In article c7a47f84-5fbc-43ff-bb6a-356857a9b216
@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com, says...

On Aug 25, 11:19*am, "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)
wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message

...



Giga Giga wrote:
wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:04:21 -0700 (PDT), BOfL
wrote:

How can there be an idea of perfection or a perfect state of being, if
such a thing has never existed or been experienced previously? Such a
concept can only come from an extrinsic source, something outside of
the human experience, ergo the possibility of "God.") Perhaps
someone sometime will provide some reasonable answers to this
conundrum. No one has yet, to my satisfaction.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
And what answers would be adequate?
Many want proof, but dont know what the proof should be.

BOfL
What I was hoping to do was to point out what seems to me to be a bit
of an irony - a contradiction of dogmas of those that are wholesale
subscribers to global warming alarmism and also adopt a stoic,
clinical definition of evolution and death. *It's difficult for me to
imagine how the conflict of those perspectives can be reconciled. *I'm
more than willing to be enlightened if for some reason I'm confused in
comprehending those perspectives.

Some things can be changed by human beings and some things can't. If
global warming is caused by human beings then presumably we can stop it
as well. If global warming is likely to lead to consequences we don't
want then we may want to stop it. Also we seem to have the means to stop
it or alleviate it, by reducing co2 output, and maybe other techniques.
So if we can and want to stop it why not? Its the same principle we apply
to everything, for instance if you are uncomfortable, and you can change
that, then why not? If you can forsee that leaving a pan on the stove is
going to burn what you are cooking then turn down the heat or take it off
the cooker?

However, the more sun light that is shed on the actual "data" that is used
as the basis for proponents of the human caused global warming the fewer
the scientists who support human caused global warming become.

I must admit I was shocked, surprised, even scandalised when I checked that
graph that Al Gore shows with CO2 and Temp following each other over
100,000s of years. look at a slightly higher resolution and you see that
temp goes up roughly 800 years *before* CO2 even starts to rise, and goes
down hundreds of years *before* CO2 falls. I can't beleive he was unaware of
how misleading the way he showed the graph was. It smells like a con-job. If
this graph shows anything is that warming leads to more CO2 eventually, and
when there is enough CO2 cooling will start eventually (this is absurd of
course). What it actually seems to show is that they are not directly
correlated at all.

Also just heard that the famous 'hockey stick' graph was equally flawed..
Apparently you can put any set of data into that model and it will come out
pretty much that shape! Wow, amazing, what a bunch of loons! But do we hear
about this from the mass media?

Another guy I heard said that after 50ppm CO2 has litle extra blanketting
effect on the Earth. Basically its like a dye, once its coloured the cloth
you can add more but the colour doesn't increase, its already fully
covered???

If you rely on superficial reports and 'what some guy said' you will
never get it right.

Scientists aren't relying on the graphs that you mention. There has
been lots of research in the last few years that was designed to
answer valid questions like the saturation argument you cite. What's
happened, contrary to what BAR said, is that scientists who started
out skeptical about ACC have been convinced otherwise. But they have
read the actual studies and have the background to interpret them.

Science always is subject to change, and if there is new evidence,
perhaps the consensus will change. But the current consensus is the
best we have. It doesn't say the world will end, it just says that
there will be disruptions of human life in various ways. And as you
say, why not change that if we can?

-tg

This is bull****.. There is no "new evidence" and certainly no
"consensus".... But the more you say it, the more true it sounds to
you..

--
Wafa free since 2009