Increased Number Think Global Warming Is “Exaggerated”

Actually, the scientists of the time did not say otherwise. The explorers did.

Map makers and mathematicians thought the earth was curved... and so did many sailors.. those who explored or tested the ideas found the truth....
Which is just what I said. There was a consensus in the scientific community in Europe at the time that the Earth was flat. There were theorists who believed it was round. Explorers proved the theory, science did not.

Science, as we know it, didnt exist until Galileo invented the Scientific method in the 1600's He tested competing ideas by performing experiments, not talking about them.

One debated idea at the time was that a heavier objects fall faster than smaller lighter ones. Scholars said the heavier one fell faster. He went to the top of a tower and dropped two balls, one larger and one smaller.. they hit at the same time(in reality you need the absence of an atmosphere, like the astronaut on the moon who dropped a feather and a rock at the same time and hittin the moons surface at the same time) proving the talking scholars wrong by expermentation.

Before that there was just the Pope telling the world what to believe and what was right.
 
Map makers and mathematicians thought the earth was curved... and so did many sailors.. those who explored or tested the ideas found the truth....
Which is just what I said. There was a consensus in the scientific community in Europe at the time that the Earth was flat. There were theorists who believed it was round. Explorers proved the theory, science did not.

Science, as we know it, didnt exist until Galileo invented the Scientific method in the 1600's He tested competing ideas by performing experiments, not talking about them.

One debated idea at the time was that a heavier objects fall faster than smaller lighter ones. Scholars said the heavier one fell faster. He went to the top of a tower and dropped two balls, one larger and one smaller.. they hit at the same time(in reality you need the absence of an atmosphere, like the astronaut on the moon who dropped a feather and a rock at the same time and hittin the moons surface at the same time) proving the talking scholars wrong by expermentation.

Before that there was just the Pope telling the world what to believe and what was right.
Isn't that the problem with the current AGW "science?" Nothing's been proven yet. The IPCC itself says they're only 90% sure. And that was up from 77%. And most of that "science" including the "hockey stick" has been totally debunked. Most all of the AGW "science" is theory, the rest is good old Goebbels-style propaganda. And on this, they're going to exert more control over our lives?

On something that's not proven?

This is why these comparative arguments fall flat, because you're comparing proven fact with what is still a weak theory.

See?
 
Which is just what I said. There was a consensus in the scientific community in Europe at the time that the Earth was flat. There were theorists who believed it was round. Explorers proved the theory, science did not.

Science, as we know it, didnt exist until Galileo invented the Scientific method in the 1600's He tested competing ideas by performing experiments, not talking about them.

One debated idea at the time was that a heavier objects fall faster than smaller lighter ones. Scholars said the heavier one fell faster. He went to the top of a tower and dropped two balls, one larger and one smaller.. they hit at the same time(in reality you need the absence of an atmosphere, like the astronaut on the moon who dropped a feather and a rock at the same time and hittin the moons surface at the same time) proving the talking scholars wrong by expermentation.

Before that there was just the Pope telling the world what to believe and what was right.
Isn't that the problem with the current AGW "science?" Nothing's been proven yet. The IPCC itself says they're only 90% sure. And that was up from 77%. And most of that "science" including the "hockey stick" has been totally debunked. Most all of the AGW "science" is theory, the rest is good old Goebbels-style propaganda. And on this, they're going to exert more control over our lives?

On something that's not proven?

This is why these comparative arguments fall flat, because you're comparing proven fact with what is still a weak theory.

See?


.. if you had 90% odds on a bet would you take it?? heck even 77% is a strong bet.. better than anything in Vegas..

Back to third grade science.. again..

There is a difference between a Theory and Hypothesis. Most scientists feel Climate chage is at the theory level.

One major problem with the Theory is Earth's climate has changed or fluctuated in the past before humans were here.. There are dozens perhaps hundred of factors that affect the Earths Climate change..

.. and how has the goverment, scientists and business changed your life style by proposing that Climate change may be happening?

Detroit will make smaller SUV's based on the free market not science or goverment intervention.

