Speaking of jokers making totally subjective statements that they don't really expect anyone to take seriously . . . Read Gunga Din some day and tell me if you think a pussy wrote it.
If LSUCraig didn't just identify himself as a mindless idealouge I don't know that it is possible to do so. I mean I'm pretty dumb, but even I recognize that noone is right all the times.
Did I say Rush or that I was right all the time? I said most of that list is certainly full of undeniable truths. What are you referring to?
What does "planetary ecology" mean exactly? Kinda sounds like buzz words to me. For every bit of "evidence" that man is causing the earth to warm, there is just as much evidence that it is a natural occurrence that has happened to this planet for eons.....before any industrial manufacturing or SUV's. So ice ages this planet has seen or the heat of the Jurassic period was caused by the Ford Explorer 70 million years to be in the future? You think the polar ice caps were always there? At one time they were not, then the earth went through a cooling period and formed the ice caps. Also, have you seen the study that said if all greenhouse gas production was stopped today, the warming trend would continue? Man didn't cause it and cannot stop it. No, through nature phases of warming and colling the deserts were made and so were the polar ice caps. But FYI: just because we can't stop it I don't believe we need to go cut down and raze the African rainforest either....
planetary adjective Of or affecting the entire world; global: ecology noun The science of the relationships between organisms and their environments. Also called bionomics. There are 1,750,000 links on Google for "Planetary Ecology". Try a few. So you have said. I'm asking for your evidence of this. Got a source? There are natural cycles, obviously. But there is also a clear and measurable effect of human impact in the industrial age. We are polluting the planet and the evidence is widespread. Global warming is only one example of this. Natural and human-induced changes are not mutually exclusive. Which study? Got a link? No global warming won't disappear overnight and warming will continue because of the CO2 already present and we could make it worse and accelerate the process if we do nothing. Man has been a cause of global warming and we can affect the future warming. We can't stop it quickly, but we can influence it.
that might be true, but there are definitely good scientists at respectable places who are not so sure. wikipedia lists a couple: # Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "... there's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. ... In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed". [3] # Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air". [4] # Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities." [5] it seems apparent to me that there is a tendency for people to find problems to correct, that people want a conclusion where there isnt always one to be found. so, given a situation where there is no definitive answer, people (including scientists) will join the team who is arguing that we are in trouble and need to change. yunno, like when you used to always hear that population explosion is gonna ruin the earth or that we have to recycle or we are ****ed. none of that is really true. plus i think the scientist who presents no answers or results that are not conclusive are paid attention to less than those who sound alarms. nobody likes a situation that leaves us with an unknown. so in a situation where the evidence for cause-effect is inconclusive, i think the scientist who comes up with a conclusion is gonna get the most press and get chosen for the UN studies and such.
in my further reasearch on this matter, i found a gentleman who is saying what i am trying to, but is smarter than i am, and says it more elegantly. richard lindzen, MIT meteorologist: "Picking holes in the IPCC is crucial. The notion that if you’re ignorant of something and somebody comes up with a wrong answer, and you have to accept that because you don’t have another wrong answer to offer is like faith healing, it’s like quackery in medicine – if somebody says you should take jelly beans for cancer and you say that’s stupid, and he says, well can you suggest something else and you say, no, does that mean you have to go with jelly beans?" [3]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
Name one study you have read that proves global warming was caused by man? There isn't one legitimate studyhat has ever proven that........it can't be proven Red so I call hogwash on that one. You act like you are coming from a point of fact.........and you aren't. Find me a link to one legitimate study that proves man has created globalrming and that it isn't a phase of nature. I will find you studies that say the earth is warming as a direct phase of nature though. And that is the reason we can't stop it. I have a study that I will post that says the earth is in a natural warming trend as a prefice to a 10,000 year ice age. And, if you read State of Fear then you know how all the global warming crap is exaggerated for money. He sites real studies that liberal wackos ignore. I mean if climateolgists from MIT say it isn't happening because of man I tend to believe them.
Economically, yes. Socially, no. I guess that whole creating oxygen thing is overrated anyway. :hihi: :rofl: So true.
