As I said in my article, all of these arguments have been debunked. Click HERE. You can believe what you want, but try to avoid using poor arguments.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  

Quoted from gmaranda

Good to see that I am not the only one that takes this stuff seriously.  I too recycle a lot and I have reduced my environmental foot print quite a bit.  Good for you Sparky keep on going.  Regardless if GW is real or not we should recycle anyway.

take care

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7czKngCUASM - Theres swearing in the video not work safe.

Quoted from mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7czKngCUASM - Theres swearing in the video not work safe.

Bullshit! is great (but they are not scientific "authorities", they sometimes get facts spectacularly wrong). There's a lot of truth to their criticisms of recycling. We now have a new 'green bin' here in Ottawa, which means a third set of trucks pumping out diesel and CO2 driving around town.

Quoted from mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7czKngCUASM - Theres swearing in the video not work safe.

That is it full stop. One scientist says something and he is right.  I guess I should educate my kids on youtube!  This is entertaining and they have a point but part of recycling is using less not necessarily returning things for reuse.  We could go on for a long time on this and it could turn into a thread like the H1N1.........very long.  In the end, I recycle and I won't listen to a guy wearing a tie on youtube that says recycling does not work.  You would be surprised at the things I can pull out of my......... and tell people that I am right about.  And by the way I don't need a thread about things out of my.........

But it was entertaining.

tks for the link

Quoted from jonny_eh

As I said in my article, all of these arguments have been debunked. Click HERE. You can believe what you want, but try to avoid using poor arguments.

Thanks for reinforcing my point about the mysterious 10 year " mild interruption", as you put it. Seeming it is generally accepted that detailed records for temperatures, as determined by instruments, only exist for about the early to mid 1800's onwards , and in your own articles words, " anyone with even a glancing familiarity with statistics should be able to spot the weaknesses of that argument", think of this :

@ 1850 - 2010 = 160 years of data
10 years of most recent  data ( in the most important, so called warming period) skewed, and does not fit the pattern or trend.A significant amount of data as far as statistics are concerned. Attributed to " small deviations", and "mild interruptions."
That, to me, is cause for concern, and evidence for more thorough debate and discussion, as the economic impact of action to curtail industry will have its own disastrous socioeconomic results that may in fact eclipse any detrimental effect on the environment.

Meteorology vs climatology To me, although they are not the same, they are interrelated, which in itself, is a cause for concern again. It is not as black and white as something like, say, the laws of physics. Translation to me, again further info needed before drastic changes made. The costs are too great to simply rush into large decisions, simply because someone says so, or a couple of protesters demand action.

Funding : I find that argument flawed in its entirety.Their is insufficient data from other countries, and their budgets, and anyone who has participated in research projects knows that the quest for funding is not based on the initial investment( which funny enough is admitted to in your article at an astronomical rate of almost 55% increase), but it is in the selling of the continuation of the project, the more research and data needed argument. Bottom line is they got their funding, it does not back their hypothesis to any degree of 100% certainty, and regardless of how they try to fudge the numbers, it is still a theory.The pressure to produce has not turned up a smoking gun type discovery or any clear and generally accepted data to justify the proposed controls and polar shift that is being floated around nowadays.

I could go on, but you get the point. There are arguments for both sides, legitimate arguments.The point I was trying to make, and perhaps I did not make myself clear, is that this is too important an issue to be left to the opinions of one or two groups of persons. In my opinion, scientists and left wing protester types can not be allowed to decide for the rest of us, quite frankly neither can be trusted and have proven time and time again to be self serving. What I would go for is an objective solution to the issue, encompassing the socieconomic needs of employers and employees( being paramount), representatives of different regions of the earth, different governments, scientists, concerned citizens, professionals, intellectuals, broader datasets and analysis, and evidence.I guess it is obvious where I lie in the scale of left to right, but I really think that this is a serious issue, that requires serious, objective debate by level headed individuals and representatives of the globe, not dismissive, emotional,condescending arguments and representatives that circumvent the real issue: the facts.

being green is the new religion! I cant wait for the Inquisition and holy wars going to feel like something similar to the movie "The last Chase" and Geroge Orwells 1984.

SHOOT FOR THE TRUNK!!

Hey all,

Nice work Jon.

No matter what side of an arguement you fall on I believe that Aristotle said it best
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Many times in my life I have argued a point from the opposite perspective of my personal view. I rarely let the person(s) I am debating with know my true view. As such, many people form false opinions about me, for which I am fine with. For me it allows me to analyze situations from both sides; which I feel strengthens my own beliefs. On occasion this process has made me realize the errors in my original thought and converts my opinion.

With all that said I do believe in AGW but also believe that there is a natural process to GW as well. Humans are adding to this natural process and as such it magnifying both the positive and negative effects. Like in any major social, political, environmental, etc. movement I personally look for ways to profit through investing. When you can combine major movements into a single idea there is big money to be made. For me, I hope, that means one day I will have a basement large enough to house a "WOW" collection of pins!

Nice work again Jon.

Drew

I just landed in Winnipeg and it's minus 20. I hope it's all true. I don't really want to move to Florida when I retire.

Funny JD3 you picked a Canadian movie made under the now defunct Film Investment tax incentives program that kept the industry (and my old film company - we made two theatricals using tax incentives investments) going for a while...

Quoted from websherpa

Funny JD3 you picked a Canadian movie made under the now defunct Film Investment tax incentives program that kept the industry (and my old film company - we made two theatricals using tax incentives investments) going for a while...

which 2 thats awesome...