Nobody's saying our lifestyle is unfair, consuming more resources than is justified by our population but, to make that argument on FAULTY DATA is criminal. Science should be conducted by scientists not by the courts. Remember the whole "Earth is flat" thing? Science was determined by the courts back then too. Guess we really havent progressed that much after all.
Why dont you read the real DATA.... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/0 5/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=RR35B3DVK30UXQFIQMFCFF4 AVCBQYIV0
Uh actually again, no there is not.
Ice core samples show that, in the past, changes in CO2 have lagged behind global changes in temp by around 800 years. Global Warming Alarmists (GWAs) will try and tell you that CO2 had an effect once levels *did* start rising, but temps still fell for 800 years while CO2 levels continued to rise, so whatever caused temps to fall was something with a *far* greater influence on the climate than CO2. Whatever that 'something' was, when it decided it was time for temps to fall, CO2 became irrelevant.
Most of the 20th century's warming happened before the 1940s when mankind's CO2 production was pretty insignificant - so it was unlikely that is was caused by CO2.
When mankind's CO2 production really took off, during the Post War Economic Boom, temps actually fell.
And remember, mankind's CO2 production only accounts for around 5% of the total production of the planet as a whole, VOLCANOES produce far greater amounts of CO2 than mankind does by far.
And science is not decided by majority vote, either. So it doesn't matter how many scientists agree, it's quite possible that they are all wrong. It's happened *many* times before and they often tried to claim that they were right because it was what the "consensus" thought. When scientists use the word consensus, it usually means that the science it weak. No one would suggest that the Sun is the centre of the solar system because it's what the consensus believe. We know it is, because the evidence is clear and undeniable.
At the end of the day, all that matters is the scientific method. This requires that the scientists demonstrate that their theories match reality.
Actually , its GENERALLY ACCEPTED that there is no direct correlation between Co2 and global temp. The closest we've come to any sort of correlation is between solar activity and global temp.
Further question, what level of CO2 is good in your opinion or any other of the "generally accepted" scientists u think of?
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/8870/U+of+Washington+ to+Help+the+RIAA+Sue+Students
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/8852/Michael+Moore's+ 'Sicko'+appears+on+Google+Video
I was also wondering about the same thing, for is censorship any less wrong when it's done by the many instead of the few?
Nobody's saying our lifestyle is unfair, consuming more resources than is justified by our population but, to make that argument on FAULTY DATA is criminal. Science should be conducted by scientists not by the courts. Remember the whole "Earth is flat" thing? Science was determined by the courts back then too. Guess we really havent progressed that much after all. Why dont you read the real DATA .... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/0 5/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=RR35B3DVK30UXQFIQMFCFF4 AVCBQYIV0
Uh actually again, no there is not. Ice core samples show that, in the past, changes in CO2 have lagged behind global changes in temp by around 800 years. Global Warming Alarmists (GWAs) will try and tell you that CO2 had an effect once levels *did* start rising, but temps still fell for 800 years while CO2 levels continued to rise, so whatever caused temps to fall was something with a *far* greater influence on the climate than CO2. Whatever that 'something' was, when it decided it was time for temps to fall, CO2 became irrelevant. Most of the 20th century's warming happened before the 1940s when mankind's CO2 production was pretty insignificant - so it was unlikely that is was caused by CO2. When mankind's CO2 production really took off, during the Post War Economic Boom, temps actually fell. And remember, mankind's CO2 production only accounts for around 5% of the total production of the planet as a whole, VOLCANOES produce far greater amounts of CO2 than mankind does by far. And science is not decided by majority vote, either. So it doesn't matter how many scientists agree, it's quite possible that they are all wrong. It's happened *many* times before and they often tried to claim that they were right because it was what the "consensus" thought. When scientists use the word consensus, it usually means that the science it weak. No one would suggest that the Sun is the centre of the solar system because it's what the consensus believe. We know it is, because the evidence is clear and undeniable. At the end of the day, all that matters is the scientific method. This requires that the scientists demonstrate that their theories match reality.
Actually , its GENERALLY ACCEPTED that there is no direct correlation between Co2 and global temp. The closest we've come to any sort of correlation is between solar activity and global temp. Further question, what level of CO2 is good in your opinion or any other of the "generally accepted" scientists u think of?
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/8387/Canadian+copyrig ht+group+wants+new+taxes+to+pay+for+piracy