Replies

With all due respect, simply attributing the speculative association of C02 with a positive feedback global thermal mechanism to "Climate Science" is about as valid as claiming it is based upon the the number of hairs on a goat's chin.

Your attitude toward science is noted, since apparently what science has concluded doesn't agree with your preconceptions.

There are too many reasonable sources of global destruction to put your money on CO2.

Some things can be controlled (though it may take some effort), some things can't. Do you have or expect to have grandchildren?

With all due respect, simply attributing the speculative association of C02 with a positive feedback global thermal mechanism to "Climate Science" is about as valid as claiming it is based upon the the number of hairs on a goat's chin.

Your attitude toward science is noted, since apparently what science has concluded doesn't agree with your preconceptions.

My attitude towards "people who claim to be basing their argument on science" is noted. To simply say "science says XYZ" does not make XYZ true. For two obvious reasons; 1) Science is not something to be quoted...there are scientists that deny human caused global warming. 2) Making an argument based upon some mythological being called "science" is pure BS. Why don't you provide something more credible?

There are too many reasonable sources of global destruction to put your money on CO2.

Some things can be controlled (though it may take some effort), some things can't. Do you have or expect to have grandchildren?

I have grandchildren. I would hate to see them living in 3rd world conditions because we arbitrarily decided they should live in such a manner to avoid global warming, when there is no evidence that they need to do that. That is like getting out of the car and walking for 20 miles through the snow on the premise that "science" said the car was gonna blow up...but the car did not blow up and nobody quite knows who this "science" guy is.

Fact is, you should move over to D.U. where you will get more people agreeing with you because they do not have the level of discernment you will find here. We don't just believe BS at FR because "science" says we should.

We can't allow personalities to ruin what has been a reasoned debate to this point; the hi-jackers need be warned.