Fri Feb 2 12:26:31 2007 On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Stephen wrote: > -->Hello John > -->Have a look at this http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1584992,00.html > --> > -->Still not 100% but up to 90 % agree. thanx Stephen, interesting... from that page: IPCC scientists now say that it is "very likely" that global warming is chiefly driven by the buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases caused by human activity, and that dangerous levels of warming and sea rise are on the way. Those two words the product of 2,500 scientists, 130 nations and 6 years of work. translates into a certainty of over 90%, up from the 66 to 90% chance the panel reported in its last major climate change assessment in 2001. ------------------------------ a) they assume that buildup of C02 results from human activity and that this casues warming... neither are testable or proven. It's an assumption based on a model, the number of variables involved are unmanageable. You can not control the experiment or even identify all the variables that play into this. b) from of 2,500 scientists... hmmm... how large of a population are we really dealing with? 90% of 2,500 in 130 countries does not represent a very large population. How many scientists are there worldwide? When you say scientist, what do you mean? Someone who works in a lab? Someone with a BS degree? an MS? a PhD? Let's consider, briefly, an alternate hypothesis. Let's assume that the world was created by a superior being who has revealed himself through writings. These writings provide us with a model that indicate that the world is thousands, and not millions of years old. Let's further assume that these writings are accurate, for the sake of a comparision of models. These writings indicate that a global flood took place around four thousand years ago, give or take. Prior to this flood, according to these writings, there was a water vapor canopy over the entire planet, constant and uniform temperature over the entire planet (explains why there is oil on the North Shore of Alaska.) When the global flood took place, it would have resulted in an ice age as that canopy and it's protection would have been removed. Now, a few thousand years later, we can see evidence that this ice age has been receding... glacial till in North America is a prime example... Sure, the planet is warming up, and probably been doing it for the last few thousand years. Examining this alternate hypothesis you can see that this model answers many questions. Question comes down to what is your world view? Do you accept by faith that we just evolved some how, from someplace, despite the overwhelming and complicated problems of life forming on it's own, or do you accept by faith these writings? Either model requires faith. What's quite interesting to observe is the animosity and hostility that is presented toward the model that is based on ancient writings. There is something more going on there than "science". Open hostility by man toward a creator being. (which is exactly what those writings claim as well...) Anyway, my point is this. One must understand the assumptions that these models are built on. We can not be totally objective, unbiased and neutural, by nature we're going to take sides. The emotional response by those that reject the writings model indicate that there is cognitive dissonance involved. Bottom line, ask questions, drill down into the data, understand who the researchers are and what their model is based on. Yeah, the world is probably getting warmer, but it isn't because of our vehicles, or cow emissions. It's because the planet is recovering from a global catastrophic event that resulted in the ice age. So those eskimos had better consider finding solid land to live on. :) ----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** ----------------------------------------------------------------------