toscano said:
At the time, the experts I cited were in the majority, just as you claim that today most "experts" say that global warming is taking place. In fact there is historical evidence that a large gathering of court jesters and strolling musicians took place in an event called "Live Flat"
I'm not saying that global warming ISN'T happening, just being a tad skeptical, especially when somoene like Gore comes in at the 11th hour to add his weight to it, someone who owes much of his considerable wealth to the raping of the environment.
Models are exactly that, models. They prove NOTHING. They can't even get the weather forecast right half the time here in Southern California, a wild assed guess based upon experience is more accurate. And that is for predicting the next day !
Are we wasting resources ? Yes. Should we be more environmentally conscious as a good practice ? Yes. Are biofuels a good thing ? Yes to lessen dependence on the middle east. Not necessarily for the environment. Is global Warming happening ? Maybe. Maybe not. It's not happening because Gore jumped on the bandwagon and said it is, and not because of nameless "experts" coming out of the woodwork, there are just as many out there who say it's a crock.
The church leaders were no experts. They just feared that when one dogma falls, the church will fall subsequently. And their power was lost during the enlightenment, when real experts came up and used their free minds.
Al Gore exaggerates, that's right. But in countries other than the US the sense for some change was well before Al Gore came up and his movie was produced.
Global warming is not a thing you believe in, or not. It's a threat likely to happen, and I don't know how it's with you, but I don't want to use trial and error to find out only because I want to be right.
Weather and climate is not the same at all. Weather is locally and very restricted in time. Climate is long-term and a large region.
The weather forecast is very inaccurate because tiny changes in pressure and other factors not predictable can have a huge influence on the actual weather outcome.
The models, data, and whatnot used to predict the climate change over the next fifty years are based on huge databases (the database for the climate project in Hamburg is the largest in the world of all databases that exist).
Everything has shown that there will be a change, and of course there is "best case" and "worst case" and "realistic case". But none of these cases predicted a stable climate.
Of course there is some possibility left that we get proven wrong. But again, do you really want to find out only to be able to say in the end "Oh, I was wrong." or "Yes, I was right and you followed this stupid climate change theory"?
We have the technic and resources to do something against it, and it will not that bad economically as some try to argue. In fact, some businesses will find it harder, some easier, and many new will be created. A normal fluctuation that always has taken place.
It's not only to get less dependent on Arab oil, which is very important as well. But it's also to provide some better future for our next generations, and to improve our very own standard of living (clean air for example).
There's much more than just biofuels.
I highly doubt there are "as many out there who say it's a crock."
Just imaging U2 playing there.
I guess there's a reason you don't debate this in FYM, because you wouldn't last 2 posts...
