The "absolutely probably" thing was an admittedly lame attempt by me to show that I'm not sure either, and that's my overall point. Nobody is sure. Consensus by definition is an agreement of opinion. OPINION IS NOT FACT. I wasn't trying to be convincing.
I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. I'm trying to be convinced. I want to believe, but I'm not willing to just accept Al Gore and CBC and CNN and the rest of them simply at face value. I'm a little skeptical of anything that explodes into such a political issue so fast and I'm curious as to why there is some division between scientists if it's so easy for everyone else to see. Once both the US and Canadaian federal elections are done 18 months (or so) from now, I wonder if we re-visited the whole topic if it'll as big an issue then as it is now.
To be honest, I'm not even convinced by some of the points I have made myself (they were not all my opinions, I tried to use the most opposed viewpoints I could find) but I wanted to present them here in a Devil's Advocate type of role to get some input and see if I could learn a thing or two. Maybe it's my bad for not being up front with that, but I thought I was polite and respectful enough to everyone that I didn't really have to. Instead, I get answers like DUH..., and dude the facts are in, accept it...also very unconvincing arguments. I don't disagree with everything I've read that supports the argument that human activities have had a negative impact on this planet, I just don't eat it up like some people do.
Anyway...I'm out.
#==(o )
You are not your job.
You are not how much money you have in the bank.
You are not the car you drive.
You are not the contents of your wallet.
You are not your fucking khakis.
The "absolutely probably" thing was an admittedly lame attempt by me to show that I'm not sure either, and that's my overall point. Nobody is sure. Consensus by definition is an agreement of opinion. OPINION IS NOT FACT. I wasn't trying to be convincing.
I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. I'm trying to be convinced. I want to believe, but I'm not willing to just accept Al Gore and CBC and CNN and the rest of them simply at face value. I'm a little skeptical of anything that explodes into such a political issue so fast and I'm curious as to why there is some division between scientists if it's so easy for everyone else to see. Once both the US and Canadaian federal elections are done 18 months (or so) from now, I wonder if we re-visited the whole topic if it'll as big an issue then as it is now.
To be honest, I'm not even convinced by some of the points I have made myself (they were not all my opinions, I tried to use the most opposed viewpoints I could find) but I wanted to present them here in a Devil's Advocate type of role to get some input and see if I could learn a thing or two. Maybe it's my bad for not being up front with that, but I thought I was polite and respectful enough to everyone that I didn't really have to. Instead, I get answers like DUH..., and dude the facts are in, accept it...also very unconvincing arguments. I don't disagree with everything I've read that supports the argument that human activities have had a negative impact on this planet, I just don't eat it up like some people do.
Anyway...I'm out.
fair enough
but there is plenty of science around this - if you get past the hype of this and that - and do some reading - you will see that this is definitely the single biggest issue facing life on this planet ...
you're right in one thing - no one can truly know exactly what will happen or when it'll happen but we know it's not/hasn't been good ...
I did not vote for Bush, I am not a republican, I am not a religious fear monger, and I seriously question the human impact on global warming. I also tend to question politicians that say they have the truth, or say that they are honest as well as people that draw conclusions based on assumptions rather than conclusive scientific research. I guess I'm a skeptic, but at least I try to listen to arguments from both sides..........since both sides of the debate are very capable of using propoganda. This is something I read today. I'm not saying I have sold myself to this idea either, but it shows how the scientific community isn't really in agreement about the causes of the climate change. http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?e9e9ac7e-64b1-4fc5-a8ae-fe52f699adac
I did not vote for Bush, I am not a republican, I am not a religious fear monger, and I seriously question the human impact on global warming. I also tend to question politicians that say they have the truth, or say that they are honest as well as people that draw conclusions based on assumptions rather than conclusive scientific research. I guess I'm a skeptic, but at least I try to listen to arguments from both sides..........since both sides of the debate are very capable of using propoganda. This is something I read today. I'm not saying I have sold myself to this idea either, but it shows how the scientific community isn't really in agreement about the causes of the climate change. http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?e9e9ac7e-64b1-4fc5-a8ae-fe52f699adac
read the ipcc reports - they ARE the scientific community ... a nuclear scientist is not a climatologist ...
read the ipcc reports - they ARE the scientific community ... a nuclear scientist is not a climatologist ...