Nothing has changed in your life style. Drive whatever car you want or can afford, put your thermostat as high or low as you want to or can afford to.. The arguement that possible Climate change has changed your lifestyle is more parroted talking points..

Perhaps you so sensitive to the newsmedia that you feel you are being told what to do.. .. then dont watch the news or be a man and drive what you want to and quit worrying about your feelings..

Scientists stand to gain little to nothing finacially by researching Climate Change.. GOP will say a few leaders of group X and Y were compensated nicely.. BS compared to the Billions the oil and coal barrons might loose if a substitute is found before the resource is depleted.. also.. oil/coal are finite resource and will run out... substitutes by the free market will need to be found..
 
Science, as we know it, didnt exist until Galileo invented the Scientific method in the 1600's He tested competing ideas by performing experiments, not talking about them.

One debated idea at the time was that a heavier objects fall faster than smaller lighter ones. Scholars said the heavier one fell faster. He went to the top of a tower and dropped two balls, one larger and one smaller.. they hit at the same time(in reality you need the absence of an atmosphere, like the astronaut on the moon who dropped a feather and a rock at the same time and hittin the moons surface at the same time) proving the talking scholars wrong by expermentation.

Before that there was just the Pope telling the world what to believe and what was right.
Isn't that the problem with the current AGW "science?" Nothing's been proven yet. The IPCC itself says they're only 90% sure. And that was up from 77%. And most of that "science" including the "hockey stick" has been totally debunked. Most all of the AGW "science" is theory, the rest is good old Goebbels-style propaganda. And on this, they're going to exert more control over our lives?

On something that's not proven?

This is why these comparative arguments fall flat, because you're comparing proven fact with what is still a weak theory.

See?


.. if you had 90% odds on a bet would you take it?? heck even 77% is a strong bet.. better than anything in Vegas..

Back to third grade science.. again..

There is a difference between a Theory and Hypothesis. Most scientists feel Climate chage is at the theory level.

One major problem with the Theory is Earth's climate has changed or fluctuated in the past before humans were here.. There are dozens perhaps hundred of factors that affect the Earths Climate change..

.. and how has the goverment, scientists and business changed your life style by proposing that Climate change may be happening?

Detroit will make smaller SUV's based on the free market not science or goverment intervention.

Nothing has changed in your life style. Drive whatever car you want or can afford, put your thermostat as high or low as you want to or can afford to.. The arguement that possible Climate change has changed your lifestyle is more parroted talking points..

Perhaps you so sensitive to the newsmedia that you feel you are being told what to do.. .. then dont watch the news or be a man and drive what you want to and quit worrying about your feelings..

Scientists stand to gain little to nothing finacially by researching Climate Change.. GOP will say a few leaders of group X and Y were compensated nicely.. BS compared to the Billions the oil and coal barrons might loose if a substitute is found before the resource is depleted.. also.. oil/coal are finite resource and will run out... substitutes by the free market will need to be found..

Actually ... the environuts have forced a lot of change. For instance in my city you can be fined $500 just for leaving a recyclable in the trash ... each pickup date to. Then they change what can and can't be recycled so they can get those fines more often, as well as change the rules for it. This fine is paid to ... guess who? ... the recycling companies but it's enforced by law. You also have to use specific products made by specific companies in many applications simply because someone conned the environuts (again) into thinking that their product is more environmentally sound. Environuts are easily fooled into "feel good" laws, and this is dangerous if we don't stop it soon ... mostly because a lot of these "environmentally safe" products are worse for the environment than the standard versions, also because it will harm the economy and grant even more monopolies to the Gore Corporation.
 
Global warming is a reality. I just listened to an interview with a guy who filmed a show that will be seen on NOVA called Extreme Ice.

He filmed the melting glaciers in Greenland.
 
posted by MM
"Stop blaming me that you're stupid, ignorant, can't read write or spell, uninformed and an easy Mark for their current con. "

Im not the grammar monkey or grammar polics but shouldnt there be a , after write in your post.. but i dont judge intelligence based on keystrokes..

No, the comma should be after the word 'read'.
 
