UK Coal Train - Hijacked

[sfcouple]

Why dont you see Al Gore and his cronies or anybody else that believes that Global Warming is happening debate the "facts" other than with the main stream media like. Why dont they go on the awesome show of The O'Reilly Factor (we know how much San Fran loves O'Reilly, Rush, Savage, FOXNews). Or be a guest on Rush Limbaugh? Go on FOXNews? Why be in bed with all the other networks? Do they have something to hide or just be in bed to further their cause.

It was stated earlier that many that say that Global Warming isnt caused by man signed their reputations saying that man isnt causing it, but yet Gore and his cronies wont put their reps on the line.

Interesting thought, look up on how much energy Gores house uses and then look up President Bush's house.

Well I will say this, it has taken nearly 60 replies before someone attacked my home town of San Francisco or Al Gore's house.  I thought it would have come a lot sooner.  

I find it a sad commentary that someone would confine their scientific research to the likes of Limbaugh, O'Reilly or Savage.  I look at these individuals as entertainers, they are paid advocates for a specific political agenda.  They are similar to a criminal defense attorney representing a guilty client, who will look a jury in the eye and insist that his (or her) client is innocent of the accused crime.  Knowing full well that his client is as guilty as sin.

I have personally witnessed everyone of these individuals tell an outright lie on the air.  Please remember, that unless one is under oath or committing slander, it is not illegal to lie.  If you choose to trust them and rely on them for your information then there is nothing I can do or say that will persuade you otherwise.  It is my opinion that you like these individuals because they tell you what you want to hear, not what you need to hear.  They are playing to your fears and prejudices: in essence they are using you to increase their respective ratings.

Here is a simple experiment for you to try:   Take a little time in the next few days and research an individual named Frank Luntz.  He was (or is?) a Republican political consultant, who at one time worked for FOX news.  And try to find how he has impacted the public's perception of global warming and contrast those with his recent interview (2006) on the BBC.   

The choice is yours, rely on Rush Limbaugh or the wisdom, common sense and reason of true scientific debate.  

Best Wishes from a wonderful city,

Wayne  

[TimChgo9]

I am so sick and tired of the whole Global Warming crap, it's not even funny. 

Bottom line is, it's political, always has been.  30 years ago, we advancing toward a "new ice age".  Now, it's "global warming".....

I have been informed on the subject, because it irritates me to no end.  However, I have done my research, and I have looked at the motivations behind those who push the whole movement, and I have to respectfully disagree with those who say man made global warming is happening. 

I can remember many mild and many cold winters in my 42 years, same goes summers.  I remember plenty of hot ones and mild ones..... The storms and flooding in Iowa and other places has happened before, it's nothing new.....  Chicago had just over 60" of snow this year, I still remember 77-78 and 78-79 where we had over 80" of snow. 

Global warming being man-made?  I ain't buying it..... 

Cyclical climate change makes more sense

[Expresslane]

Wayne   The trouble is there is no real debate. Too many say it is a fact and anyone that does not think global warming is real is a Rush Limbaugh ditto head. The radical left has taken this issue way too far.

 I too would like to see less coal plants and more nuclear power plants. Nuclear has come a long way with safe opperation than it was thirty years ago. Not much for trains to haul with nuclear.

Why dont you see Al Gore and his cronies or anybody else that believes that Global Warming is happening debate the "facts" other than with the main stream media like. Why dont they go on the awesome show of The O'Reilly Factor (we know how much San Fran loves O'Reilly, Rush, Savage, FOXNews). Or be a guest on Rush Limbaugh? Go on FOXNews? Why be in bed with all the other networks? Do they have something to hide or just be in bed to further their cause.

It was stated earlier that many that say that Global Warming isnt caused by man signed their reputations saying that man isnt causing it, but yet Gore and his cronies wont put their reps on the line.

Interesting thought, look up on how much energy Gores house uses and then look up President Bush's house.

Well I will say this, it has taken nearly 60 replies before someone attacked my home town of San Francisco or Al Gore's house.  I thought it would have come a lot sooner.  