Does that mean that both should be ignorant to the science of each other? Maybe i'm wrong, but I thought physics had something to do with weather...........
Does that mean that both should be ignorant to the science of each other? Maybe i'm wrong, but I thought physics had something to do with weather...........
uhhh ... sorry - but this issue is beyond debate now ... i don't really wanna rehash what has been discussed too many times on here already ... all i'm saying is if you really care to find out - read the ipcc reports ...
uhhh ... sorry - but this issue is beyond debate now ... i don't really wanna rehash what has been discussed too many times on here already ... all i'm saying is if you really care to find out - read the ipcc reports ...
I have read the IPCC reports....................very good reading. Non the less, I don't see how you can say an issue is "beyond debate". Regardless, the point that I was trying to make is that there is plenty of propoganda and deception for political reasons on both sides of the fence. There is always going to be people creating a perception of fear for their own personal gain, especially politicians. I tend to remain skeptical of things until I hear all of the facts from unbiased sources..............which seem to be few and far between.
this just goes to show that people have no idea what they're talking about. first of all; bush didn't sign kyoto because it excluded developing nations. these are the biggest offenders and excluding them wouldn't make a difference in emissions. kyoto was just a political ploy to keep the masses happy. each one of us is responsable for controlling our emissions. nobody wants the government following them around. as for denying global warming; bush has a plan in motion to harvest helium3 from the moon. the first mission starts in 2008. harvesting helium3 will solve the earths energy problem for at least 1000 years.
truth be known; he went with the cure instead of the band aid.
uhhh ... sorry - but this issue is beyond debate now ... i don't really wanna rehash what has been discussed too many times on here already ... all i'm saying is if you really care to find out - read the ipcc reports ...
Please feel free to NOT DEBATE then.
But if you're reading further, let me ask you...have you read the IPCC reports? I just did. Not every single one, but the last one from May 4 in Bangkok.
Go to section G. It explains in full detail how their conclusions are reached...in the IPCC'S OWN WORDS:
G. Gaps in knowledge
There are still relevant gaps in currently available knowledge regarding some
aspects of mitigation of climate change, especially in developing countries.
Additional research addressing those gaps would further reduce uncertainties and
thus facilitate decision-making related to mitigation of climate change [TS.14].
Endbox 1: Uncertainty representation
Uncertainty is an inherent feature of any assessment. The fourth assessment report clarifies
the uncertainties associated with essential statements.
Fundamental differences between the underlying disciplinary sciences of the three Working
Group reports make a common approach impractical. The “likelihood” approach applied in
"Climate change 2007, the physical science basis" and the “confidence” and “likelihood”
approaches used in "Climate change 2007, impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability" were
judged to be inadequate to deal with the specific uncertainties involved in this mitigation
report, as here human choices are considered.
In this report a two-dimensional scale is used for the treatment of uncertainty. The scale is
based on the expert judgment of the authors of WGIII on the level of concurrence in the
literature on a particular finding (level of agreement), and the number and quality of
independent sources qualifying under the IPCC rules upon which the finding is based
(amount of evidence33) (see Table SPM.E.1). This is not a quantitative approach, from which
probabilities relating to uncertainty can be derived.
Table
***THERE IS A TABLE HERE EXPLAINING THE DIFFERENT WAYS DECUCTIONS ARE MADE***
Amount of evidencea) (number and quality of independent sources)
a) “Evidence” in this report is defined as: Information or signs indicating whether a belief or proposition is
true or valid. See Glossary.
25 Because the future is inherently uncertain, scenarios i.e. internally consistent images of
different futures - not predictions of the future - have been used extensively in this report.
