Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Here's something for you to think about.

The earth has experienced varying temperatures throughout history, long before man was even here.

Why did these extremes happen without man?

Why must we be the causes of these changes now, when we know they happened without us even being present?

-------

There are only 3 possibilities on earth temps.
1)We are cooler than we should be.
2)we are exactly as we should be.
3)We are hotter than we should be.

Since number 2 is extremely unlikely (considering the historical variances and sheer possible differences in climate numbers we know about, it's not likely we are at the exact ideal global temps. currently), that means there is a 50% likely hood that we should be warmer, and a 50% likely hood that we should be cooler.

Why assume change is bad, when it is normal and constant? Why assume we are moving in the wrong direction, when there is a 50 chance we are moving in the right direction, toward the ideal?

Because it makes good press?

Rodney

What works for conspiracy theorists like you Rodney is to get people focused on details so the big picture is missed. Of course you also neeed your evil villan - in your case its the "environmental wacko" - not very original

Oh, and of course, the complicit media. Why do you not hear more about your particular opinion? Well its the evil complicit media of course!

And of course when you get nailed on some of your evidence, there is an ocean of other little details to pull from. It never ends with religious nuts or conspiracy theorists. In fact, I suspect the same psychology is at work in both minds.

Again, I would suggest that people do the rational thing when exploring global warming. Turn off the right wing talk show loonies, close the conspiracy web sites and try to take aa step back from your emotional involvement.

Go to sources that are as unbiased as you can find, and as authoritative. Don't read a single source, or a site with obvious bias - plenty of it exists on both sides of the issue. And don't dismiss reputable sources like the journal Nature by calling them names.

Global warming is a complex issue - debating it with a fanatic is no fun The overwhelming majority of evidence produced by reputable scientists confirm that global warming is occuring. There is more debate about the cause and effect.

An important point to keep in mind is this: What happens if it is true and we do nothing? What is the cost to society for not acting if it is true? What is the cost of acting if it turns out not to be true?

But please lets stop the conspiracy theory stuff - its really quite tedious.

Smoking tobacco is known since the 16th century. People died long before mankind has discovered smoking.

There are three possibilities:

1. Smoking is good for the health
2. Smoking doesn't affect the health (neither positively nor adversely)
3. Smoking is bad for the health

Since number 2 is extremely unlikely (considering that in every cigarette 3000 - 4000 chemical substances are found and considering the amount of them that is absorbed in the course of the years), that means there is a 50% likelyhood that smoking is either bad and a 50% likelyhood that smoking is fostering the health.

Why assume smoking is bad, when a lot of people are 80 years old and have enjoyed their daily pack of cigarettes for 60 years? Why assume that smoking is bad, when there is a 50 chance that it is good for the health?

Because it makes good press?

Hermann
-----
The #1 Boa constrictor site in the world wide web

Proof possitive that you have a sense of humor...

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Lol....what a sense of humor. : )

Now..lets talk about "Big Tobacco" targeting MINORS and young people..from age 6 on..to use their product as they approach purchasing age.

Smokeing...it just plain stinks

AztecFred

Why assume we are moving in the wrong direction, when there is a 50 chance we are moving in the right direction, toward the ideal?

Because, as I've said, the vast majority of the credible research indicates we are moving out of whats "normal". When you look at all the research being done by credible researchers, the overwhelming majority believe they are seeing significant global warming.

Find the most credible research journals in the world, tally up the conclusions arrived at by the most credible scientists in the world. Then ask yourself if you have any confidence in your opinion that global warming is a.) Not happening, b.) not due to human activity, c.) not potentially very, very disruptive.

While these are all possibilities, I doubt you have calculated any real likelihoods for these hypotheses. Are you actually pretending to give us statistics? Or am I just taking you too literaly?