A Case for Global Warming

Snow White,

"U.N. has already admitted that the 'man-made global warming' baloney was all about redistribution of wealth"

Source please? Every resolution and statement I've heard the UN make have expressed that the worlds top scientific organizations are in consensus that global warming IS occurring, and that it is either caused by or worsened by mans influence.

Additionally, (I'm admittedly not a climatologist), oceanic cooling can be caused by global warming. There are sub-surface currents that flow through the ocean, brining warmer water north and cooler water south. A potential problem is cooler water warming too much that the current stops, which could lead to a rapid cooling.

My point is just that the issue is too complicated for most of us (myself included) to grasp. I cringe every time I hear a conservative pundit say "it's COLDER this year than it was last year, global warming CAN'T be true". There are some global warming naysayers with advanced degrees. Just like there are a few scientists who dispute evolution. But the majority of scientific institutions (especially ones that specifically study climate) have come to the consensus that global warming is real, and (at least in part) caused by man.

And Mike,

It's interesting that you bring up swine flu, and claim that conservatives will try to paint it as Obama's fault.

I don't think they will. It might shed some light on the billions for pandemic preparedness that they negotiated OUT of the stimulus package.

From Republican Senator's website:

http://collins.senate.gov/public/continu...

They were just trying to be fiscally conservative and save money. But I doubt with this information they will try to give him undue blame.

I should have known when steffanie used the whole cap and trade verbage she got it from somewhere. Fox News has been working hard the last few days to scare people about cap and trade

Cap and Trade "would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the U.S. economy--all without any scientific justification," says internationally famed climatologist Dr. S. Fred Singer. Using the global warming/climate change scam, Obama and his accomplices plan to impose Cap and Trade, which will increase taxes; increase the cost of energy; force many companies to close; and multiply unemployment, poverty and despair, while increasing the power and wealth of Obama and his accomplices.

We can all quote scientists all day long from the media outlet that investigates from the side we support, like so:

"I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."

Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.

"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.

"The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

"After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.

"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.

"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.

"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

"The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

http://blogs.lubbockonline.com/conservat...

However, consensus among scientists isn't what makes us believe or disbelieve anything. If it was proven there was a consensus among scientists that man made global warming was a hoax, I doubt those who buy into it will suddenly change course. They will debate the scientists, attack them and do whatever they can to defend their point of view.

I don't claim to be experienced in global warming but my limited knowledge of the history of the Earth's changes and the various uncontrollable circumstances surrounding those changes, convinces me that man is nowhere near influential enough to make the kinds of changes we hear will happen in the 30-100 years. I don't believe we could have such a significant impact within the next 1,000 years given the amount of time it has taken,historically, to make significant changes to the Earth's climate. There's nothing wrong with limiting pollution where we can without crippling industry in the process but cap and trade policies certainly do not reduce pollution, they only politicize it further. Mixing science with politics is dangerous to society and to the scientists who only have jobs because of the funding they can secure.

A perfect example would be the scientists trying to prove third hand smoke because now that far fewer people are smoking and people have become convinced of second hand smoke, there is a rapidly decreasing demand for such research so they have to find (or create) a new problem to keep the money flowing. Scientific funding is a very political process, unfortunately.

As far as the U.N. is concerned, I've never had much faith in an organization that is known for it's betrayal of public confidence through cover-ups and scandals all while demanding more money from member nations. Many of the scientists the U.N. said support their views on climate change, have demanded to be removed and at least one had even gone as far to threaten legal action against the U.N. if their names are not removed from that list because they never supported that report, they only reviewed it. Based on the same article listed previously. Given the fact that it is the U.N., I wouldn't be surprised.

My biggest concern is that politicians and scientists are focusing the majority of their research on a cause, whose actual impact has been greatly exaggerated so that it can be politicized rather than funding a thoroughly objective research program that seriously looks at the uncontrollable causes that may be more contributing factors.