Again, just to re-cap...in the IPCC's own words, they reach conclusions based on "confidence" and "likelihood." If you're comfortable with that then good luck to you. I'm curious though, why that part of the IPCC reports don't make it into any of your posts. You make these reports out to be gospel, yet right in the reports themselves they tell you not to take this information as indesputable fact! You can't quote a source and then select the part of the report that supports your argument. Well I guess you can, but it makes you sound very unconvincing.
So anyway, you were saying?
#==(o )
You are not your job.
You are not how much money you have in the bank.
You are not the car you drive.
You are not the contents of your wallet.
You are not your fucking khakis.
this just goes to show that people have no idea what they're talking about. first of all; bush didn't sign kyoto because it excluded developing nations. these are the biggest offenders and excluding them wouldn't make a difference in emissions. kyoto was just a political ploy to keep the masses happy. each one of us is responsable for controlling our emissions. nobody wants the government following them around. as for denying global warming; bush has a plan in motion to harvest helium3 from the moon. the first mission starts in 2008. harvesting helium3 will solve the earths energy problem for at least 1000 years.
truth be known; he went with the cure instead of the band aid.
Shit, does that mean we're going to start arguing about lunar climate change?
#==(o )
You are not your job.
You are not how much money you have in the bank.
You are not the car you drive.
You are not the contents of your wallet.
You are not your fucking khakis.
Shit, does that mean we're going to start arguing about lunar climate change?
in general; people know maybe 25% to 30% of the true facts about global warming. they believe the bits they want to and ignore the bits they don't want to think about.
to prove my point; who on this board has realized that as the ice melts; it distributes it's weight around the globe? this change in pressure on the plates will and has been causing an increase in earthquakes. it has to. from 1980 to 1990; there was something like 89 earthquakes. from 1990 to 2000 there were just over 200. and they get progressively worse. if you graph earthquake frequency with the loss of ice; you'll see they run together proving this cause.
this is only one facet NEVER mentioned on this board except by me.
or how about this; canada's tundra is held together by ice. when that ice softens; an earthquake will cause the tundra to stratify and slip into the sea. in alaska; an entire coastal town slipped into the sea when the ground stratified because of an earthquake.
I have read the IPCC reports....................very good reading. Non the less, I don't see how you can say an issue is "beyond debate". Regardless, the point that I was trying to make is that there is plenty of propoganda and deception for political reasons on both sides of the fence. There is always going to be people creating a perception of fear for their own personal gain, especially politicians. I tend to remain skeptical of things until I hear all of the facts from unbiased sources..............which seem to be few and far between.
there is no such thing as an unbiased source ... my opinion that it is beyond debate is just that - my opinion ... it's what my 5 years studying environmental science and 8 mths working for climate change groups has told me ...
yeah - everyone has an agenda - but what is the agenda for an environmentalist?? ... a sustainable clean planet? ...
Again, just to re-cap...in the IPCC's own words, they reach conclusions based on "confidence" and "likelihood." If you're comfortable with that then good luck to you. I'm curious though, why that part of the IPCC reports don't make it into any of your posts. You make these reports out to be gospel, yet right in the reports themselves they tell you not to take this information as indesputable fact! You can't quote a source and then select the part of the report that supports your argument. Well I guess you can, but it makes you sound very unconvincing.
So anyway, you were saying?
ha! ... did you read what you posted??
what part of anything you typed says that climate change isn't caused by man?? ... nothing!! ...
if the term "very likely" is not good enuf for you - so be it ... i can't control what level of certainty you hope to extract from words ... but the reality is we are suffering the impacts RIGHT NOW ... feel free to debate and cast doubt all you want ... that's your perogative ...
this just goes to show that people have no idea what they're talking about. first of all; bush didn't sign kyoto because it excluded developing nations. these are the biggest offenders and excluding them wouldn't make a difference in emissions. kyoto was just a political ploy to keep the masses happy. each one of us is responsable for controlling our emissions. nobody wants the government following them around. as for denying global warming; bush has a plan in motion to harvest helium3 from the moon. the first mission starts in 2008. harvesting helium3 will solve the earths energy problem for at least 1000 years.
truth be known; he went with the cure instead of the band aid.
bush didn't sign cuz of developing nations?? ... you don't seriously believe that do you? ... he also said there were WMD and nuclear weapons in iraq ... c'mon now!
there is no such thing as an unbiased source ... my opinion that it is beyond debate is just that - my opinion ... it's what my 5 years studying environmental science and 8 mths working for climate change groups has told me ...
yeah - everyone has an agenda - but what is the agenda for an environmentalist?? ... a sustainable clean planet? ...
