http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/science/earth/07climate.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin.
another international slate of scientists have released their findings regarding global climate change and human's effect on that (see the above link).. after the last major study released by several hundred scientists a few months ago, it does seem there is a serious concensus here among the leading thinkers and scientists on this issue.
i know i've banged heads with a few who disagree with this, but it does seem as though that handful of folks who disagree with the science are looking more and more like deniers, as in holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, etc.. in other words, out there on the lunatic fringe.. so, do you folks think it might be time to reconsider?.
SixofNine: "Thank goodness for cache."
Honestly, as a human being, it would be far better not to see such a public humiliation.
I suppose those professing Christianity have a psychological need to believe in Repentance-- even if the Do-Over is only fifty-three minutes later.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/science/earth/07climate.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin.
another international slate of scientists have released their findings regarding global climate change and human's effect on that (see the above link).. after the last major study released by several hundred scientists a few months ago, it does seem there is a serious concensus here among the leading thinkers and scientists on this issue.
i know i've banged heads with a few who disagree with this, but it does seem as though that handful of folks who disagree with the science are looking more and more like deniers, as in holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, etc.. in other words, out there on the lunatic fringe.. so, do you folks think it might be time to reconsider?.
Jringe01: "It's strictly a suspicion on my part but when you pump billions of tons of CO2 into the air if we still had most of our forrests they would act to balance it out but we lose an area the size of the Netherlands every year to deforestation they can no longer do the job as effectively as they once did."
Unfortunately, climate is a little more complex. Briefly, it's the loss of tropical rain forests that is the most damaging. From Science Daily.
"Growing a forest might sound like a good idea to combat global warming, since trees draw carbon dioxide from the air and release cool water from their leaves. But they also absorb sunlight, warming the air in the process. According to a new study from the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, planting forests at certain latitudes could make the Earth warmer....
"The researchers found that while tropical forests help keep Earth cool by evaporating a great deal of water, northern forests tend to warm the Earth because they absorb a lot of sunlight without losing much moisture. In one simulation, the researchers covered much of the northern hemisphere (above 20° latitude) with forests and saw a jump in surface air temperature of more than 6° F. Covering the entire planet’s land mass with trees led to a more modest increase of about 2° F."
Oh-- the reason for more than 25% of the loss of rain forest? Beef production.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/science/earth/07climate.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin.
another international slate of scientists have released their findings regarding global climate change and human's effect on that (see the above link).. after the last major study released by several hundred scientists a few months ago, it does seem there is a serious concensus here among the leading thinkers and scientists on this issue.
i know i've banged heads with a few who disagree with this, but it does seem as though that handful of folks who disagree with the science are looking more and more like deniers, as in holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, etc.. in other words, out there on the lunatic fringe.. so, do you folks think it might be time to reconsider?.
Auld Soul: "I have yet to see any article or product from scientists that does not combine these two into one thing..."
Complete nonsense, even to yourself, as you have now changed your statement to "MANY."
Auld Soul: "Even establishing a correlation between human activity and climate change does not scientifically establish a cause and effect relationship.
"That is the piece that is missing and consensus opinion cannot be a substitute for it."
The reason so many Fundamentalists and other simple-minded conservatives have difficulty with the subject of human activity causing Global Warming (let alone the fact of evolution) is the same reason they are Fundamentalists and simple-minded conservatives: a total lack of understanding of statistics and probability, which are one of the primary tools of the modern sciences. Their understanding of the universe and its systems comes from a pre-17th century worldview which is generated entirely from either Experience ("my azaleas have wilted due to a late frost, therefore the earth could not possibly be warming") or Abstraction ("this is liberal hysteria").
When thousands of trained scientists agree that it is more than 90% certain that the current global warming trends are the result of human activity, those with some sense of numeracy find this compelling. Those whose minds can grasp only their own transitory Senses or unprovable Absolute Truths ("God is love") have difficulty understanding such "Science 101" terms as "scientifically" and "likeliest".
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.
are global warming skeptics really just cranks?
i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .
Hillary_step, in reply to Zagor: "I must say that you used some pretty impressive language yourself in that interesting post."
Unfortunately, the bulk of the language in that interesting post is the work of William E. Rees, Phd, from the University of British Columbia, and appeared in the Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society under the title "Globalization and Sustainability: Conflict or Convergence?" in August 2002.
Google's HTML version of the PDF file, demonstrating the substantive lifting, can be read here.
