[ITD]

Originally Posted by VarneyPoint

ITD,

Since you choose to selectively respond to only portions of my post, and arguably the least substantial points of it, thereby taking the whole thing out of context, I'll be brief.

Ok, I'll respond point by point below, you obviously think my point that your facts are actually not facts is "least substantial" I'm not sure this will do any good, but I'll try.

Originally Posted by VarneyPoint

1.) The earth is warming. It is a fact. The surface temp has risen 1 degree in the last 100 years. This is not debated. Everyone accepts it. As I already said in the previous post, there is debate as to the extent of human induced influence. I believe it to be significant, others believe it may be small or none. If you care to look it up, most institutions with an opinion on global warming will back up the claim that the earth is warming regardless of who is to blame. I'll leave it at that.

Exerpt from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...ge/1017204.stm


Data from weather stations on land and at sea have been used to reconstruct variations in the Earth's annual-mean surface temperature over the past century.
These show a warming in the range 0.3-0.60C over the period. But the sceptics doubt whether much, or any, of the warming can be linked to increases in C02.
They make the point that much of the data comes from weather stations close to towns and cities. The warming may simply reflect the heat associated with the growth of those towns and cities. Any "real" warming that may exist once this bias has been properly extracted falls well within the "noise" of natural climate variability.


And from: McIntyre and McKitrick

In a recent paper

1 (herein MM03), we developed an updated version of the climate proxy
data set used by Mann et. al.2 (MBH98) to compute a Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperature
index. The most significant changes were the replacement of obsolete versions of proxy data
used in MBH98 with current versions from the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
(WDCP) and the use of conventional principal component analysis (PCA) to reduce networks of
tree ring chronologies to regional aggregates using the maximum period in which all sites were
available. Applying the methodology of MBH98 to the new data yielded an NH temperature
index in which the values in the 15th century exceeded those in the late 20th century, thereby
contradicting the conclusions in MBH98 of a unique 20th century climate warming

So the point: It is not a fact the earth is warming, everyone does not accept the "fact" that the earth is warming, it is debated, you are wrong to say it is not debated.

Originally Posted by VarneyPoint

2.) Comparing the Salem witch hunt of the 1600s to a scientific debate is hardly a useful or relevant analogy. Can't you come up with something better?

Sorry you don't like my analogy, but a witch hunt is a witch hunt. I think it's very relevant in that if anyone dared to disagree with the popular theory they were ostracized and threatened with the same fate as the "witches". Some things are timeless, if you don't like it or agree, I can't help you.

Originally Posted by VarneyPoint

3.) I'm glad you are going to keep driving your car because for the 3rd time, I haven't told you to stop driving it. Despite believing that man is the major cause of global warming, I am also a realist and recognize that we simply cannot stop on a dime.

For the third time, I never said you told me to stop driving my car, I said you should stop driving yours.

Originally Posted by VarneyPoint

4.) I am leading by example, I am trying to increase the overall awareness of this important issue. As I stated in my last post, if only one person reading this thread begins to think differently about the issue, then I am happy to have helped. Have my posts been so inflammatory as to keep you up at night? As I said, if I am wrong, then no harm done. But if you are wrong, will you be able to say the same thing?

Ah, but here is where you are really off base, you claim "if I am wrong, then no harm done", nothing could be further from the truth. What you advocate, (drastically reducing CO2 emmissions) will cripple our economy.
Just about every usefull bit of work done in this country requires the production of "greenhouse" gas. Your theories and their solutions have a huge cost associated with them. Who do you think would end up paying those costs? Why you and I would.

Originally Posted by VarneyPoint

5.) I certainly did not "name call." I did not mean to imply that you had a closed mind, as I never actually used those words. I simply am expressing my hope that everyone, not just you, ITD, will find it useful to challenge their personal convictions.

"I certainly have not told you or anyone else to do anything other than open your mind."

There it is in quotes, no you didn't use the words "closed mind", but you strongly insinuated it. Projected it perhaps? I challenge my personal convictions almost daily, how about you?

Originally Posted by VarneyPoint

6.) Why not enlighten us as to your personal opinion on the subject? So far, all I really know is that you don't believe global warming is fact and constantly use the ambiguity of the situation to beat back anyone who posits otherwise. I have actually agreed with you to a certain extent that everything is not fact. There are some debatable issues and not everything is known. I have challenged you with relevant examples that you have not responded to. Do you have anything else to offer? I noticed you once posted that you really don't care to look into who pays for the research on climate change. So if you don't care to learn more about the process, why are you here posting?

I think my position is quite clear on this, Global warming is not a fact, "everyone" does not accept it as you stated above (contradicting yourself).

Who is being beaten back here? I don't agree with you and you seem to get very worked up, trust me I am losing no sleep over this. You seem to associate who funds a study with the veracity of the study. Does this mean that every corporate sponsored study is tainted? Every study sponsored by special interest environmental groups is unbiased? What else do I need to offer? You keep harping on the point that I don’t care to look up who sponsored the research that supports Global Warming, if I do will it change your mind? I doubt it because unless you are paranoid it really doesn’t matter. I have provided links and in this post quotes. I have provided the links in previous quotes, if that’s not a response to your “challenges” then I don’t know what is. Why do I post in this thread? I post because I see people posting theories as accepted undisputed fact when indeed they are not. I can’t help it if they get upset when I point out their mistakes.


Ah, I've run out of time, I will address the balance of your post later.