2009-04-11, 11:02 PM
Thank you, Stereo. Glad to see someone who actually bothered to debunk the misleading statistics being used in this thread.
Like this:
Oh boy, 31,000 is such a lot bigger than 2,000. I almost forgot that you're comparing 31,000 scientists (of which there are millions in the world, hundreds of thousands in the U.S. alone) and 2,000 members of a specific climate science organization.
Grow up, people. So what if the Earth is entering a natural warming period? That doesn't mean we can't make it worse. And all data suggests that we are, and will, because we cannot stop the chain reactions occuring right now from the CO2 we emitted yesterday, or 10 years ago, or 100 years ago.
"Wait and see" isn't really an option when the possible effects are so devastating. It's like being in a room that's flooding and saying, "Oh, I'll just wait and see if it'll get high enough to drown me, and I bet it's not even my fault." By the time it gets obviously dangerous, it's too late for you to fix the problem, and unlike a person in a room, the human race cannot escape the Earth.
I've never seen Al Gore's movie. Don't treat one layman's-terms film as the basis of an entire debate, especially a debate that is so fundamentally scientific, and especially a film that is purposefully provocative.
Like this:
Petraj Wrote:The IPCC is composed of around 2,000 scientists correct? Lets ignore the fact that some scientists on that list either no longer support the panel and even threatened to sue to remove their names or had their names added without their consent. Seems like a mighty number, but how does that compare to 31,000 scientists who reject the "'global warming' agena"?
Oh boy, 31,000 is such a lot bigger than 2,000. I almost forgot that you're comparing 31,000 scientists (of which there are millions in the world, hundreds of thousands in the U.S. alone) and 2,000 members of a specific climate science organization.
Grow up, people. So what if the Earth is entering a natural warming period? That doesn't mean we can't make it worse. And all data suggests that we are, and will, because we cannot stop the chain reactions occuring right now from the CO2 we emitted yesterday, or 10 years ago, or 100 years ago.
"Wait and see" isn't really an option when the possible effects are so devastating. It's like being in a room that's flooding and saying, "Oh, I'll just wait and see if it'll get high enough to drown me, and I bet it's not even my fault." By the time it gets obviously dangerous, it's too late for you to fix the problem, and unlike a person in a room, the human race cannot escape the Earth.
I've never seen Al Gore's movie. Don't treat one layman's-terms film as the basis of an entire debate, especially a debate that is so fundamentally scientific, and especially a film that is purposefully provocative.