I find it a sad commentary that someone would confine their scientific research to the likes of Limbaugh, O'Reilly or Savage.  I look at these individuals as entertainers, they are paid advocates for a specific political agenda.  They are similar to a criminal defense attorney representing a guilty client, who will look a jury in the eye and insist that his (or her) client is innocent of the accused crime.  Knowing full well that his client is as guilty as sin.

I have personally witnessed everyone of these individuals tell an outright lie on the air.  Please remember, that unless one is under oath or committing slander, it is not illegal to lie.  If you choose to trust them and rely on them for your information then there is nothing I can do or say that will persuade you otherwise.  It is my opinion that you like these individuals because they tell you what you want to hear, not what you need to hear.  They are playing to your fears and prejudices: in essence they are using you to increase their respective ratings.

Here is a simple experiment for you to try:   Take a little time in the next few days and research an individual named Frank Luntz.  He was (or is?) a Republican political consultant, who at one time worked for FOX news.  And try to find how he has impacted the public's perception of global warming and contrast those with his recent interview (2006) on the BBC.   

The choice is yours, rely on Rush Limbaugh or the wisdom, common sense and reason of true scientific debate.  

Best Wishes from a wonderful city,

Wayne  

[Anonymous]

 

I am far from being an expert on this subject; however, an effort is made to become well informed.  

In many cases it is not that difficult to fact check something being touted as gospel.  

It is on your shoulders and it is your responsibility to discover, as best as one can, the truth behind rumors, innuendos, and just out right lies.  You won't always be able to succeed but you owe it to yourself to at least try.  

Wayne    

Wayne,

By the above and other comments, you seem to be starting from the premise that anybody who disbelieves MMGW has not done enough fact checking, does not have an open mind, or has an agenda to oppose it.  However, if you think MMGW is only science without any agenda, I believe you should do a little more fact checking.  A really open mind will see that there is a huge agenda behind MMGW that has nothing to do with weather, climate, or science.  And that agenda is bitter medicine being sugar coated and sold as the one cause that rings everybody's chimes; the cause of saving nature.  This is about much more than just feeling good about being a believer, and saying you care about the planet.  There is going to be heavy lifting required once everybody is onboard this happy bandwagon.  These cap and trade schemes that are sprouting like mushrooms will have the government imposing new rules, regulations, limits, and fees on all activities that use energy.  And that's just for starters. 

[sfcouple]

 

So, I'm not asking for much...just name one peer review article on global warming that refutes what I've mentioned in this thread.  Not something you may have read on a blog, or something a friend may have told you, or something you may have heard on a talk show somewhere.  The name of the article, the Journal and the date of publication would be fine.

I love it when folks like Wayne walk right into it.....

Wayne, there are thousands of peer-reviewed articles that refute the notion of anthropogenic climate change.  Rather than list them all, here's just a few for starters.  PS - When you're done reading these, I'll link up some more!

http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf/view

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/16/the-coming-global-cooling

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ice%20factsheet.pdf

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Soon07-Nov8-PGEO-28n02_097-125-Soon.pdf

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5833/1844a

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/ResourcesGlobalWarm.html

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/images/ipcc_letter_14april08.pdf

 

Ready to cry "uncle" yet?

Yup, I just walked right into it didn't I?  Let me see, I picked one of your references out at random:  "worldclimatereport.com"  Now let me show you what was discovered, now this is a little convoluted so please be patient with me.

First, the article you quoted was found on a website called World Climate Report.  They in turn were quoting from a publication named : "Meteorology of Atmospheric Physics."  This latter publication is a peer reviewed scientific journal.  Now comes the difficult part.  In 2007 this peer review Journal published a non-peer reviewed article from 2 individuals associated with the "Nanjing Normal University" in China.  The title of the non-peer reviewed article appearing in "Meteorology of Atmospheric Physics" was "Multi-scale analysis of global Temperature Changes and Trends of a drop in Temperature in the next 20 years."  (Yes, this is the exact title as quoted in world climate.com).  The Nanjing University's website was accessed and it was discovered that they are a state funded Teachers College in China.  They listed 50 faculty members by name only.  None of the faculty members were identified with any specific discipline, none of their academic credentials were listed, and the only science course found on their curriculum was called simply "Science."  From what I was able to find, not one of the listed teachers at this school had any advanced degree and had no scientific training of any kind.