When Al Gore claims to says the debate is over. That shows his lack of understanding in the world of science. In a truly objective world of science the debate is never over because if the debate were over, we wouldn't have so many scientists dissenting to the propaganda called "global warming" which after the reports on cooling, is starting to transition into "climate change". Call it what you want but I think objective science has been overshadowed by political science. I wonder if I just invented a new definition for political science. I gotta go head to the copyright office before they close.

G.I.

I agree that research should be done into the dangers of fossil fuels but I don't think you have to be a scientist to know that fossil fuel emissions are not safe to inhale at certain levels. If they were, people wouldn't use them to commit suicide. I am far less interested in the type of "science" that looks at areas with factor x and compare it with disease y or cancer z and making assumptions without hard science. I'm more interested in the science that shows WHY factor x does or does not cause disease y or cancer z and at what levels. Such as what specific contaminants have an affect on specific areas of the human body, what is the physical distortion they cause and why does it have this affect on us. If we have a thorough understanding of how a contaminant works on us to prevent these occurences from happening in the future, then we can prevent future mistakes. Just as an example, if there is an identical contaminant in fossil fuels and a specific type of biofuel then we can try to extract that contaminant from the biofuel or eliminate its use completely. I know the "brown eyed people are smarter than blue eyed people science" is a popular scientific method but it doesn't confirm anything and it doesn't give us a thorough understanding of the matter at hand. It may work as a good starting point to identify the problem but I often feel we rely on this method too much without a dedicated effort to expand on it with the type of science that will truly expand our knowledge of the problem. I have a lot more faith in the work done in the labs with the microscopes, test tubes and all the equipment that I can't even spell (don't wanna upset Steffanie, you know) or pronounce for that matter.

I remain cautiously skeptical of the "consensus" that is claimed because you need accurate numbers to obtain a true consensus. Personally, I would like to know:

1. How many scientists, in relevant fields, are there in the world?

2. How many support the theory, how many oppose it and how many refuse to give an opinion?

3. If we are going to rate scientists on expertise, associations or awards then what's the criteria we use to compare them fairly?

Otherwise, we are only speculating on a true consensus and what we get is a consensus of like-minded scientists but not a consensus of all relevant scientists. These are, of course, questions to answers that would prove extremely difficult to answer because no one would want to take the time and effort to do all that work. So, what we get is one side's propaganda vs. another side's propaganda. That is my criteria to use consensus as a matter of fact. Others may choose to lessen their standards but mine will stay where they are.

Just one more point, please don't get caught up in the grammar drama. I don't know about you but I think it's just getting childish and annoying.

Steffanie,

I probably agree with you on a plethora of issues but I don't understand why you prefer the debate of grammar over global warming? I could go back to prior posts by everyone here, myself included, and point out errors in grammar but that would be a waste of my time and everyone else who read it. If I want to correct someone then I stick to misquotes, false facts (that really isn't an oxymoron if you think about it) or some sort of substantive inaccuracy. Mike teaches History not English and I sure hope his school's English teacher isn't teaching History. Don't we have better things to do with our brains then play spellcheck?

Mike,

I probably don't agree with you on a plethora of issues but it's amazing to me, how easily you are baited into a fruitless argument by a simple attack on your character from a complete stranger. Or at least, I assume it's a stranger. I know I don't know you and many of the people on this blog probably don't really know you either. I just got the impression that is something trivial that you wouldn't even acknowledge. Sometimes, I wonder if the people here would act the same way if we were all face-to-face in a room rather than on a blog. I'd hope not but at the very least, nobody would be arguing over grammar.

Grammar Warriors,

Give me a break. Pretty please with a liberally sized cherry and a conservative amount of sprinkles on top?

I think its interesting Justin that the only people you go after for putting down other people are the moderates and liberals on this blog. You and steffanie and g5 continually question our intelligience, our beliefs, calling EVERYTHING we say a joke or idiotic, calling us godless, calling us pedophiles (yes I know you never have justin, but this is my point). How about you as you say put up or shut up. Don't act as if your side is devoid of anyone who does the exact same things as you claim only the other side does.

