dehammer wrote:
"the thing about that da is that you refuse to discuss what the scientist (good, reputable, scientist working in that field) are saying just because they are quoted on a site that is not of your political party line or because its not pure science."
You just disagreed without yourself which, for most people, is reasonably hard to do. You start off saying "you refuse to discuss what the scientist are saying" and you follow it up with "because its not pure science." That is logically impossible. What the good scientists are saying IS pure science.
But putting that aside for the moment. My point is that there is nothing at nightshadebooks.com that is serious science so how can one use it as a reference as to what serious scientists are thinking?
If one wants to know what serious scientists are thinking rather they go to these:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 A serious peer reviewed science magazine
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate_change/climate-consensus.html An organization of scientists
http://cmbc.ucsd.edu/content/1/docs/Lindzen-NYT2006.pdf#search=%22%22consensus%22%20and%20%22global%20warming%22%22
University of California at San Diego
(you might note this item disagrees with me but anyone looking for credibility would have found it)
http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/easterbrook/20060517.htm The Brookings Institution
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000723consensus_statement_.html The University of Colorado
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1229_041229_climate_change_consensus.html National Geographic
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041108213307.htm A science magazine
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/Fish/southflorida/news/bush2004.html Florida Museum of Natural History
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/cretaceous.html http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2005/200504.html National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Rutgers University
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/glwarm/housescience.htm There is a huge difference between them and:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/green.htm Which is the level of the discussion we've been having and to which I, an effete elistist snob, object.
And it would not have been hard to come up with a list of hundreds of serious references.