Hopefully you are still with me here.  Let me now quote from the World Climate Report's  summary of this article from China:   "Through more statistical wizardry (Italics are mine) they (the researchers) found the contribution of CO2 concentration to global temperature variation is no more than 40.19%, or in other words, 59.8% of the weight of global temperature variation is caused by non-greenhouse effect." 

And this is an example you provided as a peer reviewed article refuting climate change?   

So, while I'm not willing to cry "Uncle", it would be interesting to read your summary of this report from China.  A report from 2 individuals whose credentials were never listed, from a Teaching College in China whose faculty academic credentials are not listed.  And from a country with a vested interest in promoting the use of coal and minimizing the impact this use may have on global climate change.    

I'm not sure how long all this research took, I'll guess and say about an hour, so the thought of going through anymore of your references is not something that excites me.  However, if you would like to pay me by the hour I'll be pleased to research all of them for you and provide a summary of each and everyone.  I do accept PayPal. 

Thank you for the challenge but you will have to do better than that,

Wayne 

 

[sfcouple]

 

I am far from being an expert on this subject; however, an effort is made to become well informed.  

In many cases it is not that difficult to fact check something being touted as gospel.  

It is on your shoulders and it is your responsibility to discover, as best as one can, the truth behind rumors, innuendos, and just out right lies.  You won't always be able to succeed but you owe it to yourself to at least try.  

Wayne    

Wayne,

A really open mind will see that there is a huge agenda behind MMGW that has nothing to do with weather, climate, or science.  And that agenda is bitter medicine being sugar coated and sold as the one cause that rings everybody's chimes; the cause of saving nature.  

Ok, can you please show me or provide references for this huge agenda?  

Wayne  

[Railway Man]

In regard to the existence, cause, and effects of global warming, I am comfortable that the science is good enough.  While some within the scientific community might have a political or social agenda that blinds them to truth and causes them to report fake results, in my experience the scientific community is far too individualistic and viciously competitive for that to persist for more than about a week until someone exposes the fraud.  These deficiencies in human nature do not in my opinion cast sufficient doubt on the validity of the scientific process.  But who cares what I think?  I don't come to this thread to engage in political discussions nor is it important to me to convince anyone of anything.   If I look at this thread tomorrow and see that the ratio of those who think I'm dumb to those who agree is 1000:1, I will go to work at the railroad tomorrow just like I did today.

The only place this entire thread MIGHT have in a forum discussing railroads is the effect on railroads of the policies that might stem from national acceptance of the existence and cause of global warming.  And there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the political question is already decided: the U.S. government, in response to public pressure at the polling place, will press forward with policies designed to limit CO2 emissions and that will have a definite effect on railroads.  At some point in the future the government will require coal combustion to either capture CO2 or cease.  Having some experience with power plant permitting, nuclear permitting, and the economics of the power industry, at this point I think the electrical power industry will find it more economical and lower risk to capture CO2 than replace all that coal plant capacity with nuclear or any other source.  The cheap coal, by the way, is rapidly being used up, and probably just after my lifetime the whole question of whether we burn coal becomes moot because it will cost too much to mine. 

I would be happy if the government could find a middle road between the global-warming naysayers who want nothing to change and the back-to-the-earthers who want 100% change.  It's the extremes that worry me because those of us who set railroad policy and my cohorts who set power policy can't work with uncertainty or extremes.

RWM

 

[sfcouple]

In regard to the existence, cause, and effects of global warming, I am comfortable that the science is good enough.  While some within the scientific community might have a political or social agenda that blinds them to truth and causes them to report fake results, in my experience the scientific community is far too individualistic and viciously competitive for that to persist for more than about a week until someone exposes the fraud.  These deficiencies in human nature do not in my opinion cast sufficient doubt on the validity of the scientific process.  But who cares what I think?  I don't come to this thread to engage in political discussions nor is it important to me to convince anyone of anything.   If I look at this thread tomorrow and see that the ratio of those who think I'm dumb to those who agree is 1000:1, I will go to work at the railroad tomorrow just like I did today.

