| Kytiara said: Pearljammer, I'm not trying to argue with you specifically, but go back on that first page and tell me what you see. A few people willing to discuss the possibilities and the rest so sure in their knowledge that they believe that AGW isn't a theory, its a fact. I'm not even going to say I think their all wrong. I reserve my own judgement about what is true until there is more information that can tell us. It's not like I'm doing this for profit. I don't get anything from oil companies (I could only wish). I own a subcompact with very good gas mileage. I carpool to work. I walk everywhere I can. I rarely travel by airplane. I use energy saving appliances and lightbulbs. I recycle everyting I can (including soft plastics like grocery shopping bags which I have to pay to recycle). I'm just as worried about the planet as anyone else, but I DO NOT believe there is enough proof to claim AGW is a fact, and people like Al Gore and David Suzuki piss me off because they turn a scientific discussion that might turn into something useful into a fear mongering political mess that convinces the entire bloody planet that they should buy Carbon credits to feel better about driving an SUV or extended cab super duty pickup truck around town. Take Al Gore for example, since he's the biggest and most outspoken proponent of the AGW theory. He has a mansion that uses more electricity than 20 other families and he says "Its ok that I don't follow what I preach, because I buy carbon credits so really, if you think about it I'm not using any energy at all! My carbon footprint is 0". So, what he's saying is, if you're rich, do whatever the hell you want, and if you're poor, stop producing Co2 because you're personally killing the planet. |
As I've said, I have no doubts that many use this issue as a means for political gain. And yes, it does work on many as you've pointed out (those who claim as fact). But, if we put celebrities and 'celebrity scientists' aside, there is, or rather was, a debate on this issue for quite some time. There are, however, still researcers out there who reamin very skeptical and those who, as they should with any theory, reserve their final judgment the same as you do. And as always you have the nutjobs who claim the two extremes.
Of course this isn't fact, but that doesn't mean that there isn't enough evidence to be concerned over or believe it to be true. Evolution is a theory, and while I believe it should be continued to be studied, as it is a theory, I have read enough about it to accept it as true.
Looking back at this now, after rereading my post, I agree, that it doesn't really make sense that we are arguing about this. We have essentially the same reservations on the theory, just a different level of acceptance of it. You were aiming for those who said it was fact, I was too quick to jump the gun, my apologies 