I said in my original post that I wasn't going to list sites for facts, because of the simple reason that people who do not agree with me would claim that I was cherry picking. That's why this entire article was nothing more than my opinion. I wasn't claiming that it was the absolute truth. I just pointed out that most credible scientists agree that global warming is in fact going on.

The thing that I find most amazing on this blog is the fact that posters such as justin, steffanie, g5, mccook1 seem to think that they are the only ones who have the right ideas about everything. You want my side to reach across the aisle but your side is do sure that what you believe is the only right that you won't do the same back across and haven't for years on end.

I don't pretend to know everything, and frankly I don't want to know everything. I want to always be learning. But I am not going to take lessons from people that think they are so right that they don't even see when they point out how others are attacking they completely leave themselves out of it and then in their next breath attack the other side.

And this is to everyone who feels the need to go after my students. These children are under the age of 18 and you don't know a sincle one of them. They are a great group of kids and I have a feeling even my conservative kids could run circles around some of you in a debate.

The reason I love my kids so much is because they are open to new ideas but they also don't take any bull from myself.

What's more as a teacher I don't teach from a liberal or a conservative perspective because neither have their place in the classroom. I teach history. And for those of you out there who are history reconstructionists, history cannot change. It doesn't matter who is in charge at the time. History for the most part has been written down for us from all sides of the spectrum and I teach from all those sides.

The other day we were discussing the atomic bombings to end World War II. I never once told the class how I felt. I gave the arguments from both sides and let the students decide on their own whether or not we should have. And a majority of them sided with the bombing. Free thinkers, gotta love them.

I take my profession very serious and steffanie its people like you that mccook1 seems to be giving a pass and I can't for the life of me fathom why. You have challenged my intelligence, my sexuality, and my profession. Yet apparently in mccook1's mind that is peachy but the second I utter racist I'm the evil one. You people have no shame and that's the most amazing point of all this. You criticize everyone else for their opinions then whine and moan when someone does the same to you.

Grow up.

G.I.,

I would say you misunderstood a large part of that so let me address as much as I can.

"Are you actually arguing that there isn't now and haven't been "hard science" studies conducted using scientific method and an array of statistical models, that have been able to isolate variables in both laboratory (controlled) AND urban environments?"

No, what I said was, "I am far less interested" in the science that is based primarily off identifying a problem, for example, pollution in urban areas, and picking whatever disease or cancer suits their fancy and saying, "look this place has high pollution and high levels of people with migraines. Therefore, pollution causes migraines". Then they publish it and have their colleagues review it and sign off on it and give little to no mention of any actual lab work.

I then went on to say:

"I'm more interested in the science that shows WHY factor x does or does not cause disease y or cancer z and at what levels. Such as what specific contaminants have an affect on specific areas of the human body, what is the physical distortion they cause and why does it have this affect on us."

I am saying that I believe we need a larger focus on the lab work done by scientists to confirm any supposed "findings" done by, essentially, statisticians.

I also said that the use of statistics is a good way to identify a problem we can take to the lab but I don't rely on statistics to answer the hard questions that can only be answered in the lab and by physically collecting and analyzing the data related to a problem such as collecting samples in the field and returning to the lab for analysis.

"Here is the problem I predict with you, if I would have said, "I have studies reporting lab results on animal subjects that prove certain pollutants to be cancerous," I can imagine you saying, "those aren't human models and it's not the real world."

I'm sorry but you'd be wrong. That would actually be a part of the science that I was saying we need to focus on MORE than statistics. Please don't misunderstand that to think I don't believe they can't be used in conjunction with one another but my concern is with where the most work is done. I'm certainly not in any hurry to start pumping carbon monoxide laden smog into the lungs of human guinea pigs. Like I said earlier, "I don't think you have to be a scientist to know that fossil fuel emissions are not safe to inhale at certain levels. If they were, people wouldn't use them to commit suicide". I also said we should do more research into fossil fuels and their specific contaminants. In addition to that I believe we should do similiar research into emissions from biofuels or other alternative fuels that give off emissions.

