Seattle Times: "The truth about global warming"

Speaking of science, here's research that demonstrates "factual evidence, that human vibrational energy, thoughts, words, ideas and music, affect the molecular structure of water." <br><br>So if we all just "think snow," perhaps we won't need to worry about all the other scientists who aren't predicting a mini ice age...

So Jim,<br><br>Does your post infer that you see a problem with an ice age theory?<br><br>Does your post imply that any theory that differs with the GW/ human/SUV caused theory is a joke or is wrong?<br><br>I have no personal experience or expertise that allows me to conclude precedence of one theory over another. I read what is available, including the thread title article references that cast doubt on any one certain theory. When I first attended college in 1976 the ice age theory was in favor as a possible result of increases in greenhouse gas. It seems to me that no one theory is singularly compelling unless one inserts sociopolitical factors.<br><br>There is a consistent worldview and agenda expressed by the GW enthusiasts. It would seem that their favored theory is that GW is caused by bad Americans, will lead to catostrophe, the current President is the cause of this and all evil, and if anyone questions this idea their intellect and education is questionable. It would appear that the scientific method is optional for liberal environmentalists with a sociopolitical agenda.

Are you sure that the guy who is studying water crystals I referred to is a joke?<br><br>I'm as concerned with emerging nations as I am with our own country in terms of environmental impact, actually more so when looking at trendlines. So I don't think I quite fit your stereotype, and would not call myself an "enthusiast" about GW - more like a concerned world citizen who believes that those on top of the resource and military pile have a responsibility that goes well beyond our own borders. Apparently my concern is shared with others who defy the caricature of "liberal enviros" who hate GWB and GW and hew to a single sociopolitical agenda:<br> dozens of evangelical Christian leaders on Wednesday issued a call to action on global warming - urging governments, companies and individuals to reduce fossil fuel emissions that many scientists tie to warmer temperatures <br>

Well done, my friend.<br><br>I will get back to you if I run across any additional information that fits my agenda!

Well put.<br> <br><br>By the way, I think that there are many worldviews in the debate - it's not all "US is bad and it's all Bush's fault" versus "don't dare regulate me, my energy guzzling extractive business and full-size pickups, or my rural property 'cause look how you and Hillary have screwed everything else up" who fall onto the "sides" of the debate. I think these sorts of caricatures tend to just polarize the discussion, and clever spinmasters deftly use such caricatures to get, for instance, rural folks to buy strongly into the agenda of big city business interests.<br><br>My only real point on the Russian guy, by the way, is that you'll always find a scientist somehwere who has a theory that is well out of the mainstream - that in and of itself doesn't prove a lot to me, though I'll admit that Galileo showed it's worth at least listening to the odballs.

Thanks for the article about evangelicals. I took the time to read it. It is a story about politics, not about science. MSNBC and Newsweek love to create stories that assert similar themes e.g the inference being 'everyone really wants to be or will become when enlightened a liberal-environmentalist or liberal etc. Jim, do you endorse Creationism, as many 'evangelicals' may endorse?<br><br><br>Quote:<br><br>Conservative critics of the document, including the Rev. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, say the global-warming science is inconclusive and the issue doesn't belong on the evangelists' agenda. "It's a distraction when families are falling apart and abortion continues as a great evil," says Tom Minnery, director of Dobson's political-action group. (end quote)<br><br>In my view the pertinent information there is the thing about'inconclusive.'<br><br>The GW debate is largely political. Those high-level scientists calling themselves research scientists or whatever they are when that is there profession, have not separated the GW issue cleanly from politics based on what I have read and seen. Many of us reognize clear, compelling arguments based on clear science even though we may not be fulltime scientists.