> gMoney wrote: > I would simply point out that 60 out of several hundred thousand....isn't > very many. >
No, it's not. And if you forget the scientific extrapolation and focus solely on the facts, we're not yet in a decade-over-decade trend. That'll take 60 years. We are in a couldn't-be-clearer year-over-year trend, and the statistical data says that trend will continue. In fact, we have double the data points we need to declare a year-over-year trend. So here's where the debate lies: (1.) Do we have enough historical data (from ice cores, etc) to declare that this is the longest string of global high temps? Yes. The extrapolation is, therefore, that this time the temp spike is "special cause" meaning global warming. (2.) Do we understand the weather mechanisms enough to pinpoint WHY we're having a string of global high temps? No. So while the extrapolation may point to "special cause" the data does not yet do so. Therefore we can't officially declare global warming. Both arguments are right. So which to pick? The fiscal conservative thinking would be to go with #1 since a conservative will want to minimize risk and act before she's forced to act and/or loses everything. The fiscal liberal thinking would be to go with #2, because why spend any money or resources to prevent something that's not 100% certain? Better to enjoy that money now and worry about everything else later. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Enterprise web applications, build robust, secure scalable apps today - Try it now ColdFusion Today ColdFusion 8 beta - Build next generation apps Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:239789 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