The only place this entire thread MIGHT have in a forum discussing railroads is the effect on railroads of the policies that might stem from national acceptance of the existence and cause of global warming.  And there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the political question is already decided: the U.S. government, in response to public pressure at the polling place, will press forward with policies designed to limit CO2 emissions and that will have a definite effect on railroads.  At some point in the future the government will require coal combustion to either capture CO2 or cease.  Having some experience with power plant permitting, nuclear permitting, and the economics of the power industry, at this point I think the electrical power industry will find it more economical and lower risk to capture CO2 than replace all that coal plant capacity with nuclear or any other source.  The cheap coal, by the way, is rapidly being used up, and probably just after my lifetime the whole question of whether we burn coal becomes moot because it will cost too much to mine. 

I would be happy if the government could find a middle road between the global-warming naysayers who want nothing to change and the back-to-the-earthers who want 100% change.  It's the extremes that worry me because those of us who set railroad policy and my cohorts who set power policy can't work with uncertainty or extremes.

RWM

 

Thank you, you said in one post what I've been trying to say for 2 days.  And you obviously did it a lot better than I did.  

I appreciate your comments and input, particularly about the extreme position on both sides, 

Wayne  

 

  

[Anonymous]

 

I am far from being an expert on this subject; however, an effort is made to become well informed.  

In many cases it is not that difficult to fact check something being touted as gospel.  

It is on your shoulders and it is your responsibility to discover, as best as one can, the truth behind rumors, innuendos, and just out right lies.  You won't always be able to succeed but you owe it to yourself to at least try.  

Wayne    

Wayne,

A really open mind will see that there is a huge agenda behind MMGW that has nothing to do with weather, climate, or science.  And that agenda is bitter medicine being sugar coated and sold as the one cause that rings everybody's chimes; the cause of saving nature.  

Ok, can you please show me or provide references for this huge agenda?  

Wayne  

No I can't give you a reference that is going to prove to you that there is an agenda.  You are better off looking for evidence rather than a reference.  If you look for references, you're liable to miss the big picture.  When I say it is an agenda, it is not as if a bunch of world leaders got together and hatched a plan.

You mentioned not taking extreme positions on both sides.  Why not?  The issue has two sides, and they are a long, long way apart.  I don't see how a person could be in the middle.

We are debating MMGW, but suddenly I am not really sure what the concept means to you in terms of the both the problem and its solution.  It seems that we disagree on it, but we might not even be seeing the same thing.  I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.

[sfcouple]

 

I am far from being an expert on this subject; however, an effort is made to become well informed.  

In many cases it is not that difficult to fact check something being touted as gospel.  

It is on your shoulders and it is your responsibility to discover, as best as one can, the truth behind rumors, innuendos, and just out right lies.  You won't always be able to succeed but you owe it to yourself to at least try.  

Wayne    

Wayne,

A really open mind will see that there is a huge agenda behind MMGW that has nothing to do with weather, climate, or science.  And that agenda is bitter medicine being sugar coated and sold as the one cause that rings everybody's chimes; the cause of saving nature.  

Ok, can you please show me or provide references for this huge agenda?  

Wayne  

No I can't give you a reference that is going to prove to you that there is an agenda.  You are better off looking for evidence rather than a reference.  If you look for references, you're liable to miss the big picture.  When I say it is an agenda, it is not as if a bunch of world leaders got together and hatched a plan.

You mentioned not taking extreme positions on both sides.  Why not?  The issue has two sides, and they are a long, long way apart.  I don't see how a person could be in the middle.

We are debating MMGW, but suddenly I am not really sure what the concept means to you in terms of the both the problem and its solution.  It seems that we disagree on it, but we might not even be seeing the same thing.  I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.