There may not be a truly unbiased source, but there is a such thing as more biased and less biased. I want a cleaner environment as well, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go out on a quest to save the world without knowing that my method actually has the potential to solve whatever problem I'm trying to solve. And, in my opinion, the best way to figure out what will actually make a difference is by looking at ALL of the research and finding out what exactly is going on. If a physicist says that the argument by other scientists in other realms of science is physically impossible..........it seems logical that those other scientists might want to check into that instead of saying...."nope, our minds are already made up, it's non-debatable"..........unless they have a personal agenda hidden in their so called "enviromentalist" quest. Just because someone says they are an enviromentalist doesn't really mean that they actually know what they're talking about...............they may mean the best, but if they are basing all of their knowledge on inconclusive or extremely biased research, how much good are they really doing? Trying to fix a problem is a completely different thing than actually fixing it. I could try to repair an engine forever and never get it working without the right tools or information about how an engine actually works.
There may not be a truly unbiased source, but there is a such thing as more biased and less biased. I want a cleaner environment as well, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go out on a quest to save the world without knowing that my method actually has the potential to solve whatever problem I'm trying to solve. And, in my opinion, the best way to figure out what will actually make a difference is by looking at ALL of the research and finding out what exactly is going on. If a physicist says that the argument by other scientists in other realms of science is physically impossible..........it seems logical that those other scientists might want to check into that instead of saying...."nope, our minds are already made up, it's non-debatable"..........unless they have a personal agenda hidden in their so called "enviromentalist" quest. Just because someone says they are an enviromentalist doesn't really mean that they actually know what they're talking about...............they may mean the best, but if they are basing all of their knowledge on inconclusive or extremely biased research, how much good are they really doing? Trying to fix a problem is a completely different thing than actually fixing it. I could try to repair an engine forever and never get it working without the right tools or information about how an engine actually works.
ok?
sooo - you've read everything - what do you think?
yeah - everyone has an agenda - but what is the agenda for an environmentalist?? ... a sustainable clean planet? ...
Continued funding for their research. In general, research funding dollars are only given out to address issues. The more fear they can create around the issue the more funding they'll get. "Drilling for fear makes the job simple"
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
sooo - you've read everything - what do you think?
That's just my point. I don't think there is enough conclusive research out there. From the research I've seen as of yet, there's evidence that we may be effecting climate change...............Yet, there seems to be way larger forces that we have no control over effecting it on a far larger scale. I believe that the subject has been blown out of proportion on both sides, which is hindering the actual good information. I believe that much of the research is left out because it doesn't support the conclusion that some of the researchers or funders are trying to come to. I believer that more reliable research is needed before we waste all of our resources on an unreliable solution.
p.s. I haven't "read everything"................."everything" is yet to be published.
Continued funding for their research. In general, research funding dollars are only given out to address issues. The more fear they can create around the issue the more funding they'll get. "Drilling for fear makes the job simple"
Sad but true..............If people didn't think that our planet was dying, would the researchers really have a job? Not to say that our planet is or isn't dying of course, lol
what part of anything you typed says that climate change isn't caused by man?? ... nothing!! ...
if the term "very likely" is not good enuf for you - so be it ... i can't control what level of certainty you hope to extract from words ... but the reality is we are suffering the impacts RIGHT NOW ... feel free to debate and cast doubt all you want ... that's your perogative ...
