> gMoney wrote:
> 90%+ of the scientific community vs. 10%....and the 10% only say that there
> isn't enough evidence yet. Obvious.
>
Basically there are 3 places you could be in this debate:
(1.) The weather isn't changing
(1.a.) Do nothing because nothing is happening.
- Sam's position
(2.) It's changing but it's not due to Man (cycles theory).
(2.a.) We can't do anything because we're too simple, but
apparently smart enough to know it's not caused by Man.
- Robert's position
(3.) It is changing and we don't know why
(3.a.) We should gather more information via an expanded discovery effort.
(3.b.) We should change behavior immediately based on known theories.
(3.b.1) Carbon tax
(3.b.2) Global halt to all Greenhouse Gas emmission
(cows, rice paddys, etc)
(3.b.3) Atmospheric manipulation (GHG eaters,
particulate dispersal, etc)
I'm in the 3.a camp, but I could be convinced to go with 3.a & 3.b.1
depending on the level of action.
The concept that it's not happening seems ridiculous. The concept
that it is but we can't do anything ... well my self esteem isn't low
enough to believe that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
ColdFusion 8 - Build next generation apps
today, with easy PDF and Ajax features - download now
http://download.macromedia.com/pub/labs/coldfusion/cf8_beta_whatsnew_052907.pdf
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:244978
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