Isn't that the problem with the current AGW "science?" Nothing's been proven yet. The IPCC itself says they're only 90% sure. And that was up from 77%. And most of that "science" including the "hockey stick" has been totally debunked. Most all of the AGW "science" is theory, the rest is good old Goebbels-style propaganda. And on this, they're going to exert more control over our lives?

On something that's not proven?

This is why these comparative arguments fall flat, because you're comparing proven fact with what is still a weak theory.

See?


.. if you had 90% odds on a bet would you take it?? heck even 77% is a strong bet.. better than anything in Vegas..

Back to third grade science.. again..

There is a difference between a Theory and Hypothesis. Most scientists feel Climate chage is at the theory level.

One major problem with the Theory is Earth's climate has changed or fluctuated in the past before humans were here.. There are dozens perhaps hundred of factors that affect the Earths Climate change..

.. and how has the goverment, scientists and business changed your life style by proposing that Climate change may be happening?

Detroit will make smaller SUV's based on the free market not science or goverment intervention.

Nothing has changed in your life style. Drive whatever car you want or can afford, put your thermostat as high or low as you want to or can afford to.. The arguement that possible Climate change has changed your lifestyle is more parroted talking points..

Perhaps you so sensitive to the newsmedia that you feel you are being told what to do.. .. then dont watch the news or be a man and drive what you want to and quit worrying about your feelings..

Scientists stand to gain little to nothing finacially by researching Climate Change.. GOP will say a few leaders of group X and Y were compensated nicely.. BS compared to the Billions the oil and coal barrons might loose if a substitute is found before the resource is depleted.. also.. oil/coal are finite resource and will run out... substitutes by the free market will need to be found..

Actually ... the environuts have forced a lot of change. For instance in my city you can be fined $500 just for leaving a recyclable in the trash ... each pickup date to. Then they change what can and can't be recycled so they can get those fines more often, as well as change the rules for it. This fine is paid to ... guess who? ... the recycling companies but it's enforced by law. You also have to use specific products made by specific companies in many applications simply because someone conned the environuts (again) into thinking that their product is more environmentally sound. Environuts are easily fooled into "feel good" laws, and this is dangerous if we don't stop it soon ... mostly because a lot of these "environmentally safe" products are worse for the environment than the standard versions, also because it will harm the economy and grant even more monopolies to the Gore Corporation.

Almost but not 100% accurate.

Seattle reports increase in recycling. - Free Online Library

..... Click the link for more information. the city of Seattle, its recycling ordinance, which prohibits recyclables from being disposed of as trash, is helping to increase diversion.

From Jan. 1 to June 30, approximately 95 percent of the apartments and businesses the city inspected were recycling correctly, the city reports. Of the approximately 3.9 million household garbage cans collected, only 892 were left behind for containing more than 10 percent recyclables.

Out of 5,252 apartment and condominium inspections, 297 received first-time warning notices for having too many recyclables in their garbage, and 29 received second notices. Only 19 out of 898 inspected businesses have received a warning notice, and none have received a second notice.

The city charges businesses, apartments and condominiums a $50 fine upon the third infractionViolation or infringement; breach of a statute, contract, or obligation.

The term infraction is frequently used in reference to the violation of a particular statute for which the penalty is minor, such as a parking infraction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sorry, back on topic; I too think Global Warming is being exaggerated, BUT, it's very real and it is happening faster than most predicted. The key is in the ice on our planet, the temperature thermostat if you will. IMO we will kill off life on this planet with a lack of clean drinking water (IE overpopulation) before climate change will.
 
posted by MM
"Stop blaming me that you're stupid, ignorant, can't read write or spell, uninformed and an easy Mark for their current con. "

Im not the grammar monkey or grammar polics but shouldnt there be a , after write in your post.. but i dont judge intelligence based on keystrokes..

No, the comma should be after the word 'read'.

Yes that is correct.. i was being sarcastic and he still didnt correct me... i guess he has an on and off button for his mental grammar monkey condition.. he corrects when he feels like it..
 
Last edited:
Isn't that the problem with the current AGW "science?" Nothing's been proven yet. The IPCC itself says they're only 90% sure. And that was up from 77%. And most of that "science" including the "hockey stick" has been totally debunked. Most all of the AGW "science" is theory, the rest is good old Goebbels-style propaganda. And on this, they're going to exert more control over our lives?

