It reminds me of clicking the 'Start' button to 'End' and shut down your PC
![Image](http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/christmas05/snowman-1.gif)
Moderator: Priests of Syrinx
How could anyone possibly know such a thing? How accurately could anyone have guessed in 1910 how conditions would be in the year 2000?Me wrote: I read in the newspaper today that by 2100 there will be a million deaths related to global warming.
Do you guys remember that? Just last summer the media had their cameras out there on the beaches of Florida and in New Orleans waiting for the next Katrina to come along and wipe us all out... their predicted apocalypse. We were being told that because of global warming it's going to get worse and worse each year. And yet, we had no hurricanes to speak of in the United States last year.To be called science, things must stand up under a process called ?The Scientific Method.? Three steps are involved: One, observe a phenomenon. Two, devise a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon. Three, devise a test to prove or disprove the hypothesis. If the third step proves it, you have a scientific truth. Every global warming item I have read stops at step 2 or uses an argument like ?It started at the industrial age, therefore the industrial age caused it.? This is a common fallacy in logic known as ?Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc? (After it, therefore caused by it) which is utterly invalid as far as the scientific method goes. Flat earth theories were not abandoned because of a shift in consensus. They were disproven by step 3 of the scientific method, and our current globe earth science stands up to the method. Most pro-global warming people think the hypothesis must be true so it is true. Even when a disproving step 3 happens (there will be more violent and numerous hurricanes this year because of global warming).
But there are plenty of scientists who do dispute the current popular man-made global warming theories. There's still plenty to debate about, plenty to learn.When Einstein?s theory of relativity was thought to be insane, Einstein provided a step 3 method of testing it involving an eclipse and how light would behave. Things happened like he said they would, and we now accept the theory of relativity as science. The point is, if global warming theories were scientific fact, no scientist would be able to dispute it
Not sure where the millions figure comes from, but that's a different issue anyway. Man can easily change a relatively local climate with things like deforestation. But what the UN folks are on about is the idea that increased CO2 in the atmosphere has raised the average global temperature (even though it hasn't changed in 9 years).Me wrote:
I must really have had my head in the sand with all the desertification causing famine, which has already caused the death of millions.
Me wrote: I have been wondering about Zep denying global warming being married to a native american, I would of thought he'd be very passionate about nature.
STEREOTYPE! PROFILING! I never held to the belief that all Native Americans eat dirt and hug trees. I believe that they, as well as all persons, have the God given ability to believe according to their own heart. I don't see where there is a genetic tendency toward a particular belief. If I were to use that logic, I would consider the case that t should believe in unjustly conquering the world, oppressing natives and forcing them to change their way of life because she maried and Italian! LOL Well, actually, she DOES love the za! more LOL