Science doesn't care how you feel about what it finds. Science gives you results, not morals.
since CLIMATEGATE we, your readers, all know that most of your "evidences" are proven wrong, because scientists created false papers and false expertise's. So what?
Will you correct all your wrong arguments proven by imaginary data written by OIL-Cons payed so called "scientists"?
We all wait for your corrected articles!
Hans from Austria
Why cannot 21st century scientists properly understand the basics of physics and chemistry that were known over a hundred years ago? It is due to the corrosive influence of an atheist worldview: if all life in the universe, and all the complex processes on earth, came about by chance, then everything is a fluke – it’s just a one in a quadrillion chance that it all came right on the night. This gives rise to the mentality that the slightest disturbance will upset this highly improbable chance arrangement, so highly unstable systems and positive feedbacks are to be expected and feared. Anthropogenic catastrophism thus flows naturally from atheism, and belief in anthropogenic catastrophism feeds atheism. However, in a worldview that holds that the universe and all life was purposefully designed then one would expect there to be very strong negative feedbacks and ultra-stable systems, because this is what a good designer would do – design extremely robust systems with extremely robust processes for extremely complex organisms that are to flourish for thousands of years.
Here's what we need to do: We need to stop one volcano from erupting. That will in one fell swoop compensate for any damage our carbon emissions have created.
Problem: Solved. You're welcome.
Almost as scary as people walking around with little global-warming catechisms, so they can pull them out and incant their beliefs to benighted family and friends at holiday get-togethers. The demand for "belief" in itself is a pretty good indication that you're dealing with a cult.
Some people think "troll" means "a person who has a different opinion than I do." This is really scary.
and our "carbon offsets" involve destroying forests and habitats in the third world to plant our carbon sink single-plant farms. The hysteria is making things worse.
One person? One person who interviewed a ton of top-echelon climate scientists. I don't just believe one person. Again, I must point to the podcast. It's a nice start, and I'd love to hear if you can find ways to avoid feeling some skepticism after hearing about his research on the matter.
It doesn't follow that reducing CO2 is the best answer to the problem. It could be that it makes more economic sense to relocate people worst-affected by global warming than to shock the global economy by trying to move off fossil fuels.
Maybe geo-engineering is the cheapest answer - block out a small percentage of sunlight with sulphur dioxide shot high into the atmosphere.
I was pretty heart-broken hearing about the damage these carbon sinks are causing.
« Older Stoney Knows How... | Eminem's "Lose Yourself" re-en... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt