Ok. I lied. Dubs have nothing to do with this thread!
In order to have a rational discussion about global warming and the so-called greenhouse effect, we need a rational starting point and need to ask rational questions. I consider the questions I've outlined to be a rational starting point, but feel free to add any others that are relevant.
Does the fact that a majority of people believe global warming is dangerous to humans add to the credibility of the theory?
Does the fact that many major scientists and the media state that global warming is a "fact" make it a fact? Does Al Gore stating it is a fact make it a fact? I mean after all, he invented the Internet.
Are scientists able to obtain enough rock solid information about the subject in order to positively conclude that global warming is significant and dangerous enough that drastic measures must be taken in order to arrest it?
Are scientists who study the subject completely subjective about it? If their research (and by association their livelihood) is funded by environmental groups who expect a certain outcome from the research, can they be trusted to remain objective? If their research (and by implication their livelihood) is funded by manufacturing groups and industries who expect a certain outcome from the research, can these scientists be trusted to remain objective? If their research is funded by a double blind study where they do not know who is doing the funding and they do not know who else is also doing the same research and they have no idea of what outcome is expected, can these scientists be trusted to remain objective?
Given that, has ALL the research so far on the subject been done using double blind methods? If not, do the double blind studies agree with the studies done by special interests? If not, why not?
Why is it that most research scientists who are proponents of global warming are still in their working years, and most research scientists who are skeptical about global warming are retired? Which group has the most to gain for their conclusions, or which group has the most to lose for their conclusions?
Are the methods used to measure warming across the world reliable enough in all places and at all times to make a valid conclusion?
How reliable are computer simulations predicting future trends?
Is global warming primarily due to increased volume of carbon dioxide or do other factors contribute enough to be considered significant?
Is there REALLY a worldwide pattern of warming on the globe over the last say, 50 years? What do the data show?
Is the greenhouse effect which is supposedly due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere a proven fact?
What does the raw temperature data show when compared with data which has been "adjusted" to compensate for other warming factors like population concentrations and agriculture? Are the downward "adjustments" for population concentrations accurate enough to factor out all other warming contributions EXCEPT carbon dioxide?
How can results be considered "fact" when two totally unpredictable and chaotic systems have to be tweaked and combined to come up with a result? A single chaos theory in action on a problem is enough to derail any prediction, but what if there are TWO chaos theories in action on a single problem and they have to be reconciled with each other?
Since El Ninos are the biggest events in global climate worldwide, can they be predicted with any accuracy? Can they be proven to be caused by global warming?
Are hurricanes worldwide increasing or decreasing?
Is the total volume of Antarctic ice increasing or decreasing? If decreasing, can it be shown that the decrease is directly tied to nicreased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
What were they saying about global climate in 1970's? What can we learn from that?
If global warming turns out to be a hoax, what would have been the benefit to those who promoted it so rabidly?
Those questions are just for starters. I have answers for many of them.
Farkel
..........................
...OUTLAW