Ice age? Don't tell me you are one of those evolutionists? Next you'll be saying the world was not created in 7 days. Straight to hell for you
Also He was probably in violation of the working time act at that stage anyway.
Oh we're all real smart city slickersWhat Danny was saying is that we should get off our high horse, we have nowhere reached the stage were we can control the weather either for bad or for worse and either inadvertently or otherwise. Danny's reference to God has been pounced upon here to indulge in some very puerile religion bashing.
.
That's not what he said but it's a habit of the religious to take ridiculous statements and try to put a rational spin on themOh we're all real smart city slickersWhat Danny was saying is that we should get off our high horse, we have nowhere reached the stage were we can control the weather either for bad or for worse and either inadvertently or otherwise.
That's it, the last thing we need is people practicing what they preach.Danny's reference to God has been pounced upon here to indulge in some very puerile religion bashing.
Greens give me the pip, riding around on their bykes as if that could make a blind bit of difference. Arrogance and hubris of the highest water.
Don and Danny... now there's a meeting I'd like to be at! I think they'd get on; they have a lot in common.[/QUOTE]And if you are embarrassed by our rural politicians note that his views are shared by possibly the world's greatest city slicker, you know the one who is in with a very good chance of leading the most powerful country on earth before the year is out.
Is that "we" as in "I refute the overwhelming scientific evidence that suggest that mankind has contributed to global warming because I know better" or "we" as in "I accept that as a whole we need to change our ways but personally I don't need to change my own ways cause what difference can I make"?What Danny was saying is that we should get off our high horse, we have nowhere reached the stage were we can control the weather either for bad or for worse and either inadvertently or otherwise.
Or what about the AIDS scare. Around about 1990 the actuaries were telling us that before long more than half of all male deaths below the age of 50 would be as a result of AIDS. Life assurance rates naturally soared for said males. In the event, except for a few unfortunate pop singers the scare turned out to be largely a non event at least in these parts.
Sure, it's not as if the population has grown from 4 billion in the 1970's to 7.4 billion today with a minimum peek of 11 billion in 2100 and the possibility of no peek.Back a bit further still all the talk was of the "population explosion", there would not be enuff space on the planet by the year 2000 given world population growth.
There's little need to galvanise the international community to face the threat of things getting better.And so on and so on back to Nostradamus and before. Notice that we never get predictions of pending Nirvana and yet by and large we live in an unbelievably better place today than in previous centuries.
Indeed, it's not like the realistic assessment of impending crisis and the resultant actions of nations have mitigated any of the things you mentioned above. Sure just take Smallpox; that went away all by itself as well.So I share Danny and Donald's skepticism on global warming. Not to deny any scientific evidence but to question the age old human propensity to rush to an Armageddon like prognosis when faced with similar phenomena.
AIDS was never going to be the world threat because it was fairly clear how it spread and how to avoid it. I'd say most of the millions are in Sub-Saharan Africa where that message never got through...
Most of you are probably too young to have heard of Y2K. Let me tell you the story briefly. Just before this millenium was about to turn, the learned ones warned that because computers were badly programmed 1/1/2000 would precipitate a virtual armageddon. Zillions were spent in trying to prevent this catastrophe except notably in Italy who did a kinda DHR on the whole thing. The rest is history.
NASA have an excellent site detailing the cause and effect as will as linking to many reputable bodies which agree that it is real and it is man made.What exactly is it that the global warming believers know ?
The melting of the Greenland Ice Cap and it's impact on the saline levels in the sea could also be catastrophic as it is the salt levels within the sea which cause water to flow around the world, specifically between the Pacific and Atlantic.
wiki said:Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
Purple, try the following experiment. Empty a vase of fresh salt water down the sink, and then empty a vase of fresh water, see if you notice any discernable difference in flow. It is scientists coming up with these bizzarre predictions that make me skeptical.wiki said:These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.
- Indur M. Goklany, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior[149][150][151]
- Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [152][153]
- Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[154][155]
- Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[15
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?