How come environmentalists can't discuss global warming without insulting anyone who disagrees with them?

Why not let the evidence just stand for itself? Why must these people insult me by calling me a fundamentalist nut, a member of the flat earth society, etc.,when all I am asking is that you provide the actual evidence (not just assertions that "thousands of scientists agree with my opinion..." or "hundreds of scientific papers have been published..." got any specifics?) that global warming is man made and that excessive carbon dioxide is directly linked to global warming? When people have to resort to rhetoric and rationalisation,they have nothing to support thier argument. Even if it does cause the earth's temperature to rise by a couple of degrees is there really anyone that believes that this will cause catastrophic, sudden changes? Should we believe the alarmist Hollywood nonsense junk science promoted in movies like "The Day After Tommorrow" ? Is there any real evidence that there will be catastrophic weather changes?

That would mean taking the politics out of the equation... If the IPCC can't do it, what makes you think anyone can?
It won't be a Hollywood disaster. Very slowly coastal areas will flood and agriculture will be disrupted due to changes in weather patterns. Rich countries will be able to cope, but it will cost them huge sums of money. In poor countries a lot of people will die of starvation. It will happen in slow motion and it will be bad.

Global warming critics here generally post stuff like "This has happened before - it's a natural cycle." or "It's solar variation" or "Volcanoes, farm animals", etc. The reasons for citing the overwhelming consensus that it's real and caused by man is to demonstrate that it can't be those - the scientists, businessmen, and political leaders have surely considered those causes and rejected them.

The report from the IPCC on Friday will have facts in abundance. And here are some websites with many facts:

People generally don't answer with facts because the global warming deniers are clearly ignoring them, they're not hard to find.

Here's some specifics on "hundreds of papers". Every paper which contained the words climate change from 1993-2003 was examined. 928 of them. The number that said it was a natural change? Zero.

People who want to deny the results of 99% of the worlds' scientists should not be surprised to be compared to other people who do that. Global warming is now a scientific fact.
Imagine if someone kept attacking something you loved, how would you react?

The easy to read al gore Inconvenient truth book & film is packed with uncontested evidence - perhaps because you have not "let the evidence stand for itself" environmentalist get frustrated by the looming loss of a human civiliastion and beutiful world and all its ecosystems that they love.
Given that we all live in, and depend upon, the same environment are we not all environmentallists?

remember there is no planet B
Millions of tons of crap DAILY into the atmosphere is nothing to sneeze at. Pun intended.

We are screwing ourselves over for a buck.
Shooting ourselves in the herd.
Stepping on our own ducks.
Cutting off our nose to spite our finch.
Kicking ourselves in the aardvark.

For the almighty dollar we're ruining it for everybody and everything, and people who can't accept it are three fries short of a Happy Meal.
Have a nice day.

The answers post by the user, for information only, does not guarantee the right.

More Questions and Answers:

More Questions and Answers:
  • What is itegerated farming?
  • What is the strongest recyclable meterial in the world?
  • Will genocide occur by innoculation, aerial spraying or _______ ?
  • which grow faster green or red bean?
  • what college did cassini d.g go to?
  • Science question!?
  • What do people do that has an impact on global warming?
  • What do you think about global warming ?
  • How can you reduce global warmin gas emissions?