> -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 2:20 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: global warming my eye > > No, I have been saying all along that the climate has been cyclical and > that > what we are seeign now could jut sbe a natural part of that cycle. My > reasons for saying we need to expand beyond the 150 years (or more) of > data > is so that we can see the cycles that have been taking place and where > we > currently are in those cycles.
You said: "Where is the proof? We are basing the whole 'global warming' thing on about 150 years of data. The Earth is billions of years old. Statistically, we have a minuscule (some might argue, insignificant) amount of data on which to base this opinion (in either direction)." And now you're suggesting that we DO have enough evidence to suggest that this is part of a natural cycle but NOT enough to suggest that our actions may be involved? Which is it? Either we have enough information to make suppositions or we don't. If we do then there are clearly (at least) several possibilities - and you'll either need to suggest evidence that supports your specific supposition or evidence that challenges another. As far as I can tell you're still just cherry-picking: accepting that evidence that supports your arbitrary position and rejecting that which does not... even when it's the same evidence. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:283442 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
