Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

Disagreements should always be tentative due to the absense of pure objective knowledge in this reality with which we are presented.If you disagree, I presume that you have some reason to do so. If you cannot attest to that, why on Earth have you even contacted me? Until you are sure, you had best keep your dissent to yourself.So what exactly do you beleive is causing the warmingI do not know, nor am I aware of the extent of the warming when recent (relatively speaking) fluctuations are accounted for. Our oldest direct records are about 160 years old and coincide with the end of an abnormally cold period in the northern hemisphere. What I do know is that a statistical correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels has been observed or purported and a causality inferred. This is, to my mind, either irresponsible or fraudulent.It is never naive to go with the prevailing scientific concensus.That is mere facile nonsense. I few peer reviewed papers supporting your point of view cannot be counted as disproving anything when the overwhelming majority of the evidence if opposed to them. If the amount of peer reviewed papers asserting what you beleive were stacked next to the amount asserting what i beleive you would realise the magnitude of your error in making this point.I do not measure scientific truth by the number of papers written in favour of one theory.That is simply not trueI will desist in my refutation when you and your peers renounce the word consensus and cease to use its connotations to suggest that everybody agrees with you. A phenomenon of language of whose existence you are entirely aware. Regardless, I am entirely unconcerned with who, or how many agree with you.The history of science demonstrates that consensus is irrelevant to a theory's veracity.and you're going to have to get your facts straight if you want to continue this debateA line of officious gibberish not worth the chemical bonds you severed to type it out.Em, concensus doesn't imply 100% agreementThat is not what it denotes, but it is exactly what it implies.There is an element of personal judgement involved in screening out effects of background noise all such decrees, even the fundamental axioms of mathematics cannot be considered pure objective knowledge.I find it difficult être d'accord with a philosophy that assumes an axiom to disprove or cast doubt upon the very notion of any postulation being true.Source please.Every source on the internet is biased, rendering them absolutely useless on matters of "whose side has more credibility". For example: http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/10/no-consensus-on-global-warming.html And then the other side: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm It's mere quibbling about irrelevant statistics that have absolutely no bearing whatever on the objective truth.I prefer to consider him pantheistic as i am.Pantheism is mere equivocation. Either one believes in a God in the context that the religious actually use it, or one does not. To consider the universe itself to be God is poetic nonsense.Fraudulent? If a degree in climatology is fraudulent what degree's are not fraudulent? Geology, Meteorology, Geophysics, are these all fraudulent disciplines that have been invented to hood wink also?That is not a logical inference from my statement. Sounds to me like you put far too much faith in the east anglia email debacle which from my understanding was taken out of contextNo, I have merely observed the use of a correlation based on recent data to demonstrate a causation that is purportedly unique in the history of a planet of which we have only a minute and imperfect understanding.I used to be more categorical, but I have seen too many arguments from either side, each in turn refuted vigorously and using many credible and purportedly legitimate sets of data. Until there is a new one (for the same arguments circulate as blood, acquiring new quantities of the vital essence and increas'd momentum with every circuit of the body), I have decided to simply wait until either nothing happens or I awake one morning to find myself drown'd by seawater. Je suis engagé dans la poursuite des connaissances essentielles; I have only a little interest in the popularised realm of uncertainty.I didn't think i would be saying this but i can really see the value in that opinion.Though that is not to say that I advocate continued dependence on fossil fuels. There are many logical and readily apparent reasons to move on. Indeed, it does not seem absurd to me that the case of Anthropogenic Global Warming may have been exaggerated to promote the development of new means of locomotion and energy liberation/conversion (the term "energy production" or "generation" implies an absurd untruth).Actually, what is your opinion on the existence of an essential, ultimate or elemental particle of the universe?Still a brilliant man though.I recall that Mr. Hooke ("Ut tensio, sic vis") spent a great deal of time developing avian steam engines and that Sir Isaac himself was a theologian of all things, so perhaps all genius is accompanied by some degree of folly.Indeed, a correspondent of mine once suggested that cultural immortality was desirable!