So were basing the argument on one specific area on a 100 year period? How about the earth as a whole, and consider the fact the earth is a few billion years----well that puts at boiling in some places in a few hundered years--------oh but I forgot, we wont be here so who cares?
So were basing the argument on one specific area on a 100 year period? How about the earth as a whole, and consider the fact the earth is a few billion years----well that puts at boiling in some places in a few hundered years--------oh but I forgot, we wont be here so who cares?
Yea, it's not like the Earth has been warming since the last Ice Age... I mean it's not like the Earth has ever been covered by water before... That right there would just be crazy talk. We all know the temperature of the Earth isn't a cyclical thing.
I agree Laker....and we should alble able to see and agree that either side of the arguement can find "scientists" to unequivocally PROVE their side of the issue. It is the independent scientists without a vested interest or without a political/financial agenda that should be most looked at---and those scientists believe in climate change which humans effect by a vast majority. Very little science is ever proven, it is fully of theories that people accept. Im afraid the risks of not believing the evidence on this one is more dangerous than doing nothing. This can also be a great economic gain for the US and a new way to lead the world in generating energy, but it seems again we are too tied to our love of oil which will hurt us even further financially.
There are extreme views to the right and left. I was just posting one I found related to this topic, I guess the sovereignty part does over shadow what I was trying to point out. It was the point about the suit against Al Gore in England I meant to bring the attention to.
Comments