Get Off HIs Back - By Ben Stein 9/4/2005
Previous 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 19 Next
DerbyX @ Fri Sep 09, 2005 2:31 pm
ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:
DerbyX DerbyX:
ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:
DerbyX DerbyX:
It was scientists who advanced our thinking as we gain more knowledge. Science uses prety strict and exhustive methods to come to its conclusions. The people investigating CO2 increases have used hard & fast evidence to show that it is humanity that is causing it. They have equipment showing CO2 levels and oddily enought there are spiked increases surrounding every modern city. They have shown the concentrations are massively increased around the industrial areas of the world. They verify the effects of increased CO2 using models which accurately reflect their predictions. Long term affects are near impossiblt to predict because the earth is too large and contains to many unknown variables.
Its a bunch of crap. its a great way for groups like RFK Jr's group (River Keeper) to get money.
And by the way how is Canada doing on keeping its end of the bargin on the Kyoto accord? I heard pretty bad!
Its a bunch of crap eh? Human industry, electrical production, cars ,etc do not produce escess CO2 eh? All the scientists who say this are lying and all the scientists who disagree are the beacon of truth.
You are the one saying the global warming scientist are right and the ones against are wrong. I fall in the middle we should be more respectful to the earth but we should not fall prey to the fear tacticts of many scientists.
You are the one who is very onesided on this issue.
I actually studied the supporting evidence. A major theme of my uni course in dealing with this subject was making the connection and whether evidence supported it. Thats why I'm not in the doomsayer enviornmental group because there is little evidence to support that position.
Constantinople @ Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:11 pm
DerbyX DerbyX:
Constantinople Constantinople:
DerbyX DerbyX:
It was scientists who advanced our thinking as we gain more knowledge. Science uses prety strict and exhustive methods to come to its conclusions. The people investigating CO2 increases have used hard & fast evidence to show that it is humanity that is causing it. They have equipment showing CO2 levels and oddily enought there are spiked increases surrounding every modern city. They have shown the concentrations are massively increased around the industrial areas of the world. They verify the effects of increased CO2 using models which accurately reflect their predictions. Long term affects are near impossiblt to predict because the earth is too large and contains to many unknown variables.
God gifted humankind with a brilliant tool- the human brain.
This is the fuckwit baiting I am refering to. I don't feel I should have to take a statement like this without attacking his god as 1) imaginary, 2) Depicted as a murdering mysogonistic bastard by the words of the book that he says is the word of his make-believe sky-daddy.
By all means, attack if you feel the need. But why the maliciousness? Have I shown any towards what you say?
My comment was merely an expression of what I thought. The words should not have harmed your eyes, as they are not harmful words.
DerbyX @ Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:15 pm
Constantinople Constantinople:
DerbyX DerbyX:
Constantinople Constantinople:
DerbyX DerbyX:
It was scientists who advanced our thinking as we gain more knowledge. Science uses prety strict and exhustive methods to come to its conclusions. The people investigating CO2 increases have used hard & fast evidence to show that it is humanity that is causing it. They have equipment showing CO2 levels and oddily enought there are spiked increases surrounding every modern city. They have shown the concentrations are massively increased around the industrial areas of the world. They verify the effects of increased CO2 using models which accurately reflect their predictions. Long term affects are near impossiblt to predict because the earth is too large and contains to many unknown variables.
God gifted humankind with a brilliant tool- the human brain.
This is the fuckwit baiting I am refering to. I don't feel I should have to take a statement like this without attacking his god as 1) imaginary, 2) Depicted as a murdering mysogonistic bastard by the words of the book that he says is the word of his make-believe sky-daddy.
By all means, attack if you feel the need. But why the maliciousness? Have I shown any towards what you say?
My comment was merely an expression of what I thought. The words should not have harmed your eyes, as they are not harmful words.
Your words were meant as a direct insult to me as you have done before. Last time Stellar didn't see it as a direct response to me but it clearly is. I don't give a shit about your imaginary little god and resent you posting references to him in responses to me and I will expose it as the lie it is everytime. You'll notice it is always you starting it. You want to "witness" then start a thread. Your religion is in my opinion harmful.
Constantinople @ Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:21 pm
DerbyX DerbyX:
Constantinople Constantinople:
DerbyX DerbyX:
Constantinople Constantinople:
DerbyX DerbyX:
It was scientists who advanced our thinking as we gain more knowledge. Science uses prety strict and exhustive methods to come to its conclusions. The people investigating CO2 increases have used hard & fast evidence to show that it is humanity that is causing it. They have equipment showing CO2 levels and oddily enought there are spiked increases surrounding every modern city. They have shown the concentrations are massively increased around the industrial areas of the world. They verify the effects of increased CO2 using models which accurately reflect their predictions. Long term affects are near impossiblt to predict because the earth is too large and contains to many unknown variables.
God gifted humankind with a brilliant tool- the human brain.
This is the fuckwit baiting I am refering to. I don't feel I should have to take a statement like this without attacking his god as 1) imaginary, 2) Depicted as a murdering mysogonistic bastard by the words of the book that he says is the word of his make-believe sky-daddy.
By all means, attack if you feel the need. But why the maliciousness? Have I shown any towards what you say?
My comment was merely an expression of what I thought. The words should not have harmed your eyes, as they are not harmful words.
Your words were meant as a direct insult to me as you have done before. Last time Stellar didn't see it as a direct response to me but it clearly is. I don't give a shit about your imaginary little god and resent you posting references to him in responses to me and I will expose it as the lie it is everytime. You'll notice it is always you starting it. You want to "witness" then start a thread. Your religion is in my opinion harmful.
Well, these are public forums, and when I read your statement it made me think about God's great gift- the human brain. I would have said the same response if it had been someone else's exact words.
Keep in mind you're not the only one on here and not everything is meant to be solely for you and your eyes.
P.S. I don't start anything- you're the one who bashes me whenever I utter anything that starts with a capital 'G'.
Jaime_Souviens @ Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:28 pm
DerbyX DerbyX:
Lets go to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
IF you browse through the links you will find:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributio ... ate_change
You can find scientists that don't agree. I can show loads of creationist scientists (sic) who actually have scientific data to show that the earth is <6000 years old and all the bible is real. Until you actually investigate their methods & data and find that its sloppy, unverifiable, uses incorrect methodology or in many cases are deliberate fabrications.
There may not be massive catastrophes associated with global warming but the connection between humanity-CO2 (greenhouse gas)-global warming is there and backed up by scientific evidence.
Before someone decries by use of wikipedia it does offer many links to the relevant data.
IF you browse through the links you will find:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributio ... ate_change
$1:
Temperatures have risen in the last century (somewhere between 0.4 and 0.8°C) and the proportion of this warming that is due to human influence is still open to question. The current best answer, as expressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), is that the scientific view can be summed up roughly as most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
A summary of IPCC climate research may be found in the IPCC assessment reports; the NAS report and an overview of the report may be found here; the degree of consensus is discussed at scientific opinion on climate change.
A summary of IPCC climate research may be found in the IPCC assessment reports; the NAS report and an overview of the report may be found here; the degree of consensus is discussed at scientific opinion on climate change.
You can find scientists that don't agree. I can show loads of creationist scientists (sic) who actually have scientific data to show that the earth is <6000 years old and all the bible is real. Until you actually investigate their methods & data and find that its sloppy, unverifiable, uses incorrect methodology or in many cases are deliberate fabrications.
There may not be massive catastrophes associated with global warming but the connection between humanity-CO2 (greenhouse gas)-global warming is there and backed up by scientific evidence.
Before someone decries by use of wikipedia it does offer many links to the relevant data.
No.
Try this link :
GlobalWarming.org
From which I abstract for the lazy :
$1:
Evidence that the Sun plays a major role in climate change continues to mount, casting doubt on the CO2-global warming link. A new study in Nature (June 3, 1999) has found that the Sun’s magnetism has increased dramatically over the last one hundred years. The researchers, according to a commentary article in the same issue, "use records of geomagnetic activity, monitored in England and Australia since the nineteenth century, to show that the weak general magnetic field on the Sun has more than doubled over the past 100 years."
The researchers note that the solar wind "drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun to fill the heliosphere with a weak interplanetary magnetic field." These fields block cosmic rays that contain charged ion particles that contribute to the formation of ice crystals and water drops in the atmosphere, increasing cloud cover. A reduction in cosmic ray influence reduces cloud cover, allowing more sunlight to reach the earth.
The researchers note that the solar wind "drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun to fill the heliosphere with a weak interplanetary magnetic field." These fields block cosmic rays that contain charged ion particles that contribute to the formation of ice crystals and water drops in the atmosphere, increasing cloud cover. A reduction in cosmic ray influence reduces cloud cover, allowing more sunlight to reach the earth.
