this is complete idocy. industry contributes less than 2% to greehouse gas production. most greenhouse gasses come from NATURAL sources, i.e. geothermal activity. any idea how many tons of CO2 are spilled into the air by volcaones every year? These posts also fail to mention that in reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, we are also taking a necessary ingredient to the life of plants away. Plants do what again? Oh thats right, they generate O2 which humans need to survive! More CO2 = healthier plants at higher elevations = increased output in O2 levels for humans! yay! Before buying into irrational assumptions like "people are killing the earth," it might be wise to to take a larger look at our ecosystem, and its innerconnectivity, THEN build a conclusion as to what is good and bad--not before. This is the same irrational tripe that has been F*cking ecosystems around the globe with saving endangered species. Have any of these nature mongers bothered to think that maybe saving a dying species (species are born and die off all the time... mostly from NATURAL causes) could possibly have a negative impact on the ecosystem? of course not, there is no reasoning with irrational lunatics.
This is the most absurd and logically false statement i've ever heard. it is based on false assumptions that we cant prove anything. the logical conclusion of this idea is that knowledge doesnt exist. how utterly wrong. This only lends support to irrational arguments by the same irrational people who dreamed up global warming in the first place. THIS is the problem of the scientific community; it allows for idiot scientists to dream up stupid ideas, and by the acceptance of other idiot scientists that their own job cannot prove the first idiots wrong, they all of this idiocy must be right. Since analogies here seem to be in favor, here are just a couple. God exists because we cannot prove he doesnt. The universe is nothing because we cannot prove it is something. The moon really is cheeze because none of us have seen that it isnt, and photos of the moon cannot be proven either. What a ridiculous, dogmatic anti-science statement. Science has been proving things for decades. We have this technology because of the ability of science to prove that binary gate functions work as theorized. We have the provability of science to thank for airplanes. we have the provability of science to thank, that when i piss, i do not need to worry about urine shooting up into my face. Science has given us the opportunity to understand the world, to stop living in fear of an unknowable nature, slave to its circumstances. Any scientist who believes that his own profession is invalid on the basis that it cannot prove anything needs to jump on the comet with the rest of the quacks. Stop endorsing environmental crackpots who would have you give up this technology and gather berries until the day you die, or get eaten by animals who deserve more protection than people, by believing in their stupid, irrational ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
this is complete idocy. industry contributes less than 2% to greehouse gas production. most greenhouse gasses come from NATURAL sources, i.e. geothermal activity. any idea how many tons of CO2 are spilled into the air by volcaones every year? These posts also fail to mention that in reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, we are also taking a necessary ingredient to the life of plants away. Plants do what again? Oh thats right, they generate O2 which humans need to survive! More CO2 = healthier plants at higher elevations = increased output in O2 levels for humans! yay! Before buying into irrational assumptions like "people are killing the earth," it might be wise to to take a larger look at our ecosystem, and its innerconnectivity, THEN build a conclusion as to what is good and bad--not before. This is the same irrational tripe that has been F*cking ecosystems around the globe with saving endangered species. Have any of these nature mongers bothered to think that maybe saving a dying species (species are born and die off all the time... mostly from NATURAL causes) could possibly have a negative impact on the ecosystem? of course not, there is no reasoning with irrational lunatics.
This is the most absurd and logically false statement i've ever heard. it is based on false assumptions that we cant prove anything. the logical conclusion of this idea is that knowledge doesnt exist. how utterly wrong. This only lends support to irrational arguments by the same irrational people who dreamed up global warming in the first place. THIS is the problem of the scientific community; it allows for idiot scientists to dream up stupid ideas, and by the acceptance of other idiot scientists that their own job cannot prove the first idiots wrong, they all of this idiocy must be right. Since analogies here seem to be in favor, here are just a couple. God exists because we cannot prove he doesnt. The universe is nothing because we cannot prove it is something. The moon really is cheeze because none of us have seen that it isnt, and photos of the moon cannot be proven either. What a ridiculous, dogmatic anti-science statement. Science has been proving things for decades. We have this technology because of the ability of science to prove that binary gate functions work as theorized. We have the provability of science to thank for airplanes. we have the provability of science to thank, that when i piss, i do not need to worry about urine shooting up into my face. Science has given us the opportunity to understand the world, to stop living in fear of an unknowable nature, slave to its circumstances. Any scientist who believes that his own profession is invalid on the basis that it cannot prove anything needs to jump on the comet with the rest of the quacks. Stop endorsing environmental crackpots who would have you give up this technology and gather berries until the day you die, or get eaten by animals who deserve more protection than people, by believing in their stupid, irrational ideas.