On something that's not proven?

This is why these comparative arguments fall flat, because you're comparing proven fact with what is still a weak theory.

See?


.. if you had 90% odds on a bet would you take it?? heck even 77% is a strong bet.. better than anything in Vegas..

Back to third grade science.. again..

There is a difference between a Theory and Hypothesis. Most scientists feel Climate chage is at the theory level.

One major problem with the Theory is Earth's climate has changed or fluctuated in the past before humans were here.. There are dozens perhaps hundred of factors that affect the Earths Climate change..

.. and how has the goverment, scientists and business changed your life style by proposing that Climate change may be happening?

Detroit will make smaller SUV's based on the free market not science or goverment intervention.

Nothing has changed in your life style. Drive whatever car you want or can afford, put your thermostat as high or low as you want to or can afford to.. The arguement that possible Climate change has changed your lifestyle is more parroted talking points..

Perhaps you so sensitive to the newsmedia that you feel you are being told what to do.. .. then dont watch the news or be a man and drive what you want to and quit worrying about your feelings..

Scientists stand to gain little to nothing finacially by researching Climate Change.. GOP will say a few leaders of group X and Y were compensated nicely.. BS compared to the Billions the oil and coal barrons might loose if a substitute is found before the resource is depleted.. also.. oil/coal are finite resource and will run out... substitutes by the free market will need to be found..

Actually ... the environuts have forced a lot of change. For instance in my city you can be fined $500 just for leaving a recyclable in the trash ... each pickup date to. Then they change what can and can't be recycled so they can get those fines more often, as well as change the rules for it. This fine is paid to ... guess who? ... the recycling companies but it's enforced by law. You also have to use specific products made by specific companies in many applications simply because someone conned the environuts (again) into thinking that their product is more environmentally sound. Environuts are easily fooled into "feel good" laws, and this is dangerous if we don't stop it soon ... mostly because a lot of these "environmentally safe" products are worse for the environment than the standard versions, also because it will harm the economy and grant even more monopolies to the Gore Corporation.

I agree that seems to be a bit over the top from what it looks like in your post.. but thats a local law, not imposed on the whole US.. and who goes through your garbage looking for recylables, the garbage collection agency or does the city employ people to rumage?? seems extensive and time consuming...

but if you recycle you save a tremendous amount of material from going into the trash which saves you money with fewer trips to the dumnp or fewer numbers of garbage cans that need to be picked up.. I know several people who refuse to recyle and pay a lot more each month for garbage pickup when they could save $ by simply having another seperate bin for recyclables when a 'free' service is provided to pick that up twice a month??

What does the Gore coporation produce?? besides a long movie.. or is this just another slogan used by people in an attempt to rationalize how ecofreaks are trying to make millions in the capatilistic system when in reality there is no money in this corporation.. I havent seen CEO's and executives of recyling companies getting billions of dollars in retention bonus' this year...

The eco-freaks are turning into millionaire business barron arguement is just useless, empty rhetoric designed to rile up the GOP base.. or do you have something against people making millions of dollars??
 
Actually, the scientists of the time did not say otherwise. The explorers did.

Map makers and mathematicians thought the earth was curved... and so did many sailors.. those who explored or tested the ideas found the truth....
Which is just what I said. There was a consensus in the scientific community in Europe at the time that the Earth was flat. There were theorists who believed it was round. Explorers proved the theory, science did not.

The Greeks knew the Earth was round based on the shadow of the Earth during and eclipse. Eratosthenes, a greek mathematician who died in 194 B.C. actually calculated the circumference of the earth based on the angles of shadows of two sticks in different locations at the same time of day. He was within 5-10% of the actual circumference as measured today. The Greeks also knew the moon orbited the Earth. Aristarchus (another ancient greek mathematician) estimated the distance between the moon and Earth to be about 240,000 miles. Today we know the actual distance is between 225,622 and 252,088 miles, depending upon orbital position. He also proposed a heliocentric solar system, but it didn't quite catch on. If only the telescope was older. The Greeks used reasoning to greatly advance human knowledge. It is their approach that helped provide the roots for modern science. There was no scientific consensus that the world was flat- there was no scientific community as we would recognize it. When the church burned the library at Alexandria and the bishop(?) there ordered Hypatia skinned alive with oyster shells, it was symbolic of the backwards slide of human knowledge that would continue until Coperinicus, Galileo, and Kepler. A slide reinforced by the church's desire to control knowledge and repression of ideas which conflicted with dogma or threatened their authority.
 
