> Scott wrote: > > Wait....wasn't it you who said: > a.) We don't know if there's global warming, and > b.) We don't know if there isn't global warming. > > Now you are saying there is irrefutable proof we have global warming.
The perceived discrepancy is based definitions. I'm using the term "global warming" as short-hand for "anthropomorphic al-gore-like global warming certainty" The irrefutable proof I referred to was not for "global warming" - my posts made that pretty clear. I stated that we'd probably need hundreds of years to prove "global warming". Now this is going to get complicated for you - so stay with me: I was making a distinction between the previously defined "global warming" and a climate trend that could be harmful to humans. Even if that trend is NOT "global warming". ^^^ you might want to read that twice In other words, I'm saying that we have irrefutable proof of an intra-decade warming trend. Further I'm saying that in 40-60 years - if the current trend continues - we'll have irrefutable proof of climate trend harmful to humans. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:308780 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