I'm sorry if I didn't address every specific issue you wanted me to, as I was getting tired and decided to cut my response short but I will try to address what I may have missed and if I miss a point of concern, just let me know.

"Does burning fossil fuels release harmful toxins into the atmosphere?"

I think more physical data needs to be collected and analyzed on this matter but I would also like to see research done to show exactly what that effect might be and why.

Does the majority of fossil fuels lay under the Earth's surface in the territory of people that want to kill us?

I believe a large amount of the current supply of fossil fuels comes from these countries. However, no one can answer that question as it is worded because only parts of the Earth's surface have been explored for fossil fuels but not the surface as a whole.

"Are there science and technology industries that can be created within our borders that will allow us to establish a whole new job sector that will last in perpetuity, and in doing so reduce toxins in the atmosphere, and pollutants in our rivers and groundwater?"

I'm sure if we wanted to, we could start some. My concern is whether there will be enough jobs to cover all the jobs lost with the prior industries and the jobs that would inevitably disappear as a result and are they reliable, long term careers with similiar or better pay, will there need to be a re-education of workers for these new jobs or will it be something the employers can do as a part of the training process?

I completely agree with comparing the folly of Gore's statement that "the debate is over" with Bush's "mission accomplished". Their respective arrogance and their ignorance of the facts, only managed to extract more credibility from each of them.

"Do you agree or disagree that it is in the best interest of America to get away from the death grip of middle eastern oil?"

I agree that we should be free from ALL foreign oil and the only people I'm aware of who would disagree with that statement are the foreign countries selling the oil to us.

"Do you agree that harmful pollutants exist in our air and water?"

I'm sure there are pollutants in the air but to what extent and their actual impact needs more research. I do breath fine in McCook, if it's any consolation though.

I believe the nitrates in water are dangerous since there is sound scientific evidence backing up this claim. The arsenic and uranium standards can not claim this same level of scientific evidence, so I can not say with certainty that they constitute a harmful constituent. However, I drink water treated for all three of these, thanks to the state and federal government's threat of a $43 million lawsuit against a town with an annual budget that wasn't half that amount. It would be like the U.S. being sued for $7.2 trillion. The irony is, it's one of many unfunded mandates from the EPA. They wanted to sue us for not being able to meet the mandate they refused to fund. They also told us, take out the nitrate, arsenic and uranium and put in chlorine. I'm waiting for the day they tell us we can't use chlorine after forcing us to use it in the first place.

FYI: My lack of response to the grammar fiasco is intentional since I've said all I have to say about it.

Hopefully, I have responded to your questions but like I said if I missed something then just let me know. I have no problem responding to your concerns.

McCook1, I apologize for including you in my diatribe.

What I meant by my statement about my conservative kids (after re-reading it yes I do realize that I gave the impression that I think less of them and that was not my intent) is that their ideologies are closer to some of the posters on here and they, at the ages of 15-17, could offer clearer and better arguments than a large percentage of the bloggers on here.

Steffanie, once again thank you for proving my point that you are acting childish.

We seem to be running in circles and each time around I think you are slowly beginning to see where I am coming from.

"In the labs that I have worked in, stats are done by the researchers, not by folks who are only statisticians (though believe me I wish that were the case)."

I am aware of this and hence the reason for the use of the word "essentially" before statisticians. If I thought it were only statisticians who did this work I would have just said the statistical work was "done by statisticians". Sorry for any confusion.

"There is plenty of physical data McCook1 (it is not hard to find) AND you just said people use carbon monoxide to kill themselves...what could be more conclusive than that?"

Yes, but carbon monoxide is not the only pollutant in emissions. I am arguing that, just as conclusively as we have proven carbon monoxide is dangerous to inhale and the levels at which it begins to cause different stages of damage and eventually becomes lethal. We should also seek this level of conclusiveness in everything that we research.

"Where do think that carbon monoxide goes McCook1? I can assure you that it doesn't turns to magic fairy dust once it gets to the troposphere?"