Your position is that that the theory of global warming caused by human activity is an established fact.
My position is that there is doubt.
People such as these, published in Science magazine, Paleoceanography magazine, and the magazine Nature are not nutjob creationist-style loonies.
$1:
The increase of solar magnetism has been about 131 percent over the last 91 years. From 1964 to 1996 the Sun’s magnetism has increased by 41 percent. This brightening has occurred during the same time as the measured surface warming experienced on Earth.
However...
$1:
The Sun’s general magnetism is also related to its brightness, although this is not well understood.
BartSimpson @ Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:42 pm
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
DerbyX DerbyX:
Lets go to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
IF you browse through the links you will find:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributio ... ate_change
You can find scientists that don't agree. I can show loads of creationist scientists (sic) who actually have scientific data to show that the earth is <6000 years old and all the bible is real. Until you actually investigate their methods & data and find that its sloppy, unverifiable, uses incorrect methodology or in many cases are deliberate fabrications.
There may not be massive catastrophes associated with global warming but the connection between humanity-CO2 (greenhouse gas)-global warming is there and backed up by scientific evidence.
Before someone decries by use of wikipedia it does offer many links to the relevant data.
IF you browse through the links you will find:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributio ... ate_change
$1:
Temperatures have risen in the last century (somewhere between 0.4 and 0.8°C) and the proportion of this warming that is due to human influence is still open to question. The current best answer, as expressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), is that the scientific view can be summed up roughly as most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
A summary of IPCC climate research may be found in the IPCC assessment reports; the NAS report and an overview of the report may be found here; the degree of consensus is discussed at scientific opinion on climate change.
A summary of IPCC climate research may be found in the IPCC assessment reports; the NAS report and an overview of the report may be found here; the degree of consensus is discussed at scientific opinion on climate change.
You can find scientists that don't agree. I can show loads of creationist scientists (sic) who actually have scientific data to show that the earth is <6000 years old and all the bible is real. Until you actually investigate their methods & data and find that its sloppy, unverifiable, uses incorrect methodology or in many cases are deliberate fabrications.
There may not be massive catastrophes associated with global warming but the connection between humanity-CO2 (greenhouse gas)-global warming is there and backed up by scientific evidence.
Before someone decries by use of wikipedia it does offer many links to the relevant data.
No.
Try this link :
GlobalWarming.org
From which I abstract for the lazy :
$1:
Evidence that the Sun plays a major role in climate change continues to mount, casting doubt on the CO2-global warming link. A new study in Nature (June 3, 1999) has found that the Sun’s magnetism has increased dramatically over the last one hundred years. The researchers, according to a commentary article in the same issue, "use records of geomagnetic activity, monitored in England and Australia since the nineteenth century, to show that the weak general magnetic field on the Sun has more than doubled over the past 100 years."
The researchers note that the solar wind "drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun to fill the heliosphere with a weak interplanetary magnetic field." These fields block cosmic rays that contain charged ion particles that contribute to the formation of ice crystals and water drops in the atmosphere, increasing cloud cover. A reduction in cosmic ray influence reduces cloud cover, allowing more sunlight to reach the earth.
The researchers note that the solar wind "drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun to fill the heliosphere with a weak interplanetary magnetic field." These fields block cosmic rays that contain charged ion particles that contribute to the formation of ice crystals and water drops in the atmosphere, increasing cloud cover. A reduction in cosmic ray influence reduces cloud cover, allowing more sunlight to reach the earth.
Your position is that that the theory of global warming caused by human activity is an established fact.
My position is that there is doubt.
People such as these, published in Science magazine, Paleoceanography magazine, and the magazine Nature are not nutjob creationist-style loonies.
$1:
The increase of solar magnetism has been about 131 percent over the last 91 years. From 1964 to 1996 the Sun’s magnetism has increased by 41 percent. This brightening has occurred during the same time as the measured surface warming experienced on Earth.
However...
$1:
The Sun’s general magnetism is also related to its brightness, although this is not well understood.
Good stuff.
Constantinople @ Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:46 pm
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
Excellent article.
DerbyX @ Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:49 pm
Constantinople Constantinople:
DerbyX DerbyX:
Constantinople Constantinople:
DerbyX DerbyX:
Constantinople Constantinople:
DerbyX DerbyX:
It was scientists who advanced our thinking as we gain more knowledge. Science uses prety strict and exhustive methods to come to its conclusions. The people investigating CO2 increases have used hard & fast evidence to show that it is humanity that is causing it. They have equipment showing CO2 levels and oddily enought there are spiked increases surrounding every modern city. They have shown the concentrations are massively increased around the industrial areas of the world. They verify the effects of increased CO2 using models which accurately reflect their predictions. Long term affects are near impossiblt to predict because the earth is too large and contains to many unknown variables.
God gifted humankind with a brilliant tool- the human brain.
This is the fuckwit baiting I am refering to. I don't feel I should have to take a statement like this without attacking his god as 1) imaginary, 2) Depicted as a murdering mysogonistic bastard by the words of the book that he says is the word of his make-believe sky-daddy.
By all means, attack if you feel the need. But why the maliciousness? Have I shown any towards what you say?
My comment was merely an expression of what I thought. The words should not have harmed your eyes, as they are not harmful words.
Your words were meant as a direct insult to me as you have done before. Last time Stellar didn't see it as a direct response to me but it clearly is. I don't give a shit about your imaginary little god and resent you posting references to him in responses to me and I will expose it as the lie it is everytime. You'll notice it is always you starting it. You want to "witness" then start a thread. Your religion is in my opinion harmful.
Well, these are public forums, and when I read your statement it made me think about God's great gift- the human brain. I would have said the same response if it had been someone else's exact words.
Keep in mind you're not the only one on here and not everything is meant to be solely for you and your eyes.
P.S. I don't start anything- you're the one who bashes me whenever I utter anything that starts with a capital 'G'.
I will bash it anytime you post it in a direct quote response. You knew damn well what you were oing and why you were doing it but won't admit your dishonesty in your "witness" Like I said, you want to witness start a thread. I take offense at your false belief that A) your god exists and B) he blesses everything you like. You Americans take offense at baseless assumptions that deal with the US and have no trouble responding in kind. Don't post your lies to me because I will attack them as the shote that they are as is my right on a public forum. You are doing what all you fundies do. You are not content unless you can push it on other people who don't want it. I have no doubts that even a sensible muslim (not posting extremists garbage) would be attacked if he kept posting "allah ackbar" and proclaim that all things are form allah. You start it. You started it above with your gift-brain bullshit and you knew what you were doing. At least have the courage to admit it.
Jaime_Souviens @ Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:52 pm
God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God.
(I'm not trying to provoke anyone, I just wanted to see how offensive it looked on a screen. 
)
BartSimpson @ Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:57 pm
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God.
(I'm not trying to provoke anyone, I just wanted to see how offensive it looked on a screen. )
(I'm not trying to provoke anyone, I just wanted to see how offensive it looked on a screen.
)OOooh, can I play, too?
God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God.God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God.God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God.God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God.God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God.God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God.God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God.God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God.God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God.God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God.God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God.God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God.God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God. God.
Constantinople @ Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:59 pm
DerbyX DerbyX:
I will bash it anytime you post it in a direct quote response. You knew damn well what you were oing and why you were doing it but won't admit your dishonesty in your "witness" Like I said, you want to witness start a thread. I take offense at your false belief that A) your god exists and B) he blesses everything you like. You Americans take offense at baseless assumptions that deal with the US and have no trouble responding in kind. Don't post your lies to me because I will attack them as the shote that they are as is my right on a public forum. You are doing what all you fundies do. You are not content unless you can push it on other people who don't want it. I have no doubts that even a sensible muslim (not posting extremists garbage) would be attacked if he kept posting "allah ackbar" and proclaim that all things are form allah. You start it. You started it above with your gift-brain bullshit and you knew what you were doing. At least have the courage to admit it.
If only you could see through your agenda how ridiculous you look.
BartSimpson @ Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:00 pm
DerbyX DerbyX:
I have no doubts that even a sensible muslim (not posting extremists garbage) would be attacked if he kept posting "allah ackbar" and proclaim that all things are (from) allah.
Your "sensible" Muslim will not deny these assertions if prodded.
DerbyX @ Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:02 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
DerbyX DerbyX:
Lets go to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
IF you browse through the links you will find:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributio ... ate_change
You can find scientists that don't agree. I can show loads of creationist scientists (sic) who actually have scientific data to show that the earth is <6000 years old and all the bible is real. Until you actually investigate their methods & data and find that its sloppy, unverifiable, uses incorrect methodology or in many cases are deliberate fabrications.
There may not be massive catastrophes associated with global warming but the connection between humanity-CO2 (greenhouse gas)-global warming is there and backed up by scientific evidence.
Before someone decries by use of wikipedia it does offer many links to the relevant data.
