Posted on 02/03/2007 6:04:45 AM PST by Libloather
Global warming is the 'futuristic' version of unobservable science while evolution is the 'historic' version of unobservable science.
Since scientists and the public have grown accustomed to accepting the unobservable 'historic' science of evolution; is it a simple matter to then accept the unobservable 'futuristic' science of global warming.
Everyone exhales carbon dioxide.
Thanks for the ping.
Thanks to Rush for sharing a great quote!
"...I'm not sure he is a Christian."
Whaaa?
"...but even the demons believe in God."
Ok. Rush is a Christian. He doesn't believe in God for nefarious reasons, like a demon would. This could rank as the strangest post I've ever seen over your name, Dave. I've been a Rush fan since his T.V. days, and I can pretty well put to rest any fears of demonhood you may have.
"Most mainstream scientists" don't dismiss the idea, particularly when one adds up the frauds and phonies claiming to be scientists, who have saddled on to Human Induced Climate Change/Global Warming/Greenhouse Effect, the New Lysenkoism.Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler worldThe Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev have agreed the wager with a British climate expert, James Annan.
by David Adam
Friday August 19, 2005
The pair, based in Irkutsk, at the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics, believe that global temperatures are driven more by changes in the sun's activity than by the emission of greenhouse gases. They say the Earth warms and cools in response to changes in the number and size of sunspots. Most mainstream scientists dismiss the idea, but as the sun is expected to enter a less active phase over the next few decades the Russian duo are confident they will see a drop in global temperatures.
Maybe the following bit of double-talk will clear things up < /snort >
"It is certainly true that "science" itself strives for objective empirical information to test theory and models. But at the same time "science for policy" must be recognized as a different enterprise than "science" itself, since science for policy involves being responsive to policymakers' needs for expert judgment at a particular time, given the information currently available, even if those judgments involve a considerable degree of subjectivity."
-- Steven Schneider:
Political Science (Global Warming) -- see Post 18
All this caused by plant food (CO2).
I can’t wait for the teetotalers to go after plant hydration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.