I don't recall denying that carbon monoxide is released into any specific layer of our atmosphere. I did say I would like more research done because there has been no conclusive explanation as to the full effects of these pollutants. In fact, from what I've read, it's still being widely debated. Why wouldn't I want more research to be done?

I don't argue that arsenic and uranium are dangerous at certain levels. I knew there were dangerous and safe levels of arsenic in first grade when I read the back of our milk cartons and pointed out that arsenic acid was one of the ingredients and got many free milks from kids who thought they'd die if they drank it. What hasn't been proven is that the government's limits on arsenic and uranium are dangerous at the levels they've set. If you're worried about uranium and arsenic then you better be careful the next time you eat lettuce, grapes or even a watermelon because they could contain polonium 210, the same thing that killed Litvinenko, the Russian spy. It's all a matter of how much you want to take at face value and how much actual research you want to do.

I've wasted more years of my life researching ground pollutants than you know. I'm glad your friends are still researching arsenic and uranium, trying to understand their effects. That's good to hear. It's just too bad that they and no one else could provide solid evidence to support the legitimacy of the EPA limits on arsenic and uranium in 2004 when the lawsuit was filed and 2006 when the arsenic rule became effective. Maybe they'll eventually figure it out. I just wish they could fully comprehend what a safe level is BEFORE they set the "safe" level and begin suing small towns over it.

"Good for the EPA. Good for the water supply and ecosystems. Good for future McCookians."

Yeah, it would've been great for the EPA to syphon money from local taxpayers for their unfunded mandate. A perfect example of government helping out the little guy, right?

We take out much of the nitrates, arsenic and uranium and then pump them right back into the ground and its EPA approved. Good for the EPA and our ecosystem.

Chlorine has been statistically linked to a 93% higher risk of cancer. Many of the long term effects of chlorine are unknown but suspected to be dangerous when inhaled such as during a hot shower or directly ingested. McCook was ready to achieve the same benefit of disinfection with oxygenation and UV lamps which would have had no increased health risk to water users but the EPA, in their infinite wisdom said no, use the contaminant that may make your children sick and increase the risk of cancer in your community. Yeah, real good job for the EPA. They did a killer job for future McCookians.

seentoomuch,

I don't argue your confidence in the ability of newer industries to replace existing jobs with similiar training experiences. I just haven't seen any evidence about how many jobs will be lost and whether all of them will be replaced with similiar jobs in similiar industries.

I think the newer industries are just as susceptible to greed as the old ones. Greed will always be a factor in businesses. Greed, like drinking, is best done in moderation. When it deprives the rights of others and leads to breaking laws is when we suffer. For many of the "greedy" people out there, it's a great motivation. I'm greedy enough that I'm not satisfied with how much I make and I want to make more and I work hard to achieve that. We all suffer from varying degrees of greed. It's excessive greed that hurts us.

I agree with you that speculators drove up the price of oil to ridiculously high levels. Speculators were also responsible for driving it to dramatically lower levels as well. It's all subject to the free market. Speculation drove the price of oil up further than any oil company would have done and they drove it down further than what members of Congress were demanding. It truly is a source of great ambivalence for me.

I also acknowledge that oil companies and OPEC, especially, do everything they can to keep the price of oil as high as they can. Which is why I support green energy but I don't believe we have to abandon our operations and exploration into traditional energy. I think it should be simultaneous with an eventual transition that allows companies to pursue their current plans to maintain their business which would lead to them being able to restructure and their workers could retrain without a large lapse in employment. That's how I would do it anyway.

Steffanie,

I only ask because you referenced Arkansas taxpayers specifically. I didn't see anything about stimulus money. I am not sure what specific school Mike teaches at and I certainly don't know if they've received stimulus money or not and if so, whether that money went towards salaries or something else. Call me lazy but my apathy is gonna win that fight. My grandma was a teacher and believe me, what they don't do at school they get done on their own time and that's without blogging.

Justin,

I hope you don't mind if I butcher your quote.

An uneducated man will look for an educated man to blame.

An educated man will look for an uneducated man to blame.

The wise man will look for another wise man to fix the problem everyone's arguing about.

