> Global Warming is a lot of hot air. > > There is no way, in the slender slice of environmental history we have, that > we can accurately predict the effects of carbon dioxide.
nope .. 100 years is nothing to the planet. It's rather egotistical of humans to think they could so dramaticly affect the planet in that small amount of time. > Temperature changes are all part of the earth's cycle. The theory below is > new to me, but I've reads, seen, heard many scientists say much the same > thing -- we can't really tell if the rise in temperature of the last 100 > years is the result of pollution or a normal cycle ... and is something that > will continue to some extreme, or gently slide back the other way? We just > don't know. The argument was rather convincing. I'm certainly more inclined to believe it over "global warming". Sure the globe might be warming, but I'm pretty sure it's not because of our lame efforts. Nature could easily wipe us all out without too much trouble. I love the position that "we are destroying the Earth" .. whatever. We can't destroy Earth. The best we can do is make the current environment hostile to human life. I'm sure Earth will simply blink and say .. "Well, humans were a mistake." and the go on with life. > So spending billions of dollars to fix a problem that we don't even know if > it's a problem or not doesn't make a lot of sense. I agree. The money could be better spent creating a backup plan for when Earth evicts us. Todd ----- Todd for President Nuking the world to give another species a chance to make humans look like another failed biological experiment, for a better tomorrow. ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
