Yeah....funny how religion gets brought up and debated in a global warming thread. Back on track boys and girls! :D
I suppose the argument there could be that if what we are doing now is not causing GW, then how can what we be doing be affecting the natural order of things? Either we affect GW or we don't.
i don't disagree... thats the part that has yet to be conclusively proven... if we do not cause it then why should we be trying to stop it?? and does that effort have unintended consequence? these are valid concerns... just ask yourself, how often man has 'done stuff' that has ended with unintended consequence...
if we do not cause it then why should we be trying to stop it?? Good question...(though it's cyclical). We shouldn't be. and does that effort have unintended consequence? Unintended? Well.....no. I think the radicals intended for it to cost the hell out of us. In retrospect, though.....we barely eluded the Y2K apocalypse. So, maybe I shouldn't be so skeptical.
Religion done gone and ruined things again. How in the &%^#$ does the bible get brought into global warming debate? As for my personal thoughts on the environment, I don't really buy into man causing global warming. However, as someone who spends a great deal of his life outside and breathing, I really feel there is a lot to be done to prevent pollution when it comes to waterways, and the air we breathe. I would like to see a lot less habitat destruction, population stability or even reduction practices more widely spread. Tighter pollution controls that don't overly inhibit progress. Remember, tighter controls that a company may need to make to pollute less, provides another company (mine) with jobs.
Whatever steps our government is trying to take to counter-act AGW (cap and trade was mentioned, I'm sure there are a few more I'm unaware of) ought to be argued separately from case for AGW itself. Scientists across the world have been warning of it for decades. Thousands of research papers have been published regarding it. Had conservatives and liberals, republicans and democrats, gotten together and worked out solutions acceptable to both parties, we'd be better off now. Now lines have been drawn, and the status quo is being defended tooth and nail. I guess I would defend it too if I thought me and mine would spend eternity sitting on a cloud. But I don't think there is going to be a "game over," and I'd like my descendents to have a healthy, clean world to live in. "In every deliberation, we must consider the impact on the seventh generation... " —Great Law of the Iroquois
As someone who obtained an environmental science degree, and works in the environmental field as an environmental "scientist", obviously I care about the environment. Hell, I'm my company's "environmental steward" that measures our company's annual "carbon footprint". But with that being said, human's need to swallow their pride and realize that we do not affect the Earth as much as we like to think. The Earth's mechanisms are truly remarkable. Yes, we do affect localized areas. I see it first hand every day. But on a global scale, we don't make that much of an impact.
I've known many scientists, and scientists as a whole are a quirky group of people. The majority (not all) begin research with some type of agenda. They will deny it, but it's the truth. They all have an agenda. And if a scientists get a theory that he/she believes in, they will defend it till they die. Scientists are stubborn like that. I'm not one to argue about politics, but I do believe that many scientists backed global warming theories solely to get world more focused on environmental issues. Not because they wholeheartedly believed that we were killing our planet.
I do not see how they should be argued separately. If Global Warming is a scam it is gonna come out of my hunting budget Our Leftist government is using GW to raise funds for "Green Energy" on our dime!!!
The globe is only a collection of localized areas. And no significant localized area is free of human impact. Even the pristine snows of the Antarctic are laced with mercury from human pollution. Easter island, scaled up, is Hispaniola. Hispaniola scaled up is the planet. We study history to learn from previous mistakes. The arrogance is that we think we can do it again and get away with it.
Fine, more people should recycle and stop cutting down so many trees. Case closed, nothing to see here, move along.
I seem to remember a Rightist government raising funds to secure "weapons of mass destruction" (read oil) on my dime too. At least the libs won't waterboard you to get you to do what they want.
This is not correct, there was strong bipartisan agreement on this directive. This directive had no effect on what we pay Iraq for oil as well, case closed.
LOL!!! I'm betting there was at least a quarter million kurds who wished you were right about Iraq not having WMD's! Too bad you can't voice an opinion, posthumously.
I don't disagree that Sadaam was a bad guy, and he did do some horrible things, but after desert storm he was more of a washed up dictator than a threat to our security. And there is at least a quarter million Africans in Darfur that wished we were not distracted and could have helped them out too. But I think the time has come for me to back out of this one too. I don't think anyone is going to change their opinions here like this, myself included (though my invitation is still open for links and well-reasoned convincing - please pm me). I don't want to perpetuate the bickering any longer, lets talk about something more fun. Eight months and a day until the western nc opener!
