On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 01:53:22 GMT, GuidoXVI
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 22:27:05 +0000, Strider wrote:

Political arguments cannot be mathematically or scientifically solved.
Cures to global warming are presented as scientific fact. They are
just a stab in the dark.

That's what the changes you're complaining about are - public
policy, or more recently, non-policy.

That is my point. There is not enough proven data to justify large
social changes. Political arguments are rarely, if ever about
anything more than political power. Therefore they cannot be proven
mathematically. Were there enough verifialbe facts ( A causes B and C
will most likely fix it) there would be little argument.


Finish the debate. Present the facts. Then we'll talk.

The facts are readily available, and far too many for me
to go into here. As I said the first time, you can take the time to
understand the argument or BS. You're doing the latter. And frankly,
if you just BS'd in a way that wasn't implying that anyone who
disagreed with you was a lying ******* who needs to stop sniffing
that glue then I wouldn't have even responded. I often avail
myself of the opportunity to be stupid, I just try to show a little
humility while I'm doing it. You might want to do the same.

What facts are available fairly well proves that the climate is
warming up, at least over the last 150 years. The reasons for this
warming are theory. Therefore, any fix might theoretically work. The
question, then, is will this fix do the job or will it make the
situation worse?

Excuse me but sniveling does seem to be a trait of the eco-nut.
Include your self or not in that illustrious herd, it's up to you.


Nova did a story not too long ago about measuring the
Antarctic ice cap. Take a look on the PBS website. That's a start,
at least. You can also do a Google search, or read books on biology,
physics, and climatology. All that boring stuff.

Nova just repeats the researcher's theories, presented as fact BTW,
and usually without bothering to let the viewer know that it's a
theror.

None of this is shown to be caused by humans. In fact, it can pretty
well be shown to have happened in the past, long before people could
have had a role.

You no doubt believe that smoking has never been proved to
cause cancer. The mechanisms for CO2 production and distribution in
the atmosphere are well understood. Some of them have human causes.
No natural process creates CFCs in any quantity worth mentioning.
These are works of man.

(Straw argument, cancer, noted)

Your assumption that the greenhouse theory of global warming is man
made. I'd give you this one except that global warming and cooling
have happened many, many times in the past quite without the help of
humanity. I don't think they quite have a handle on those reasons as
of yet.

There have been wide variations in the earth's climate in
the past. There have been many different causes. This one, however,
is at least partly due to human actions. It can be at least minimized
by human actions as well.

Religion is about faithin something that cannot be proven. This is
exactly what the eco movement is about., faith is the unproven.

That there are people who take ecology as a religion is
unfortunate, but it doesn't mean there's not a problem. No more
than the existence of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson proves
there's no god.

Our debate is not about the existance of a problem. We agee the
climate is getting warmer right now. the debate is about the validity
of the theories on the reason.

Strider