding paragraph and structurally intended to summarize my entire argument, that was VERY bad form on YOUR part!

How does your retort in any way prove me wrong? Besides you can't just come in here and call me sheeple. Sheeple are passive and accept whatever they are told, they don't go out of their way to post a 1000 word mini-essay in an attempt to educate the poor miscreants who think they know what they are talking about.

No, they just regurgitate what they have been told by their handlers.  Like you did.

why wouldn't you guys want to air on the side of caution? i mean....we are talking about the possible destruction of earth. i mean, it's preemptive. you all like preemptive wars don't you? take this one.

mcdaniel,

I already EXPLAINED how I'm "erring on the side of caution". Are you suggesting that I move outside in a tent and live off of roots and berries?

My point was (and IS) that these celebrities will not voluntarily live the kinds of lifestyles that reduce their impact on the environment. Nor will they hold big business accountable to do so. They simply want to make stricter regulations that hurt small business owners and the working poor. Don't believe me? How many of those making $25,000 can afford a hybrid car? How many small business owners can afford to make the changes the Kyoto protocols would require?

actually, i was suggesting that you move outside in a tent and live off of roots and berries.

Good idea, mcdaniel. You willing to pay for a lawyer to defend me when CPS shows up and tries to remove my kids?

I thought not. If you want to be a luddite, fine (I suggest you cease using your computer first...but I digress). But please don't force your OPINIONS on others as LAW.

And, again, go after the BIG polluters first, k? I don't want you preaching at my micro-waste while ignoring the macro-waste of virtually ALL of our larger communities.

BakerStreet,

I really don't want to rehash the global warming argument, but I will say this... you should follow your own advice when it pertains to scientific theory. Global warming, as theories go, is still debatable -yes- but the case shouldn't be thrown out simply because a fraction of the collected data seems to indicate otherwise, which is what you and the nay-sayers are advocating. Yes, it is up to environmentalists to prove that global warming is a man-made phenomenon, likewise, those scientists who refute global warming must ALSO prove that the supposed warming is a natural phenomenon. You can't just sit back and wipe your hands of the matter simply because you assert it's natural phenomenon. Realistically speaking, it is unlikley that global warming will be proven one way or another, much like other "theories" that cannot be quantified, such as evolution, or the big bang theory. They are established theories and until a better model comes around to replace them, they are considered the paradigm to which the scientific community adheres to.

The reason I accept global warming is sound is because much of what I have read and studied indicates that the warming trend began with the advent of industrialization. I have seen charts showing a sharp increase in global temperature that coincides with the proliferation of internal combustion vehicles, aircraft, and other industrial processes, which started relatively 60-70 years ago. This is, as far as I'm concerned, too much of a coincidence to accept as mere natural phenomenon. I would think that a warming/cooling trend would not spike in so short a time (60-70 years being a mere blip in a geologic time scale), but instead would be a more gradual increase.

Let me make one more thing clear: I do not "believe" in global warming the same way a Fundamentalist Christian believes in the divinity of Jesus or in Intelligent Design. Their belief comes without a shred of proof - that is why it is called faith. I do not have faith in global warming, I simply accept that the scientific community, for better or worse, knows more about the subject than I do, because that is their job. I have done my share of research on this topic, and I believe it to be scientifically sound, and not the hysteria you make it out to be.

That's what you don't seem to understand, BoP. No one is tossing out the idea of "global warming". No one is rejecting it offhand. The point we differ on is whether the data is sufficient enough yet to adopt sweeping reform that could cause other damage.

I'll refer you back to the DDT example. Or you could say at one time the medical industry thought morning sickness was important enough to rush through a drug that created a generation of Thalidomide babies. You don't "err on the safe side" by rushing to fix a problem that hasn't yet been proven to be a problem.

i was suggesting that you move outside in a tent and live off of roots and berries.

Wow, McDaniel. You must be really using your solar collector to its limits to maintain your laptop's power supply, so you can blog from your tent.
Good luck with today's hunting and gathering. I hope you find some good mushrooms or lichen for dinner.
So how are those woven clogs working out for you? I know you forsook leather, wood, and plastics due to their environmental impact. Taking dead reeds from a local field was a stroke of genius, especially the part about them being already withered and dead.

I can assume that you have done all those things in order to speak to Gid about his consumption habits. I mean, "we are talking about the possible destruction of the earth" here. Otherwise you'd be a smarty-pants f**king hypocrite.

And I know that's not true.

Wow, McDaniel. You must be really using your solar collector to its limits to maintain your laptop's power supply, so you can blog from your tent.

McDaniel is a child. Protected from the real world, spoiled by a couple of over indulegent parents, and with no conception of reality.

He will find out when he cannot feed himself and decides to use welfare to further his cause. But he will never learn. He loves sucking on someone else's teat. He did not have to work for it, and he never will either.