Sorry, "very likely" isn't good enough now and it won't ever be. If it's good enough for you, then good luck to you. If you're stydying environmental science and "very likely" is an acceptable foundation on which to build a theory, then I think I've found the problem.
Come on man, I've read some of your other posts...I know you're smarter than you're pretending to be
#==(o )
You are not your job.
You are not how much money you have in the bank.
You are not the car you drive.
You are not the contents of your wallet.
You are not your fucking khakis.
Continued funding for their research. In general, research funding dollars are only given out to address issues. The more fear they can create around the issue the more funding they'll get. "Drilling for fear makes the job simple"
ok ... pretty cynical but i guess it's valid ... doesn't mean i agree but understanding what i know of you - i can see how you can have that viewpoint ...
That's just my point. I don't think there is enough conclusive research out there. From the research I've seen as of yet, there's evidence that we may be effecting climate change...............Yet, there seems to be way larger forces that we have no control over effecting it on a far larger scale. I believe that the subject has been blown out of proportion on both sides, which is hindering the actual good information. I believe that much of the research is left out because it doesn't support the conclusion that some of the researchers or funders are trying to come to. I believer that more reliable research is needed before we waste all of our resources on an unreliable solution.
p.s. I haven't "read everything"................."everything" is yet to be published.
everything is what is available to us now ... anyhoo - like i said - feel free to wait until you hear more ... i can't control what you read and how you dissect it but in MY opinion - this is the same as debating whether the earth is flat ...
Come on man, I've read some of your other posts...I know you're smarter than you're pretending to be
i would say this is the most assinine comment people type on message boards ... i'd rather be called an idiot ...
i'll give u the example i give everyone else who never responds ... what if i put 100 barrels of toxic waste in your bedroom ... will you wait for someone to say you will FOR SURE get cancer before you vacate or is "very likely" good enuf then?
everything is what is available to us now ... anyhoo - like i said - feel free to wait until you hear more ... i can't control what you read and how you dissect it but in MY opinion - this is the same as debating whether the earth is flat ...
Well, it's obviously undebatable to the person who is so close-minded that they won't take into account any further research proving that the world is in fact round...........
ok ... pretty cynical but i guess it's valid ... doesn't mean i agree but understanding what i know of you - i can see how you can have that viewpoint ...
This is how all research funding works, it's not an inditement of climate change research or funding, or an opinion that all climate change researchers have adopted this tactic.
David Suzuki has quite successfully been using this tactic for decades. But thne again the canadian government is a pretty easy mark for a snakeoil salesman like Suzuki.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Well, it's obviously undebatable to the person who is so close-minded that they won't take into account any further research proving that the world is in fact round...........
really? ... the world is round? ... :rolleyes:
i've read the stuff ... is anything you have peer-reviewed in any scientific journals? ...
This is how all research funding works, it's not an inditement of climate change research or funding, or an opinion that all climate change researchers have adopted this tactic.
David Suzuki has quite successfully been using this tactic for decades. But thne again the canadian government is a pretty easy mark for a snakeoil salesman like Suzuki.
lemme guess ... he has like 7 kids - must hate him ...
i've read the stuff ... is anything you have peer-reviewed in any scientific journals? ...
Actually, you're right, I hear that it's technically more of an oval shape, lol, but if you want to continue believing that it's round, that's perfectly fine by me :P
Actually, you're right, I hear that it's technically more of an oval shape, lol, but if you want to continue believing that it's round, that's perfectly fine by me :P
bush didn't sign cuz of developing nations?? ... you don't seriously believe that do you? ... he also said there were WMD and nuclear weapons in iraq ... c'mon now!
first; clinton gave saddam biologicals and nuclear capabilities so he did have them. we know because we gave them to him. in fact; after 9/11 extensive testing was done to see if the strain of anthrax being sent through the mail was the strain we gave him.
if you read the treaty; developing nations are exempt. that is why china jumped to sign it. developing nations include india; china; most of south and central america; new zealand; and many more. if this isn't a world effort; it's a waste of time.
