[IR15H]

Originally Posted by PennylessZ28

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.

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.

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.

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.

And again, I disagree with both of you.

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

Likewise, please do.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?