Please. Take my name off your mailing list.
The global warming videos are pathetic. I personally believe the theory of global warming WAS a good scientific hypothisis but all the valid evidence gathered since it was original fielded has shown that the concept of human activity having had a direct impact on the global temperature is wrong. The challenge is still out there: Demonstrate ANY valid scientific connection between human contributions to atmospheric gasses making any difference and I'll be the first to join the battle. In the meantime the whole concept of Global Warming has become a liberal agenda with NO scientific basis in fact. Get a copy of Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" and read it. THEN go to the interenet links he pionts out.

The hundreds of millions of dollars already wasted on trying to forward the concept of global warming is pathetic and COULD have been spent on feeding several third world nations. Instead it's wasted on an emotional liberal agenda with no basis in scientific fact.

This review of Michael Chricton's novel, and the subsequent comments, is pretty good and certainly shows the doctor's comments to be as flawed as they are stupid.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2...

LOL!
"Flawed and stupid"???
Your LINK is to a charature assasination by way of book review absolutely dripping with liberal bias and opinion and totally void of scientific fact..... UNLIKE the links ofered in Crichton's book.
Try discussing reproducable scientific FACTS instead of opinions....and THEN I'll give a darn about what you post. So far.....you've just made my point that while there's ample liberal agenda behind it, so far the Theory of Global Warming...is VOID of science to back it up.

Wow, Michael - one video (apparently one pitched at emotional 14 year old girls) has got you hot under the collar (so perhaps it's not just aimed at emotional 14 years olds).

Firstly, the theory of global warming WAS a good scientific hypothesis? But now it's not? Ok - when precisely did it change?

There has been plenty of valid scientific connection produced - as with anything some is more valid than others - but to suggest there's NONE...you're clearly hypothesising based on selective evidence to suit your own agenda.

My view of the video is that it was to promote a conversation about the topic - a cartoon making you so angry suggests you need a healthy dose of perspective (maybe you could administer that yourself).

So global warming is a "liberal agenda" with "no scientific fact". I guess that makes you part of the religious right?

Your comments are absurd, not helped by the fact that you're using a novel, albeit a riveting read, as your sound basis in scientific fact.

I agree that feeding several third world nations is vital and is certainly an issue that should continue to be endorsed (I assume you have read our many stories on such important issues if though you don't want to hear from us again!).

I'm in no way trying to change your mind - I think you have your mind made up - but I'm glad a simple cartoon so easily encouraged you to show your true colours.

Mr SimonTurner, while I have a few labels that would apply to you, I suggest you refrain from trying to label anyone who objects to an obvious liberal agenda as someone from "the religious right". When you stoop to name calling, you probably won't like the names that eventually get applied to yourself.

Please choose any of the following points and try to follow the facts:

A) Global Warming was no longer a valid scientific hypothisis as soon as it was discovered that "the hockey stick" was a matter of selective data interpretation so the original studies were not only flawed, they were intentionally biased to suit a preselected outcome.

B) It was no longer valid after we launched over a dozen low orbit satellites at over $125Million each to monitor upper atmospheric CO2 levels....and found out they weren't changing. In fact further research leads us to believe that CO2 doesn't cause warming. Historically the archeological evidence is that warming causes CO2 production through increases in ocean metabolic processes. IE: the Greenhouse Gas Theory got it exactly backward.

C) It was no longer a valid hypothesis when science discovered that man is actually only 3rd in CO2 production, producing somewhere between point one and point zero one percent of global CO2. That's one tenth of a percent to one hundreth of one percent.....(IE: .1 to .01%) on an annual basis! That's totally insignificant! I'm sure this will be a big blow to your ego so you better set down before I tell you that the number one and number two producers of CO2 are Volcanoes and Termites. That's right, the CO2 production you're so worried about.......is dwarfed by insects. But mainly volcanoes. In fact if you actually look at the global temperature data from the last century you'll find that warming AND CO2 levels were NOT associated with mankind's industrial increases but rather with the volcanoes early last century.

The movie "An Inconvenient Truth" has been ruled so fraudulent in the UK that it can't be shown to school children without disclaimers dismissing MOST of it's content.

As for some of your other points: NO sir, there's NOT been much scientific data that's actually reproducable or peer reviewed that actually supports the original theory, and absolutely NONE AT ALL that actually connects global temperatures to HUMAN activity. I repeat NONE AT ALL.

