|
|
 | | From: | Dave B | | Subject: | Global Warming May Have Caused Extinction | | Date: | 21 Jan 2005 16:53:34 -0800 |
|
|
 | I'd think it's a clear warning that Global Warming can have
destructive consequences especially when human effects are added on to
natural ones. When you get your info from the more reputable sources;
NAS, NASA, NCAR and equivalents(Not Right or Left, Green or Pink or
Blue) , it's not unreasonable to conclude human effects are very
signifant. If you doubt the veracity of such sources you just
committed yourself to getting information of less reliability and
credibility. If your mind is made up try Environmental Conservation
Organistion and equivalents for arguments "proving" the whole global
warming thing is a misguided beat-up or try the Green equivalents for
proof it'll be the end of the world. Both ends of that curved spectrum
end up meeting on the other side as they hype and spin with little
regard for truth in order to get there political message out. You can
be sure that within those types of orgs there is no ongoing
publication if you say things that don't fit there political position.
If the think tanks make their position sound credible regardless
that's because that's there job.
DB
|
|
| | From: | moorehead | | Subject: | Re: Global Warming May Have Caused Extinction | | Date: | 21 Jan 2005 18:38:43 -0800 |
|
|
|
Dave B wrote:
> I'd think it's a clear warning that Global Warming can have
> destructive consequences especially when human effects are added on
to
> natural ones. When you get your info from the more reputable sources;
> NAS, NASA, NCAR and equivalents(Not Right or Left, Green or Pink or
> Blue) , it's not unreasonable to conclude human effects are very
> signifant.
I disagree. You're basically stating this - we know the planet has
warmed slightly over the last century. We also know that any number of
things could be the cause, two being fossil fuel emmissions and
volcanic activity. The study that is about to appear in Science
Magazine conducted by respected scientists indicates a causitive
relationship between volcanic activity and catastrophic global warming,
as evidenced by the extinction of nearly 90 percent of all life on the
planet 250 million years ago due to volcanic activity. Yet, we're
going to continue to believe that for the warming that is happening on
earth NOW, today, fossil fuel emmissions are more likely to be the
causation, rather than volcanic activity? WHY? Where is the logic in
that supposition?
mj
|
|
|
