freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2007 at 8:50pm:


So, let me get this straight.  You believe human induced global warming has a scientific basis.  Yet concede it will be proven wrong if it is wrong.  

So you are relying on faith until then?

I think you do believe in faith after all.  So tell me, how can you criticise those who have faith of a non-scientific nature?

Exactly - without a comparison study the 'science' of human created global warming is seriously flawed.  Particularly as the globe has warmed before - before human intervention of any kind.  So what's the difference?  Now scientists can get rich babbling about it and businessmen (like Al Gore) can make millions of dollars frightening intellectually hampered people.

Well to quote you:

Evolution should not be taught in high school science classes because it is not a scientific theory. It fails the requirement of falsifiability that is the litmus test for judging whether an investigation is scientific.

The modern scientific method is defined in terms of hypotheses, theories and laws. The difference between each is the level of acceptance in the scientific community. What they all have in common is that they must be falsifiable. This means that it must be possible to run an experiment that would prove the theory (or hypothesis or law) wrong, if it were not true.

So your saying the theory of evolution is not scientific. For the reasons I outlined this is just not true. Using your urguments you would also have to throw many other theories out of science classes. There are many examples in astronomy, geology, climate science and so on which are not possible to verify experimentally.

freediver wrote on Dec 9^th, 2007 at 12:28pm:


Pretty ingenious at finding ways to support their faith I suspect.  I see you are very good at it.

You concede the science is unsupportable, it may even be proven wrong, yet you still have faith it is true because it is your belief.

There is no reality surrounding human caused climate change.  It is mere postulation based on observation of natural events and hypothesizing a theory.  The only reality is it is pure bullstesticles.

Lets be real kiddies- we have Dinosaurs right?- the Bible says they dont exist and we know they do so Religion loses right?

Come back when you actually understand the context of the argument 

I'm not going to explain it to you...go and re-read the posts. Once again, come back when you understand the context.

Goddamn Im tired and you just went and gave me one more thing to think about DT.

Turning in....

Why does this arguement exist? The one that wants to prove or disprove that Global warming is a natural cyclical  event occurring every so many millions/thousands of years?

Would it be fair to say that the arguement exists as a way for countries to shrug off responsibility for the purpose of not upsetting the status quo in their little worlds?

That it is easier to argue to the death about the reality of it being man made as opposed to not? In the meantime we are moving ever closer to what? If it is manmade we may be doomed if it is not bought under control and if it is not are we doomed anyway because then we have no control over our extinction/ ever dimishing world.

For if oceans rise and swallow our continents what will become of us? How can we be sure we will not be living on huge seafaring vessells and eating fish and scallops for eternity?  

But having said that I am  serious about manmade versus naturally occuring cycles.,,we can perhaps prevent one but not the other?