Gorio > wrote:
> Dan L;1565719 Wrote:
>> Doug Freyburger wrote:-
>> Dan L wrote:-
>> "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
>> -
>> Are you in the US? I'm always amazed at some of the things I see being
>> said
>> by some Americans about climate change. There seem to be some very
>> anti
>> science people in the US.-
>>
>> You are correct about many in the U.S. being anti science. Religion
>> and
>> Science go together like oil and water, they do not mix. Show me a
>> person
>> who is strongly religious and I will show you a person that does not
>> believe in global warming. -
>>
>> Note there are only a couple of religions that oppose science. They
>> happen to be the two largest religions by population world wide. That
>> doesn't mean there are no other religions that have no problems with
>> science.-
>>
>> Those other religions that are pro science are so small in number they
>> can
>> be rounded off to zero! One note: I do not consider Atheism a
>> religion!
>> --
>> Science has been at war with religion since the days of Galileo
>> Galilei.-
>>
>> Your arrow of effect and cause points the wrong direction, and your
>> generalizer is overloading. Christianty has been at war with science
>> since the days of Galileo. Islam has the same trend. Buddhism not so
>> much. Hindu not so much. And so on down the list of countless
>> religious options.-
>>
>> The arrows are flying in both directions for the minds of people and
>> the
>> earth.
>> I hope science wins!
>>
>> --
>> Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)
>
> I agree on the science/religion thing. To have absolute faith in one or
> the other, though, is the problem. Science has it's "gotta be right,
> because it's science" camp, too. The problem with science with regard to
> global warming is a lack of correlational evidence to actually prove
> causality.
>
> People have faith that science proves that second hand smoke is
> dangerous. There are no unbiased studies that show correlation. Most
> studies about each come from funded think tanks with the sole prupose of
> proving the hypothesis. The mere act of doing so is anathema to the
> scietific process. If Al Gore or any of the other major proponents are
> paying for it, it can't be taken as scientific fact. Most of what I have
> read is just that "pay for proof." They may be right. But the fact that
> what was proven was payed for to be so and to come to the pre-proven
> conclusion makes it scientifically invalid. I'm still open to research
> on the subject; but not biased research.
>
> Most research is about learning something, not proving it. I'm still a
> bit in the air w/regard to global warming; just like I am about whether
> God spoke through any book/person. An omnipotent being speaking only to
> the literate class? The people I know that argue against climate change
> say that this has ocurred through history and has little to nothing to
> do with human activity. Volcanoes spew many more greenhouse gases than
> cars, powerplants, etc.
>
> I don't know as I'm a bit agnostic on both fronts. Dear Abbey......

Lots of evidence to prove the cause and effect of Global Warming.
Opponents always wants more and more research and will still never accept
the conclusion of scientist or try to even slow it down.

Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet [Hardcover]
Bill McKibben (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Eaarth-Making-...3680776&sr=1-1
--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)