Dems refuse honest debate on global warming

There are tons of evidence, how can you ignore it? Just because of some doubters, most of whose doubts are political in nature? No one on this thread has made a scientific case against global warming yet. They just cite dubious lists of people who reportedly disagree.

Duhhh! Of course it is the sun! Solar heat trapped by greenhouse gasses is the warming issue.

First of all the science is correct, it is just politically incorrect. And what "alarmist" measures and penalties are you talking about?

I've never advocated the Kyoto Treaty and other measures that has the US doing all the work and spending all the money. But neither should we do nothing. There is no reason not to do the easy and cheap things. But we shouldn't do the things that cost Trillions and take decades to achieve because of one overriding issue-- Peak Oil.

Oil depletion is approaching rapidly (50 years) and long before it is depleted, it will become rare and expensive. Life as we know it will change dramatically unless some new energy source is discovered or breakthroughs battery technology and in wind, solar, and hydro power are found. As a result greenhouse emissions related to petroleum will start to drop steeply.

But we still need to use clean coal technology for coal will be with us another 200-300 years and is a significant polluter. The fossil fuel problem is self-correcting, but it will take many centuries to undo.

Who are these people again?

 

You must hate it when your "experts" turn out to be . . . well, something less than experts.

Hell why not go all the way. Here is a guy who has produced a petition of 31,478 "Scientists" who disagree with Kyoto and global warming. He even has Edward Teller, the inventor of the hydrogen bomb, as if nuclear physics has anything remotely to do with climatology. Hell, you can sign it yourself. Anybody who claims to have a science degree can become global warming expert. You don't even have to prove it.

You know there are a handful of global climatologists who have written peer-reviewed papers in the scientific literature that discount certain elements of human-induced global warming, but nobody here has gone to find any of those and make a argument based on it.

I could argue your side of this better than you guys are.