wizard8100@sbcglobal.net

Under Article 39 of the UN Charter, the Security Council maintains the right to identify threats to international peace and security and to devise means to counter these threats.

This is the Article that is being used to justify IPCC funding, and to circumvent the treaty process that failed with Kyoto. I am not arguing Global Warming. I do not want opinions about Global Warming. Do you think that using AGW as a "quasi-militaristic" threat is a good excuse for the U.N. to try to manipulate the economies of member nations and gain control of them? Do you trust the U.N. to run the economy of your country?

The warmest year on record was 1934...no wait, that was 1998, 1934 was only the U.S., wait, NASA said different, well wait again.... I have read countless accounts of what year was the warmest and second warmest ad nauseum, and no two are alike. I have heard that every year since 1998 was "the second warmest on record." Clearly, according all data available that is only true if you measure from 1974 and cherry pick your data. Now, even though this past 3 months have averaged the coldest worldwide in the last 100 years, how long will it be before 2008 becomes the "second warmest year on record?" I would ask about 2007, but someone who is unable to look up temperature records has already made that dubious claim.

What does Global Warming, Alar, and DDT all have in common. What is the one distinctive difference between AGW and the other two that relates directly to their similarity?

Bonus points for guessing how many emotional, irrational and unrelated answers are posted to this question before an actual answer is. Directions for redeeming bonus points given with best answer response.

Can you please give the year that the New York Times first ran an article on Global Warming?

If you are really after the points, also provide the year that the New York Times first ran an article on Global Cooling.

1000 years ago the consensus was that the world was flat. The had no means at that time to prove otherwise. We now know, and can prove that the world is round.

150 years ago the consensus was that human beings could not travel faster than 90MPH due to the stresses on the human body. It would kill us. I know that is not true now because I live in Indianapolis and have been to the race.

75 years ago the consensus was that the speed of sound could not be broken. I have witnessed an F14 going through the speed of sound at an airshow last year.

Has there been a scientific consensus that could not be proven at the time, that was later found to be the correct view when science advanced far enough? What was the consensus and what is the hard, scientific proof today?

Let's have a vote on Global Warming and if the majority thinks that it is a problem then we do something, but if the majority thinks it is nonsense then we do nothing. How many people would agree to such a proposal?

Besides the fact that the famous "Hockey Stick Graph" has been proven to be a complete fraud, and was not even based on real temperature readings, (it was based on tree ring data in one forest in one small part of the US) has anyone actually looked at these graphs closely?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Te...

1932 warmer than 1934

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/USHCN.200...

1934 cooler than 1931 but warmer than 1932

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

1934 cooler than 1931 or 1932

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm

1934 is only warmer than 1930. All after are warmer.

These graphs not only contradict the recent NASA revelation that 1934 was the hottest year on record, they contradict each other!!

Why is the artic ice a "Global" indicator, but the antartic ice is only a "Local" phenomenon?

Where is the science now?http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1...

Why is it that so many people use the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" as an authoritative example of Global Warming? It has been shown by scientists to be inaccurate, sensational, and mostly propaganda. On top of that, it is a MOVIE! You do not write a book report on Tom Sawyer by watching the movie, you cannot learn how to hotwire a car, rob a bank, build a bomb, or win the lottery by watching movies, even though all these things are depicted in movies. Do people really think they can go visit the treasure room shown in the movie "National Treasure?"

Am I the only person that finds this hilarious?

In 1910, there was $3,148,700,000 in circulation in the United States. In 2000, there was $571,121,194,344 in circulation in the United States. The Federal Reserve prints it, and then "pays it out" to banks and lending institutions. Is this a Federal give away? Should I start a bank? It cannot be a loan, because a loan would have to be paid back, with interest, from the current pool of money. That would shrink the supply, not expand it. How does this cash get into circulation without having to be returned to the Feds? I have seen numerous answers about this, but none seem to directly address this question. Who has been paid this 565 billion dollars over the last 90 years in order to get this cash into circulation?

Why are we discussing the legality of Gay Marriage. Marriage is an institution created by the Church, usually preformed in a church, and is usually defined by the Church. If two people, or even three or four want to get married to each other, and their is a church that sanctifies it, why does any one care? Muslims are allowed 4 wives, but not in the US. My religion has traditionally allowed homosexual unions and plural marriages, but this is not allowed. Does this mean the US Government is Choosing Christianity, and even a specific group within the Christian church as a benchmark for defining marriage. Doesn't this violate the Constitution?

Is Global Warming real? Probably. Are the ice caps melting? Absolutely. Is it caused by Greenhouse Gas emmisions? Probably not. What is the biggest contributor to current global weather patterns? CITIES. It is not the burning of fossil fuels, but the very existance of humanity that is causing the weather changes. What can we do about it? The answer should be "Do we really NEED to do anything about it?" What do you think?

The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.

-Lazarus Long, Time Enough for Love

Agree or disagree?

They are posting messages of Hate for Bush and ridiculing anyone who voted for Bush, and then reporting anyone who disagrees with them as violating policy. How sad is that?

I have seen many people post in answers that the existance of Jesus as described in the Bible is "the most verified fact in history." What are these verifications? What are your sources? Please DO NOT quote Biblical sources, because the Bible is the text that describes his life and death and resurection. That is ONE source. Only one. One source does not make it the most verified fact in history. Quote a source OTHER than Biblical please.

This is not in Religion for a reason. Think about it.

Why, when you go to sites like petasucks.com or lifelikepundits.com you can leave feedback, both positive or negative, but when you go to peta.org or moveon.org, you can only "join" their movement, or leave feedback in a way that it seem that you agree with their message. They simply refuse to listen to any criticism or engage in legitimate debate. Why do people listen to them when they only want followers, not thinkers?

Are people stupid? Are they just too lazy to think? Do they realize that most GM engines, including the Duramax, are built by Isuzu? Most Fords are built in Mexico. Most Hondas and Toyotas are built in the USA. American "brands" just mean that the overpaid CEO is probably a US citizen and most of the workers are not.