Global warming-fact or fiction and how do you propose we tackle it?

[Final-Fan]

Grey Acumen said:
first off, Final-Fan, I wasn't actually referring to you in the "ZOMG IT"S A FACT" thing, yet you still manage to demonstrate the exact problem I have with accepting what you say very nicely by going "har har, you don't believe evolution is real"

Because I didn't say that evolution doesn't exist at all, but that teh THEORY OF EVOLUTION has not been proven. To explain in simple terms so that even you can wrap your poor little mind around: (see wut i did thar?)
While evolution within a species has been documented, evolution from one species to a completely different sustainable species HAS NOT. We have species that we believe might be related to other species, but there has never been an observed case of an animal changing from one species to another species that is unable to breed with the original species.
Humans have been breeding dogs and cats and cows and horses to the point where they are look completely different in build, mass, and pretty much every physical structure, but are still completely capable of breeding with one another.
Horses and donkeys can breed, but they produce a mule, which has always been unable to breed in turn. Humans and monkeys cannot breed, yet we "supposedly" evolved from them. Yet there are no documented cases of a species evolving to the point it can no longer breed with it's original species.
On top of this, if evolution did allow one species to become an entirely different species, why are there no fossil evidence of those "in between" stages that should be common as an older species becomes a newer one? This STILL has never been addressed, and the most people can come up with is a fish that is capable of walking on land, yet when it comes down to it, there is no evidence that this isn't simply a species in and of its own right, a theory which is further supported as it is still a viable species today and has not moved from being a fish to being a land animal.

So as you can see, there are plenty of points over which evolution over creationism can be contested, yet people, much like yourself, blindly accept it as fact despite the overwhelming number of glaring logical gaffes. Now, I'm not claiming to know one way or another how different species came to be, but that's pretty much the whole point. I'm NOT claiming to KNOW.

Then for drkohler, who, rather than attempt to address the issue, chose to opt out of it: Alright, if you can't prove a negative, then you supposedly can prove a positive, right?
Instead of "Can we prove that the planet won't go back to normal on it's own? No"
We'll phrase it as "Can we prove that the planet will continue on this warming trend indefinitely if unaided, instead of stabilizing itself on its own? No"

As sqrl has pointed out, global warming is not an issue without contention, and my problem is not that you are putting it forward as a serious concern, but that you are putting it forward as an undisputed fact when it obviously isn't. That you do this is what destroys your credibility in my eyes, and 90% of every person who has touted global warming has done similarly, stating that global warming is a definitive fact. If they can't even admit that it's not a fact, then they aren't trying to find the truth, they're trying to make what they say accepted.

Personally, I have no issues with trying to cut back on pollution. I may not be convinced about the global scale of things, but I understand the effects that pollution has had as I live in pittsburgh, a former big steel mill industry. I've heard the stories about how the air used to be, and I know I wouldn't have wanted to be anywhere near that.
As far as I'm concerned, pollution is a quality of life issue, not a life or death issue.

Are you saying that horses and zebras are not truly different species? I believe they can crossbreed. (I may possibly be mistaken.) Rats and mice, ditto. Wolves and dogs.

I do not have specific knowledge on this point but I would surmise that in fact the horse/donkey/mule example is in fact an example in progress of what you claim does not exist. It seems to stand to reason that horses and donkeys are still "close" enough to produce offspring, but "far away" enough that things are just slightly messed up inside, preventing further breeding.

In any case, I could take this argument to the next level but I woud prefer to drop it in favor of the main debate, global warming. I admit I started this distraction and regret it.
http://www.talkorigins.org