IF you browse through the links you will find:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributio ... ate_change
$1:
Temperatures have risen in the last century (somewhere between 0.4 and 0.8°C) and the proportion of this warming that is due to human influence is still open to question. The current best answer, as expressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), is that the scientific view can be summed up roughly as most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
A summary of IPCC climate research may be found in the IPCC assessment reports; the NAS report and an overview of the report may be found here; the degree of consensus is discussed at scientific opinion on climate change.
A summary of IPCC climate research may be found in the IPCC assessment reports; the NAS report and an overview of the report may be found here; the degree of consensus is discussed at scientific opinion on climate change.
You can find scientists that don't agree. I can show loads of creationist scientists (sic) who actually have scientific data to show that the earth is <6000 years old and all the bible is real. Until you actually investigate their methods & data and find that its sloppy, unverifiable, uses incorrect methodology or in many cases are deliberate fabrications.
There may not be massive catastrophes associated with global warming but the connection between humanity-CO2 (greenhouse gas)-global warming is there and backed up by scientific evidence.
Before someone decries by use of wikipedia it does offer many links to the relevant data.
No.
Try this link :
GlobalWarming.org
From which I abstract for the lazy :
$1:
Evidence that the Sun plays a major role in climate change continues to mount, casting doubt on the CO2-global warming link. A new study in Nature (June 3, 1999) has found that the Sun’s magnetism has increased dramatically over the last one hundred years. The researchers, according to a commentary article in the same issue, "use records of geomagnetic activity, monitored in England and Australia since the nineteenth century, to show that the weak general magnetic field on the Sun has more than doubled over the past 100 years."
The researchers note that the solar wind "drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun to fill the heliosphere with a weak interplanetary magnetic field." These fields block cosmic rays that contain charged ion particles that contribute to the formation of ice crystals and water drops in the atmosphere, increasing cloud cover. A reduction in cosmic ray influence reduces cloud cover, allowing more sunlight to reach the earth.
The researchers note that the solar wind "drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun to fill the heliosphere with a weak interplanetary magnetic field." These fields block cosmic rays that contain charged ion particles that contribute to the formation of ice crystals and water drops in the atmosphere, increasing cloud cover. A reduction in cosmic ray influence reduces cloud cover, allowing more sunlight to reach the earth.
Your position is that that the theory of global warming caused by human activity is an established fact.
My position is that there is doubt.
People such as these, published in Science magazine, Paleoceanography magazine, and the magazine Nature are not nutjob creationist-style loonies.
$1:
The increase of solar magnetism has been about 131 percent over the last 91 years. From 1964 to 1996 the Sun’s magnetism has increased by 41 percent. This brightening has occurred during the same time as the measured surface warming experienced on Earth.
However...
$1:
The Sun’s general magnetism is also related to its brightness, although this is not well understood.
Good stuff.
Your link is suspiciously politically oriented. Regardless, I doubt you have actually studied any of this. I have stated that their is a verifiable link between the increase in CO2 levels and human activity. This is supported by evidence. We know the effects CO2 has and their is evidence to support the theory that the rise in CO2 levels is a major contributing factor in the current rise in temp. Your article only "casts doubt" but as yet has little evidence and certainly far less then CO2 level evidence. That doesn't mean their will be catastrophies though. The evidence supports the link. Just because you are worried about potential harm to modern industrial economies (if we are forced to scale down) doesn't mean you should simply dismiss evidence if it shows something you don't like.
I'd be perfectly happy to find that we are in no danger if the earths temp increases by 5 degree's or that it isn't be caused by CO2 but I haven't seen compelling evidence to the contrary. Yelling at me won't change that. Lets just agree to disagree. BTW, simply dismissing my link and touting yours as "truth" doesn't really work so well. It doesn't convince me any more then my links convince you. Would you accept the CO2-human-global warming link if you saw verifiable evidence to prove it? I would if the reverse were true.
Constantinople @ Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:09 pm
IceOwl IceOwl:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
No, try this link. Every member of the "Cooler Heads Coalition" (the people who front GlobalWarming.org) is a right-wing think tank, an anti-environment policy lobbying group, or a recipient of funds from major oil, tobacco and pharmaceutical companies, all bent on reversing environmental policy that would mean they would have to pollute less.
Your source is bunk, sir.
And human-created global warming is all backed by the environmental groups and the politicians who want environmentalist/left-wing compassionate votes. What's your point?
Previous 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 19 Next