Vote for BP.Net for the 2013 Forum of the Year! Click here for more info.

» Site Navigation

» Home
 > FAQ

» Online Users: 796

1 members and 795 guests
Most users ever online was 47,180, 07-16-2025 at 05:30 PM.

» Today's Birthdays

None

» Stats

Members: 75,905
Threads: 249,104
Posts: 2,572,103
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
Welcome to our newest member, Pattyhud

Intresting article

Printable View

  • 05-02-2008, 08:11 PM
    dr del
    Intresting article
    Hi,

    Found this article today and thought it was intresting enough to share. :)


    dr del
  • 05-02-2008, 10:24 PM
    kneepoles
    Re: Intresting article
    "Global Warming" is a bit of a misnomer. If you HAD to put a term to the situation, "Global Climate Destabilization" would be a little more in the scope of what's actually happening.
    here's video you might want to watch as well.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI
  • 05-02-2008, 10:46 PM
    dr del
    Re: Intresting article
    Hi,

    Good video - though it does make the somewhat blase assumption that whatever action we could take would actually work.

    Even if humans are not the actual major cause of climactic change.

    I just get a little worried about the number of people using the phrase "worst/ most in recorded history" when the time period of recorded history for this is insignificant compared to the length of the timespans normally associated with climactic, geographic and most other environmental changes. :confused:

    I suppose the best possible outcome would be for our great great grandchildren to be saying "what on earth were they worrying about that for?"


    dr del
  • 05-03-2008, 02:18 PM
    gmcclurelssu
    Re: Intresting article
    very interesting article, thanks for posting it! i do think its funny how some people try to paint the scientific community as having some kind of consensus on the issue, when there are still a variety of view points and data that the mass media never shows.
  • 05-03-2008, 02:32 PM
    nevohraalnavnoj
    Re: Intresting article
    "we should do something just because of what might happen if we don't" doesn't really make sense. you should turn your computer off right now because it MIGHT blow up!

    Here's a scenario. I own a very large weapons manufacturing plant (which I actually don't, by the way). I also point out that you can not know whether aliens will attack tomorrow or in the future. I can make the same chart that he does, showing that you should arm yourself to the teeth just because aliens might attack.

    I'm not a global warming nay-sayer. I am saying this because he is doing an "expected value" argument and he is essentially assuming equal probabilities for each of the possible outcomes, thus advancing his argument.

    So if aliens have a 50/50 chance of attacking, it makes sense that we should arm ourself against them.

    JonV
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.2.1