<snip> the vast majority of objective scientists agree that it is most likely human induced. <snip>
Richard, trite or not, people will read in to it whatever they want. My point is that an argument starts to lose credibility when the phrase "vast majority" and "most likely" and the word "could" is used as it highlights that the evidence or conviction is not where is should be.
The fact is that we have 2 factions of people with polarised opinions and they are never going to agree.
History shows that we have been on this lump of rock for a time that is relative to the time that dog shite stays on anyones shoes, and for that tiny, tiny piece of time in the earths history we have, for another tiny part kept records. Science, we could argue very strongly is based upon theorem and not cold hard facts and there are bound to be things that we have not discovered about how the earth has heated up and cooled down, as it has many times or what effect long extinct animals had or whether early forms of vegetation could photosynthesize more or less efficiently than there modern counterparts, and many others.
Nobody can truly say for definite that the worlds climate would have been different now had the industrial revolution not taken place.
There must surely be am argument for evolution. Animals, plants, etc, have throughout their existence evolved to cope with changes around them, we as a human race have no real use for our appendix anymore , perhaps, just perhaps we have got just about as far as we can get. Perhaps the change in climate is another step towards the evolution of man, I am sure that there must be a scientist out there that would offer credence to such an argument.
Leeds to win 3-1 tomorrow. _______________________________________________ the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. Leedslist mailing list [email protected] http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist www.leedslist.net
