If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......
Posted 19 January 2007 - 02:29 AM
So then where are the links to this proof on the web?
There is no proof, just evidence and models, which although I agree with I am willing to admit can be wrong. The major factor for me is the speed of temperature increase and the massive increase in CO2 emmissions combined with removal of carbon sinks like the mass destruction of rainforest.
I'm another believer. My understanding is that the average temperature of the earth has literally risen a degree or two in recent history. If I saw the average temp go down again (several years in a row) I would consider the possibility that the current high was a random fluke. Evidence showing that this type of change has happened before (tree ring analysis, CO2 content in ice cores) would make me question my beliefs.
I hope that someone who DOESN'T think we are contributing to global warming answers this. I wonder how Bush would answer it?
I 'm fairly sure that no amount of scientific evidence could change Bush's mind. Two things that could make him change his mind would be if (1) the changing climate begins to have a negative impact on the Texas oil industry (2) his fundamentalist spiritual counselors suddenly realize that, given the fact that "God made the heavens and the earth", trashing them might not be religiously correct.
IYes sir, you are right. It means my statement are based on the past decisions. Every word I have said has come from scientific proof on the web. Stare Decisis means that the rulings of the court are based on past decisions.
Stare Decisis means that, regardless of current situations, a precedent has been set and should be followed. It is far more than merely basing a decision on past decisions. In science, context is everything. What happened in one given set of circumstances before do not have any guarantee of having occurred in a different set of circumstances. One cannot claim precedent in science unless the situations are identical. One can in a court system, even if the situation is not identical.
In my court, I make the decisions.
And if you were in your court, that would be fine. However, you aren't so much in your court as in your are in your own world. While you are here, you are in a discussion forum, and around here, if you cannot support your claims, you have nothing more than opinions.
You need to stick to your moderation. You have no idea what I know!
No, but you have made it abundantly clear what you do not know.
Critics of the global warming hypothesis: what evidence would convince you that global warming was, in fact, a threat?
Believers in global warming: what evidence would convince you that, actually, humanity's impact on global warming was negligable?
I don't fit in either of those categories. I think we're in store for some possibly major geological/climate shifts and we'd better be prepared for that possibility... i.e. a threat, and science has already shown me that man's impact is negligable. The evidence I see makes both of your questions true, it's a threat and man's role is negligable.
The origonal Damneddirtytreehugging-
Posted 19 January 2007 - 06:13 PM
Science has shown both actually... That humans have a greater impact then we think... and then there are the nay sayers that have scientists show that humans have little impact.
*shrugs* So if you believe in the "No we don't" aspect... then what's the harm in changeing our ways so that we actually won't become such a huge impact? It's like someone smokeing at age 15... yeah sure, no damage is shown... yet. But if they keep on puffing up two packs a day, by the time he's 50 or 60... the damage has accumilated up to the point where no matter what they do.. it's to late. Why get to that point?
Even with the natural cycles... there will come a point where the damage we do *now* will be irreversible because of all the buildup.
Doctor_Strangelove: If only I lived in a world with no risk of piss tests. Then I could just sit here and
watch videos on angelfish and become one with nature.