Possible, and an expensive cover up?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15220443%5E2703,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15220443%5E2703,00.html
US 'torpedoed Kursk nuclear sub'
- Thread starter stang
- Start date
papasmerf said:
A little disingenous to equate Elvis stories with the science of global warming. Anyone who is willing to look past the press releases of oil companies will realize that global warming is a legitimate scientific concern.
Global warming is what MAY happen as the consequence of the greenhouse effect (and the effect is scientific fact). We know that more CO2, all other things being equal, will increase the temperature. Unfortunately, all other things are never equal, and we can never be 100 percent sure of the accuracy of the models.
The problem is, meterology is such a complicated system, we will never have such a thing as 100 percent certainty.
The question is, should we take reasonable preventative measures, or should we hope for the best?
I can't predict the future, but I don't think it is wise to continue increasing the output of CO2 - it is a dangerous experiment with results that may be catastrophic. Even if you feel the science is wrong, why should we be experimenting with such a thing?
I also want to point out the irony of Bush's position. He wants 100 percent proof of global warming, and if a model predicts a 70 percent chance of catastrophic warming, he doesn't want to do anything. On the other hand, he doesn't mind starting wars with much less than 100 precent certainty of WMDs. With global warming, he says the science isn't good enough, but when it comes to his own policies, he asks us to rely on faith.
Sometimes things happen in the world that aren't the US's fault
Those Russian sailors died not because they only had 3 days left of air, but they had only 1 days left of vodka.
On the subject of global warming:
A single volcano eruption produces more CO2 than all the automobiles on earth will in 25 years.
The science of climatology is a relatively young science studying the long term climate trends of something as ancient as the earth.
They just don't know if the planet will warm up or cool down in the future.
There is no conclusive evidence either way.
Those Russian sailors died not because they only had 3 days left of air, but they had only 1 days left of vodka.
On the subject of global warming:
A single volcano eruption produces more CO2 than all the automobiles on earth will in 25 years.
The science of climatology is a relatively young science studying the long term climate trends of something as ancient as the earth.
They just don't know if the planet will warm up or cool down in the future.
There is no conclusive evidence either way.
Cinema Face said:
Well, yes and no. Most eruptions do not, but if you use a major eruption such as the 1814 eruption in Indonesia as an example, then yes, you would be correct.
All good points, I just don't think we should charge ahead and continue to increase CO2 emissions. It would be prudent to be on the cautious side in case today's models are correct.Cinema Face said:
That would not be a surprise..kinda like taxing SP's..Cinema Face said:Look for the Librano$ to introduce an eruption tax.