What I meant by the extreme positions is somehow we need to find some kind of compromise that allows for sustainable economic and industrial growth, while being conscious of the possible environmental impact of our activities.  I do believe in MMGW, but that doesn't mean we should just stop burning fossil fuels, but it also doesn't mean that we should just ignore the problem.  This problem is real and it is felt that to deny it is counterproductive.  I just don't see why we as a country can't say something like: ok, maybe there is mmgw, now what can we all do to manage the problem?  There is no question that to reduce man made CO2 will be costly to some industries and companies.  But, there is also a potential for this loss revenue to be made by other companies and industries that today are in their infancy.  

This is a world wide issue and regardless of what we do in our country, other nations will also have to be involved with the solution.  We live in an ever shrinking world where activities in one nation can have an impact on others in just a matter of a few days.  However, we are a great nation and now have an opportunity to be a leader and demonstrate, on the world stage, how our combined intellect can be used to resolve something of this magnitude.

I look at science and technology as a valuable resource that we can use to our advantage.  Just as other nations use use natural resources such as oil for their advantage.  There are times when I get the impression that there is an ever growing trend to view science in something other than positive terms.  There is nothing inherently evil about science, although admittedly there have always been those who will use new technology for military advantages.  We just don't need to fear science.  Scientists are just searching for the truth, and yes, we can be incorrect, and are far from perfect.  But who are scientists?  We live and raise our families in the same world as everyone else.  There is nothing special about being a scientist, most of us work hard and are just simply normal average people.  

Let's say for a moment that today we discovered a synthetic replacement for fossil fuels.  Does this mean our problems are solved?  Unfortunately no, primarily because of the world wide population explosion.  There is just simply a natural limit of sustainability for life on our planet.  I have no idea of what this might be, but we cannot support an ever increasing demand on our resources indefinitely.  

Maybe I'm too much of an optimist, I just don't see why our nation has to be so divisive.  This was a long winded answer to your question about how two divergent viewpoints is not, in and of itself, insurmountable.   

Wayne 

 

   

[Anonymous]

Wayne,

Thanks for your answer.  I understand your point about compromise.  It seems to me that there are two issues concerning emissions.  One is he issue of emitting poison, which will cause death if it's emitted in high enough concentrations and quantities.  The other is the issue of emitting non-poisonous gases that will cause death because they will induce rising sea levels, and other climatic disruptions.  The first one is easy to understand, while the second is not so clear.

[sfcouple]

Wayne,

Thanks for your answer.  I understand your point about compromise.  It seems to me that there are two issues concerning emissions.  One is he issue of emitting poison, which will cause death if it's emitted in high enough concentrations and quantities.  The other is the issue of emitting non-poisonous gases that will cause death because they will induce rising sea levels, and other climatic disruptions.  The first one is easy to understand, while the second is not so clear.

I know this is confusing and there is a lot of room for misunderstanding.  Actually in this particular case, normal levels of CO2 are not harmful.  In fact, as was pointed out in others posts, green plants require CO2 in order to survive.   They take in CO2 and expel oxygen.  We humans take in oxygen and expel CO2.  So why is CO2 so important?

Under normal circumstances some of the sun's heat is absorbed by the earth and some of the heat is then reflected back into space.  If there was something in our atmosphere blocking this escape than one might conclude that global temperature might rise.  And this something is generally referred to as "greenhouse gas" because it sort of acts like a greenhouse used to grow plants in cool climates.  In this case, gas is used as an substitute for the glass structure of a greenhouse. 

CO2 is considered a green house gas because it has the potential to block thermal radiation into space with a subsequent heating of the atmosphere.  Actually, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas in our atmosphere: others include water vapor and methane.  But CO2 is in the news a lot and is certainly a problem so let's take a quick look at it.  There are natural emissions of CO2 that take place on a daily basis.  The normal life cycle of plants and animals on both land and sea, account for some of the natural sources of CO2.  As do eruptions of Volcanoes. However, the claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activity is just not true. 

So how do we humans contribute to CO2 emissions:  simply by burning what are referred to as fossil fuels.  Oil.   Fossil fuels contain carbon (C) and when burned in the presence of oxygen (O2) emit CO2 as a by product.  Tropical deforestation (burning down tropical rain forests) is also a man made source of CO2.  Since plants take up CO2 with their metabolic activities, when plants are removed additional quantities of CO2 can enter the atmosphere.

