Can you please address the post by thinker below?

Let me see. There are well over 5 million Muslims in the US. Let's say they object, on religious grounds, to public money supporting the pork industry. Between industry subsidies and the cost of the FDA to regulate that particular meat, that's quite a bit of money. Yet it is legal to raise, butcher and sell pork.

Do you support the right of the US Muslim to lobby government to prevent public money from going to the pork industry? Would you support the religious based argument that raising pigs and selling pork should be banned?

PS-It's not about the issue, it's about he argument. Justify your argument.

http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

This cites a recent study. It's much more proof than you have that it is not.

Here's a real eye opener

<a href="http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-trut..." target="_blank">http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-trut...

When there is no foundation of fact for your bias, it always turns into conspiracy theories, doesn't it?

I have yet to find a study, by the way, that indicates anything but the fact that unbelievers indeed have higher IQ's.

You know this for a fact? You have proof? Or just warm fuzzies?

"The APA had criticized reparative therapy in the past, but a six-member task force added weight to this position by examining 83 studies on sexual orientation change conducted since 1960."

Believing that being gay is a choice has NO basis in science.

As long as you agree that the other 67% of the world that is not Christian is human, we're good.

For those of you fortunate enough not to have come across Jim, also known as NucEngineer, he likes to repaste these comments over and over again. He never debates. Perhaps he is a paid astroturfer?

The only place you'll find Jim/NucEngineer posting something other than this same tired rant is on the Rolex Forums. That should tell you something. The conspicuous consumer needs to chat all day about time pieces that cost more than a car or spam the world denying climate change.

You gave a lot of information--possibly important information. Please cite your source(s).

People say there is not yet a scientific consensus. What exactly constitutes a scientific consensus?

Scientists are not solely worried about warming, but the RATE of warming. The rate of warming is the key to this issue. Our planet may not be able to recover and adapt in time.

Also, anthropogenic climate change will most likely NEVER be proven. It is a theory. Theories are VERY strong beliefs supported by extensive data and research. If we are to act on this issue, we cannot wait until we are 100% sure--there will always be differences in views, but "we" need to look at the data and make an educated guess on how best to deal with this issue. That is the best science can do for us now.

The "we" above... by "we" I mean scientists and those in academia... not laymen who write editorials in local newspapers about what they heard on Fox News or CNN. Science is constantly insulted when regular uneducated people try to understand and explain extensive phenomena without the proper respect and understanding for science and without an educational background.

Finally, we like to think we can do absolutely anything we want to this planet without adverse effects. Capitalism run amuck without restraint seems to be one of the worst offenders.

We must find ways to sustain this planet for future generations without sacrificing enjoyments in our society. With the evidence of anthropogenic climate change, why haven't we researched other methods of energy... "just in case?" Why does the government still subsidize oil with billions and only about 20 million in alternative energy subsides?

Corruption and greed needs to leave the anti-climate change point of view.

Scientists from both side of this issue need to be locked in a huge room with their data and evidence, throw biases on the table, and analyze the issue extensively point by point.

NucEngineer says 'There has been atmospheric cooling the last 8 years, and no new high global annual temperatures in the last 11 years.'

So why was the last 10 years the hottest on record? and significantly hotter than the previous 10 years according to the Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index, with 2005 being the highest on record.