Global warming skeptics - would you accept the following?

1) I would probably have the surgery.

2) If I really did commit the crime, I would bargain. If I was really innocent I would risk all to prove my innocence.

3) Actually, I do agree we need to limit emissions. I just don't agree we need to cripple our economy to limit emissions drastically and immediately. The scientists say how much warming they expect and it is much less than the political pressure groups say that they say it is. In other words, if you actually read the scientific reports and not the political propaganda, the problem is much less severe that we have been led to believe. In my opinion, running out of oil is at least as severe a problem as global warming, and both problems will force us to find new energy sources. The difference is that the global warming doubters will say we can use coal. Coal will cause even more global warming than oil because of its higher carbon content, and while it will last longer, it too will eventually run out. So in the long run (hundreds of years) we need nuclear fusion. There is really no other power source powerful enough to keep our comfortable, energy driven lifestyle and expand it to support even the poorest people in the world. Solar, bio, wind and other "green" energy sources are so weak that it is like comparing a candle to a giant bonfire in terms of energy output. And nuclear fission depends on uranium, which is in short enough supply as to be not much better than coal in the long run.

I'll answer honestly if YOU will.

Let's modify your hypotheticals a bit:

1. You do have the pains, but of the nine doctors recommending the "life-saving" abdominal surgery, one is a psychiatrist, one is an ENT, one is a plastic surgeon etc...turns out that only three of them are gastroenterologists and they freely admit that they've never quite seen anything like this before but they are pretty sure they know the cause of it, that they're not quite sure what the surgery will entail because it's never been performed before, and can give you no guarantee that the surgery itself won't kill you. When cornered, the GEs admit that there is a chance that they are wrong because that is the nature of medicine. The chief proponents of the surgery is the general surgeon and the hospital administration who stand to make money regardless of whether you win or die. They do guarantee it will cost an immense amount of money and that you'll be on a bland, pureed, and expensive diet and wearing a colostomy bag for life There is one doctor who is fairly certain that he's seen similar cases before and reminds you of a similar instance only ten years ago when you came to the hospital and six out of ten doctors said to not have the experimental surgery. He firmly believes that your situation should be monitored carefully, more testing should be done, and that surgery would be an unnecessary risk until the exact ailment is known and/or the surgery is refined. He also believes that doing nothing now does not mean you can't have the surgery later.

No way I have the surgery.

2. Nice one. But logically invalid. Let's say that you are arrested for a crime you did not commit and the plea is for 6 years in gen-pop vs 12.

If I'm innocent, I'll plea innocent. And if I'm guilty, I'll plead guilty. What would YOU do if you found out that the DA had an agenda to get some kind of guilty verdict in this case because he's got political aspirations in the state AG race, and they're rumors that he is on the take from special interest groups who want to get that guilty verdict...turns out that your 9 lawyers also happen to be of the same political persuasion.

3. You might wish it were that simple. There is a world of difference between agreeing that we need to reduce our greenhouse emissions and doing whatever it takes to decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere AND reduce the heating of the planet. Nobody can put a dollar figure on what it will take to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere. How's Europe doing in meeting their Kyoto goals? At least they collected a lot of carbon credits...

What is your guarantee that taking the drastic steps necessary to reduce CO2 will result in a decrease in global warming? Please cite ONE source that says it will. Seems like there are more than a few that claim that we may not be able to reverse it, or that we may not see a change for the better for forty or more years. What will we do then to "reverse" global warming? If it turns out to be a natural cycle, that with all of our pollution we weren't able to significantly change global warming, then whatever steps we have to take to reverse this natural process will have to be of an even MORE massive scale - efforts that could possibly do irreparable harm to the planet. Or at least to the planet's ability to sustain human life.

Can you give ANY guarantee that all the AGW wants us to do is give up our SUVs, invest in alternative fuels, and buy compact fluorescents? If so, I'm there. Otherwise, I need all of the info and time to weigh the achievable benefits vs cost/risks (and not just economic).