Which is just what I said. There was a consensus in the scientific community in Europe at the time that the Earth was flat. There were theorists who believed it was round. Explorers proved the theory, science did not.

Science, as we know it, didnt exist until Galileo invented the Scientific method in the 1600's He tested competing ideas by performing experiments, not talking about them.

One debated idea at the time was that a heavier objects fall faster than smaller lighter ones. Scholars said the heavier one fell faster. He went to the top of a tower and dropped two balls, one larger and one smaller.. they hit at the same time(in reality you need the absence of an atmosphere, like the astronaut on the moon who dropped a feather and a rock at the same time and hittin the moons surface at the same time) proving the talking scholars wrong by expermentation.

Before that there was just the Pope telling the world what to believe and what was right.
Isn't that the problem with the current AGW "science?" Nothing's been proven yet. The IPCC itself says they're only 90% sure. And that was up from 77%. And most of that "science" including the "hockey stick" has been totally debunked. Most all of the AGW "science" is theory, the rest is good old Goebbels-style propaganda. And on this, they're going to exert more control over our lives?

On something that's not proven?

This is why these comparative arguments fall flat, because you're comparing proven fact with what is still a weak theory.

See?

If you find science that says it is 100% sure, it is not science. Science is never 100% certain.

If you want more info a science blogger has a great guide with links for questions about gw. This part is specifically related to your post.

Climate Skeptic Guide
 
At the time people believed the earth was flat science still mostly believed in an earth centric universe. Jillian it appears pre-law cramped your ability to study the history of anything other than Juriprudence.

Their were scientist as late as the latter part of the 19th century that believed speeds faster than 25mph would destroy a human body.

The notion that university professors are without bias is at best delusional and at worst self serving claptrap.
 
At the time people believed the earth was flat science still mostly believed in an earth centric universe. Jillian it appears pre-law cramped your ability to study the history of anything other than Juriprudence.

Their were scientist as late as the latter part of the 19th century that believed speeds faster than 25mph would destroy a human body.

The notion that university professors are without bias is at best delusional and at worst self serving claptrap.

Remember how many feared breaking the sound barrier would kill you to? That's even recent enough for some people to remember first hand. Oh, and how philosophers and fiction writers dreamt of other galaxies while scientists held to the fact that ours was the only one.

Scientists themselves are not wrong, in most cases, however they need lots of data before they can come to an accurate explanation, and any real scientist worth their funding would tell you, we do NOT have the amount of data we need to be excessively alarmed about the impact we have on the planet as a whole, and whether there is enough we can do to even slow it. However, people who worship Gore's first lie (and it was a lie) want to think that 50 or even 100 years is enough data to use ... sorry, but it's not. We are talking about a planet that has been around for BILLIONS of years, and has gone through at least one confirmed (and possibly another unconfirmed) mass extinction ... but we are here ... funny how that works, life went on, it changed and adapted, prospering even through the worst mass extinctions. There is no way we can make the planet uninhabitable even if we tried ... even a nuclear holocaust would leave many species untouched and allow some to flourish in a golden age.

So here's an idea ... instead of worrying about what you most likely cannot change even if you are causing it and figure a way to survive if it does get too bad ... otherwise there is no hope. For all we know a huge meteor storm could be headed this way and wipe us out next month because we were unprepared for it.
 
