^ Conservatives sure don't try to appeal to reason on the issues of abortion, gay marriage, promotion of abstinence, military intervention, and privacy rights. On these issues they prefer to appeal to emotions.
|
|
|
|
|
^ Conservatives sure don't try to appeal to reason on the issues of abortion, gay marriage, promotion of abstinence, military intervention, and privacy rights. On these issues they prefer to appeal to emotions.
depends on which conservatives you're talking about. you won't find me trying to appeal to emotions -- ever.Originally Posted by Guisslapp
So the European laws against denying the Holocaust are wrong? Shall I continue with more examples?
Bob, who in the world is that in your avator?
there's nothing invidious about denying global warming. the laws against denying the holocaust are designed to prevent hateful people from brainwashing their children in the way of the nazis, not to cut off debate. besides, historical facts are not a valid subject for debate, especially recent history. global warming is very much open for debate and there are plenty of scientists wanting to debate it, but we are being told that those scientists don't exist.
and my avatar is frank bogard -- the godfather of Tech engineering.
ArkBob, what do you think the climate will be like in 50 years?
^ I think in 50 years the climatologists will be trying to convince us of a coming ice age.
He is not related to phillip fulmar (sp) of Tenn is he?j/k, but man, is there a resembalance.
Last edited by MattB; 02-10-2007 at 09:44 PM.
i have no idea, just like everybody else.
Do you have a ballpark figure for the level of atmospheric CO2 in 50 years?
Its been awhile since I've posted, but I'll weigh in on this issue.
Do I believe Global Warming is occuring. In the very recent past, yes. Who knows what it will be doing in 50 more years. Do I beleive that man is the primary cause, probably not. Might we be contributing an almost negligible amount? Maybe. I've always felt that the best scientific data pointed back to our sun as the main reason for global warming and cooling. Couple of interesting articles I've seen in the past including an updated one from today.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/...ming020507.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../11/warm11.xml
The most compelling evidence that in all honesty should close the book on the debate is that the Martian Ice Caps have been shrinking as well. You get that, Mars is warming too. I guess some of our greenhouse gases filling the martian atmosphere as well. Or is it that Mars is warming because of solar activity. Same goes for Earth.
Last edited by NTXDawg; 02-11-2007 at 11:54 AM.
I have also heard that Mars is warming. Since Mars receives no human interference (other than Rover, which is of course a minimum footprint of human activity), the sun must account for the warming (unless there is some volcanic or other reason causing Mars to warm). All agree the same sun heats our Earth. Thus, the Earth receives the same warming that Mars is receiving. Therefore, the Sun is at least partially responsible for any warming of Earth. In order to prove Global warming by man made causes, the amount of warming due to solar activity must be evaluated and subtracted from any observed warming of the Earth. Has this been done?
My understanding is that the scientist who research and or subscribe to the solar warming idea as the main culprit are the same ones who are lambasted for being global warming skeptics. It's not that they are skeptics, they are actually trying to be scientific about it and arn't willing to throw their hat in with popular theory just because its popular. In today's world its not about debating fact, its about who is the loudest. The "skeptics", who may very well be 100% correct, are "shouted" down by politicians and scientist who have no real expertise in the area they so loudly vocalize.
This is such an insane topic.
The only way we are ever going to know anything approximating the truth about GW is for an open, honest scientific debate to be encouraged. Unfortunately politics rather than science dominates this debate, and the science is an unwitting victim.
Anyone who claims that the issue of GW is settled one way or the other simply does not understand the basic elements of the scientific process, especially when it is applied to complex phenomena like GW. The man-made GW idea is a well-supported scientifically informed theory. But it is NOT the only scientifically supported theory for the climate changes we are just beginning to understand.
However, there are many other reasons we should be working very, very hard to limit our consumption of fossil fuels.
Very well put.
obviously, my argument has not been that I know what the climate or co2 levels will be like in the future, but that nobody knows as much as they say they do. i don't doubt that many scientists believe their evidence is conclusive -- they're just way too confident in their own flawed reasoning.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