Anyone who works for 8 hours during the course of the day is entitled to an hour long break, whether their salaries are paid in tax dollars or not.

I can only speak from my own experience, but while I was a student teacher, I only received 20 minutes for lunch (over the course of a 10 hour day that included coaching and sponsoring several clubs). On top of this there was the grading of papers, the planning of lessons, and whatever "professional development" exercises the school administration threw at me. Despite any amount of work that I did during my plan period, I always ended up with "homework" that needed to be completed the next day (and the state doesn't give you any overtime for that).

So with all the extra stuff piled on teachers during the course of their workday (and evening), I don't have a problem with Mike using 20-30 minutes of his day as an escape, much in the same way I doubt anyone would mind me taking all 60 minutes of my lunch break at my job (which is funded with tax dollars).

Steffanie I'd pump the brakes on being a raging windbag and stop casting stones towards Michael, lest you be subject to the same ridicule about the many ways you waste your own free time.

To Jhat & Guillermo I.: First here's the source, not that you'd accept it, http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/0...

And: http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-chat/21691...

Believe whatever you want. That's your privilege, but I will never believe that man is warming the earth. There's no REAL science to prove it. It's all about money & power.WE may have polluted parts of the earth etc., but we have not changed the climate.I don't believe in evolution either. It's just another Godless theory that's never been proven.

Think I'll eat lobster, not crow.

How can you be sure you're on the right side if you haven't considered the other?

Steffanie what exactly is it you do for a living you seem so interested in telling me how to do my job yet we don't know what you do, because you spend an awful amount of time on here. I don't have to defend how I do my job to you I really don't. When someone so , to put it in the words of a large majority of the conservative posters on here, ignorantly states that there are only two sides of an argument, right and wrong, and they are right they really become inconsequential.

Guillermo Inglaterra, I noticed the last part of your entry that raised my curosity. I dont think I believe in evolution either, as a matter of fact, I dont know what I believe in, I will just say I am conflicted. What make you believe in the existance if god? I ask this because to my knowledge(I could be wrong), there is no scientific evidence of the existance of god. Just the bible, which is a book that has several different versions, and interpreted in a hundred different ways. I was raised as a christian, but I have no evidence to believe or not believe in religion.

G.I.

"But that's the problem McCook, scientific researchers are not "essentially" statisticians, they are "essentially" scientists."

Like many of the words in the English language, I was using the word "essentially" loosely and not to the letter of the definition. I apologize if I gave the impression that the scientists who do this work are nothing more than statisticians. That's not what I was implying. I have a couple friends who are scientists and I know they are more than statisticians.

"The research on carbon monoxide and its affect on humans is conclusive, we both know that. The argument I am making is that even without a closure of the debate (en re: pollutants, global warming, etc), and based purely on a scientific consensus"

I simply disagree. I am not arguing the effects of carbon monoxide but rather the effects of other pollutants on our atmosphere so that, and it may be a wild idea right now, we can begin looking at how to REMOVE the pollution we already have. I put zero limits on the abilities and innovation of science and I thought I read somewhere that this type of research is already beginning. Maybe I just love debate too much to close it but a great example of a debate that I thought would be closed by now would be the dangers of smoking and second hand smoke but I read a headline about a report on how second hand smoke is dangerous. I admit I didn't read the article because I've grown tired of reading about the dangers of smoking, they're just so redundant. The article that did catch my eye was the one about the report on the dangers of third hand smoke. What will they come up with next? Whatever the case, I'm sure we wouldn't be blessed with the knowledge of third hand smoke if we closed the debate on the dangers of smoking.

"green energy is an undeveloped resource (and consequently an undeveloped market as well), that doesn't have as negative (or potentially negative) an impact on the environment as domestic fossil fuel and nuclear alternatives."

I agree that we should develop green energy but I think we could develop it for a host of better reasons even if fossil fuels emissions emitted potpourri into the air. I'm also curious, I thought I read something about Spain being a leader in wind farms or it might have just been in turbine manufacturing or maybe both, I can't recall. Since I thought you mentioned you were there, I thought maybe you can elaborate on what they're doing over there.

