On the contrary, the onus is on you to explain why the distant past does
matter. You see, the set of things that do not matter is enormous, while
the set of things that do matter is narrowly limited. It is not logical
that you demand explanations for why some member of that set does not
matter. If you have some information and you want to discuss it, you must
start by telling us why it matters.
Why does it matter to a discussion of AGW that CO2 was over 5000ppm over 450
million years ago?
I don't see how you could say that. I almost wrote that the set of things
that don't matter is infinite, but couldn't quickly decide if there are an
infinite number of things or not!
When you set up a controled experiment, you identify the things that matter
and control them and you disregard the things that don't matter (and hope
you divided them up correctly!)
Well, this just depends on how narrow narrow is, that's all. Now, I was
being a bit abstract and I know this is GW related so I readily acknowledge
there are a huge number of things that matter. But I still say the set of
things that don't is larger.
where did you see any reference to creationism in that web site?
I looked, not saying it isn't there, just didn't see it. that and you
are an idiot who accuses anything that disagrees with your own
narrowminded left-wing bs of being "creationist"
ah. so in other words, your asertion was a bald-faced lie.
actually, I am one of the convinced. global warming is taking
place and it is anthropogenic. however, not all the facts are in
regarding magnitude, consequences, or mitigation possibilities. I just
don't like junk science, politically motivated hyperbole, or liars, and
you are profoundly guilty of all 3.
Steve Milloy, the author of junkscience.com, the junkscience book, etc.
"Explanations of human evolution are not likely to move beyond the
stage of hypothesis or conjecture. There is no scientific way - i.e.,
no experiment or other means of reliable study - for explaining how
humans developed. Without a valid scientific method for proving a
hypothesis, no indisputable explanation can exist.
The process of evolution can be scientifically demonstrated in some
lower life forms, but this is a far cry from explaining how humans
That said, some sort of evolutionary process seems most likely in my
opinion. But there will probably always be enough uncertainty in any
explanation of human evolution to give critics plenty of room for
Maybe you could call him an evolution-agnostic.
Yes, you've just cited another one.
Why are you so ready to take the words of this group over thousands of
scientific paper? Over the National Academy of Sciences? It can only be
because of your political views.
That's a stupid question. Don't we sead the clouds to make it rain? I know
you're talking about global warming but I just couldn't pass up a stupid
statement like that. What about all the trees that are being burnt in South
American? What about the oil fires set ablaze in Kuwait? And what about the
foul air in many cities? When visibility is less than a mile and you can't
take a deep breath I suppose you'll say that's not man made and not a
I just rather assumed the OP meant "climate" and wasn't up on his jargon.
So, do we still seed clouds? Does it work?
What about them? You point at trees or smoke, it's pretty hard to tell
which, and say "see, weather." Sometimes, yes, weather can make trees fall
down. But um lets not be mixing up our causes and our effects here.
What about them?
What about it?
"LA has really nice weather!"
"Yes it does. Let's all move there."
"Hey, now that we've all moved here, LA has crappy air."
"Yes it does, but the weather is still really nice."
I'm waiting for you to tell me how it is a weather change other than by
pointing and saying "well it's obvious to me."
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.