<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Nov 6 2006, 08:09 AM) [snapback]344425[/snapback]</div> Now that's what I call a time-saver. I haven't read all of them, but the ones I have read seem about right. If they'd just have put a unique number on each bullet we could just refer to the numbered bullet there rather than hash it out all over again here. Until such time as somebody drags up some truly new objection. Thanks, great site.
Great link. I just use the following sillogism: 1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas 2. The levels of atmospheric CO2 will rise to unprecedented levels in the next few years. 3. Ergo: there will be a greenhouse effect. You can argue about to what extent but then you can say: "Would you risk yours and your family's life on it?"
Well, unprecedented in the last 650K yr anyways. CO2 levels have been much higher in the distant past.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Nov 6 2006, 08:37 AM) [snapback]344504[/snapback]</div> And now that we have the Prius... it must be the fault of hybrids!
I explain that, millions of years ago, before nature knew how to process cellulose, trees didn't biodegrade the way they do now. And the atmosphere, since it was carbon-rich, was volatile and unsuitable for sustaining life. As time passed, the layers and layers of dead trees became buried. And, in the process, locked a lot of carbon inside the earth. As that happened, the atmosphere became more and more able to support life. Now, we're taking the carbon back *out* of the earth, and putting it back into the atmosphere. Any guesses as to what might happen?
There was plenty of life! But there weren't 6 billion humans consuming insane amounts of... everything. The planet was able to support life just fine until you get back over a couple of billion years. Stromatolites changed the makeup of the atmosphere over eons and eventually poisoned themselves (largely) to extinction. We're doing something similar now, but at a MUCH faster rate.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Nov 6 2006, 05:09 AM) [snapback]344425[/snapback]</div> Perfect resource - for those who can't think for themselves.
Ah, so you justify spouting uneducated, made-up opinion in contradiction to all those who have actually done real scientific research as "thinking for yourself". I see. Some of us know our limits, and rely on the mass of real scientific experts out there. Of course, maybe I've got you wrong, and if I search the scientific literature I'll find a few papers by TimBikes... :lol:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Nov 7 2006, 02:37 AM) [snapback]344869[/snapback]</div> I see you're an advocate of Truthiness, TimBikes.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Nov 6 2006, 10:56 PM) [snapback]344871[/snapback]</div> I don't recall justifying "spouting" anything. If you want to find the experts and unbiased viewpoints, Coby Beck on Gristmill is probably not your best source. B)