"I don't think that is wasted time, I think that is commendable. However, I am guessing that developments in research and data gathering technologies may be a possible explanation for your frustrating years "wasted" searching for evidence"

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. The day I started reading the National Nitrate Initiative and more excrutiatingly, the follow up research to actually understand it, will forever be the day I began, what I feel, was many wasted nights and burnt up contact lenses.

"That data is inconclusive and was essentially collected by statisticians, and there are too many relevant scientists who disagree for me to remain anything but cautiously skeptical about the affects of chlorine. Isn't that how your argument goes?"

Something like that. I was cautiously skeptical about an unconfirmed consensus. However, as I stated earlier, I also believe that statistics are a good place to begin looking at problems that can be positively identified, with the work of scientists performing the data collection and analysis in the field and in the lab. It is correct that I have little faith in statistics as a solid matter of fact as it relates to the science of an issue. That is why I pointed out that it was "statistically" linked. I felt if I didn't point out that fact then I would be misleading the reader into thinking it was scientific fact which it is not.

My concern is that the EPA, of all the federal agencies, should be the last agency to require a community to use a chemical that they know may increase cancer among other potential health risks. It's reminiscent of decades ago when the government required the use of asbestos in public buildings and then turned around and made everybody do asbestos abatement because they finally couldn't ignore the information on the dangers of asbestos. I don't want to see that problem repeated when it could have been completely avoided with an alternative form of disinfection that did not have the same health risks. The EPA seems more interested in safety regulation than they do with actual safety. Now, if the science comes in and the EPA can't ignore it anymore, they will force communities to dispose of their chlorination systems and find alternative disinfection treatments. Of course, the communities will be solely responsible for paying for this change. Never mind the fact that the EPA forced them to put in these systems despite the more responible requests of communities for a safer system in the first place. The worst part of this will be how many people will have to get sick before the EPA cleans up THEIR act. If the EPA were a private company doing this, they would be hit with so much litigation by these families that they'd never see the light of day again. Oh yeah, I don't want to forget to mention the fines and litigation from the government.

Am I the only one who can't see G5's posts?

Censorship? What in the world are you imagining this time?

G.I.,

I promise I won't cry censorship. You make a valid point that we may agree in the end even if we have a different way of prioritizing the reasons for arriving at the same conclusion.

I don't dispute the good work the EPA has caused to be done. I do believe that a lot of bureacracy and blanket regulation needs to be eliminated and they should be made to work for those at risk as well as working with those responsible. More time is spent submitting paperwork and waiting for the EPA to review it than the time it actually takes to implement the actual cleanup of a site. In my opinion, we could afford to layoff quite a few EPA employees and let them find employment in some of those new green jobs.

Btw, I'm only Irish once a year and it only lasts long enough to prove I'm not Irish. Sláinte!

G.I.

I would like to argue that we did not have a conflict. lol

Okay first of all Antonio if you think George Soros runs the media in this country you are just making things up. The only man who even comes close to controlling the media in this country isn't even American, he's Australian. Yes, of course I am talking about Rupert Murdoch. He owns countless number of network and cable stations. He owns most of the newspapers in New York and Washington. He has built an empire in the country and his only goal seems to be to divide Americans.

As for the man-made Global Warming. That isn't even a debate right now. The debate is whether man is causing Global Warming to be worse than it already is.

I find it amazing in the light that we humans are not perfect some on the right just go absolutely insane. Humans are not perfect we make mistakes, of course oddly enough in America we don't own up our mistakes but blame someone else for what's wrong in the world or what's happening more and more lately some of us are simply putting our fingers in our ears and shouting "Nah, Nah,Nah I can't hear you!!!!"

How can one impose socialism on a country that has been using socialism for 70 years as part of its system. Odd

G.I.,

I think it's time I come clean on the "how you define" line. None other than Bill Clinton was my inspiration for that line so I can't take full ownership of that line but I'll take my portion of it anyway.