Search results

Turbulence in the middle? lol Indigestion, I think it's called.

Yeah, it does, but ecologies all develop with specific environmental elements, and what we do is we take elements from other environments and strwew them around to places they haven't been before. For instance, oil is the biggie. The planet had a way of dealing with oil in the places it had oil...

No, it doesn't. Their concern is not the planet. Their concern is the $ and how cheaply they can keep up with change forced by pressures from people and governments.

Apparently, they are.

Unreal? roflmao That from the "American Thinker"? That guy is no more an expert on climate change than I am. He writes about everything having to do with politics from "Dumbya" to "shoelaces" and is as much an expert on things as Sir Pompa ... Joke is.

Peer review is peer review. Most scientists being pressured to say something against their views would balk. There are some that can be bribed, as in any other profession, but most are not stupid. I bet there isn't a scientist around that doesn't know what a "theory" is or what "supersaturation"...

Perhaps a review of what the word "theory" means in the scientific world would clarify things for you. [FONT=times new roman,times][SIZE=3][U] You might want to look up the word "supersaturation" while you are looking up the definition of "theory".

Wrong. But, you can always claim that ignorance is bliss.

Wrong, it's partly the result of natural cycles and the misuse of technology.

So your decision is all political and not scientific. That figures. Who cares what science says, politicians say we have AGW so the science must be nuts when it says we have AGW. Right .... I see. I've changed my mind twice so far on this issue and it's been because I have seen a lot of science...

Actual pollution? Like what? You don't think we can pollute the air? You don't think a high CO2 concentration can harm anything? China's actions bug me to no end. They had a great opportunity to start off developing clean to begin with but no, they had to start off like we were in the 60s.

And the evidence saying we can't influence climate is irrefutable? lmao Apparently the bug is pretty choosy about temperatures, food sources, habitat, and that sort of thing. http://www.usu.edu/beetle/documents/Logan_Powell01.pdf He didn't say so. They'll have to eventually, along with hydro...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/last2000-large.jpg

I was looking at a graph one time that showed regular warming/cooling cycles ove a long period of time, but the latest warming period (the one we are in now) has been extended much longer than the other warming periods. It's posted in here somewhere. It made me wonder why this warming cycle is...

Cliffy, I think you're right about there being a lack of intelligent life amongst most humans. I haven't seen such a dismal display of ignorance about science for a long time.

So? I haven't seen any evidence not full of holes that says we can't influence climate. Concerning the beetle kill, it is exascerbated by global warming and the evidence points towards a human influence on climate. Besides, I was mostly retorting to Walter's ignorant statement that "There is no...

Well, one of them anyway. There have been other worldwide scandals.

The real myth here is that there is a GW myth.

Really? I don't particularly like the thought of my great grandkids growing up in environments like these either: Yes, it is alarming.

We can't change a thing in nature. We cannot affect a thing. No poisons accumulating at the tops of the food chains, no rainforests have been mowed down, fresh water resources are overfull, the stratosphere is full of ozone, we haven't eliminated hundreds of species of plants and animals, there...