Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Bernard Marx
Just where in this article is it "shown" that this particular climate change is "a direct consequence of human activities?"

It doesn't say that anywhere. All it says is that the observed climate change is "most likely" due to human activities.

25 posted on 06/25/2002 9:25:33 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: cogitator
It actually says:

We have shown that the biosphere is indeed changing, due to a climate change that most likely is a direct consequence of human activities (principally in the industrialized countries).

There is absolutely no evidence in the article as posted that the change is "most likely" a direct consequence of human activites in the industrialized countries. This is pure propaganda/unfounded speculation. There is no discussion of possible causes; just a remarkable leap to pin the blame on humans activity in "industrialized countries."

The biosphere is in a constant state of change and the possible causes are many and varied. The article ignores mountains of real evidence that biosphere change is caused by long-term natural processes unrelated to human activity. The work of these computer modelers cries for objective peer review as well.

26 posted on 06/25/2002 11:42:39 AM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson