Global Warming is a hoax.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]At the Aspen FACE site, effects of the greenhouse gases become obvious immediately upon stepping into the different rings. The forest patches receiving extra carbon dioxide have large, tall trees and a dense leaf canopy, under which a few scattered grasses compete for the little light that trickles through to the ground. Step next into a circle with elevated ozone, and the trees are shorter, with smaller trunks and a lower, lacier canopy. The ring is bright and sunny and the ground is hidden beneath thick understory growth two or more feet high.[/quote]

an interesting hard evidence in additoin to my ice and carbon mention.

[Deb]

Global Warming is real and moving along quite quickly, faster than even expected. To not take steps now to slow this down will only mean more and more disasters coming our way.

I don't even need scientists to tell me something is out of whack. I live in Minnesota and have my entire life. When we get 90 degrees in March, hot summers and major drought, humider than the south, a month of rain in the fall and January in November, we got something wrong going on here.
I may have to move to Canada if the summers get any worse.

But then again, maybe it is just all of God's plan and we may be seeing our Lord sooner than many expected. One can only hope.

Deb

[dairygirl4u2c]

i am moving a little more from being completley up in the air regarding whether with a little tilt towards humans are significatly a cause.. to a little more in the direction that they are significantly a cause.

al gore in his movie, an inconvenient truth:

"I went up to the North Pole. I went under that ice cap in a nuclear submarine that surfaced through the ice like this. This thing started patrolling in 1957. They have gone under the ice and measured with their radar looking upward to measure how thick it is because they can only surface where the thickness of the ice is 3 and half feet thick or
less. So they have kept a meticulous record and they wouldn’t release because it was national security. I went up there in order to persuade them to release them, and they did. And here’s what that record showed. Starting in 1970 there was a precipitous drop off in the amount and extent and thickness of the arctic ice cap. It has diminished by 40 percent in 40 years. There are two studies showing that in the next 50 or 70 years in summertime it will be completely gone."

i remember thinking a lot of questions when i watched his movie the first time, things like correlation doesn't imply causation, and how natural temperatures account for much of the heating. besides all the points i showed before, that by process of elimiation point the finger a lot at human causes.... there's the above quote i noticed better te second watch. to spell it out more... it's a little too coincidental that the last 40 years wold be so dramatic, the years of man's increase in activity in this regard.
this could also vindicate to a degree some of those graphs that only go back 2000 years... even though they don't show the whole ice age stuff... it's pretty coincidental it went up when it did.
nothing definitive, of course.

plus there's the notion that the ice caps are indeed melting, and the north pole has melted completelyh this summer:

[quote]Global Warming to Melt North Pole Ice Cover For First Time in Recorded History

After last year's thin ice cover, the North Pole is poised to vanish due to global warming in a short time. DailyTech has previously covered the frantic pace of melt in Greenland, which is accelerating, dumping vast amounts of water into the sea. Meanwhile, the North Pole has been steadily melting away as well. Fortunately, the North Pole ice is floating, and thus will not affect sea levels, but its dissolution is an important indicator of warming.

While some remain critical that global warming is occurring at all, the melting of the North Pole represents a sharp indicator against voices of doubt. Now scientists are predicting that a major milestone will be reached this summer or next -- the disappearance of the North Pole's ice cover during the Arctic Summer.

To most, imagining the North Pole without ice -- only water -- is an incredible prospect. But that's the reality of a warming world.

The prediction comes from the U.S.'s top climate researchers at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. They predict that in September, there is a good chance that the ice will be gone on the pole.

While this is obviously a rather sobering event, the scientists aren't afraid to poke a little fun at the climatological milestone. Says the center's senior research scientist, Mark Serreze, "We kind of have an informal betting pool going around in our center and that betting pool is 'does the North Pole melt out this summer?'"

About half the researchers are betting that the geographic pole, currently covered in ice will be ice free this fall. Last year already saw a similarly landmark event -- the Northwest Passage was ice free last September for the first time in recorded history.

All of these events are merely part of a larger trend according to researchers. Says Serreze, "What we've seen through the past few decades is the Arctic sea ice cover is becoming thinner and thinner as the system warms up."

Why are they uncertain about whether this summer's warmth will pierce the polar ice? The warming fluctuates largely with weather patterns, so the metaphorical straw that breaks the camel's back will likely be weather, either this year or next.

"Last year, we had sort of a perfect weather pattern to get rid of ice to open up that Northwest Passage," explains Serreze, "This year, a different pattern can set up. so maybe we'll preserve some ice there. We're in a wait-and-see mode right now. We'll see what happens."

While the event is significant, it will not cause any problems says Serreze.

He states, "From the viewpoint of the science, the North Pole is just another point in the globe, but it does have this symbolic meaning. There's supposed to be ice at the North Pole. The fact that we may not have any by the end of this summer could be quite a symbolic change."

He does say that the rate of disappearance still "astounds" him, even though he's used to seeing unusual weather daily. He says the development is just a sign of how global warming is picking up its pace.

Says Serreze, "Five years ago, to think that we'd even be talking about the possibility of the North Pole melting out in the summer, I would have never thought it. If you talked to me or other scientists just a few years ago, we were saying that we might lose all or most of the summer sea ice cover by anywhere from 2050 to 2100. Then, recently, we kind of revised those estimates, maybe as early as 2030. Now, there's people out there saying it might be even before that. So, things are happening pretty quick up there."

Some skeptics of global warming have also suggested that the melt is part of a cyclical process. Flat out wrong, says Serreze. He explains, "It's not cyclical at this point. I think we understand the physics behind this pretty well. We've known for at least 30 years, from our earliest climate models, that it's the Arctic where we'd see the first signs of global warming."

Not above a bit of scolding of global warming skeptical, Serreze says, "It's a situation where we hate to say we told you so, but we told you so."

While Serreze says that the climate effects of warming may be damaging, there may be a bit of a silver lining for the time being in the clouds of global warming. The disappearance of ice will allow oil to be saved on shipping routes by using the Northwest Passage. Also, speaking of oil, there are large oil reserves at the pole. In perhaps the greatest irony, global warming may free these reserves, which in turn will help contribute to more warming.

Much understanding remains to be developed of the causes, mechanics, and ramifications of warming, but as the stark face of reality rears its ugly head in the form of historic melting, it becomes clear that there's little room remaining for skepticism that massive climate change is indeed occurring.[/quote]

again, if there's another cause for it, then it's not bc of humans,,, but,,, it does show that warming is indeed still occurring. (unlike the global cooling people suggest) if it cools later remains to be seen but.

Edited July 9, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

here is what i usually post when this topic comes up, just for easy reference for myself and anyone interested.

[quote]detractors from MMGW man made global warming, who say it's not ssignificant, and only a hoax, usually rely on sun flares and volanoes.
if you don't know what i'm tlaking about, then don't debate me.


essential facts.
one is that studies have shown that the sun cycles have accounted for only a third of the warming that's occurred.
the other is that the volcano theorists have never cited sources.
the other is that they think 1.5 or so degrees is all that can really be attributed to man made gases.

i've never seen any sources cited for the volcano theory, but here's what i can find pointing that the volcano thing is a myth:
--------------
The volcano theorists can't even keep their stories straight. In his book, Limbaugh claims that the 1991 Pinatubo eruption put 1000 times as much chlorine into the atmosphere as industry has ever produced through CFCs; yet on Nightline, Pinatubo is alleged to have produced 570 times the equivalent of one year's worth of CFCs. Both can't be right. It turns out neither are.

The figure 570 apparently derives from Ray's book--but she said it was Mount Augustine, an Alaskan volcano that erupted in 1976, that put out 570 times as much chlorine as one year's worth of CFCs. Ray's source is a 1980 Science magazine article--but that piece was actually talking about the chlorine produced by a gigantic eruption that occurred 700,000 years ago in California (Science, 6/11/93).
---------
i'd also add, that hte common sense answer to me is... consider all the smoke stacks out there. consider all the pollution, places like LA. i'd bet california itself is like a volcano very short period in intervals. doesn't this make the most sense, considering how little and how infrequent volcanoes erupt?
----------


scientific article saying the sun is only accounting for a third of our warming
-------------
QUOTE
With respect to global warming, though solar activity has been at relatively high levels during the recent period, the fact that solar activity has been near constant during the last 30 years precludes solar variability from playing a large role in recent warming. It is estimated that the residual effects of the prolonged high solar activity account for between 18 and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999
QUOTE
It is found that current climate models underestimate the observed climate response to solar forcing over the
twentieth century as a whole, indicating that the climate system has a greater sensitivity to solar forcing than
do models. The results from this research show that increases in solar irradiance are likely to have had a greater
influence on global-mean temperatures in the first half of the twentieth century than the combined effects of
changes in anthropogenic forcings. Nevertheless the results confirm previous analyses showing that greenhouse
gas increases explain most of the global warming observed in the second half of the twentieth century.

^ Stott, Peter A.; Gareth S. Jones and John F. B. Mitchell (15 December 2003). "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change". Journal of Climate 16: 4079-4093. Retrieved on October 5, 2005.
----------------------




Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported, and give discussions of the topic at the link:
-----------------
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): [url="http://www.giss.nasa.gov/.."]http://www.giss.nasa.gov/..[/url].
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): [url="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/.."]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/..[/url].
* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): [url="http://www.grida.no/.."]http://www.grida.no/..[/url].
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS): [url="http://books.nap.edu/.."]http://books.nap.edu/..[/url].
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - [url="http://www.socc.ca/.."]http://www.socc.ca/..[/url].
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): [url="http://epa.gov/.."]http://epa.gov/..[/url].
* The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - [url="http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/.."]http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/..[/url].
* American Geophysical Union (AGU): [url="http://www.agu.org/.."]http://www.agu.org/..[/url].
* American Meteorological Society (AMS): [url="http://www.ametsoc.org/.."]http://www.ametsoc.org/..[/url].
* American Institute of Physics (AIP): [url="http://www.aip.org/.."]http://www.aip.org/..[/url].
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): [url="http://eo.ucar.edu/.."]http://eo.ucar.edu/..[/url].
* American Meteorological Society (AMS): [url="http://www.ametsoc.org/.."]http://www.ametsoc.org/..[/url].
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): [url="http://www.cmos.ca/.."]http://www.cmos.ca/..[/url].
-------------------------

so, if our ice caps are melting, and there's a correlation (while acknoledging that correlation doens't imply causation) between Co2 and temp, and the ice caps have gotten dirty since the industrial revolution... and everything else, MMGW substantial, makes sense.

if the sun only acccounts for a third, that means the other third is coming from us, at least as far as i can tell from sources.
now, that two thirds might now be enough in itself. but, it's still the majority of hte heating, as far as i can see. so, if it's two thirds, i don't see how you could say that's not significant. to quibble on "significant" is just that, too, quibbling, so i hope no one does it, as it's not an argument worth fighting over.

qualifiers
-----------------
now, given that the flares will inevitably go down, the question is what to think of that warming that is occuring by us. when solar goes down, our warming wo't matter as much. in the mean time.... how much are we hurting the planet? this is the msot fundamental. it's hard to pin point specific levels of harm with specific temp increases.

what true is that we picked a very convenient time to be warming the planet any given solar cycle being up at the moment.

to say say our effect is surely causing bad effects is not wise.
to say global warming is a hoax is idiotic.

the question is what to do based on the uncertainty.
one thing i'm not sure of is why even if GW is so bad, if that's such a bad thing in the bigger picture. increased crop cycles etc. warmer etc. prob unintended side effects is what we have to worry about. i mean, manhattan would get flooded some, up to the WTC even, but is that so bad overall? pretty expensive an all but i don't know.
---------[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]The ice has a story to tell and it is worldwide. My friend Lonnie Thompson digs cores in the ice. They dig down and they bring the core drills back up and they look at the ice and they study it. When the snow falls it traps little bubbles of atmosphere. They can go in and measure how much CO2 was in the atmosphere the year that snow fell. What’s even more interesting I think is they can measure the different isotopes of oxygen and figure out the very precise thermometer and tell you what the temperature was the year that bubble was trapped in the snow as it fell.

When I was in Antarctica I saw cores like this and the guy looked at it. He said right here is where the US Congress passed the Clean Air Act. I couldn’t believe it but you can see the difference with the naked eye. Just a couple of years after that law was passed, it’s very clearly distinguishable.[/quote]

this is also interesting

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm making a depository of information on this i guess you could say.

here is that controversial because "correlation doesn't imply causation" graph:
[url="http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif"]http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautio...a/IceCores1.gif[/url]

i think that CO2 is so alarmingly high, as shown in that graph, should at least make people second guess the idea that humans are insignificant contributors. i mean, even if CO2 didn't cause warming,,, we still cause about twice of the CO2... and since we don't know or sure if it causes warming, we should at last be cautious.

here is some interesting data on the idea that CO2 does to some degree, no pun intended, cause warming.

[quote]What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
Filed under:

* FAQ
* Greenhouse gases
* Paleoclimate

— group @ 9:42 AM - (Français)

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]

To read more about CO2 and ice cores, see Caillon et al., 2003[/quote]


also... a point about how 95% of greenhouse gases are natural and how some say if that's true then we have to be insignificant. first, i've not seen this cited but assuming it's true even. this math isn't accurate, but as a guage: if the earth is on average 50 degree, with only natural gases. That means there's 0.5 degree per percentage point. And then we increase the gases five percent, that means the degrees increase 2.5.
again, this isn't accurate math, not just in the numbers are estimates, but also in that, increase and decrease in percentage is more complicatede than this i think.

Edited July 9, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

so this would be a good point for people who are normally considered cookie cutter conservative, to admit there's some good points here, right?
you cookie cutters know who you are. even if i don't in my mind consider you one. i'm not calling anyone in particular out.
the only reason i'd consider anyone cookie cutter... is precisely because of their inability to voice the non-conservative response. this is a great time to be different.
maybe there's more to the MMGWarming is bunk, than i think. but, i've yet to hear it, or at least hear it reconciled with the above stuff etc. not just stumbling away thinking weak arguments or lack of conceding merit to opposite points. conceding points, even if you are the hardest liner, means you're at least not a hard hat cookie cutter, which is significant.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1597175' date='Jul 10 2008, 05:48 PM']so this would be a good point for people who are normally considered cookie cutter conservative, to admit there's some good points here, right?
you cookie cutters know who you are. even if i don't in my mind consider you one. i'm not calling anyone in particular out.
the only reason i'd consider anyone cookie cutter... is precisely because of their inability to voice the non-conservative response. this is a great time to be different.
maybe there's more to the MMGWarming is bunk, than i think. but, i've yet to hear it, or at least hear it reconciled with the above stuff etc. not just stumbling away thinking weak arguments or lack of conceding merit to opposite points. conceding points, even if you are the hardest liner, means you're at least not a hard hat cookie cutter, which is significant.[/quote]

honestly I don't think anyone is going to read the amount of material you posted in quote boxes. I did skim it, however, and I didn't find any points I should "concede". Have you heard of or did you mention the "hockey stick graph" first created by dr. mann? He basically took all the speculations of past world temperatures, decided which looked the most extreme, put them together in a graph so that the earth's temperature looked as if it had stayed pretty constant until 1850. in his graph he then begins to use the data we do have from thermometers and it makes it look like it has risen for the first time EVER. It's a load of carp. in his graph the little ice age of the middle ages does not exist, an ice age which created famine all across europe and cannot be disputed. His graph also does not acknowledge the fact that before the little ice age temperatures were much higher than they are now. So much higher, in fact, that the best european wine came from northern england, a place where there could certainly not be vineyards today. (The vineyards were so good, in fact, that French lords outlawed english wine).

That is the graph that was presented to the UN ICEP.

It was pretty funny to read one of the many national geographic articles attempting to prove mmgw. the graphs pretty much showed them to be wrong, but they twisted the words and tried to make you focus on rising co2 levels instead of the fact that the temperatures looked extremely cyclical, and there was no difference in our current cycle than in the others.

oh yeah, by the way, the world was also about the temperature it is now from the early 20th century until the 1940's when it began to cool until the 70's (with the famous global cooling crisis ). this is just a "state of fear" as michael crichton termed it.

nice dig at conservatives, by the way. my position is based on logic, not on party lines or anything. but you can call me a "cookie cutter" just because i don't agree with you, if you want.

Edited July 10, 2008 by aalpha1989

[dairygirl4u2c]

yeah but. my main points:
the hockey stick thing was why i was more of a fence sitter at first. but then i started to change and just posted this stuff recently because:
-the hockey stick, was mainly what i was addressing in a round about way. temp and CO2 was going up at man made activity time... yet for a signficant while before man activity was flat... is pretty coincidental, right? even if conceding that on the big picture it looks hard to decipher.... that it's doing what it did, when it did... is suspect, right? in a few years when it's had hundreds to do something.
-40% in the last forty years, during the most human active times, the ice has diminished. that is pretty coincidental, if not man made, isn't it? i want ot stress that it's 40%.... almost half of it... in a few years when it's had hundreds to do something.
-and ice cores are noticeably blacker or less black at the time of the clean air act and man made activity? which indicates that it's not just co2 etc from natural cycles causing it... and that there's twice the co2 that's ever been out there as that graph by the scientists shows, would indicate humans are significanlty putting stuff into the air that has effects on things. this point is not really debatable that i see given the graphs and ice core. (whether it's causing heat increase is debatable)
-CO2 is the above article is shown to increase temperature at least somewhat but how much is debatable
-the volcano stuff and solar flare stuff has been accounted for. leaving hte question of what's causing the rest of the warming.
-if the question remains... and all the other points remain true... what could a reasonable person conclude other than there might be something to it?

the coincidental point about ice, and how it coincides with twice the CO2 in the air than has ever been in the air,,,, is the main thing that caused me to post things more recently.
it's at least some good points here, and it's not clear cut. that's all i was asking for to be conceded.
as i have alaways said,,, the opposite position has good points.
that you didn't concede anything doesn't make you look good btw.

(I suppose if hte ice was melting already, and it got small, and the forty percent isn't really all that much, given that an ice cube melting would melt faster at the end. but it's a pretty big coincident... and it remains to be seen that the ice was already melting fast etc. )

Edited July 11, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]oh yeah, by the way, the world was also about the temperature it is now from the early 20th century until the 1940's when it began to cool until the 70's (with the famous global cooling crisis hehe.gif). this is just a "state of fear" as michael crichton termed it.[/quote]

i would say...
[url="http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/co2_var.jpg"]http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/co2_var.jpg[/url]
so, that warming earlier could have been man made. andor that we got back to the point where we are, could have been man made.
the link, that's all within the time of the industrial revolution. i wouldn't argue causation/correlation on this graph (that the CO2 came from warming etc) cause it's a fact there's almost twice as much out there right now than has ever been so we know we ar the culprit, and the industrical revolution would be the reason.


i think that we are increasing naturally in temp,,, causes people to over look that we could also exacerbate it.

i think any reasonable person would say you've not refuted mmgw... and so that you wou;dn't concede anything, is telling, that you haven't really looked into this too much, or, i odn't know.

