Quote:
|
Originally Posted by YellowJacket
Actually, that's the case at all. While the belief used to be that the world is flat, science has definitively proven otherwise. As in, undeniable proof can be given to the Earth's spherical shape. There is no such evidence for Global Warming -- there's convincing evidence at best; a bunch of smoke and mirrors at worst.
But another way to put a hole through your point is the technology comments -- by discussing the multiple changes in technology in the last 30 years, you're forgetting that we haven't reached the pinnacle of technology yet. 30 years from now, it's equally probable that we'll look back on technology of today, and say "man, global warming -- we thought we had it all figured out, didn't we?" So, you prove nothing by citing better technology.
Obviously, I'm late to the debate, but I just chuckle when I see these defenses like the one I quoted.
|
I have no proof that the world is round. They tell me that it is and they show me pictures but how do I know that the pictures are real? The best I've seen is a slight curve when I'm up in a jet but that doesn't prove it is round does it? Why should I believe them? OK, I'm being facetious obviously. I don't think I ever said that there was undeniable evidence. In fact, in a previous post I was pretty clear in stating that there was no definitive evidence. You seem to have completely missed the point, that what scientists thought yesterday doesn't always hold true today as our knowledge increases. Pretty plain and simple to understand I think and you seem to understand it as you then confirm it in your next point.
Doesn't your supposed hole through my point actually add credence to what I said? Wasn't the point that referencing 30 year old data can be mostly irrelevant? All that we can go on is what we have today. Does that mean we'll believe the same 30 years from now when our knowledge, technology, and research base multiplies some more? Of course not. And thirty years from now it is also possible that they will look back and say, those people in 2006 had all of the evidence right in front of them and they refused to do anything about it. Right now I'll put it at 50-50 as to which of those two viewpoints they have in 2036.
Am I totally sold on man caused Global Warming. No I'm not. Do I see a possibility that it could be true? You'd have to be clueless to at least not be willing to entertain the discussion until we know for sure either way. My statements were not a defense of anything and I really don't understand how someone could interpret them that way. What I was merely suggesting was that we consider the evidence as it stands today (for or against) and not bring silly arguments into the discussion like was done.
Can you please explain to me what you're chuckling about?