CO2 has been in our environment for millions of years and is absolutely necessary for life as we know it.  But too much of it can be harmful.  There is also a natural life cycle for CO2, it can and is absorbed by things other than green plants.  Everything that was just mentioned here is in natural state of balance and is a far more complex picture than what I'm painting here.

However, with all the variability of CO2 emission, natural and man made, with all the different means of CO2 absorption there is room for natural differences of opinion.  Unfortunately, it can be reasonably easy for one to misinterpret the data (on either side of the issue) and to present facts in a misleading and confusing manner (on either side) to support one cause or another.  This is where your source of information is very important.  Earlier I recommended a website called realclimate.org  where objective information is presented in a non-political manner.  

It is confusing and I wish it wasn't so.  I'll reiterate what was said earlier: there is really no need to fear science.  Use it, study it, and learn from it.  It's there to help explain complex issues facing our upcoming generations.   If you were facing a serious medical problem you would most certainly visit a licensed physician for help and advice.  If you are facing a problem with a scientific concept remember there are many sources of help at your disposal.    

I'm not an expert, and may not always be correct, but I'll always be willing to help point you in the right direction for help.

Wayne  

 

 

 

[Norman Saxon]

 

So, I'm not asking for much...just name one peer review article on global warming that refutes what I've mentioned in this thread. 

http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf/view

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/16/the-coming-global-cooling

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ice%20factsheet.pdf

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Soon07-Nov8-PGEO-28n02_097-125-Soon.pdf

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5833/1844a

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/ResourcesGlobalWarm.html

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/images/ipcc_letter_14april08.pdf 

Thank you for the challenge but you will have to do better than that

Better yet, pay me for my time accumulating this material, then apologize to the forum for not keeping your word. 

You asked for one peer-reviewed journal article that refutes the notion of man made global warming.  You have been provided with 10 peer-reviewed journals that refute the notion of man made global warming.

You have been proven wrong, and you have been proven to be disingenuous.

Is that par for the course for the Pelosi crowd?

[solzrules]

Amazing...

That last exchange just proved how intellectually bankrupt global warming advocates really are. 

If you can't defend your global warming position on the Trains Forum, I pity your real life experiences. 

There are many scientists out there who do not buy into global warming, not because of religious reasons but because it is based on junk science.  It amazes me that the biggest proponents of global warming are politicians in lieu of scientists (Big Al even turns a healthy profit from the hype, I've read).

The sooner the green movment burns itself out the sooner we can get on with reality. 

[sfcouple]

 

So, I'm not asking for much...just name one peer review article on global warming that refutes what I've mentioned in this thread. 

http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf/view

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/16/the-coming-global-cooling

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ice%20factsheet.pdf

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Soon07-Nov8-PGEO-28n02_097-125-Soon.pdf

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5833/1844a

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/ResourcesGlobalWarm.html

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/images/ipcc_letter_14april08.pdf 

Thank you for the challenge but you will have to do better than that

Better yet, pay me for my time accumulating this material, then apologize to the forum for not keeping your word. 

You asked for one peer-reviewed journal article that refutes the notion of man made global warming.  You have been provided with 10 peer-reviewed journals that refute the notion of man made global warming.

You have been proven wrong, and you have been proven to be disingenuous.

Is that par for the course for the Pelosi crowd?

There is no need for name calling.  I did take one of your sources and thought I did a credible job of showing how wrong you were on at least one of the references.  I even asked you for an explanation of the research article that was discussed and instead I get unfounded accusations.  Really confused as to how I've been proven wrong and disingenuous?  I'm doing my best here trying to respond to your requests and not getting much help from you.  

Let me ask you a favor.  You mentioned the time you spent in accumulating this material, where exactly did it come from?  What was your source?  Where did this list come from?

And before there are any more rude replies please calm down and show me how I was wrong on the one article that I examined? Show me by a logical, coherent and reasoned factual response without resorting to name calling.    

Thank you,

Wayne 

[tstage]

I think it's time to move on fellas.  We can argue this topic till the Gores come home.  Time to get back to talking about trains...

Tom