Comments
I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. I'm trying to be convinced. I want to believe, but I'm not willing to just accept Al Gore and CBC and CNN and the rest of them simply at face value. I'm a little skeptical of anything that explodes into such a political issue so fast and I'm curious as to why there is some division between scientists if it's so easy for everyone else to see. Once both the US and Canadaian federal elections are done 18 months (or so) from now, I wonder if we re-visited the whole topic if it'll as big an issue then as it is now.
To be honest, I'm not even convinced by some of the points I have made myself (they were not all my opinions, I tried to use the most opposed viewpoints I could find) but I wanted to present them here in a Devil's Advocate type of role to get some input and see if I could learn a thing or two. Maybe it's my bad for not being up front with that, but I thought I was polite and respectful enough to everyone that I didn't really have to. Instead, I get answers like DUH..., and dude the facts are in, accept it...also very unconvincing arguments. I don't disagree with everything I've read that supports the argument that human activities have had a negative impact on this planet, I just don't eat it up like some people do.
Anyway...I'm out.
You are not your job.
You are not how much money you have in the bank.
You are not the car you drive.
You are not the contents of your wallet.
You are not your fucking khakis.
fair enough
but there is plenty of science around this - if you get past the hype of this and that - and do some reading - you will see that this is definitely the single biggest issue facing life on this planet ...
you're right in one thing - no one can truly know exactly what will happen or when it'll happen but we know it's not/hasn't been good ...
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?e9e9ac7e-64b1-4fc5-a8ae-fe52f699adac
read the ipcc reports - they ARE the scientific community ... a nuclear scientist is not a climatologist ...
uhhh ... sorry - but this issue is beyond debate now ... i don't really wanna rehash what has been discussed too many times on here already ... all i'm saying is if you really care to find out - read the ipcc reports ...
truth be known; he went with the cure instead of the band aid.
Please feel free to NOT DEBATE then.
But if you're reading further, let me ask you...have you read the IPCC reports? I just did. Not every single one, but the last one from May 4 in Bangkok.
Go to section G. It explains in full detail how their conclusions are reached...in the IPCC'S OWN WORDS:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf
G. Gaps in knowledge
There are still relevant gaps in currently available knowledge regarding some
aspects of mitigation of climate change, especially in developing countries.
Additional research addressing those gaps would further reduce uncertainties and
thus facilitate decision-making related to mitigation of climate change [TS.14].
Endbox 1: Uncertainty representation
Uncertainty is an inherent feature of any assessment. The fourth assessment report clarifies
the uncertainties associated with essential statements.
Fundamental differences between the underlying disciplinary sciences of the three Working
Group reports make a common approach impractical. The “likelihood” approach applied in
"Climate change 2007, the physical science basis" and the “confidence” and “likelihood”
approaches used in "Climate change 2007, impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability" were
judged to be inadequate to deal with the specific uncertainties involved in this mitigation
report, as here human choices are considered.
In this report a two-dimensional scale is used for the treatment of uncertainty. The scale is
based on the expert judgment of the authors of WGIII on the level of concurrence in the
literature on a particular finding (level of agreement), and the number and quality of
independent sources qualifying under the IPCC rules upon which the finding is based
(amount of evidence33) (see Table SPM.E.1). This is not a quantitative approach, from which
probabilities relating to uncertainty can be derived.
Table
***THERE IS A TABLE HERE EXPLAINING THE DIFFERENT WAYS DECUCTIONS ARE MADE***
Amount of evidencea) (number and quality of independent sources)
a) “Evidence” in this report is defined as: Information or signs indicating whether a belief or proposition is
true or valid. See Glossary.
25 Because the future is inherently uncertain, scenarios i.e. internally consistent images of
different futures - not predictions of the future - have been used extensively in this report.
Again, just to re-cap...in the IPCC's own words, they reach conclusions based on "confidence" and "likelihood." If you're comfortable with that then good luck to you. I'm curious though, why that part of the IPCC reports don't make it into any of your posts. You make these reports out to be gospel, yet right in the reports themselves they tell you not to take this information as indesputable fact! You can't quote a source and then select the part of the report that supports your argument. Well I guess you can, but it makes you sound very unconvincing.
