hmm lets see photosynthetic liforms rely on co2 water and of course sun light, if there is more CO2 then they grow and reproduce faster(mostly talking about microbs and such) there fore consuming more CO2 other lifeforms consume these producers and in the consumption store a small part of the carbon in their systems...the process of a nature cycle expands with this..now I can say yess pollution could cause global warming or do people try to make money from fear of a "global crisis"...now in my opinion those who try to promote nuclear power are worse then carbon emitters because there is no life that can live on radiation....in fact most planets other then the living Earth have extreme amounts or radiation....so Global Warming from human pollution is just a hoax now there is evidence that the Earth goes threw climate cycles of heating and cooling supposly we are also late for a cooling period...a couple 10,000 years i think
Graham i dont know what communist things al gore and the government are putting into your head but unless you can prove that im wrong im beleiving Dr.Gray who says its natural.
Graham i dont know what communist things al gore and the government are putting into your head but unless you can prove that im wrong im beleiving Dr.Gray who says its natural.
no im not your the ones believing everything thats thrown at you without question you have too look at the otherside even though theres less people that believe what i do what i believe is true.
no im not your the ones believing everything thats thrown at you without question you have too look at the otherside even though theres less people that believe what i do what i believe is true.
Look around, theres millions of idiots like you going to websites with "truth" in their domain name. And stupid anonymous blogs.
Boo hoo, the government does something you don't like, doesn't mean theres a conspiracy.
well the government is a conspiracy and no im not an idiot and neather are the millions of people who beleive what i do but i said there werent many because millions there about6.5 billion people on earth.
Graham i dont know what communist things al gore and the government are putting into your head
extremist
no im not your the ones believing everything thats thrown at you without question [quote]unless you can prove that im wrong im beleiving Dr.Gray who says its natural.
Graham i dont know what communist things al gore and the government are putting into your head
extremist
no im not your the ones believing everything thats thrown at you without question [quote]unless you can prove that im wrong im beleiving Dr.Gray who says its natural.
We are a natural organism. But we cannot be compared to any other natural organism because there is none like us on this Earth. We interact with our environment in a different way and are of greater intelligence.
Ex. Rather than adapt to our environment like most organisms, we adapt our environment to us.
i'd like to see a double blind procedure. empirical is simply observations.
Yes.
They are based upon current trends of emissions and their growth.
Can't be basing the future on the past.
do you not think that as habitants of this Earth we have a duty to minimise the negative impact we have on the planet?
I can see the validity of both sides. But I do believe we have a duty to minimize the negative impact of the Earth, but if you think this belief indicates a belief in Global Climate Change you would be wrong.
I hope you enjoy your rice. Also, say goodbye to cheap meat.
I love rice And expensive meat is a good thing, it should not be available to the common man, it is an unnecessary luxury. The over-consumption of meat by North America and China is horrific.
Do remember that it's an average increase.
I will
Why's that a good thing?
...Well. The phramaceutical industry thinks it's a good thing =P
Personally I don't think it's fair that rich industrialised nations that can afford to deal with the situation cause this crisis which then has a detrimental affect on the totally unprepared 3rd world.
Life isn't fair.
but doesn't really apply to this problem because of the overhwlming amount of empirical evidence.
First off, we are dealing with quantitative data. Cold facts.
Experimenter bias can exist when it all comes down to cold facts. These facts are slightly warm
It is illegal to mine on the poles
The past does not dictate the future. Why do you think natiosn are arguing over Arctic Soverignty? It's not because they like the cold =P
We are a natural organism. But we cannot be compared to any other natural organism because there is none like us on this Earth. We interact with our environment in a different way and are of greater intelligence.
Ex. Rather than adapt to our environment like most organisms, we adapt our environment to us.
I think you'll find the opposite is true. Almost all animals adapt their environment to themselves in some way. Ants building ant hills. Beavers building dams. It's just the same as humans building cities, the only difference being scale.
Can't be basing the future on the past.
That's how all models work. Would you rather we completely discounted what went before and just guessed?
I can see the validity of both sides. But I do believe we have a duty to minimize the negative impact of the Earth, but if you think this belief indicates a belief in Global Climate Change you would be wrong.
That's not what I was suggesting. I was simply stating that even if you don't believe in climate change, a lot of the things that could come out of it ie., cleaner, more sustainable methods of living are not something to be shunned.
Life isn't fair.
No it's not. I was merely stating my opinion.
Experimenter bias can exist when it all comes down to cold facts. These facts are slightly warm
Yes it can exist, but after years of scrutiny from other scientists this bias will be found out, and the theory discredited.
The past does not dictate the future. Why do you think natiosn are arguing over Arctic Soverignty? It's not because they like the cold =P
The current agreements in place dictate that for a change in policy to be reached over the issue of the Poles, the vote needs to be unanimous. The idea being that every single country is never ever going to be in full agreement and so the Poles remain untouched. It seems like a pretty safe arrangement to me.
