As for the idea of equal funding to both sides of an issue, that has a trap door too. Thats the way the creationists in this country shoe horn their religious beliefs into the public education system. Just pay a few scientists of low character enough to get them to prostitute themselves and et voila, two sides and we treat them as if their fables hold as much credibility as scientific reason. Or how about the tobacco issue? Two sides once again. I hope it works for you, just be watchful.

You're a funny guy. Penn and Teller are valid resources but Wikipedia is not. OK junior, go back to school and do your homework. This class is finished!

I'm fine with all of that. I'm fine with doing things that are beneficial. I'm not ok with this "Green" movement with Al Gore who seem to have bandaids that aren't going to correct anything. Those stupid little "Green credits" are a scam and people are profiting off of it. I'm agnostic as to whether or not Global Warming exists, but I'm for adopting the newer technologies our science has created. The problem is people want change without progress. That's too dangerous a mindset though.

A snowstorm in Texas is evidence for global warming. Global warming causes familiar climate patterns to shift, causing more extremes of weather. Scientists call it "global climate change" because "global warming" is confusing. However, it doesn't matter if the human influence on the climate is "100% proved." We should still adopt renewable energy: it provides jobs, frees us from foreign oil, has local environmental benefits, and the risk we are causing global climate change isn't worth taking.

Well, the reason I suggested that particular wikipedia page is that it has links to reports, and links aren't allowed on youtube. However, I will message you with those links directly. I'm not "into" global warming. I'm just hoping to correct the misinformation you've seen about the issue. Incidentally, Penn Jillette is a research fellow at the CATO Institute (check the cato website if you want verification), which is funded by ExxonMobil.

If I thought that Wikipedia was going to be a good enough resource to check out, I would have used it already. If you don't have any documentaries, any reports, or anything of that nature to give me, then don't debate with me on it. I'm sceptical of Global Warming. Doesn't mean that I don't beleive in it it means that I'm still waiting for enough evidence. Anyone that views wikipedia as a good enough source for a debate isn't worth debating. What got you into Global Warming what inspired you?

You should view the wikipedia article on "scientific opinion on climate change" which documents the consensus of scientific organizations from across the world, representing tens of thousands of scientists. Now compare that to the article "Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming" You will see that there are only a few dozen individual scientists who dispute human caused climate change. It's not even close.

and a single volcanic eruption produces much much much more than that. Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) So... take that, multiply it by how many years volcanoes have been going off... and that's how much Carbon has been put into the air by volcanoes. Volcanoes used to be much more active than they were now. The numbers just don't add up either way... I fail to see the good science for either case. I'm agnostic on this.

I'm still agnostic on Global Warming. I haven't seen enough persuasive evidence to prove me otherwise and I haven't heard the people saying that Global Warming is going to destroy us giving us good alternatives. They want to stop mining coal but tehy don't want to use Nuclear power they want to stop using oil but don't work hard enough to lower how much is used. I see a lot of talk, not enough facts, and no real agreed upon solution. There's science on both sides of the debate. I'm agnostic 4 it

im so bOrEd! msg me! my id is in my youtube profile! n