Better to allow people the option to believe according to their own precepts than insist on foisting truth down their unwilling gullets.

Quantum physics is looking to a flat type model for the universe now:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/727073.stm

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

(But of course I know myself to be a champion of my own true: just I hope I never called it truth)

I absolutely do NOT judge other’s beliefs. If you drew that conclusion based on anything I said, then you were mistaken.

The notion of “close minded people”, ie those who will only accept “evidence” which supports their preconceived notions, and ignore all other evidence, was suggested by RJ. I concurred that such people do exist. It is hard to have any meaningful discussion with such people.

I accept all evidence which can be documented, whether it supports my current perspective or not. If anyone brings forth well supported claims which refute one of my viewpoints, I will thank that person and acknowledge my error. That is the whole point of discussion, and argument, and is the strength of discussion pages like this, when the discussion is done in that spirit. We all know that discussions can devolve into a much less constructive mode.

I think close-minded people and open-minded people are a figment of your imagination, Chris. Who brought you up to judge so nicely and precisely another’s beliefs?

Yes there are close minded people out there who ignore all evidence and claim the world is flat, etc. However, among people who respect evidence, we can come to a consensus by developing theories and testing them with observations. This is the scientific method. Here’s an example of how people who disagree on “everything” agree on science: whether you are an atheist China, Jewish Isreal, Hindu India, or Islamic Pakistan, you all agree that if you get enough Uranium 238 together you’ve got yourself a nuke.

GW denial is a religion. People will believe in it without any regard to evidence (this is show by the fact that no GW deniers on this site felt the need to refute my 5 points). Lets focus on who profits: Exxon, Haiburton, etc will make far more money than Al Gore. If Al Gore becomes a billionaire by getting the CO2 level down below 300, then I say more power to him. A billion dollars is a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of global warming, and also a drop in the bucket compared to Exxon’s profits. ($13 billion per quarter if I remember)

The problem with evidence is people will always find evidence to support their beliefs.

Global warming in now a religion to many so is pointless discussing the finer points on a site like this.

So just focus on cap and trade. This is will benefit people like Gore and Goldman Sacks. This should in itself set alarm bells ringing

If I pay a tax it should go to a Govt (as a tax) to spend on pollution control etc not to traders and bankers.

Still Laughing nice one RODFL PMSL

Plus I have a facination with Sunken Citys
Like Atlantis
or the one which has Sunk of the coast of Bombay/Mumbai
Interstingly Mumbai’s former name is “BOMB-BAY”
never thought about that till now RODFL

There is lotta Evidense though circumstantial that sujests that buildings n stuff in history are Fused together that kinda happens only when a nuke pops
All speculative but worth pondering

I don’t claim any special authority, no. However the 5 undisputed facts I have gleaned are enough to raise concern in any thinking person. Since no one has refuted any of these facts so far, I assume that we can all agree on all 5.

(Of course, if you want, you can always “prove” I am a liar by simply claiming that I’m a member of the Bilderburg group)

@photoception
This graph alone makes it clear that the latest huge rise has no natural precident. Since we know how much CO2 humans produce there is no doubt that this latest spike is human-induced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

Yes, I spoke only of the science. IF there is a market in greenhouse gas emission I am 100% sure Goldman Sachs will try to game it. I’ve learned that much from 1.5 years of listening to Max & Stacy.
Regarding Cap & Trade, I am skeptical. Something similar was tried in Calif a decade ago, but failed because the cap was set to high (for other types of pollution).

However if you criticize cap & trade you need to come up with an alternative which will bring global CO2 levels down to its normal MAXIMUM for the last half million years: 300 ppm.

What’s your solution?