You are not stating the IPCC summary report correctly. The report says taht there is a 90% certainty that global warming is at least partly due to human effects. This does not mean the 90% of the scientist invovled in producing the summary agree with the data. The 90% certainty limit is a statistical measure. Incidently, in most scientific studies, 90% certainty is only considered marginal, 95 or 99% certainty is the usual criteria for conclusive causation.

And, the IPCC scientist make up only a small fraction of the entire scientific community so even if they agree on something it does not translate into agreement by the entire scientific community. It actually only means that those scientiest who are explicitly payed to find a problem found one.

In 1988 newsweek printed an editorial asserting international warming is actual, and there replaced into scientific consensus. So before the study of world warming even began the propaganda replaced into already out on the so called consensus. The Oreskes study says that there is not any conflict of words in peer evaluation literature. it truly is a lie. Now they are asserting ninety% consensus. in the event that they lied with reference to the Oreskes study, i'm effective they are mendacity now. yet whilst consensus is info, then why do you and others make the declare the twentieth century is the warmest century on record, in accordance with some learn? quickly and Balinus(2003) studied over a hundred temperature reconstruction information and concluded: "climate proxy learn provides an combination, huge attitude on questions with reference to the certainty of Little Ice Age, Medieval heat era and the twentieth century floor thermometer international warming. the photograph emerges from many localities that the two the Little Ice Age and Medieval heat epoch are commonplace and close to-synchronous phenomena, as conceived by utilising Bryson et al. (1963), Lamb (1965) and various researchers because of the fact. usual, the twentieth century would not contain the warmest anomaly of the previous millennium in most of the proxy information, that have been sampled international-extensive. previous researchers implied that unusual twentieth century warming ability a international human effect. although, the proxies practice that the twentieth century isn't surprisingly heat or severe."

1) The nine doctors just barley made it through medical school, the 10th is a world renowned specialist who has seen many cases like yours. Don't have the surgery.

2) The nine lawyers went to horrible law schools and don't specialize in criminal law. The 10th is Johnnie Cochran. Go for the trial.

3) Nine of the scientists are under the wing of big environmental companies while the 10th has surpassed the media hype and come out with an honest opinion based on real evidence. Don't reduce.

Its all in the interpretation.

And where did you get your 9/10 statistic.

Consider this:

Richard Lindzen, head of climatology at MIT: ", the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore’s movie.”

Furthermore, Timothy Ball, the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology from the University of London, who has an extensive background in climatology especially in studying the impact of climate change on human history, says that “Global Warming as we know it doesn’t exist.” This top scientist, who is much more credible than Mr. Gore and his nonexistent sources, also believes that “Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide”.

Hey where do you mention what kind of scientists that are included in the survey? If you took the time to read my quotes, they are from climatologists, real climatologists who should have the only opinion in the matter.

Oh wow more consensus instead of proof. Get over it you CAN NOT prove it. Therefore it is just speculation, educated guessing. Getting more people to back you in your guess work makes you popular not right.

My question to you. Why do you want the doom and gloom so bad? What is the glamor of clinging to this notion that humans are all powerful, and that this can't just be *gasp* the natural ups and downs of the earths climate. Why are you so afraid to admit that it is truly out of our hands and there is *gasp* something bigger and grander controlling it. (whether it be God, Nature, or Science). Do you have a complex? Must man be all powerful to you? If so leave the rest of us out of it.

I would take a chance on the first two, but I happen to believe that global warming is caused mostly by natural movements of the earth and sun. About a one degree rise in 100 years has occurred. It is scientific fact that can't easily be disputed.

Where did you get you facts that 9 out of ten scientists agree with global warming theory. From the same place you got the Oreskes study that there is no dissent in peer review journals? Another lie.

just because nine out of ten people say something doesn't mean it's right. In the sevenities "most" scientist thought we were headed into a new ice age. They were wrong. Scientist hype the threat of global warming because it is good for their industary and if they didn't they might lose there job. Your a sheep.