The industrial revolution....that would be the point when man began coming up with technological means to perform tasks that they couldn't previously. Like measure CO2 in the air, for instance. How did they measure CO2 before someone came up with a way to measure CO2? Just curious.
Past CO2 levels can be determined from ice in the antarctic. I believe these show a flat level that jumps at precisely the time of the industrial revolution. That would be quite a coincidence considering its exponential climb as human factors have increased exponentially. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type_to_Y2004.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth's_atmosphere
Hope everyone's ecosabath went well. Me - I made three redundant trips to Wal-Mart in my huge pickup truck, then threw a bunch of plastic in the trash cause I got lazy. So, it's off to ecoconfession with me - sending Al Gore an apology later this morning. Anyway, seems I'm not the only one who's noticed that this is all a bit ecuminical in nature, pardon the pun. He's a bit melodramatic, as Brits are wont to be, but he's catching up to me, and that's bully for him. I didn't say science is voodoo Red. I said it's voodoo science. :lol: Gaia Bless, everyone!
It's been studied thoroughly, with evidence presented and conclusions reached. The IPCC documents are authoritative and the consensus of the worlds climate experts agree. Nonsense. There are vast numbers of processes well understood by science in the complete absence of some envisioned perfect control scenario. What is it about the proof that they present that you challenge? Because it has been concluded so by the consensus of the experts. I have read much of it and I agree. Why do you ignore the experts? A ton of conclusions on the topic have been published and withstood scientific challenges. The answers to your questions are there. Why do you scoff at their conclusions if you haven't read their evidence? Don't you want to know the answers? It sounds like you deny that anyone could ever know, so we should just forget about it.
Since you are reduced to lampooning science, having failed to refute it scientifically and since you now post my sage wisdom in your signature, I declare victory in this debate. Now I'm off to the carrier for the "Mission Accomplished" party. :usaflagwa
I've determined that doing the research to find why they were more advanced than us will require more time than I can afford to put into it at this time. I will just stand by original statement, I have heard it argued that the Mayans may have been more advanced than we are, only the mode of their advancement was different than the current direction of our advancement. I believe it had something to do with the way they viewed all subjects as interrelated, including science and religion. Even without supporting arguments, I find the idea that they may have been more advanced than us very intriguing. I believe science and religion don't have to diametrically oppose each other and I believe that seeing things from a totally unfamiliar perspective can be very beneficial.
I can certainly buy that the Mayans were the most advanced Native American civilization. The had metalurgy and engineering skills.
I would no sooner make fun of your religion than my own. And one cannot refute a religion, Red. All I can do (and have done) is provide a mirror and an alternate point of view. And some science unbiased by ideology. The Bush cartoon is funny. :lol:
