[Skybird]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

I'm getting tired of this discussion, but here goes: Says who? Scientists? Of course they have to be correct.

Just a hint: do you know what the half-life of elements means? From these, scientists (crucify them when not agreeing with you) extrapolate how long a given element that for example splits ozone will remain active, and at what activity levels over time.

They always were, like when they said the world was flat, and when they said spontaneous generation is where all life evolved from dust. Someone presents a doomsday senario and why does everyone goes nuts. You refuse to belive anything else. Why don't you open up to other possibilities other than were all going to die in 100 years?

Standard strategy displayed again: exaggerate unwelcomed argument, partially distort unwelcome argument and by that make it sound ridiculous - and accuse the messanger of being oh so narrow-minded, while oneself is unforgivingly determined to never, under no circumstances, accept anything that would imply that we need to change and cannot simply move on as in the past.
The problem with you is you split sentences into words and demand the words to be prooven, and when somebody does that, you are not satisfied. You split the word into letters and demand every letter to be prooven. And when somebody does that, you go down to molecules. Atoms. Particles. If you think that is clever, okay. But you simply miss the sense and meaning of the original sentence that way.
Are you familiar with what statistics call the reliability-validity-dilemma (translating from German?) It describes the dilemma that every scientist should know. The more precision you put into the measuring of a variable, the more you focus on it, and by that the more narrow your perspective necessarily becomes. You have precise data, but: the more precise it becomes, the lesser linkage to the surrounding context it has. It looses in meaning. High reliability, low validity. In the extreme, you have total precision - that means nothing anymore. Or you widen the perspective of yours, so that what you see can be put into context of the surrounding environment your monitored variable is embeeded in. you give up reliability, and win validity. YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH, thats why it is called a dilemma, you need to find a balance that on the basis of your past experiences makes sense and give you enough of both qualities. You can compare it to Heisenberg's uncertainity principle.

(Seriously) can you show me? I'd like to see it too.

Two of 4 IPCC reports are now released, and you still need to counter their information. Especially the second is not about estimates on the basis of projections and models, but simply describes observed empiral data that even you cannot reject to be a reality.
I also meant the acculumlated input I had over the last let's say 25 years. Books. TV programs. School. Mags. Since that answer will not be good enough for you, I also point at "Global 2000. The report to the president", released in the early years of Reagan. He did not like the yelling warnings in it, so he buried it and did nothing.
Obviously, nothing has changed concerning that behavior.

I missed the report. I there some kind of link to it or something?

See above what I mean. Global 2000 was not the only source of data, btw. Don'T expect me to contact every TV station, every newspaper and every book company that I eventually may have red, listend to or watched over the last 25 years.

Were not going to live on "moonbase alpha" as long as that foolish treaty of "No nukes in space" is still alive,

What is foolish in that? Not foolish, but arrogant to the max was the attempt of a re-formulation of the new Pentagon policy on the militarization of space, as was being done two or three years ago, and in which the US reserved the right to claim all military usage of space exclusively for itself, and reserving the right to prevent the military usage of space to others, friends and potential enemies alike, even by the use of force. I know that importance of ruling the higher ground, but this does not make space the 51st federal state of America.

but that's another story. Also, I hardly belive that a increase in temperature of only a few degrees will kill of so much life.

Your private beliefs are not interesting anybody. You may feel offended, but I put more trust on experts in their professional fields who knows a bit more on the matter.[/quote]

So far, I've only heard stories about how the Atlantic is warming up. Did you know the Pacific isn't? How convienient. Of course, I'm not sure if you all are familiar with the TAO.

Strange, because I also heared exactly the opposite. Maybe we can agree that there is uncertainty about to what degree the gulf stream has cooled down in recent years. Some say less than 5%. Others say up to 25%. we can also talk about the changes in travelling patterns of fish swarms or great fishes, the changes in spreading patterns of species, the changes in the saturation with krill, plankton and algas in certain regions of the oceans, the dying of coral reefs (which are extremely sensible to temperature changes)even in areas that are not too affected by contamination, and the brake-down of local ecologic systems and dissapearing of species following in their death's wake.

Or is it because with our new technology we can finally see that it's there, instead of guessing about that African epdemic fourty years ago. Most of these diseases were there all along, it's just with the invention of the electron microscope and such that we are able to know that they even exist.

I know what you mean, but in this context it is an invalid argument. You do not need technology to examine and notice a disease like neurodermitis or asthma or brakedown or weakening of the immune system. Nice attempt.

Can you show any?

Again, see explanations earlier.

So you are basically saying that this is still a theory, not a proven fact.

I say that it is foolish and dangerous to ignore experiences if they are based on such strong and obvious empirical data. When you brake at a traffic-light that jumps from green to yellow, you brake and stopp. You have no proof that red lights will be next, so why don'T you just press the pedal and slam into the crossroad?
Let's face it - all your life, every day you make decisions and choices that are not basing of 100% evidence, but empirical data you collected. You call that experience.
Should I give again (I think for the fourth of fifth time) that allegory by Buddha, about that man who got shot by a poisend arrow and refused to pull it out as long as he is not beeing told who was the archer, from where he shot, and why, what kind of poison it was, and what kind of bow - and who died while listing his demands for being informed oh so thoroughly - instead of pulling the aroow out of the wound? Ooops, there already did it again...
Bah, why do I even take the time, I spare me the rest.


Again recommending to spend a little time with this:
http://www.whistleblower.org/doc/200...e%20Report.pdf