Do you agree with this statement

[cr500_af]

Guys, please keep this thread polite. I've had to edit langauge, and FYI even if you type asterisks in place of profanity (rather than letting the software censor it) that doesn't qualify.

Debate is fine but let's keep it in line.

 

[dough]

spacepony;594733 wrote: But back to another point made, I most definitely agree we should strive to be stewards of the Earth, not pillagers.

I guess one can open another can of worms by asking you to define "pillagers". There are extreme views (both left and right) even on what is termed pillagers or pillaging. One recent view I read stated that our hobby was pretty much pillaging the ocean for our enjoyment. I don't agree but that just fuels the fire for marine hobby distractors.

 

[john wright]

i look at it like this God the creator of all promised in the bible his word that he would never flood the hole earth again so that eliminates the global worming thing and personally i think that Christ will return be for long and we wont have any thing to worry about well some of us any way

 

[raisedonnintendo]

john wright;596175 wrote: Edit: remove religious discussion

Although I don't disagree with your statement just a heads up. You will get in trouble for mentioning god on here. You have the freedom of speech to say so but it will get you banned. U could edit it but I probably let it stAy and take the beaten. Just like in the gladiator arena.

 

[brianjfinn]

spacepony;594979 wrote: I would bet you like to poke hornets nests with sticks....
(I admit, it can be fun...)

So, the source is obviously very biased right-wing Glenn Beck crowd. That's something to keep in mind here. So, they've cherry picked the failure of several extreme </em>views on global climate change. Half of them are about 40 years old.
The failures seem to be mostly in their predicted scope, not so much in absolute failure of idea. Nothing here contradicts global warming, just the extremity and/or timing of the impact. Temperatures are still rising (as it does say in #4),and Arctic ice sheets are still shrinking (as #3 states, also: http://news.discovery.com/earth/arctic-ice-melt-record.html">http://news.discovery.com/earth/arctic-ice-melt-record.html</a>). Here: counter-story (this was also published in [I]The Times</em> online, but it's explained better here)
[IMG]http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/200033">http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/200033</a>[/QUOTE]

So this source of news is biased, but yours isn't??

MSNBC
CBS
Discovery
National Geographic
NBC
Shall I keep going?
BBC
CNBC
New York Times
AJC

I'm sure you take most of these at face value, as well informed, unbiased news sources.

Pot, meet the kettle.

 

[spacepony]

I didn't say mine wasn't (though I did try to pick the most credible sources, or references to credible research), merely I hold the opinion that fox is heavily </em>biased. I think MSNBC is too heavily biased the other direction, and Nat geo and Discovery are certainly going to be pro-Earth. And yes, I'm sure even NASA scientists are not completely free from bias. Scientists are human.
And yes, I am biased in the direction of seeing global warming as a real issue, although I cringe every time I see another extremist, like those whose predictions were slammed in the fox story, because I feel it makes the sound science look bad (which I feel is fox's intention).
I've seen enough different data, read enough papers, know enough about Earth processes to accept that the data showing trends of rising global temperatures over the last 150 or so years is a real trend linked to rising CO2 and that in turn is pretty well linked to human activity.

 

[stacy22]

FWIW, I have a Masters degree in Geology and I agree with spacepony.

I also agree with others here who think we should be good stewards of the Earth and its resources, this includes our natural reefs.

Happy reefing!

 

[raisedonnintendo]

brianjfinn;596311 wrote: So this source of news is biased, but yours isn't??

MSNBC
CBS
Discovery
National Geographic
NBC
Shall I keep going?
BBC
CNBC
New York Times
AJC

I'm sure you take most of these at face value, as well informed, unbiased news sources.
Pot, meet the kettle.

Very blunt

 

[brianjfinn]

RaisedOnNintendo;597255 wrote: Very blunt

Sorry, did I offend you?

 

[raisedonnintendo]

stacy22;597209 wrote: FWIW, I have a Masters degree in Geology and I agree with spacepony.

I also agree with others here who think we should be good stewards of the Earth and its resources, this includes our natural reefs.

Happy reefing!

Oh so can you tell us more about one of the largest bodies of fresh water in the world here in the us. The one that stretches from almost Canada to the gulf of Mexico and several states wide. Because we used more then half that up already. I know so little about it and I'm sure 95% of the folks on here even know what I'm talking about. All that fresh water is now clouds in our sky and fresh water in our oceans. The drastic effects from that source may have never been here if not for man.

 

[raisedonnintendo]

brianjfinn;597259 wrote: Sorry, did I offend you?

Not even a little I like it when someone gets to the point as long as your not cursing or trying to be a boo boo head. I didn't think you where. just blunt n to the point could of used a little sugar coating I guess if someone takes it more then a debate.

 

[brianjfinn]

RaisedOnNintendo;597265 wrote: Not even a little I like it when someone gets to the point as long as your not cursing or trying to be a boo boo head. I didn't think you where. just blunt n to the point could of used a little sugar coating I guess if someone takes it more then a debate.

That's true, I guess I get a little hot-headed some times.

 

[raisedonnintendo]

cr500_af;596070 wrote: Guys, please keep this thread polite. I've had to edit langauge, and FYI even if you type asterisks in place of profanity (rather than letting the software censor it) that doesn't qualify.

Debate is fine but let's keep it in line.

+2 will do sir