"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
If you have proof of time travel, I am very interested in seeing it!
If the conspiracy theory does not fit, you must acquit!
Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb
What you and others are suggesting is not a sensible contingency plan, instead, you want to fundamentally alter the nature of our economy and empower governments the world over to further interfere in our lives, all based upon a flimsy correlation and suspect data.
Sorry, but I'm not buying it, and will continue to speak against it. I think my generation will be the one to finally start fixing all the problems you old people have made for us...
For instance, does it matter what method you use when 9 out of 10 temperature monitoring stations in the United States (supposedly the most advanced system on the planet) do not meet minimum siting standards? If the data is suspect, then ALL the research based upon it is not credible.
Theories can be disproved.
Theories are used as a basis for further hypotheses.
In this case, the hypothesis that: “Human industrialization causes increased levels of CO2 emission”.
Used in conjunction with the hypothesis that: “An increase in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere causes warmer global temperatures”.
When taken together, these two hypotheses led to the hypothesis that: “Human industrialization/CO2 emissions causes warmer global temperatures”.
If, as some believe, the second hypothesis is correct, then the degree to which CO2 causes warmer temperatures becomes an issue.
If a small degree, perhaps no issue exists.
If a large degree, a pressing issue may exist.
If, as some believe, the second hypothesis is incorrect, then no issue exists.
Note no one is arguing that CO2 levels are decreasing.
The problem with this theory, in my mind, is that far too many variables are unexplored.
For example, if I were to present the hypotheses that, firstly: “increased CO2 emissions cause improved conditions for plant life”.
Secondly, that: “Improved conditions for plant life cause increases in the number of plants”.
Thirdly, that: “An increase in the number of plants causes, as a result, an increase in the number of dead and decomposing plants”.
Fourthly, that: “Decomposing plants give off heat”.
Then, lastly, that: “Increased CO2 emissions cause increased plant growth, which leads to dead plants decomposing, which action emits heat, which causes a rise in global temperature.”
This COULD be true...But it also might not be. Still,
Last edited by The Mark; 02-12-10 at 08:35 PM.
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
Its a complex subject but if your argument is "its been cold lately" then whats the point of arguing.
My main point is i dont see why i should disagree with the vast majority of climatologists who believe in man made global warming.I dont see any big conspiracy.
The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.
The supposedly most advanced climate monitoring network on the planet is fatally compromised and you tell me the error is minimal. That's really hilarious.
Question: What percentage of the Earth is actually covered by climate monitoring stations?