Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

My Uncle Chris had a hairy back but he was no monkey - he was LDS.

LDS = later day saint?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The global warming believers don't want open discussion. They see it as an open and shut case. So sad. Is this 1933 Germany?

That's not true. But geez louise, can we leave scientific debate to the scientific community? If not, let's eagerly wait for the next theory to be published in scientific journals so we can pounce on it with the same ferocity. Damn those bloody scientists and their agenda loaded theories! It's only a matter of time before they come up a theory that our uncle was a monkey. My Uncle Chris had a hairy back but he was no monkey - he was LDS.

But the GW debate is more politics than science at this point.

I actually think my uncle was a monkey... but I don't want to derail this thread.

What debate? Are there conferences of climate scientists from around the world debating over the science of Global Warming? This is getting so silly. Scientists have been doing research and then publishing their findings on the theory of evolution since Darwin, but it doesn't mean that the theory itself is up for disproof. What is your definition of a scientific theory? Do we all get to come up with our own definition of such terms?

Putting all like minded people in a room to 'debate' doesn't count.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The global warming believers don't want open discussion. They see it as an open and shut case. So sad. Is this 1933 Germany?

That's not true. But geez louise, can we leave scientific debate to the scientific community? If not, let's eagerly wait for the next theory to be published in scientific journals so we can pounce on it with the same ferocity. Damn those bloody scientists and their agenda loaded theories! It's only a matter of time before they come up a theory that our uncle was a monkey. My Uncle Chris had a hairy back but he was no monkey - he was LDS.

But the GW debate is more politics than science at this point.

I actually think my uncle was a monkey... but I don't want to derail this thread.

What debate? Are there conferences of climate scientists from around the world debating over the science of Global Warming? This is getting so silly. Scientists have been doing research and then publishing their findings on the theory of evolution since Darwin, but it doesn't mean that the theory itself is up for disproof. What is your definition of a scientific theory? Do we all get to come up with our own definition of such terms?

Putting all like minded people in a room to 'debate' doesn't count.

Are you saying that any legitimate climate scientist who is in disagreement was silenced or shut out from all these climate conferences? Dig deeper into the sources of those who keep trying to turn Global Warming into a debate and find out where were they during these meetings. Find out why they weren't there or why they haven't written directly to the community of climate scientists their disagreements. People who are skeptical aren't asking the right questions. It's good to be skeptical as long you're not defying logic in the process.