No AGW is not true. It is not your fault it is the Sun. This doesn't mean you should not stop polluting.
Ive been wondering about this for quite a while now-
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that tomorrow, climatologists the world over state that AGW is not backed up by any evidence.
So, again for the sake of argument, you are demonstrated to be correct. Yay Greatcloud!
What is your point?
Im sure you actually have a point to your posts, something that makes some difference. Your point obviously isn't "Keep polluting all you want, because pollution isn't effecting GW", as demonstrated in your above post.
What, again, is your actual point?
Or are you debating simply for the sake of debate? (I do that too, and quite enjoy it sometimes)
Ive been wondering about this for quite a while now-
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that tomorrow, climatologists the world over state that AGW is not backed up by any evidence.
So, again for the sake of argument, you are demonstrated to be correct. Yay Greatcloud!
What is your point?
Im sure you actually have a point to your posts, something that makes some difference. Your point obviously isn't "Keep polluting all you want, because pollution isn't effecting GW", as demonstrated in your above post.
What, again, is your actual point?
Or are you debating simply for the sake of debate? (I do that too, and quite enjoy it sometimes)
We are or have spent trillions of dollars on the GW problem. That money is better spent in Africa or on more useful research to aid mankind. No disasters have happened nor are they expected to in the near future, for instance it would take 20,000 years to flood Florida at the present rate. CO2 has helped vegetation all over the world. Which doesn't mean don't stop polluting. To comply with Kyoto would cause world wide recession. That is a sure thing,while the science behind GHGT is not a sure thing. Plus it is bad science always has been and its position of prominence is political.
We are or have spent trillions of dollars on the GW problem.
Really? In what way has this money been spent?
__________________ When I die, they will put my body in a box and dispose of it in the cold ground.
And in all the million ages to come, I will never breathe or laugh or twitch again.
So won't you run and play with me here among the
teeming mass of humanity?
The universe has spared us this moment.
Just google the figure 1.7 trillion dollars over the last decade. The money has been spent mostly on research.
I've had a look around and I cant seem to find anything, a link would be useful.
__________________ When I die, they will put my body in a box and dispose of it in the cold ground.
And in all the million ages to come, I will never breathe or laugh or twitch again.
So won't you run and play with me here among the
teeming mass of humanity?
The universe has spared us this moment.
There is nothing wrong with health scepticism, I am all for that, but for anyone to think we can burn the world hydrocarbon deposits in a matter of several centuries and not affect the climate has to be ignorant of the facts.
Just look at CFCs, we only produced them for ~50 years and they created large holes in the ozone layer above both poles.
Global warming want be a bad thing for the planet, but it will be disastrous for the human race.
Question
Creationist seem to be big on this anti-global warming scepticism; WHY
__________________ Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof. [Ashley Montagu]
Creationist seem to be big on this anti-global warming scepticism; WHY
Because if God did create the world then He wouldn't have created it so shoddily that it was afflicted with global warming. And even if global warming is occurring, it must be part of God's plan, so it's nothing to worry about anyway!
Guys, I hate to say this, but this thread is rather telling.
I started this thread with a lengthy OP, but for some reason it didn't show up. I then started the same thread with the OP in it. I am honestly trying to understand this issue and I wrote about many issues I have with both sides of the debate.
And yet, I find way more responses on this thread from both sides bickering back and forth...despite the fact that it is essentially a broken thread without even an OP...
If anyone from either side feels that they are correct, could you address the points I raised in my other thread?
There is nothing wrong with health scepticism, I am all for that, but for anyone to think we can burn the world hydrocarbon deposits in a matter of several centuries and not affect the climate has to be ignorant of the facts.
Just look at CFCs, we only produced them for ~50 years and they created large holes in the ozone layer above both poles.
Global warming want be a bad thing for the planet, but it will be disastrous for the human race.
Question
Creationist seem to be big on this anti-global warming scepticism; WHY
Creationists have trouble with Climate Change because the data used in some cases is older than 650,000 years. (Ice cores.) If one of the foundations of creationist beliefs based on a literal bible is that the Earth is only 10,000 years old, they cannot accept Climate Change data without invalidating a literal bible.
Better to ignore the data for them than to question their entire religious view.
Senator James Inhofe, former chairman of the Senate Committee On Evironment and Public Works, is one of these creationists. He is partly responsible for holding the USA back in the fight against Climate Change. This is one of those instances when fundamentalist Christianity can be dangerous.
Linear Mode
