Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
<P>[quote user="wallyworld"]The statement that the non-political jury is still out on global warming is inaccurate. Even the National Academies of Science states the global warming is not an opinion but a fact. Where the confusion lies is the source of the warming whether this is a natural cycle or it is artificially induced by our activities. The scientists who have concluded that this warming is linked earth's natural ecology are now in a small minority which is quite a short term reversal of opinion as science goes. Bear in mind that the scientific community are an extremely conservative lot. As late as the 1800's they still held the consensus that meteorites that fall from the sky were akin to a sighting of Bigfoot. I don't believe in a Chicken Little approach of "Omigod, the sky's falling!"or sticking my head in the sand either. Hey there are some benefits seldom remarked upon associated with greenhouse gases The increase in these levels equates to better growth cycles for plants. The question is not one of earth dying. It will still be here and so will we. What will that world look like, is what science is now grappling with.[/quote]</P> <P>The term "global warming" as bandied about today is accepted as being of the anthropogenic (e.g. man caused) variety.  So when folks state that "global warming is debatable" etc., it is usually accepted that they are refering to the man-caused variety.  And contrary to the Nuremburg-trials-for-global-warming-skeptics crowd, there is more than enough contrary evidence to suggest that anthropogenic global warming is a fraudulent scam.</P>
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag