actually Soylent Green is a good solution. the problem is too many people!

Stop having 8 children!

and how exactly do they measure these farts and belches?
that is a science experiment I want to see.

you need to learn cow biology and read the article before you post. you will sound less ignorant then.

Cows belch more than they fart because of their digestive system, so any gas will be belched more than farted.

Plus TFA is about lowing methane levels in the digestive system, not about making them fart or belch less.

Learn your cow biology people!
They have to belch up their food and re-chew it several times before they ever fart or poop. to 3 or 4 belches to one fart ratio in cows.

I have no hard evidence that god doesn't exist, but that does not mean he does.

I did mean evidence when I said facts, since facts are derived from evidence. I will concede on that point as evidence is a better term to use when being precise.

I also agree that the grant motivated agendas is a red hearing since both sides do it.

But that doesn't make it any more ethical does it?

Is there no way to eliminate this ethical dilemma of monetary motivators in science?

Should we not work to eliminate it?

I think we are both interested in seeking the best evidence available. I am just more skeptical of mankind. I see skeptics as well as scientists with real opposing theories as a good thing in any type of science.

I just fear that this science is getting used by political agendas and has accumulated an almost religious following of zealots.

I also distrust statistical data and computer models that are based on such data, especially when the data is retrieved from questionable sources.

I am not going to bring a bunch of names and opposing evidence into this argument. We both know there is real science on both sides of the issue. Sure there is a majority of one type of scientist that believes your theories and they might be right, but the other side might be right as well at this point.

My argument is mainly that the "skeptics" as you call them (I prefer to call them scientists with opposing theories) are not getting the funding and that this is anti-scientific.

But your "best science available" comes from people with a pro-warming agenda.

I am not saying that they are wrong, I am just saying that they only get money if they keep shouting that the earth is doomed and it is human error.

So yes, they might be right, but why should anyone trust them?

The Global Warming crowd has been saying the same thing about the scientist on the opposite side of the issue for years, so it is only right that these scientists are questioned on their ethics as well now that they are receiving the government grants.

Besides, it shouldn't be about trust at all. It should be about facts, and they just don't have enough, no matter what statistics you quote from one group of scientists that study only one aspect of science.

NO, imperfect does not mean useless, but imperfect can mean inaccurate. In science, accuracy is a big deal. Otherwise we are just following a hunch, and that is fine in the beginning, but to base political and social policy on a hunch is too much to ask.

They will just use the same old argument they already use.

"while the data is not complete, we cannot wait until it is complete or it will be too late to act."

Then they will get their money from the government and our taxes will be raised a bit more. Everybody else is getting 700 billion, why not Cisco and the climatologists. :(

Heh heh, that sounds like a band name "Cisco And The Climatologists"

As the first actual space cowboy I will be the first person to start an underground cattle ranch on mars. They will eat the silk worm jam and then I will eat the cow. My cow poop will also produce methane for power and bone/hide for making furniture and other essentials. Sometimes the most inefficient food can be the best. Besides, how much more inefficient is a cow than a person. Plus they will eat silk worms and like them while I get to eat my tastey beef!

Science lectures are often boring because there is no story to it. It is just facts and figures to be memorized and regurgitated later. People sleep and do not attend out of boredom.

History, Poli Sci, and Philosophy classes on the other hand can use the lecture hall to great effect. They can get a really good speaker/story teller (with a PHD in the subject) and let him explain how things happened, or perhaps why learning about that subject is of great importance to all mankind. If he is good then why shouldn't he have 500 to 1,000 people listening to what he has to say. Some of my favorite times as an undergrad were spent listening to wonderful lectures from great Historians and philosophers. They made me want to come to the next lecture. It was like anticipating the next episode of my favorite tv show. While you couldn't ask questions, nobody wanted to because they were all so enthralled with the lecture.

This guy knows nothing of the people of those states if he thinks this can happen anytime soon. Alaskans are mostly libertarians/republicans that would rather be killed or starve than be a part of anything that was formerly a communist state. Likewise Texans, which are also very libertarian/republican, would rather start a war than forget the Alamo and freely join Mexico! And California would never go to china in a million years. Could you imagine the eco-terrorism that would ensue in China if they allowed Californians to freely move between countries. All that green guilt against China would explode into mass bombings by Prius driving soccer moms! Sure it could eventually happen after economic failure and ensuing warfare between the states and other nations, but it would take decades and not a year and a half. More probably, the people of Alaska, California, and Texas, might split off from an economically bankrupt US within 1.5 years, but they would never join another country. They would just form their own countries and levy their own taxes, although I do not think California could afford it because of all their social and green guilt programs they have to pay for. In fact dumping California might be the best way for the US to recover right now. Think of all the stupid "save the children/planet laws, illegal immigrant workers, and non-tax paying thugs that exist in California. No wonder they keep asking for bailouts. People want less government today, not more. So unless they are forced to join another country at gunpoint there is no reason these states would join them.

What are you talking about? It is not over. From looking at the map you linked to it is still rumbling today and at a greater magnitude.
I am just glad I live in ohio and will not get the hot ash or lava in my living room. I will just get the nuclear winter and the cold ash that can form cement in my lungs and kill off all the plantlife! :)

It might be a good idea to transplant some of the animals we have herded into yelowstone over the last 100 years to another location upwind though just in case. Dead people that have a choice are one thing, but dead animals we herded into a giant volcano is another.

It is getting cooler in some places and warmer in others. Guess what, that is normal!

The global warming scientists changed the name of "global warming" to "climate change" so that they could continue to get their grants even though the entire globe was not warming. But hey, the middle east used to be a jungle and we had nothing to do with that change.

Yes it is snowing and vegas and antarctica is melting. That is change but it is not global warming! To be global warming it has to be GLOBAL!

They are motivated by their love of truth and their faith in pure science.
They do not want more polution. That is just Greenie propoganda.
These scientists just want the facts to prevail. Don't you?

In science you always try to find the facts no matter where they lead.
Meanwhile global warming "science" is more like a religous movement where they know the answer and refute anyone who comes up with a different one.

While using lies and fear to motivate people might work, why can't we just try to educate people and hope that they choose to stop poluting so much?
That is a world I would want to live in.

Ignorance is a far greater threat to humanity than C02 ever will be.