27
edits
Changes
Talk:Science of global warming (view source)
Revision as of 04:49, December 19, 2008
, 04:49, December 19, 2008→Scientists
:::: In all fairness, any source that is going to try to prove a point will be one sided. The links for cosmic rays and the solar influence are also one sided. The important thing to do would be to show ''all'' the links and ''all'' the data and let people draw conclusions from that rather than just having a site that supports one side of the controversy and represses the other. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:10, 19 June 2008 (EDT
:::: In all fairness, any source that is going to try to prove a point will be one sided. The links for cosmic rays and the solar influence are also one sided. The important thing to do would be to show ''all'' the links and ''all'' the data and let people draw conclusions from that rather than just having a site that supports one side of the controversy and represses the other. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:10, 19 June 2008 (EDT
== Obama's carbon cap a "far-reaching, giant tax"? ==
Jpatt, please try not to completely break sentences by re-inserting your edits. Also, I need a reliable source that says that Obama's suggested carbon cap is a tax. A source that calls said tax far-reaching and giant would be even better. I have looked, and the closest thing I could find when I made my edits was that the carbon cap would accomplish the same a tax would, but that most definitely doesn't mean that it ''is'' a tax. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:58, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
: I didn't reinsert the entire edits, just the far reaching tax. Since you took it out already, I am not going to source. As for the 'far-reaching and giant tax', what do you call ''( "an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions)''? So for the sarcasm, but I don't call it a stimulus package. Economy wide is far reaching and giant. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:06, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
::You equate a price set by market forces with a tax. I don't know what you would call ''that'', but I would call it "wrong". At ''best'', it's inaccurate and potentially misleading to simply state that he wants to introduce a tax. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 18:20, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:::First, market forces aren't setting a price, but the Obama government, for an item not charged today. Second, who will pay for the measure? Let's see, loss of many jobs, cost of living increases, $10.00 a gallon gas. If I am not mistaken, the American people will pay the increased costs because "we can't have our thermostats at 72 degrees", unless we pay up. Increase in costs is called a tax. Wrong? doubt it. Misleading? Obama's plan is more misleading than my explanation. A Cap is not a Tax, that is debatable,-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:18, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
== Idoltry ==
I global warming idoltry?[[User:American78|American78]] 22:17, 5 September 2008 (EDT)American78
I just wanted to say, finally, I found a bunch of people who realized how stupid the idea of man made global warming is, and actually look at the facts. Thank you.
==Scientists==
We need to get actual scientists to write this article. It's too complex for us laymen. Can we get in touch with MIT Professor [[Richard Lindzen]] or retired atmospheric physicist [[Fred Singer]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:48, 17 December 2008 (EST)
: I am a scientist who worked with the British Antarctic Survey until last year, but I accept that claims of authority on here can be dubious. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 10:51, 17 December 2008 (EST)
:Maybe we could get some people not noted for their incredible partisanship on one side or the other, rather than two people who are famous for taking a side on the matter?--[[user:TomMoore1|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore1|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 23:49, 18 December 2008 (EST)