(not that you are a cookie cutter. i don't know anything about your politics. so the cookie cutter stuff wouldn't necessarily apply to you. this is just against you)

the bottomline... is all this stuff... in the last 40-100 or so years... when it's had so much time to do soemthing... is too conincidental to in good judgment say is purely not man made.

Edited July 11, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Kirisutodo333]

I think when God said that "man will have dominion over all the Earth" he didn't mean the weather. No, I think that's still his. Or are we that arrogant...oh yes we are. Sorry. Nevermind.

Peace out

Kiris

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1597729' date='Jul 11 2008, 11:55 AM']I think when God said that "man will have dominion over all the Earth" he didn't mean the weather. No, I think that's still his. Or are we that arrogant...oh yes we are. Sorry. Nevermind.

Peace out

Kiris[/quote]

Word.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1429464' date='Dec 4 2007, 04:40 PM']even if it's not true, it's still good that we are exploring ways to become more energy-independent, taking better care of the earth, etc. do i think we should all become sterilized as to lessen our carbon footprint? i don't think so.[/quote]

+1

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]QUOTE(Kirisutodo333 @ Jul 11 2008, 11:55 AM)
I think when God said that "man will have dominion over all the Earth" he didn't mean the weather. No, I think that's still his. Or are we that arrogant...oh yes we are. Sorry. Nevermind.

Peace out

Kiris


Word.[/quote]

to be blunt, when i read this... i see one person who speaks with their gut, and another person who feels the gut speak and does the same.

i suppose the initial response to the idea that we could do anything is questionable. but, we also ripped a hole in the ozone that was only getting worse and goig to cause destructio until the nations got to gether to get it to heal. that is a fact. and the city of LA etc alone are like volcanos going off all the time. plus, most important, everything i've said in my last two posts.
these kinds of ideas are not things you just ignore and put your head under the sand to.
even if the stance is based on the idea that we can't know, and tend not to agree with mmgw.... it's still a judgment call that needs to be based on reasoning. you have to show how the reasons presented are such that your position is justified, or else it's just a random opinion as good as the next gut speak.

eg... "despite the fact that it's a big coincidence, and it could have increased over the last thousands of years.... it waited till man activity to increase... and despite the ice, and the volcanos, and the sun flares, studies... i just seems too unlikely looking at it that we could do anything"
it's reasoning i am getting stronger in my opposition to, i'm starting to have less and less respect for. people are justified to have little respect for substanceless positions. positions position changes wth the facts, even if i'm wrong... and things that make it look bad, make my postiion to look bad, and i'll be the first to admit it, and explicity acknowledge it. even if something some day shows it to be wrong, mmgw... it was still unwise to decide against mmgw so surely and adamently givne what we know.

Edited July 11, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Fr. Bruno]

[left][i]The scientific evidence for global warming and for humanity's role in the increase of greenhouse gasses becomes ever more unimpeachable, as the IPCC findings are going to suggest; and such activity has a profound relevance, not just for the environment, but in ethical, economic, social and political terms as well. The consequences of climate change are being felt not only in the environment, but in the entire socio-economic system and, as seen in the findings of numerous reports already available, they will impact first and foremost the poorest and weakest who, even if they are among the least responsible for global warming, are the most vulnerable because they have limited resources or live in areas at greater risk. We need only think of the SIDS as one example among many. Many of the most vulnerable societies, already facing energy problems, rely upon agriculture, the very sector most likely to suffer from climatic shifts. [/i]
[color="#663300"] ( INTERVENTION BY THE HOLY SEE AT THE 15th SESSION OF THE COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL )[/color]
[/left]
[left][url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2007/documents/rc_seg-st_20070510_ecosoc_en.html"]just click here to read the Holy See's position[/url][/left]