Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stu
It's the same blatant wedge strategy used by the tobacco companies. It depends on the public not being able to discern between a scientific argument, and an argument which merely sounds scientific.
|
Would that be the scientific arguements found in the, to be kind, slightly exaggerated film An Inconvienent Truth? But, I digress. I'm still trying to learn what is acceptable warming of the planet.
Mankind is part of the enviorment, and like all other parts of the enviorment, his actions have effects on the enviorment. Now, if gw comes to it's most dire pass, we will see massive flooding of coastal areas, as I understand it. My question then is, since this has been the case in earlier times, what would we do if this "crisis" was NOT the result of mankinds effect on the enviorment?
In other words, the planet has warmed and cooled before, as it will continue to do. At what point do we interfere with this process to avoid the inevitable results?
As an aside, I didn't know a scientific truth could be arrived at by who opposes it.
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
Music on the Wind -
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|