Climate change which has been going on ever since the planet had enough of an atmosphere to have a climate is way down my list of concerns, there's a meteor out there with our name on it somewhere, a super volcano under yellowstone that erupts roughly every 200,000 to 400,000 years and the last one was more than 200k years ago, Then there's that volcanic Island in the Azores that could collapse at any time and send a 900 foot wall of water surging accross the East coast While the West coast gets to sweat out a similar collapse by one of the Hawaiian Islands, along witha humongous fault line just of the coast that could unzip and be even more catastrophic if that's possible.

And given that global 'warming' thus far seems to be givng us milder summers and winters for the most part how about now.
 
A large number of people thought the wordl was flat.

They also had almost no way to find out. We can however measure the temperature, and it isn't going up like the global warming conspiracy alarmists would have us believe.

Pale, ever watch a ship go over the horizon? What other explanation is there other than the world is round. Every observant sailor knew that, it was the religious people of the day that pushed that bullshit.

And the temperature is indeed going up, but much faster than predicted. We were not supposed to see the Arctic Ice disappearing untill midcentury. The Antarctic was supposed to cool for a while before starting the warming. But is is already warming. The alpine glaciers are declining at a far faster rate than predicted.

And there is no 'global warming conspiracy'. Every scientific society, every National Academy of Science, and every major university states that AGW is correct and is already negatively impacting humanity.
 
Last edited:
At the time people believed the earth was flat science still mostly believed in an earth centric universe. Jillian it appears pre-law cramped your ability to study the history of anything other than Juriprudence.

Their were scientist as late as the latter part of the 19th century that believed speeds faster than 25mph would destroy a human body.

The notion that university professors are without bias is at best delusional and at worst self serving claptrap.

Remember how many feared breaking the sound barrier would kill you to? That's even recent enough for some people to remember first hand. Oh, and how philosophers and fiction writers dreamt of other galaxies while scientists held to the fact that ours was the only one.

Scientists themselves are not wrong, in most cases, however they need lots of data before they can come to an accurate explanation, and any real scientist worth their funding would tell you, we do NOT have the amount of data we need to be excessively alarmed about the impact we have on the planet as a whole, and whether there is enough we can do to even slow it. However, people who worship Gore's first lie (and it was a lie) want to think that 50 or even 100 years is enough data to use ... sorry, but it's not. We are talking about a planet that has been around for BILLIONS of years, and has gone through at least one confirmed (and possibly another unconfirmed) mass extinction ... but we are here ... funny how that works, life went on, it changed and adapted, prospering even through the worst mass extinctions. There is no way we can make the planet uninhabitable even if we tried ... even a nuclear holocaust would leave many species untouched and allow some to flourish in a golden age.

So here's an idea ... instead of worrying about what you most likely cannot change even if you are causing it and figure a way to survive if it does get too bad ... otherwise there is no hope. For all we know a huge meteor storm could be headed this way and wipe us out next month because we were unprepared for it.

Wow. Kitten, you are one ignorant person. Do try to get out and see the real world. Mybe read a bit of natural history.
 
Climate change which has been going on ever since the planet had enough of an atmosphere to have a climate is way down my list of concerns, there's a meteor out there with our name on it somewhere, a super volcano under yellowstone that erupts roughly every 200,000 to 400,000 years and the last one was more than 200k years ago, Then there's that volcanic Island in the Azores that could collapse at any time and send a 900 foot wall of water surging accross the East coast While the West coast gets to sweat out a similar collapse by one of the Hawaiian Islands, along witha humongous fault line just of the coast that could unzip and be even more catastrophic if that's possible.

And given that global 'warming' thus far seems to be givng us milder summers and winters for the most part how about now.

Yes, climate change has been going on for over 4.5 billion years on this planet. And at times has wiped out as much as 95% of the species then living.

Yellowstone has a periodicity of roughly 600,000 years. It last erupted, a major eruption, about 640,000 years ago. The massive landslides of the Hawian and Azores islands could unleash some devestating tsunamis. And the subduction zone on the West Coast, from Cape Mendiceno, California to the north end of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, is capable and will unleash a 9 or greater quake.

But these are thing that we cannot do anything about. The GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere, and the effect that they are already having is our own doing, and we can cease to do it.
 
At the time people believed the earth was flat science still mostly believed in an earth centric universe. Jillian it appears pre-law cramped your ability to study the history of anything other than Juriprudence.

Their were scientist as late as the latter part of the 19th century that believed speeds faster than 25mph would destroy a human body.

The notion that university professors are without bias is at best delusional and at worst self serving claptrap.

Remember how many feared breaking the sound barrier would kill you to? That's even recent enough for some people to remember first hand. Oh, and how philosophers and fiction writers dreamt of other galaxies while scientists held to the fact that ours was the only one.

Scientists themselves are not wrong, in most cases, however they need lots of data before they can come to an accurate explanation, and any real scientist worth their funding would tell you, we do NOT have the amount of data we need to be excessively alarmed about the impact we have on the planet as a whole, and whether there is enough we can do to even slow it. However, people who worship Gore's first lie (and it was a lie) want to think that 50 or even 100 years is enough data to use ... sorry, but it's not. We are talking about a planet that has been around for BILLIONS of years, and has gone through at least one confirmed (and possibly another unconfirmed) mass extinction ... but we are here ... funny how that works, life went on, it changed and adapted, prospering even through the worst mass extinctions. There is no way we can make the planet uninhabitable even if we tried ... even a nuclear holocaust would leave many species untouched and allow some to flourish in a golden age.

So here's an idea ... instead of worrying about what you most likely cannot change even if you are causing it and figure a way to survive if it does get too bad ... otherwise there is no hope. For all we know a huge meteor storm could be headed this way and wipe us out next month because we were unprepared for it.

Wow. Kitten, you are one ignorant person. Do try to get out and see the real world. Mybe read a bit of natural history.

Even if I was as ignorant as you claim, it would be better than being as dishonest as you are.
 
At the time people believed the earth was flat science still mostly believed in an earth centric universe. Jillian it appears pre-law cramped your ability to study the history of anything other than Juriprudence.

Their were scientist as late as the latter part of the 19th century that believed speeds faster than 25mph would destroy a human body.

The notion that university professors are without bias is at best delusional and at worst self serving claptrap.

Remember how many feared breaking the sound barrier would kill you to? That's even recent enough for some people to remember first hand. Oh, and how philosophers and fiction writers dreamt of other galaxies while scientists held to the fact that ours was the only one.

Scientists themselves are not wrong, in most cases, however they need lots of data before they can come to an accurate explanation, and any real scientist worth their funding would tell you, we do NOT have the amount of data we need to be excessively alarmed about the impact we have on the planet as a whole, and whether there is enough we can do to even slow it. However, people who worship Gore's first lie (and it was a lie) want to think that 50 or even 100 years is enough data to use ... sorry, but it's not. We are talking about a planet that has been around for BILLIONS of years, and has gone through at least one confirmed (and possibly another unconfirmed) mass extinction ... but we are here ... funny how that works, life went on, it changed and adapted, prospering even through the worst mass extinctions. There is no way we can make the planet uninhabitable even if we tried ... even a nuclear holocaust would leave many species untouched and allow some to flourish in a golden age.

So here's an idea ... instead of worrying about what you most likely cannot change even if you are causing it and figure a way to survive if it does get too bad ... otherwise there is no hope. For all we know a huge meteor storm could be headed this way and wipe us out next month because we were unprepared for it.

Life does have an amazing ability to adapt and continue. There have actually been mass extinctions several times. While it would be difficult to make the planet uninhabitable for all life, I really only worry about making the planet uninhabitable for humans. But even if it is inhabitable, I do worry about catastrophic effects that could devastate humanity. I think it is reasonable that we could have a serious impact on our overall climate. If carbon dioxide rates do correllate with temperature and it is reasonable that carbon dioxide can contribute to the greenhouse effect, then I think the amount of carbon dioxide we have been releasing since the industrial revolution could have a global impact. Yes, asteroids could wipe us out, but we at least make an attempt to monitor the sky and the U.S. military searches and tracks large asteroids that could potentially threaten the earth. I think it is possible to change our behavior and reduce impact. Many people thought it would be impossible when the hole in the Ozone layer was discovered, but international cooperation reduced cfc's and other harmful agents, and today the hole is slowly healing itself.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top