args

Global Climate Change is a problem and needs to be addressed.

Ok so instead of arguing and coming up with evidence you just decide to discredit my sources. Very well I can do the same I guess. In response to your link from the Committee of Environment and Public Works we are only looking at the minority page. Plus its their blog. Sure they may have cited resources but they are only citing sources that fit in with their agenda. Are they going to give you any bi-partisan view? Of course not. Senator Inhofe comes from a state where oil is king, I find it a little hard to take him too seriously. Most of the research talks about a global temperature model which hasn't really be considered accurate. It seems more like a twisting of words more than anything. After reading through some of them like this one http://www.npr.org... it sounds more like they are unsure. Those books I suggested are some of the resources that I cited my information from. Those books are all interrelated to each-other and allows the reader to look at things on a broader scale. Tim flannery has a cited section in his book. He isn't just making up facts on random and publishing them. Sustaining the Earth is peer reviewed by other experts in the field. You can even find their names and credentials in the book. You can even find all of the research that was cited. Fritjof Capra system theories is a very important book. It is examining various natural systems and their affects. Such as the Carbon cycle or ocean currents. It gives a viewpoint on all parts and gives a better understanding on system affects and what happens when we Very well I can do the same I guess. In response to your link from the Committee of Environment and Public Works we are only looking at the minority page. Plus its their blog. Sure they may have cited resources but they are only citing sources that fit in with their agenda. Are they going to give you any bi-partisan view? Of course not. Senator Inhofe comes from a state where oil is king, I find it a little hard to take him too seriously. Most of the research talks about a global temperature model which hasn't really be considered accurate. It seems more like a twisting of words more than anything. After reading through some of them like this one http://www.npr.org... it sounds more like they are unsure. Those books I suggested are some of the resources that I cited my information from. Those books are all interrelated to each-other and allows the reader to look at things on a broader scale. Tim flannery has a cited section in his book. He isn't just making up facts on random and publishing them. Sustaining the Earth is peer reviewed by other experts in the field. You can even find their names and credentials in the book. You can even find all of the research that was cited. Fritjof Capra system theories is a very important book. It is examining various natural systems and their affects. Such as the Carbon cycle or ocean currents. It gives a viewpoint on all parts and gives a better understanding on system affects and what happens when we change them for better or for worse. Jeremy Rifkin, The hydrogen economy is not totally using hydrogen as a resource. It also talks about, mismanagement of fossil fuels, the over estimate of current oil fields, and the hydrogen cycle. Please if you are going to complain about the sources read them at least before you do. Clearcutting was back in response to the previous round,here is my statement "Deforestation needs to be stopped and more environmentally friendly techniques must be taken. Like selective cutting rather than the clear-cutting Brazil is using today". and yours-This is an opinion I made that argument because clear-cutting is promoting erosion. When the rain comes from the remainder of the rain forest it washes away the rich topsoil and leaves the farmers with bare land that they cannot farm on. Plus by removing the trees they are eliminating all the nutrients that would go back and replenish the ground there fore breaking the carbon cycle. Yes the internet is an awful place for sceintfic journals. All you get mainly is tid bits and newspaper quotes from the journals rather than all the research. Plus if we are truely trying to use these as sole resources then you must play by the rules. Many of these arguments that you are presenting fail the third rule of appeal to athority, in other words they have a bias. My sources are contained in many of those books. I have backed up my information. You still haven't responed to the natural rate article or anything else in the articles that i have mentioned previously. Here are some more though. http://cdiac.ornl.gov... http://laps.fsl.noaa.gov... The burden of proof is on me however you have done very little to dispute my claims. When I give you my resources you balk and complain. I fail to see how this is a productive use of our time. You said for me to show a relationship between greenhouse gases and temperature. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... You have failed to cite any specific sources that refute my claim. All you have done is attempt to dispute my sources and discredit them. I don't think its voter bias that causes you to lose but rather poor argumentation skills, poor evidence, and lack of tact. Please try and find specific sources not a link to a government blog to a list. That would not fly on any professional paper. I mean you just bashed Man Bear Pig when he presented sources that actaully have some crediblitly to disputing Global Warming instead. On a side note Man Bear Pig I would love to have a debate with you on the subject and I am keenly interested on more of your points. I would be very appreciative if you could perhaps email some of your points. I enjoy looking at both sides and its very rare that I see the other side presented so well, kudos to you.