The hydrogen engines that are being tested convert water for use so the only fueling station needed would be a garden hose.

This is not true. The scientific consensus is that global warming is induitably happening -- and more, that human activities are adding to it.
Suuuuuuuuure, if you dig hard enough you will find someone to disagree; so what? There are "scientists" who STILL disagree that AIDS is caused by HIV. So the big what? The scientific consensus is that it has been proved beyond all doubt that AIDS is caused by HIV.
Puhleeeze, caring rationally about your enviroment does not equal "socialism".

This is a classic example of poising the well. The church once said that the Earth was the centre of the universe, so I'm no longer going to believe anything the church says. :o

Climate change is an enivronmental issue. A person's political views should play no part in assessing the information presented.

You're repeating yourself. Simply stating the same thing twice but with slightly different wording does not make a point any more valid.

The term you want to use is climatologists. Otherwise, Tim Skellett has adressed this issue.

You have every right to disagree, although your argument would be somewhat more convincing if you presented some facts to support your decision.

Ad hominem isn't an argument. Geographical location in no way affects a person's ability to assess facts and reach their own conclusions.

Useful as triva, but one person's views doesn't disprove climate change.

You can obtain electricity from many sources, which includes renewables such as solar/wind/hydro. The source of the electricity is important in determining the "greeness", however it is simply false to state that all electricity comes from the burning of fossil fuels.


-----

So far I have not seen a single fact presented against climate change in this thread.

Anyone with a bible knows that world was never the center. Thats a good example of the masses following a few peoples suggestions rather than actually looking things up on their own.

Thats a nice statement, but it isn't true. A lot of people do things and base their views on politics. The left is behind this, the right is behind that, bla bla bla. A large majority of environmentalist are considered to be anarchist and anti-establishment.



And again, I disagree with both of you.

Likewise, please do.


Heres a thought, are you a climatologists? I'm not. And how do we know we aren't being lied to by people with an agenda? You said earlier that the church said the sun revolved around the earth. Just food for thought. You can only asses what your presented, fact and truth are not always the same.

No I was using that to point out the fact that a lot of these groups are politically motivated. Thats why he left greenpeace, he found that people with an agenda were taking over his organization and didn't really care about the things he originally started the group for.

Less to do with Climate change and more to do with people pushing an agenda.

True, Nuclear for example is mostly steam power from a fission reaction.


I have not seen a single fact supporting it. This was to debate the validity of it, and mostly becuase I wanted to see people like you start commenting. I really dont' care about the comments of people who agree with me, it was the other side of the table I was looking for.


Actually Tim, the consensus is not what you just said, it's evenly split, stop getting your facts from the media. If we both started google searching we could both come up with lots of opinions and thoughts from both sides and facts.

You are basing everything on the belief that some people have no reason to lie to us.

Pardon me, I honestly do not want to be offensive, but you are completely and utterly wrong on two counts.

1) It is not "evenly split" whatsoever. As said, the scientific consensus, by a huge majority, is that global warming is most certainly happening; the only real controversy left is how much human activities cause and/or add to it, and even that issue is not so big any longer.

2) I was in science (albeit not climatology) till I had to go into semi-retirement. I'm quite capable of looking up the genuine science sources, and I do. That's where I check my facts. I can name sources for climatology science and global warming if you like.

Now how about you? You have not given one single fact yet; it's never to late to start.

Give me some sources and facts. And again, I disagree. And Fact on the consensus, I'm debating that statement first.

Well, the Roman Catholic Church certainly disagreed with Galileo's views on the earth revolving around the sun. However, furthur discussion on this point will divert away from the principle purpose of this thread. It was initally raised to say that if you wish to discredit something, then do so against the actual argument being presented, not a different one present several years previous.

I stated a person's view should not influence their view on climate change, not that it did not. Stating that it is a socalist agenda is not an substantial argument. A large majority of environmentalists are considered anarchists, in your opinion. Even if it was a fact that they were anarchists and anti-establishment then this still would not detract from the facts surrounding climate change.


What are you disagreeing with? Neither of us claimed all climatologists supported climate change, that was a claim you made and then knocked down.

There is plenty of evidence to support climate change, of which I will have no problem in providing. However, given that it was you who created this thread in an attempt to discredit it, I feel it is only appropriate that you first support your position, so that a counter argument to your claims can be provided.

I'm not a climatologist, no, although I have studied climate change and the environment for about two years now as part of my university course - my knowledge is by no means complete but I would say it is reasonable. May I enquire as to your knowlege on the subject? You argue that people supporting climate change could have an agenda, yes they could, as could people who do not support it. If you would like to present such agendas I would be willing to discuss them.

A business that pollutes massses of greenhouses gases could also have politcal agendas. If climate change is bogus then you need not rely on speculating as to people motives, you could prove the argument at hand wrong, not attack the people presenting it.


You have seen no evidence for climate change? Are you joking? Or did you mean to say you feel man has no role to play in it?

You yourself have given so far zero facts and sources for all your claims.
Dsagree then with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme.

Or disagree with the USA National Academy of Sciences.

Or disagree with the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), all of whom explicitly acknowledge that global warming is taking place.

Here is a paper on the actual scientific consensus, which gives the facts by analysing scientific abstracts in the ISI database on the global warming debate. It finds the scientific consensus overwhelmingly acknowledging that global warming is taking place.

Sorry PennylessZ28, but by now it's clear that short-sighted, profit/power-motivated, me-first behaviors and attitudes are having a very negative impact on our world. Global warming is real. Nor is it the only serious problem we're causing.

So you think that everyone concerned with global warming has an agenda? You're probably right. I freely admit that I have an agenda. I'm concerned about the world my grandchildren will grow up in. I'm concerned about shifting, unstable weather patterns and the impact that will have on food sources. Unstable weather patterns can dramatically increase or decrease rain levels, and even temperatures. Global warming won't prevent an area used to warm weather from suffering freezing temperatures if winds that had always come up from the south suddenly start coming down from the north for example.

I'm concerned about storms increasing in severity, the migration of dangerous southern insects northward, melting ice caps, rising seas decreasing the amount of land available, and yes, the impact on wildlife. We're close to losing the polar bear for starters.

That's very different from the agenda of someone whose profits are impacted by global warming concerns. People who are concerned about global warming don't stand to make a lot of money on trying to stop or at least mitigate it. People who claim it isn't for real are those who profit from fossil fuels or other contributing factors, the 'scientists' they bought, and the fools who believe their rhetoric. In the case of the first two, money is the factor. The fools are swayed by fear, mis-information, need of a sense of security even if false, and/or justification of their own excesses. Some religious leaders have taken advantage of this. From much of what you've said, I suspect you've fallen for one of these.

Diane

actually you have to dig harder to find those who do believe in this nonsense...unless you are at the UN and we ALL know the UN never screws up :rolleyes: ...oh, and maybe Ted Dansen who swore the oceans would be dead in 10 years (this was 20 years ago he made this prediction) lol.

Finally I will say that practically all learned climatologists will tell you that any warming occurring of any significance is related to changes in the sun...not anything man is doing. These are just socialistic scare tactics aimed at undermining the free market economy and capitalism.