Greenpace attacks consoles!

[Sqrl]

PS360ForTheWin said:

Sqrl said:

See thats the point, I've done the research, I've read everything ranging from people who completely support it to people who completely disagree with it and the conclusion I keep finding is that there isn't enough evidence for AGW but in fact that the evidence shows just the opposite. I've read the wikipedia page on GW a number of times, as well as pretty much all of the off-shoot links to related topics as well as places like RealClimate.com, and too many more to recount. So if you know of evidence then please site it. I've done the reading and I'm ready to debate the topic regardless of who it is on the other end, because not only am I confident in my position, I'm simply not afraid to be proven wrong...the truth is the goal afterall.

As for the TV and politicians...that comment is laughable, those people are not scientistis, they are actually the PERFECT example of the types of people you would expect to hold science as a hostage for their own causes...they do it with everything else so why not science?

 

thank you for taking my comments out of context, by tv/internet reports i mean that feature scientists and there reports, i would have thought that was obvious. So wikipedia and all its links are insufficient and you call me stubborn.

No your comment was perfectly in context. If you intended to point out those scientists then you could have done so directly. For instance:

Scientists like Climatologist Kerry Emanuel of MIT who previously had previously said GW would be the cause of horrible natural disasters based on his climate models and recently rescinded that position?

But you chose to site groups that are by their nature bound to political agendas and ideas and whom are rife with reasons to only site those who agree with them. You brought that unnecessary layer into the discussion, what was the point if not to site them?

Wikipedia, is a great source of information and you can make it sound like I disagree with everything there if you like but the simple fact is that much of what is there is correct and only a handful of it are things I've found reason to disagree with.

Are you planning to site specifics as I have done? Truly this debate is one-sided at the moment, you've asked me and others in several posts to take the words of the unspecified scientists and unspecified politicians, etc.. and I've responded with specifics. If you have nothing to site then state so and move on.