SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Environmentalist Thread
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: maceng2 who wrote (22479)7/25/2008 11:13:32 AM
From: Thomas A Watson  Read Replies (1) of 36917
 
Equilibrium is a concept yes. But it's definition as to the Equilibrium temperature of the Earth is fooling. That is to say it is meaningless to one's experience today or tomorrow. The equator will be hot and wet of dry depending on where you are. The poles will be frigid to cool cold depending on season.

What are the time constants? What does it matter? Well there are an infinite number of time constants as one goes to smaller and smaller geometries. And because the Earth has billion and billions of swirling fluid systems the time constants of each geometry is changing by the nanosecond.

Nature has done nothing in changing any belief in Creationism. One believes there is a higher being or not or does not care. And each person who believes or does not care has an idea of what a higher being is.

I have no idea how mass and interacting electric fields jointed to form self replicating structures of organized chemistry that we call life.

And there is nothing in Darwin that explains it. I also do not believe the literal story of genesis as the explanation.

You define terms very poorly and then make very poor arguments.

As "Common sense also tells me no unusual idea would get accepted in mainstream scientific thought" The question to ask is this. What is mainstream scientific thought and what is mainstream consensus? Is mainstream consensus often confused as mainstream scientific thought by those who do not really possess the ability to think scientific thought?

Are all those Scientists, 30,000 really scientists or not?
As Mike Cummings says:
Most scientists willing to go on the record do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News