An inconvenient truth

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Of course he's most likely bias, I stated that in the original post. What struck me is, it's the first nay sayer that sounded like he had a logical thought pattern, made a case with something besides volume to back it up.

Bruce - show me wave after wave of research that support the 'no global warming' theory. Anyone can take pot shots at peer reviewed research. That is what you have done - take pot shots at details - to prove research does not exist. Others even speculated about volcanoes - without numbers - as if that was proof from a peer reviewed science paper. Show me the wave after wave of research. These waves keep coming to the same conclusions - global warming does exist and it is related to man's activities.

Even whole issues from major and responsible publications provide wave after wave of peer reviewed papers on numerous aspects of global warming. Instead - and this is the embarrassing part - you would agree with a well renown and honest scientist - George Jr? George Jr has an advantage. God is his peer reviewer.

It is a widely accepted fact because the evidence is so overwhelming. Global warming is a man made phenomena. Serious remaining questions are quantitative analysis. IOW 'how fast' and 'how destructive'. These quantitative questions are what responsible scientists are now discussing. This is where debate lies.