by bohm 92 Replies latest jw friends
Belief requires no logic. Just visit any of the threads discussing spirit/religion/god.
So someone does not 'believe' in climate change ... some people don't 'believe' in evolution. Some people don't 'believe' in modern medicine. *shrug*
It's amazing the things people believe, even though science proves them wrong. Propaganda is very convincing, especially when the government spreads it like cow manure in a mushroom field.
:)
tal
On the other side of the ideological fence, we have idealists promoting the full-scale propogation of marijuana plants. Instead of cattle and wheat. We can live off the seeds (high in protein you know).
I think that hemp would make a lot more sense than the prolific wheat and beef farming - but that is by-the-by ... I am all for full legalization of the gentle herb.
I'll have to check that out, jgnat! Sounds like a bunch of fringe wing-nuts making the rest of us maryjane advocates look bad! Although, if I was from 'out west', the large-scale production of beef and wheat might tick me off, too. We can all be illogical at times.
xx
tal
gnat
The Earth has warmed – and cooled – over the past 50 years. We’ve also experienced periods of “unusual” weather and “normal” weather, more frequent and intense storms and droughts, less frequent and less severe storms and droughts. However, I don’t agree that humans are responsible, or that climate change is becoming dangerous or catastrophic.
CO2 is a trace gas, but without it life on earth would be impossible. Carbon dioxide fertilizes aglae, trees and crops to provide food for humans and animals. We inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Slightly higher atmospheric CO2 levels cannot possibly supplant the numerous complex and inter-connected forces that have always determined Earth’s climate.
As University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott has noted: “The fundamental point has always been this. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor (CO2), is as misguided as it gets.”
Even the global warming activists at RealClimate.org acknowledged this where they said “The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors.” CO2 is not the tail that wags the dog.
Shana
Here we go, talesin.
http://www.ted.com/conversations/10021/what_if_the_cannabis_plant_was.html?c=431697
The proponent goes so far to suggest that growing cannabis could stop global warming.
About growing what where, something I have learned from my agriculture and forestry friends is that the land is variable in what it will support. It just so happens that a good part of Alberta territory is perfect for raising cattle. After all, it used to support great herds of Buffalo. It's grassland.
I do get burned when our local urban sprawl bulldozes over world-class black earth, perfect for growing vegetables.
Shana, all those arguments are patiently and thoroughly addressed in the link I provided. The hundreds of variables are included in our modern weather pattern models, and we are getting increasingly good at predicting what will happen next.
When global temperatures are the question, the answer is not sun or CO2 It is the sun, volcanoes, tilt of the Earth’s axis, water vapor, methane, clouds, ocean cycles, plate tectonics, shifting ocean currents, albedo (Earth’s changing reflective properties), atmospheric dust, atmospheric circulation, cosmic rays, particulates like carbon soot and volcanic dust, forests and grasslands, urban and other land use changes. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, not just CO2.
Shana
Shana - climate experts already know all that.
They have tons of compelling evidence that human activity is the additional factor that is changing the climate at an unprecedented rate.
Have you looked at the evidence or do you prefer "Just my opinion. Shana"
Shana - climate experts already know all that.
They have tons of compelling evidence that human activity is the additional factor that is changing the climate at an unprecedented rate.
Have you looked at the evidence or do you prefer "Just my opinion. Shana"
Cofty, actually I have looked at the opposing scientific evidence. I am not swayed by the NYTimes or the rest of the Lame Stream Media. And I do have an opinion on this that may be politically incorrect, but that's my opinion based on what I have researched.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
Shana
Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Humans are NOT to blame for global warming, says Greenpeace co-founder, as he insists there is 'no scientific proof' climate change is manmade
Well, shit im in Florida
