Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ron61
Bob,
...Sometimes we all read some one's posts and read more into them than they meant...
Ron |
Like me thinking Ron was calling me a turkey for implying that I have to "don you cannibal costume and eat him" (the turkey). I sure it was inadvertent on Ron's part.
Or was it?
No harm done, Ron. It was fun to go with admittedly being a turkey in my next post anyway.
================================================== =======\
In all seriousness:
Kristen wasn't too far off when she said,
"This country is overflowing with dumba$$es. Idiots that will believe anything put in front of them. Can we send all our idiots over the wall to Mexico???". I might add, the aforementioned idiots
not seeing that which is
not right in front. It takes an effort to see through the fog ...and skepticism should go both ways. The old adage, "Believe nothing you hear, nothing you read and only half of what you see", applies imho.
What is most remarkable for the site, in WarranG's first post, (
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Gl...est/start.html ) is what is left out.
The above mentioned West Virginia Coal website (Plant Fossils of West Virginia) seems to make climate change sound good as long as it's not another ice age. In fact it is very clever in helping us "learn" such (CATO?). Underneath, this site appears to be all about promoting a positive spin on continued extensive use (and $ale) of fossil fuels. It fails to mention that our temperate zones, where most of us currently live, may become dessert or monsoon regions significantly sooner due to human error; and then perhaps flip rather rapidly to another Ice Age. In view of this, coal use and climate change might not be so good for property values. The probable motive: the site is put out by coal operatives trying to pooh-pooh the inherent dangers in
humans accelerating cyclical climate change that would eventually naturally occur, but historically later.
Much less biased general climate change information can more likely be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming .
A good source of the probability of why the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points can be found at
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630 . The 19 page pdf site introduces some of the counter arguments produced by fossil fuel interests and attempts to shoot the corporate propoganda down.
We can be skeptical that climate change is caused by humans.
We can be skeptical that climate change is
not caused by humans.
If one or the other is wrong, which would be the least/most desirable error?
In other words, which is our desired method of suffering sooner? Extreme conservation or extreme weather?
...