As usual, I can't find the food court.
i live in a small, rural town pop.
2000. my daughter and i did not get any visit or tract.. i thought this was supposed to be a final warning - a life saving work.. not complaining, but just curious if you didn't get one.. juni .
A local Jehovah's Witness gentleman I know by sight (but not name) via some relations came to my door; he apparently recognized me as one of the Lost, and hesitated, but finally stated that he knew one of my elderly kin and asked whether I had received one of the tracts. I politely accepted it from his hand as I made obvious move to close the door, and commented, "Thank you-- I read it online quite a few months ago." Very quickly for a man of his age, he snatched it right back from my fist, and said, "Well, I'll share it with someone else, then!" As the door was already on its way to being closed, I allowed it, and he, to continue unmolested, save by my laughter.
So I suppose I can reply that I was both given and passed over, of the bounty. Alas, my task of having to dispose of it in the kitchen receptacle will likely fall to some harried laundromat attendant.
P.S. Ought we not congratulate this gentlemen on his principles, if not his manners? No suspicious notches in his gun belt!
sorry, not the united nations... turns out we meant a fat man with a funny wig.. sir elton: ban organised religion.
Sorry, not the United Nations... turns out we meant a fat man with a funny wig.
i read recently that the nazarene church (where i currently attend) has 1.6 million members worldwide.
the naz church will be celebrating a 100 year anniversary of its beginnings in 2008.
(october!
Of course their anniversary is celebrated-- it's called Schnorrer's Day.
i can't believe more people haven't stepped up to take issue with alanf's restraint in only calling you a piece of shit.
dilaceratus.
the people who have criticized leoalia on this thread aren't worth shit.
Were you more adroit with your reading, you might have noticed that I did not call you a name at all. I expressed my surprise at AlanF's restraint in calling you a name. However, I am on record as enjoying name-calling, and generally find AlanF's appraisals fitting. Perhaps my fear of coming off as "syrupy" in my defense shall be my excuse.
Unfortunately, I incorrectly used your own evaluation of AlanF's comments in my own response, which were not his claim. My surprise, then, should have been more emphatically stated.
Congratulations on your agility of mind, in coming to your topic conclusion, and amazement at AlanF's word choices, in only five years and more than 1300 posts.
her posts for a very long time were overflowing with an obvious scholarship.
i have avidly read her posts and have tucked away as much as my much smaller brain could be forced to take in.
i'm sure others have openly expressed their admiration and appreciation for her, but i would like to do so here.
Proplog2: And where are those who would repudiate you for using that kind of terminology? Not one person here appears to disagree with your behavior enough to call you on it.
I can't believe more people haven't stepped up to take issue with AlanF's restraint in only calling you a piece of shit.
The mass of Jehovah's Witnesses (and other Fundamentalist groups) are lazy and superficial thinkers, prepared to accept even the shabbiest defenses of the stupidest ideas rather than make a cursory investigation into their beliefs and actions. This results in Witnesses (and ex-Witnesses) who have spent decades supposedly dedicated to preaching Bible truth to others who know no more about the actual content and history of the Bible than a college freshman taking their first World Literature class.
Unfortunately for the intellectual content of this board, it also results in threads with over a thousand posts where the farcical Witness theology is endlessly examined and rebutted to deaf ears, but threads such as Leolaia has started and contributed to-- which should be fascinating to those sincerely interested in the Bible-- often get no more intelligent response than, "This looks really interesting. I'm saving it to read later."
Astonishingly, even the colossally thick Thirdwitness (on another board he contributes to), in nursing his wounds, stated that Leolaia was the only one who had treated him courteously, despite the fact that she proved him the idiot on every occasion on which they disagreed. Even more incredibly, she was gracious in her response to you.
One of the ways in which Jehovah's Witnesses are liars is in pretending an expertise and research experience with the Bible that they do not possess. I haven't any clue as to why Leolaia might care to put as much work into presenting her essays here as she does, but they offer an invaluable resource for former Witnesses to become exposed to how scholars other than the celebrated Watchtower Bible and Tract Society hacks approach their topic: thoroughly, conscientiously, and without pre-conceived prejudice. That this necessitates posts of some length, complexity of language, examination of possible interpretation, and without a simple-minded payoff of interpretation ought not to be intimidating, but invigorating, to minds that have occupied their life with the Bible, and have a real interest in its construction.
