Food for thought.

[Drawnnite]

dakster you seem to be missing the point on haxzaws point.
sure there is data for the past 150 years or so. and thats proven.
but where is the whole written evidence from those millions of years before that of all those climate changes and so forth.

evidence that has been recorded over the past 150 years does not equate to the entire knowledge of weather patterns for the past 500millions years or so.

not having a go at you, but you have to admit he does have a point
im not taking sides, just playing the devils advocate on this one.

 

[fuzzy2308]

my cats breath smells like cat food

My dog smiles with his tail

 

[DAKSTER]

dakster you seem to be missing the point on haxzaws point.
sure there is data for the past 150 years or so. and thats proven.
but where is the whole written evidence from those millions of years before that of all those climate changes and so forth.

evidence that has been recorded over the past 150 years does not equate to the entire knowledge of weather patterns for the past 500millions years or so.

not having a go at you, but you have to admit he does have a point
im not taking sides, just playing the devils advocate on this one.

Written evidence is not necessary when physical evidence is available. We have kept better, more accurate records of stuff for 150 years, but anecdotal records of many events date back thousands of years... and the evidence ( of what events and variations have occurred for many millions of years in terms of climate, air content, etc ) is abundant all over the planet via geological and archeological survey.

I'm not trying to be a doomsayer here, quite the opposite. It is my belief that the climate cycles naturally. It is also my belief that these cycles can be slowed or accelerated by human activity, and that this is currently occurring.

What I am saying is that if we can warm up the temperature of that small ball of water, to our detriment, by changing the content of that small ball of gas, also to our detriment.. why can't we do the opposite? Instead of climate change, we could have climate control, and lengthen the climatic cycle we live in rather than shorten it.

We can make the climate suit us. All we need is the will. We will fight for bovine freedom, and hold our heads up high. We will run free with the buffalo, or die.

 

[Troy711]

My dog smiles with his tail

I thought dogs smiled with their lipstick?

 

[DAKSTER]

I thought dogs smiled with their lipstick?

Now I am searching the dogs bed for lipstick lol I always thought he was a bit wierd

 

[acarmody]

Written evidence is not necessary when physical evidence is available. We have kept better, more accurate records of stuff for 150 years, but anecdotal records of many events date back thousands of years... and the evidence ( of what events and variations have occurred for many millions of years in terms of climate, air content, etc ) is abundant all over the planet via geological and archeological survey.

I'm not trying to be a doomsayer here, quite the opposite. It is my belief that the climate cycles naturally. It is also my belief that these cycles can be slowed or accelerated by human activity, and that this is currently occurring.

What I am saying is that if we can warm up the temperature of that small ball of water, to our detriment, by changing the content of that small ball of gas, also to our detriment.. why can't we do the opposite? Instead of climate change, we could have climate control, and lengthen the climatic cycle we live in rather than shorten it.

We can make the climate suit us. All we need is the will. We will fight for bovine freedom, and hold our heads up high. We will run free with the buffalo, or die.

Bugger bovine freedom, cow farts and burps, as well as the gases produced as the poo decomposes, is a problem. So my No. 1 effort to slow down global warming is to eat more beef!

 

[MorganVZ]

Written evidence is not necessary when physical evidence is available. We have kept better, more accurate records of stuff for 150 years, but anecdotal records of many events date back thousands of years... and the evidence ( of what events and variations have occurred for many millions of years in terms of climate, air content, etc ) is abundant all over the planet via geological and archeological survey.

I'm not trying to be a doomsayer here, quite the opposite. It is my belief that the climate cycles naturally. It is also my belief that these cycles can be slowed or accelerated by human activity, and that this is currently occurring.

What I am saying is that if we can warm up the temperature of that small ball of water, to our detriment, by changing the content of that small ball of gas, also to our detriment.. why can't we do the opposite? Instead of climate change, we could have climate control, and lengthen the climatic cycle we live in rather than shorten it.

We can make the climate suit us. All we need is the will. We will fight for bovine freedom, and hold our heads up high. We will run free with the buffalo, or die.

That would be great but there is no way that will ever happen. It's simply the way we are, nothing will be done until it is absolutely necessary. As much as we like to think we're all grown up and mature the fact is humanity is a lot like a high school student, we leave everything until the last minute because of the financial burden.

 

[Dr HaxZaw]

the effect humanity has on the climate is minute... for some reason humanity loves being full of its own importance and thinks it can change the course of nature

my other point being why bother with the climate when the money would be much better spent on feeding the starving people of the world rather than making those already rich feel happy that they can remain rich and be happy with the weather

 

[DAKSTER]

the effect humanity has on the climate is minute... for some reason humanity loves being full of its own importance and thinks it can change the course of nature

my other point being why bother with the climate when the money would be much better spent on feeding the starving people of the world rather than making those already rich feel happy that they can remain rich and be happy with the weather

oh really? please provide said information? lol joking, please don't. You are entitled to your opinion.

It seems to me that in terms of the survival of the species, it would be better to leave the starving people of the world starve and spend the money to ensure climate change, whether you see it as man made or natural, is under our control permanently. There are too many people anyway.

Fortunately I believe we can do both, and I don't support letting people starve, but severe action would be needed at some point, and the longer we wait the more severe it will be.

Better to get the boat motor serviced before you leave than have to drown 200 miles out to sea.

 

[Dr HaxZaw]

humans... unless they control everything they arent happy