Ryan,
There is also significant evidence that global temperatures have increased inversely to the number of pirates. Check out that data.
http://www.venganza.org/about/op...ut/open-letter/
Its a much more logical answer than pollution, greenhouse gases, etc...
On a serious note, collecting data on sun spots from hundreds to thousands of years ago must be difficult if not impossible to do with any degree of accuracy. Also, in the last 2-3 decades, it seems the number is leveling off while the earth continues to warm. While I think there is some basis to the page (arguing that there could be a number of factors at play), it does nothing to discredit the liklihood that human actions are playing a major role in this.
I only wonder how many more credible groups of scientist must come to the same conclusion before doubters of this theory go the way of the flat-earth society; I think we're already close to that point.
Yeah yeah yeah, Mike. Just like we all should have listened to all the same scientists 30 yrs. ago when the new ice age was upon us. Oh, but gee -- they were wrong then, but they know for certain they're right now ... in only 30 yrs.! (I always wondered if the increase in GH gasses in the last quarter century was actually hailed by these scientists b/c it would help forestall global cooling. I mean, why not?)
Most of us don't have a quibble with global warming; what we quibble with are inane reactions to it (see yours above) and the proposed "solutions." To claim that man's contribution to warming -- less than a speck of time in the whole of earth's age -- is the most significant factor in global climate change is beyond arrogance.
If this is a decided issue, why are there so many people demanding we all believe in it?
Hube - not to rub it in, but I wasn't alive 30 years ago. But I am alive now and hopefully will be for many many years to come. This is one of those things where any error should be on the side of caution, not reckless abandon. If the scientists are wrong and we reduce emissions of dangerous gasses anyway, the worst we get is cleaner air. I'm ok with that.
Also, I see the Bush administrations' denial of global warming to be part of a larger pattern that more or less declares war on science, from discounting embryonic stem cells to discouraging the teaching of evolution and geologic history (did you know that there is pressure coming from them to stop teaching the actual age of the Grand Canyon because some people find it offensive?)
Personally, I would rather look at science and the data than operate on blind faith.
discounting embryonic stem cells to discouraging the teaching of evolution and geologic history
1. Embryonic stem cells are not really necessary (which is why there is little to no private research being done with them).
2. I have no problem with teaching the theory of evolution, but even as someone pretty much believes in evolution, there is not a lot of hard physical evidence in the fossil record to point to marcoevolution (one kid of a thing evolving into another over time (fish to amphibian maybe).
3. What exactly is the context of that grand canyon thing?
Personally, I would rather look at science and the data than operate on blind faith. So blind faith in science is acceptable? I think science is great, and that we can learn a lot of it, especially with a healthy discussion as part of it. Some of the great scientific discoveries were spawned by disproving commonly accepted theories, like spontaneous generation.
Science isn't about blind faith; its about evidence, hypothesis, research, etc. Truthfully, science on the level of global climate is more difficult because situations cannot be recreated in the lab, but that does not mean that the results that they find are less meaningful.
As far as the evolution thing, there is pretty good DNA evidence that combines with physical evidence and the fossil record that has advanced the theory (a word that has a very different meaning in science than in other areas). While leaps forward have been made, there has been little to no movement backwards.
As far as the Grand Canyon thing, it was probably less dramatic than those involved made it sound, but it really causes an outrage among geologists. I found a brief article on it here:
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id....php?
row_id=801
Commenting by HaloScan
