Mr. Owl,
Why do you bother? Honestly. No one here finds you the least bit credible. You never argue facts, you attack the messenger. When you do get backed into a corner, you simply ignore it and build another straw man. Do you do this so you can go back to what ever liberal board you call home with a sackful of bouncy stories? If guilt by association were enough to taint a person's credibility (and I certainly hope the irony of anyone on the left citing RJ Reynolds as a credible source hasn't escaped you), then those pictures of Algore with Democrat Fred Phelps, Clinton worshiping at the feet of Fulbright, Byrd's association with the KKK, and Kerry's pushing fake atrocity stories by fake vets would've sent them to the dustbin of history a long time ago.
The fact is global cooling was all the rage when I was growing up. You couldn't open a newspaper or an issue of TIME without some reference to it. We discussed it in science class. It was dire. The world was going to end. Pardon those of us who remain skeptical of the hysteria, but we've seen this before. Suddenly because there's "consensus" that's supposed to matter? Used to be there was "consensus" that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. If consensus was all it took, we'd still believe those things. Just because Heidi the Weather Channel Bimbo says scientists who don't believe in Global Warming (oops, I mean Global Climate Change...want to be accurate for when the goal post is moved to support the latest drooling hysteria yet again) should be banished from the scientific community doesn't make her an "expert".
Most of those going against the current hysteria are willing to look further back in the earth's history than a few decades or even a few hundred years. Whether you subscribe to an earth that's only a few thousand years old or one that's billions of years old, tracking back decades or even a couple hundred years is hardly enough to declare the planet doomed. How fricking arrogant and self-centered does a species have to be to think that they've had that big of an impact in the short time they've inhabited the planet. Or that mother nature (I won't use the "G" word...promise) isn't tough enough to handle whatever we can dish out. It's not like those on the right haven't studied your arguments. We're inundated with them on a daily basis, we don't have much choice. That being the case, we have to research more deeply to find the other side. And there are credible arguments against the end of the world. That used to be the way things worked...scientists WANTED to be scrutinized and challenged...today they want to pretend they're the second coming. Science unchallenged is simply sociology for biology majors.
Which brings us to that all important "peer reviewed" thingy. When "the peers" all drink from the same kool-aid, it's kind of hard to get in their cute little publications. I bet Galileo's article on the earth revolving around the sun probably wouldn't have found it's way into the 16th century peer reviewed "Astronomy Times Magazine" either. So what? It used to be scientists appreciated challenging one another. Peer reviewed didn't mean "we all think alike", it meant this is based on sound, scientific principles. What we have today would be sort of like the Academy of Motion Pictures choosing the Oscar winners from their own membership pool...oh wait! So, until you're willing to deal with the CONTENT of those arguments that don't support your POV instead of attacking everything but you have absolutely no credibility.
Cindie