The reason I pointed out Crichton's novel "State of Fear" is because he *WAS* a Harvard MD who set out to write a novel about global warming, only when he ACTUALLY did his research on the subject he discovered what a farce and charade the liberal and scientific communities have perpetrated in order to expedite funding for darn near anything....wanna fund a polar expedition? Just play the Global Warming Card and liberals will crawl out of their own skins to fund the project!

And before you even TRY to discuss this further.....do yourself a favor: get a copy and go READ the book. I'm sure even someone like YOU could understand it's concepts. And if you're REALLY interested in the subject....take a look at some of the scientific data (all peer reviewed and validated....UNLIKE anything you were thinking about referencing) his book points out.

As I've stated before on many occasions: *IF* you can actually demonstrate global warming as a direct result of human activity....*I'll* be the first to join the fight to save the planet. You won't and you can't. So until you do, knock off the name calling until you KNOW something about the subject, because so far, all you've demonstrated that you know is....you're OPINION.

Michael

Thanks for your comments - they're interesting for sure.

I think you need to take a chill pill though. The original article was quite harmless and I certainly am not purposing to know any facts and totally accept that my understanding is my opinion (as is yours).

I'm not sure about your comments regarding my "name calling". I didn't call you any names, so that just seems an effort by yourself to distract.

Clearly you have strong opinions about the subject and, as I suggested in my first comment, I totally endorse arguments from both sides as this will hopefully bring about some balance to the topic and generate some constructive steps forwards.

This video that started the conversation is in many ways in the same league as An Inconvenient Truth (which I'm inclined to agree with you as to its merits). I'd like to think that such media raises awareness of a big topic for which there's much contention, but at the same time isn't relied upon as substantive evidence.

I will take up your offer of reading the State of Fear as it's no doubt very insightful. Only by taking note of all sides of the argument can we all further our understanding of the issue.

Thanks for your comments.

One more thing, you keep referring to a "liberal agenda". As an Australian that has no meaning, other than something we hear on Fox News. It seems a simple label to place on any argument that you don't agree with. Could you explain it more so I can understand what exactly you mean, please.

Thanks

Yes, I am perplexed!
To me, this video is pitched at emotional 14 year old girls.

I am also concerned that you have articles such as this one sitting alongside articles promoting development opportunity for building 38,000sqm marinas along the Malta coastline. I would take your call to action on global warming far more serious if you were to actively promote reclaiming the land back to it's natural condition. Otherwise I can only see we have a contradiction issue.

I think you should choose mansions and overdevelopment or anti global warming campaigning, you can't promote both and expect an intelligent adult to take you seriously.

"Perplexed" and "Concerned"??? - are you serious?

So what you're saying is we shouldn't offer a wide selection of topics and subjects and let people make up their own mind what they do and don't like?

Just because there are two articles sitting on the same page doesn't suggest a contradiction in the slightest. It suggests variety. I can assure you there are many recipes, for instance, that sit on these pages that I don't eat - it doesn't mean to say we shouldn't put them forward.

I'm not a fan of censorship and neither do I think that our choices are black and white. I expect "intelligent adults" would appreciate the importance of such balance.

I am serious.

You state "it's hard not to take global warming seriously after watching this" yet in a "promotion" on your site (as I wouldn't call it a story or reporting on a topic of general interest) you are inviting interested parties to contact your company regarding their interest in turning 38,000sqm of coastline into a marina etc....

The contradiction stands and yes I am still perplexed.

As I said, we provide a wide array of topics and let readers decide whether it's something for them or not. Conforming to one line would be stupid as the world isn't like that, and neither do we believe in censorship (hence why your comments are being approved and without editing). So in that sense, I'll agree with you in general terms re contradictions. Real world - contradictions exist. Can you guarantee none exist in your life?

As for "38, 000sqm of coastline" - I think you need to read it properly. It's a disused hotel as things stand. Whomever wishes to buy it has the opportunity to make use of it how they see fit - who knows, it could be an aquarium for endangered species.

We're a real estate company, so of course the page on Malta (or any of our real estate listings for that matter) isn't a story - it's a property listing. Pure and simple.

Thanks for your comments and thoughts, they do keep us honest!