So anyway, you were saying?
You are not your job.
You are not how much money you have in the bank.
You are not the car you drive.
You are not the contents of your wallet.
You are not your fucking khakis.
Shit, does that mean we're going to start arguing about lunar climate change?
You are not your job.
You are not how much money you have in the bank.
You are not the car you drive.
You are not the contents of your wallet.
You are not your fucking khakis.
in general; people know maybe 25% to 30% of the true facts about global warming. they believe the bits they want to and ignore the bits they don't want to think about.
to prove my point; who on this board has realized that as the ice melts; it distributes it's weight around the globe? this change in pressure on the plates will and has been causing an increase in earthquakes. it has to. from 1980 to 1990; there was something like 89 earthquakes. from 1990 to 2000 there were just over 200. and they get progressively worse. if you graph earthquake frequency with the loss of ice; you'll see they run together proving this cause.
this is only one facet NEVER mentioned on this board except by me.
or how about this; canada's tundra is held together by ice. when that ice softens; an earthquake will cause the tundra to stratify and slip into the sea. in alaska; an entire coastal town slipped into the sea when the ground stratified because of an earthquake.
there is no such thing as an unbiased source ... my opinion that it is beyond debate is just that - my opinion ... it's what my 5 years studying environmental science and 8 mths working for climate change groups has told me ...
yeah - everyone has an agenda - but what is the agenda for an environmentalist?? ... a sustainable clean planet? ...
ha! ... did you read what you posted??
what part of anything you typed says that climate change isn't caused by man?? ... nothing!! ...
if the term "very likely" is not good enuf for you - so be it ... i can't control what level of certainty you hope to extract from words ... but the reality is we are suffering the impacts RIGHT NOW ... feel free to debate and cast doubt all you want ... that's your perogative ...
bush didn't sign cuz of developing nations?? ... you don't seriously believe that do you? ... he also said there were WMD and nuclear weapons in iraq ... c'mon now!
ok?
sooo - you've read everything - what do you think?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
p.s. I haven't "read everything"................."everything" is yet to be published.
Sorry, "very likely" isn't good enough now and it won't ever be. If it's good enough for you, then good luck to you. If you're stydying environmental science and "very likely" is an acceptable foundation on which to build a theory, then I think I've found the problem.
Come on man, I've read some of your other posts...I know you're smarter than you're pretending to be
You are not your job.
You are not how much money you have in the bank.
You are not the car you drive.
You are not the contents of your wallet.
You are not your fucking khakis.
ok ... pretty cynical but i guess it's valid ... doesn't mean i agree but understanding what i know of you - i can see how you can have that viewpoint ...
everything is what is available to us now ... anyhoo - like i said - feel free to wait until you hear more ... i can't control what you read and how you dissect it but in MY opinion - this is the same as debating whether the earth is flat ...
i would say this is the most assinine comment people type on message boards ... i'd rather be called an idiot ...
i'll give u the example i give everyone else who never responds ... what if i put 100 barrels of toxic waste in your bedroom ... will you wait for someone to say you will FOR SURE get cancer before you vacate or is "very likely" good enuf then?
David Suzuki has quite successfully been using this tactic for decades. But thne again the canadian government is a pretty easy mark for a snakeoil salesman like Suzuki.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
really? ... the world is round? ... :rolleyes:
i've read the stuff ... is anything you have peer-reviewed in any scientific journals? ...
lemme guess ... he has like 7 kids - must hate him ...
uhhh ... i think oval is considered round ...
first; clinton gave saddam biologicals and nuclear capabilities so he did have them. we know because we gave them to him. in fact; after 9/11 extensive testing was done to see if the strain of anthrax being sent through the mail was the strain we gave him.
if you read the treaty; developing nations are exempt. that is why china jumped to sign it. developing nations include india; china; most of south and central america; new zealand; and many more. if this isn't a world effort; it's a waste of time.